The Deathly Icing on the Cake: Revealing the Cancerous Truth About Aspartame By Patrick Gallagher, naturalsociety.com | October 17, 2011
Study: First experimental demonstration of the multipotential carcinogenic effects of aspartame administered in the feed to Sprague-Dawley rats By Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Degli Esposti D, Lambertini L, Tibaldi E, Rigano A., Environ Health Perspect. | 2006 Mar;114(3):379-85.
‘… The results of this mega-experiment indicate that APM is a multipotential carcinogenic agent, even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg body weight, much less than the current acceptable daily intake. On the basis of these results, a reevaluation of the present guidelines on the use and consumption of APM is urgent and cannot be delayed.’
Follow-up Study: Life-span exposure to low doses of aspartame beginning during prenatal life increases cancer effects in rats By Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Tibaldi E, Esposti DD, Lauriola M., Environ Health Perspect. | 2007 Sep;115(9):1293-7.
‘…RESULTS: Our results show a) a significant dose-related increase of malignant tumor-bearing animals in males (p < 0.01), particularly in the group treated with 2,000 ppm APM (p < 0.01); b) a significant increase in incidence of lymphomas/leukemias in males treated with 2,000 ppm (p < 0.05) and a significant dose-related increase in incidence of lymphomas/leukemias in females (p < 0.01), particularly in the 2,000-ppm group (p < 0.01); and c) a significant dose-related increase in incidence of mammary cancer in females (p < 0.05), particularly in the 2,000-ppm group (p < 0.05). 'CONCLUSIONS: The results of this carcinogenicity bioassay confirm and reinforce the first experimental demonstration of APM's multipotential carcinogenicity at a dose level close to the acceptable daily intake for humans. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that when life-span exposure to APM begins during fetal life, its carcinogenic effects are increased...'
Another study: Self-Funded Study Found HUGE Tumors from This Everyday Food… mercola.com | April 9, 2011
‘Victoria Inness-Brown conducted a personal two and a half-year experiment on the effects of aspartame, probably the worst of the artificial sweeteners on the market.
‘Her experiments resulted in the book, My Aspartame Experiment: Report from a Private Citizen, as well as the shorter summary version Are Your Diet Sodas Killing You? Results from My Aspartame Experiment….’
Naturalsociety.com and mercola.com provide much information on aspartame.
Here is a newer study also reported by naturalsociety.com, and this mentions a problem with sugar-containing soda also: Consumption of artificial sweetener- and sugar-containing soda and risk of lymphoma and leukemia in men and women By Schernhammer ES, Bertrand KA, Birmann BM, Sampson L, Willett WC, Feskanich D., Am J Clin Nutr. | 2012 Dec;96(6):1419-28. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.111.030833. Epub 2012 Oct 24.
‘…RESULTS: When the 2 cohorts were combined, there was no significant association between soda intake and risks of NHL and multiple myeloma. However, in men, ≥1 daily serving of diet soda increased risks of NHL (RR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.72) and multiple myeloma (RR: 2.02; 95% CI: 1.20, 3.40) in comparison with men who did not consume diet soda. We observed no increased risks of NHL and multiple myeloma in women. We also observed an unexpected elevated risk of NHL (RR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.10, 2.51) with a higher consumption of regular, sugar-sweetened soda in men but not in women. In contrast, when sexes were analyzed separately with limited power, neither regular nor diet soda increased risk of leukemia but were associated with increased leukemia risk when data for men and women were combined (RR for consumption of ≥1 serving of diet soda/d when the 2 cohorts were pooled: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.00, 2.02).
‘CONCLUSION: Although our findings preserve the possibility of a detrimental effect of a constituent of diet soda, such as aspartame, on select cancers, the inconsistent sex effects and occurrence of an apparent cancer risk in individuals who consume regular soda do not permit the ruling out of chance as an explanation.’