I’m no scientist, but the methods of the study seem to be pretty rigorous at first glance. Some analysis here: http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/cancer/3292/30-female-pet-store-rats-drinking-lifelong-13-5-mg-aspartame-1-3

I’m curious what you folks think of this info and if you think it will have any effect (either way) on the current consensus of the scientific community.

-MJ

You make good points, but I think you are premature and unfair in your accusation of “very apparent bias.” I have no bias of which I am aware on this issue. I simply was reporting the consensus opinion. I did not discount the Italian study – it is evidence, the methods seem valid, etc. I simply pointed out that the weight of the literature is negative, and every formal review of the literature has reached this same conclusion. More studies may move the evidence in the direction of a connection, we can only wait and see.

My choice of links is often based in what I can find with the time I have. Putting out a blog like this 4-5 times a week does not afford impeccable attention to detail. To balance this, however, blogs are also not written in stone – so I can add more or better references, or address questions or vague points that readers bring up. It’s the nature of this medium. So don’t read too much into my choice of reference links.

And a comment on aspartame. A friend once told me that she gets regular soda for her kids instead of diet because “you don’t know what the sweetener is going to do to you.” I still wish I’d responded “Yeah unlike regular soda, which we know can give you obesity and diabetes.”

On a different note: I used to work as a research assistant for a biochemistry professor. I can’t remember the details but he pointed out a metabolic pathway in the eye (his specialty) where aspartame could be metabolized with one of the metabolites being methanol. Methanol, of course, is NOT something you want in your eye! I’m not sure if aspartame would ever reach the eye (there is a blood/eye barrier much like the blood/brain barrier), nonetheless he would never touch the stuff and discouraged others from using it.

Thanks for posting this. I remember when I was first diagnosed with MS in 2005, it took about a month before my (well meaning) father encountered and forwarded me the Aspartame scare chain email.

I agree that what you describe is how conspiracy theorists in general (and this case also) arrive at their conclusions. But that is not how they justify their conclusions. I was addressing the logic by which she justifies her conspiracy conclusion.

And I do think it is an argument from final consequence – a subtype related to the “cui bono” or “who benefits” subtype? The argument is that if someone benefits from some thing then they caused the thing. The conspiracy argument is the flip side of this – if someone would be harmed by something then they are engaged in a conspiracy to cover it up. Both subtypes are dependent upon final consequences, so I think they are subtypes of this fallacy.

Remember this warning stamped over anything containing saccharin: “Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin, which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.” For years people were reading that warning, 1977-2000 (the warning has since been removed in light of human epidemiological studies). It’s perfectly reasonable for someone to assume that cancer in laboratory animals means a good chance of cancer in humans. That’s 13+ years of bad press. It’s difficult for people to forget what they’ve known for so long and be re-educated to the contrary opinion, whatever the evidence or the individual’s skeptical composition*. Moreover, even after being (re)taught, people often regress to their earlier misconceptions. This is well-documented in the education literature.

*This does not explain the crackpots, but I bet it does explain the majority of the populace. Of course all the crap on the interweb doesn’t help matters, as Steve says. The best we can do for the masses is get the correct information out there in as many places as possible. It’s more about marketing than logic and evidence.