Aspartame: should you wait for the debate?

Do you postpone a golf outing if a lightning storm is near?

Salvos continue to be fired in the debate about the safety of aspartame artificial sweetner. Unless you've been asleep through all the claims pro and con for the past several years, enough questions exist about the potential risk that the savvy consumer should do some homework before making a personal decision about eating aspartame-sweetened products, versus assuming that the industry, the FDA, et al have 'got your back' on this important subject.

In that vein, look through this site that is 'anti', and refers to the 2005 Italian study that established a link between aspartame and some cancers. It also comments on the European Food Safety Agency's response to the Italian study.

http://www.wnho.net/whopper.htm

For another perspective, here is one industry source that touches on the same study and EFSA conclusion, and also refers to an FDA statement in May, 2006 about its request for the data from Italian study to conduct its own review. The FDA press release link is also listed here:

http://www.beverageworld.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=49&Itemid=88

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01369.html

You decide for yourself, but its hard to see why a person should sign up for the risks at this point. Giving aspartame (and other synthetic sweetners) a wide berth seems prudent at this point. Especially when alternatives exist. Xlyitol, for example, is a natural sweetner that has been used as a food additive for some time (e.g. chewing gum), is anti-bacterial, and low-glycemic.

We just learned a little about trehalose, a naturally-occuring disaccharide from corn starch, that is also low-glycemic, and is being studied for a possible nutritional role in the health of cell surface membranes. Sweetening and health benefit at that same time? That deserves a closer look. Check this site for more information:

http://www.glycolose.com/