Aspartame has no effect on seizures or epileptiform discharges in epileptic children

Learning and memory deficits produced by aspartame are heritable via the paternal lineage

Environmental exposures produce heritable traits that can linger in the population for one or two generations. Millions of individuals consume substances such as artificial sweeteners daily that are declared safe by regulatory agencies without evaluation of their potential heritable effects. We show that consumption of aspartame, an FDA-approved artificial sweetener, daily for up to 16-weeks at doses equivalent to only 7-15% of the FDA recommended maximum daily intake value (equivalent to 2-4 small, 8 oz diet soda drinks per day) produces significant spatial learning and memory deficits in mice. Moreover, the cognitive deficits are transmitted to male and female descendants along the paternal lineage suggesting that aspartame's adverse cognitive effects are heritable, and that they are more pervasive than current estimates, which consider effects in the directly exposed individuals only. Traditionally, deleterious environmental exposures of pregnant and nursing women are viewed as risk factors for the health of future generations. Environmental exposures of men are not considered to pose similar risks. Our findings suggest that environmental exposures of men can produce adverse impact on cognitive function in future generations and demonstrate the need for considering heritable effects via the paternal lineage as part of the regulatory evaluations of artificial sweeteners.

Intake of Artificial Sweeteners by Children: Boon or Bane?

BACKGROUND

Sugar is the main culprit in many health dysfunctions. Excessive sugar intake can negatively affect oral health, precipitate diabetes, and lead to weight gain and obesity. Sucrose is the primary form of sugar, and is strongly correlated with dental caries. Artificial sweeteners are chemically synthesized sugar substitutes that are generally regarded as being low-calorie.

OBJECTIVE

This review examines the current evidence in the literature for the need for artificial sweeteners and outlines its implications for the health of children. We briefly outline its adverse effects, and concerns regarding their safety.

REVIEW RESULTS

Artificial sweeteners are a widely used food additive. Six main artificial sweeteners are approved by the food and drug administration (FDA). The conflicting results and divergent regulatory norms of each sweetener are a constant cause of concern and debate. However, most studies have spotlighted the beneficial effects of artificial sweeteners. Dental caries diminish with the increase in sweetener intake. An increase in appetite and eventually weight gain is observed in individuals consuming artificial sweeteners.

CONCLUSION

Artificial sweeteners are indeed a bane according to present studies, although more research on recently discovered non-nutritive artificial sweeteners is required. It also has a positive effect on overall health disorders. If one curbs the onset of dental caries, then the eventual rise is highly unlikely.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Artificial sweeteners' effect on lowering dental caries will help to reduce the caries index in general. Oral hygiene is maintained, and the growth of oral bacterium is depressed. Research on novel sweeteners will help to compare their efficacy in caries prevention compared to existing ones. It is necessary to educate people on artificial sweeteners and its implication as one can use them by being aware of their properties.

Neurophysiological symptoms and aspartame: What is the connection?

Aspartame (α-aspartyl-l-phenylalanine-o-methyl ester), an artificial sweetener, has been linked to behavioral and cognitive problems. Possible neurophysiological symptoms include learning problems, headache, seizure, migraines, irritable moods, anxiety, depression, and insomnia. The consumption of aspartame, unlike dietary protein, can elevate the levels of phenylalanine and aspartic acid in the brain. These compounds can inhibit the synthesis and release of neurotransmitters, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, which are known regulators of neurophysiological activity. Aspartame acts as a chemical stressor by elevating plasma cortisol levels and causing the production of excess free radicals. High cortisol levels and excess free radicals may increase the brains vulnerability to oxidative stress which may have adverse effects on neurobehavioral health. We reviewed studies linking neurophysiological symptoms to aspartame usage and conclude that aspartame may be responsible for adverse neurobehavioral health outcomes. Aspartame consumption needs to be approached with caution due to the possible effects on neurobehavioral health. Whether aspartame and its metabolites are safe for general consumption is still debatable due to a lack of consistent data. More research evaluating the neurobehavioral effects of aspartame are required.

Review of the nutritional benefits and risks related to intense sweeteners

BACKGROUND

The intense sweeteners currently authorised in Europe comprise ten compounds of various chemical natures. Their overall use has sharply risen in the last 20 years. These compounds are mainly used to formulate reduced-calorie products while maintaining sweetness.

METHODS

This extensive analysis of the literature reviews the data currently available on the potential nutritional benefits and risks related to the consumption of products containing intense sweeteners.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Regarding nutritional benefits, the available studies, while numerous, do not provide proof that the consumption of artificial sweeteners as sugar substitutes is beneficial in terms of weight management, blood glucose regulation in diabetic subjects or the incidence of type 2 diabetes. Regarding nutritional risks (incidence of type 2 diabetes, habituation to sweetness in adults, cancers, etc.), it is not possible based on the available data to establish a link between the occurrence of these risks and the consumption of artificial sweeteners. However, some studies underline the need to improve knowledge of the links between intense sweeteners consumption and certain risks.

Sugar substitutes: Health controversy over perceived benefits

Sugar is an inseparable part of the food we consume. But too much sugar is not ideal for our teeth and waistline. There have been some controversial suggestions that excessive sugar may play an important role in certain degenerative diseases. So artificial sweeteners or artificially sweetened products continue to attract consumers. A sugar substitute (artificial sweetener) is a food additive that duplicates the effect of sugar in taste, but usually has less food energy. Besides its benefits, animal studies have convincingly proven that artificial sweeteners cause weight gain, brain tumors, bladder cancer and many other health hazards. Some kind of health related side effects including carcinogenicity are also noted in humans. A large number of studies have been carried out on these substances with conclusions ranging from “safe under all conditions” to “unsafe at any dose”. Scientists are divided in their views on the issue of artificial sweetener safety. In scientific as well as in lay publications, supporting studies are often widely referenced while the opposing results are de-emphasized or dismissed. So this review aims to explore the health controversy over perceived benefits of sugar substitutes.

Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies

Aspartame is a methyl ester of a dipeptide used as a synthetic nonnutritive sweetener in over 90 countries worldwide in over 6000 products. The purpose of this investigation was to review the scientific literature on the absorption and metabolism, the current consumption levels worldwide, the toxicology, and recent epidemiological studies on aspartame. Current use levels of aspartame, even by high users in special subgroups, remains well below the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Food Safety Authority established acceptable daily intake levels of 50 and 40 mg/kg bw/day, respectively. Consumption of large doses of aspartame in a single bolus dose will have an effect on some biochemical parameters, including plasma amino acid levels and brain neurotransmitter levels. The rise in plasma levels of phenylalanine and aspartic acid following administration of aspartame at doses less than or equal to 50 mg/kg bw do not exceed those observed postprandially. Acute, subacute and chronic toxicity studies with aspartame, and its decomposition products, conducted in mice, rats, hamsters and dogs have consistently found no adverse effect of aspartame with doses up to at least 4000 mg/kg bw/day. Critical review of all carcinogenicity studies conducted on aspartame found no credible evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic. The data from the extensive investigations into the possibility of neurotoxic effects of aspartame, in general, do not support the hypothesis that aspartame in the human diet will affect nervous system function, learning or behavior. Epidemiological studies on aspartame include several case-control studies and one well-conducted prospective epidemiological study with a large cohort, in which the consumption of aspartame was measured. The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue. The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener.

Aspartame: review of safety

Over 20 years have elapsed since aspartame was approved by regulatory agencies as a sweetener and flavor enhancer. The safety of aspartame and its metabolic constituents was established through extensive toxicology studies in laboratory animals, using much greater doses than people could possibly consume. Its safety was further confirmed through studies in several human subpopulations, including healthy infants, children, adolescents, and adults; obese individuals; diabetics; lactating women; and individuals heterozygous (PKUH) for the genetic disease phenylketonuria (PKU) who have a decreased ability to metabolize the essential amino acid, phenylalanine. Several scientific issues continued to be raised after approval, largely as a concern for theoretical toxicity from its metabolic components--the amino acids, aspartate and phenylalanine, and methanol--even though dietary exposure to these components is much greater than from aspartame. Nonetheless, additional research, including evaluations of possible associations between aspartame and headaches, seizures, behavior, cognition, and mood as well as allergic-type reactions and use by potentially sensitive subpopulations, has continued after approval. These findings are reviewed here. The safety testing of aspartame has gone well beyond that required to evaluate the safety of a food additive. When all the research on aspartame, including evaluations in both the premarketing and postmarketing periods, is examined as a whole, it is clear that aspartame is safe, and there are no unresolved questions regarding its safety under conditions of intended use.

Aspartame: scientific evaluation in the postmarketing period

Prior to marketing, the safety of the high-intensity sweetener aspartame for its intended uses as a sweetener and flavor enhancer was demonstrated by the results of over 100 scientific studies in animals and humans. In the postmarketing period, the safety of aspartame was further evaluated through extensive monitoring of intake, postmarketing surveillance of anecdotal reports of alleged health effects, and additional research to evaluate these anecdotal reports and other scientific issues. The results of the extensive intake evaluation in the United States, which was done over an 8-year period, and the results of studies done in other countries demonstrated intakes which were well below the acceptable daily intakes set by the FDA and regulatory bodies in other countries, as well as the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. Evaluation of the anecdotal reports of adverse health effects, the first such system for a food additive, revealed that the reported effects were generally mild and also common in the general population and that there was no consistent or unique pattern of symptoms that could be causally linked to consumption of aspartame. Finally, the results of the extensive scientific research done to evaluate these allegations did not show a causal relationship between aspartame and adverse effects. Thus, the weight of scientific evidence confirms that, even in amounts many times what people typically consume, aspartame is safe for its intended uses as a sweetener and flavor enhancer.

Quality-of-life and behavioral outcome measures in randomized controlled trials of antiepileptic drugs: a systematic review of methodology and reporting standards

PURPOSE

To review the methodology and use of quality-of-life and behavioral measures used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antiepileptic drugs in patients with epilepsy.

METHODS

Trial reports were found by searching a previously developed comprehensive database of epilepsy RCTs and searching through journals by hand. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, and methodological and quality-of-life and behavioral measure data were extracted.

RESULTS

There were 52 different measures used in 46 trials, with the Profile of Mood States, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, and the Washington Psychosocial Seizure Inventory being applied the most frequently. Overall, evidence of the reliability, validity, and sensitivity of measures used in populations of people with epilepsy was sparse. There was also little information on the clinical interpretation of the results.

CONCLUSION

Our results highlight a consistent failure to apply quality-of-life and behavioral measures in RCTs in a systematic way. We found repeated evidence of researchers' failure to review the use of previous measures and selection of measures without evidence of their appropriateness for use in a population with epilepsy. We recommend the use of quality-of-life and behavioral measures in RCTs with proven psychometric properties in a population with epilepsy.

Alternative and controversial treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

ADHD is a syndrome that can be treated effectively, safely, and economically with stimulant medications. There is no equal alternative to these agents in short-term treatment of ADHD symptoms. However, many families seek alternatives to stimulants and other drug treatments for a variety of reasons. Alternative approaches reflect the complexity and heterogeneity of the disorder by being equally manifold, complex, and often obscure in their modus operandi. Scientific evidence suggests that individualized dietary management may be effective in some children. Trace element supplementation also may be beneficial when specific deficiencies are present. At this point, nootropics, herbs, and homeopathy are being seriously researched regarding their role in neurologic functioning, but evidence to support their role in the specific treatment of ADHD is inconsistent or lacking. Self-regulatory techniques such as hypnotherapy and biofeedback do not alter the core symptoms of ADHD but may be helpful in controlling secondary symptoms. These methods are unique in ADHD treatment because children can become active agents of their own coping strategies. There is no scientific evidence to support the validity of vision therapy, oculovestibular treatment, or sound training (Tomatis method) as treatment modalities for ADHD. However, auditory stimulation with individualized music may help to improve situational performance in cognitive tasks. Regardless of the treatment approach, the diagnosis of ADHD and other comorbidities first must be established through a standard medical evaluation. The standard treatment options always should be presented and discussed carefully. If alternative approaches are sought, the merits of available options should be reiterated. If the primary care provider is not comfortable or knowledgeable about an acceptable method, referral to capable and responsible practitioners in the community who are experienced in these areas should be considered. The primary care provider, the alternative "specialist," and the family all should be willing to engage in "collaborative research," applying the same standards for treatment evaluation that one would apply in mainstream methods. Communication among all parties involved in a treatment strategy is the key to demystifying alternative approaches, creating strong therapeutic relationships, and optimizing management.

Aspartame and seizure susceptibility: results of a clinical study in reportedly sensitive individuals

The high intensity sweetener aspartame has been implicated anecdotally in seizure provocation. This possibility was investigated with a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study. After an extensive search, 18 individuals (16 adults and 2 children) who had seizures allegedly related to aspartame consumption were admitted to adult or pediatric epilepsy monitoring units where their EEG was monitored continuously for 5 days. Aspartame (50 mg/kg) or identically enpackaged placebo was administered in divided doses at 0800, 1000, and 1200 h on study days 2 and 4. All meals were uniformly standardized on treatment days. No clinical seizures or other adverse experiences were observed after aspartame ingestion. Mean plasma phenylalanine (Phe) concentrations increased significantly after aspartame ingestion (83.6 microM) as compared with placebo (52.3 microM). Results suggest that aspartame, in acute dosage of approximately 50 mg/kg, is no more likely than placebo to cause seizures in individuals who reported that their seizures were provoked by aspartame consumption.