You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


Evidence aspartame is poison

Aspartame (NutraSweet/Eqkual/AminoSweet/Canderel/Benevia/951) is masquerading as an additive. In reality it is an addictive, excitoneurotoxic, carcinogenic , genetically engineered drug and adjuvant that damages the mitochondria and interacts with drugs and vaccines. The evidence for this is the 1000 page medical text "Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic" by H. J. Roberts, M.D. , www.sunsentpress.com

The Trocho Study in Barcelona showed that the formaldehyde converted from the free methyl alcohol embalms living tissues and damages DNA. In a conversation with Dr. M. Alemany he said "Aspartame will murder two hundred million people. In Dr. Woody Monte's recent book "While Science Sleeps" explains how the formaldehyde turns the tissues to plastic.

In the 2005 Ecologist it explains that aspartame at one time was listed with the pentagon in an inventory of prospective biochemical warfare weapons submiotted to Congress. Alex Constantine who wrote NutraPoison also gives information on this. Both can be googled or you can check under aspartame news on my web site, www.mpwhi.com

The FDA report lists 92 symptoms triggered by aspartame from blindness and seizures to coma and death. Aspartame also triggers an irregular heart rhythm and interacts with all cardiac medications as the medical text explains. It damages the caradiac conduction system and causes sudden death.

The FDA and G. D. Searle, kthe original manufacturer made a deal to never let the public see the teratory studies which showed neural tube defects accounting for the epidemic of autism. We have secured those studies no0w and the last chapter in Dr. Monte's book is free on www.whilesciencesleeps.com discussing the epidemic of autism.

You can join the Aspartame Information list for continued updates like the new Purdue Study with 40 years of research showing you how deadly this toxin is.

Jul 19 2013:
Yes I read those. There was a whole bunch of papers that involve giving huge doeses of aspartame to rats. The lowest dose was the equivalent of drinking a gallon of diet soda in one sitting and was followed up with the equivalent of 20 gallons of diet soda. The only one I found on humans involved a reduction in kidney function in women in their 60s associated with prolonged use of diet soda. It wasn't however restricted to aspartame. The sodas were also sweetened with other sweeteners. Because of this the researchers state that no solid association between aspartame and kidney function can be made in their own discussion. It would be helpful if your links went to the actual papers rather than just a one page abstract. Every paper I found the original of stated there were no indications regarding the use of aspartame as a sweetener.http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2089.htm
Read this it explains quite clearly why the Sofritti study is irrelevant and why the danish study is inconclusive. Much of the increase in pre-term delivery was due to medically induced early delivery so what they actually prove is that women who drink diet soda are more likely to request an induced delivery rather than just wait it out.

Jul 19 2013:
Thanx Fritzie. The most important thing I try to teach is that science isn't really a subject area, it's a method of investigation that seeks the truth no matter what that truth turns out to be.

Jul 18 2013:
I've just spent the last two hours looking for any scientific papers that connect aspartame with any negative health effects. The only ones I can find are the Ramazzini papers which are widely held to be flawed methodologically and also involved unrealistically high doeses. I can however find many websites that assure me aspartame is very dangerous and most of these websites are hosted by people who use the title doctor even though they are neither an M.D. nor hold a PhD in a relevant field. In fact one of them has an honorary PhD in a completely unrelated field but still calls themselves doctor.

Jul 17 2013:
After reading all the "evidence" on the website, here's what I have concluded.

1. Every single "damning" piece of evidence either has methodological flaws, was done on rats, or at the end blatantly state that further tests need to be carried out on humans to examine the LONG TERM effects.

2. Way too much correlation vs. causation. Lots of articles aren't even peer reviewed by reputable scientists. They don't even follow any sort of method!

3. Tons of "research" says: lots of people died in this country and the headline she puts for the link is "aspartame causes blah blah blah."

4. With the amount of research done on aspartame, it's incredible how LITTLE of it gets cited in any of the papers.

5. This Purdue Study: I've talked to a couple professors about this over email the last few hours. It's not a big deal guys.

Conclusion: This stuff is all sensationalist stuff that's left over from a giant hoax that was carried out a few years ago.

This might pass off as being rude: but such is the nature of science :)

Jul 17 2013:
I just want to make sure Entropy knows that his comment was replied to by OP so I'm posting here.

This is a reply to Betty.

I'm not immediately disagreeing with your comment, but I just want to point something out.

With all the numbers, I have yet to see an empirical study that shows causation rather than correlation. I mean actual dependent variable controlled lab tests.

Otherwise, I can throw out this claim: IBM Personal Computers (PCs) were introduced in 1981. Since then, Alzheimers....q.v. above.

So. I'm not at all educated in this topic. All I'm saying is that to an extent Entropy Driven is correct in that because you present no evidence of causality, the statistics seem VERY sensationalist to me.

To help you understand why two components isolated are excitotoxic and neurotoxic read this report by James Bowen, M.D. and Arkthur Evangelista (worked for the FDA but quit because of the corruption): http://www.mpwhi.com/amino_acid_isolates.htm Dr. Bowen is a physician and biochemist. Took four years of chemistry and graduated #1 in his class.

Jul 17 2013:
I really don't want to get into an argument so this will be my last post on this thread.

However, after a quick scouring of the research.

First link (Ramazzini Institute): Independent peer review analysis flaws: "comparing cancer rates of older aspartame-consuming rats to younger control rats; unspecified composition of the "Corticella" diet and method of adding aspartame, leading to possible nutritional deficiencies; unspecified aspartame storage conditions; lack of animal randomization; overcrowding and a high incidence of possibly carcinogenic infections; and the U.S. National Toxicology Program's finding that the ERF had misdiagnosed hyperplasias as malignancies."

Other stuff: All correlation. Half the stuff literally says "People died." No methodology. No causality link. This stuff can't possibly be peer reviewed by reputable scientists. The evidence just doesn't match up with the headlines. In debate, we call this "power-tagging." Also, I don't see a test where the scientific process is carried out all the way through, nor do I see any studies having to do with humans (limited) proving long term effects. Short term effects are easy. Ex. Caffeine is a diuretic. Makes you expel more water. Doesn't entail kidney malfunction...

Bowen: Don't see sufficient evidence. Theoretical metabolic hypothesis. Plus, the amount aspartame has been studied, I should see lots of concurrences and lots of citations....

Trocho: "Damage to nucleic acids." Well ok. We have checkpoints leading to apotosis.
At the end of the study, he concludes that we need further study. Hardly damning at all.
Also, the formaldehyde formation is from very high concentrations that won't be reached in the human bloodstream.

Jul 17 2013:
Here is an article I wrote for the National Health Federation titled "No Safe Dose of Aspartame". Note that theFDA toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross, admitted to Congress that aspartame causes cancer, and dtherefore no one should be able to set an allowable dose. Notice he said aspartame violated the Delaney Amendment because it causes cancer. His last wordds to Congress were, "If the FDA violates its own laws who is left to protect the public." Dr. Gross was behind the indictment of the manufacturer for fraud but both US Prosecutors hired on with the defense team and the statutes of limitation expired. http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=3442

OK Peter, to put into perspective the severe poisoning effects of unnatural METHANOL ingestion in humans, you only need to remember the tragic deaths and injuries suffered every year by people who unintentionally or otherwise consume adulterated alcoholic drinks - Ethanol substituted by METHANOL.

It is generally accepted that the acute dose of Methanol that renders an adult human blind is one tablespoonful 10ml (114mg/kg) and three tablespoons 30ml (343mg/kg) is likely to be fatal. Check out Methanol poisoning on the web to find out just how devastating even lesser amounts can be without blinding or killing. The power of the methanol molecule to cause harm is in its formidable 1st Metabolite Formaldehyde.

Methanol is the smallest of all the alcohol molecules and can easily by-pass all of our biological barriers. Formaldehyde is by comparison a very large molecule which does not travel very far. Awaiting contact with the enzyme ADH1 (alcohol dehydrogenase) which is necessary for the metabolism of METHANOL to formaldehyde. The little methanol molecule is likely to be found right inside a cell or next to DNA within the brain or any other major organ when formaldehyde is formed, causing organ tissue and neurological damage over time – METHANOL carries formaldehyde to parts of the body it would not otherwise have access to.

Methanol poisoning is at the molecular level, very slowly one molecule at a time, daily aspartame consumption keeps this process going. As you are probably aware a tumour or other DOC (Diseases of civilisation) MS, Alzheimer’s, Autism, Parkinson’s disease etc. all take years and sometimes a lifetime to appear. The anecdotal cases of aspartame harm report the same pattern.

Aug 7 2013:
114mg/kg you say. Why that's only 70 can of diet coke. All at once. I think methanol poisoning would be the least of your worries. And please stop using terms like UNNATURAL, I have a chemistry/physics degree so dividing chemicals on the basis of their source is like talking to me about Holy Water.

Aug 13 2013:
"Methanol is the smallest of all the alcohol molecules and can easily by-pass all of our biological barriers."
That's interesting.
"The little methanol molecule is likely to be found right inside a cell or next to DNA ..."
That's also interesting.
Thanks

Aug 13 2013:
Hi <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_PERSON> many thanks for your comments; I find the word “interesting”, Interesting, it has many connotations.

EG here it diverts attention away from the really important message in the passage, that METHANOL, when it metabolises to formaldehyde within a cell, that formaldehyde has reached a part of the body it would never on its own ever have access to, it is too big. METHANOL is the Trojan horse for formaldehyde which is the real danger in METHANOL Poisoning.

Formaldehyde disappears from the bloodstream within minutes of appearing during METHANOL metabolism – can you answer the question please; “WHERE DOES IT GO?”

Jul 26 2013:
It would be very helpful if people cited papers from respected research facilities. A single MD working out of his own garage as Dr Roberts did is in no position to do real research. The "Palm Beach Institute for Medical Research" was his garage. Truly astounding!

Comment deleted

Interestingly, I just answered this post to you and it disappeared right before my eyes. So this time I'm copying to the people on this list, so if it disappears again they can resubmit it. When I joined I checked to get a copy of every post. All I do is answer and click on submit or reply. Maybe you need to make sure your settings are correct. I have nothing to do with it on my end. Secondly, you say you no of no deaths?! Simply go to www.mpwhi.com and click on FDA Report of 92 symptoms and you'll see death. In fact, in 2010 I met Reginall Bundrage who worked for the EPA as a pathologist in the early 1990's. I had no idea they had such a department since it comes under FDA. He worked on those who died from aspartame and told his superiors with this many dying how could they keep it on the market. His superiors told him FDA would have to remove it but they never did.

As to the World Environmental Conference post, often called the Nancy Markle post, go to www.dorway.com/nomarkle.html and you'll see my invitation to speak and even the confession of the EPA.
It went viral and people walked out of wheelchairs as they got off of aspartame, had their sight returned and symptoms they had suffered with for years just disappeared. Having gotten well they set up operations of Mission Possible in their countries to help others. The manufacturer set up front groups and got dietitians and others to try and defend them. They couldn't put out the fire and sold the NutraSweet Co. Hard to tell someone its a hoax when their problems vanish off this poison. We're now in over 48 countries and I've been doing this 20 years, working with world experts. Regards, Betty (Note to Ted, please do not delete this message again)

Comment deleted

Yes, I noticed that too. I also noticed that Betty and Barbara both joined TED the day this conversation was first posted, and that Betty shamelessly promotes her web site in each and every reply. In the comments below, Betty confesses that Barbara is one of her own people. This entire conversation is spam to promote their agenda and web site. I urge you to flag the conversation as spam, like I did, the bring it to the attention of the administrators.

Jul 17 2013:
Can someone please reference a study from an accepted scientific journal, please!
By the way, the stuff in fly spray that kills the flies is also used by the military as a nerve agent, but luckily using scientific studies the regulators found a safe amount that could be used for the purpose of killing flies in a domestic setting.

Jul 17 2013:
Exactly. People are easily mislead into thinking in an either/or fashion. But reality is different. Some substances are labeled as toxic, but only because we are familiar to them in high concentrations, yet our metabolisms normally produce some of them. Some chemicals necessary for our health can be dangerous when present in excessive amounts. We really need to be much better informed. Today it's easy to load the web with misinformation. Therefore we need to be better educated to avoid falling prey of such misinformation and from snake-oil salespeople.

Aug 13 2013:
To the one who posted where does the methanol go from the blood stream if it doesn't convert to formaldehyde:. Dr. Woodrow Monte responds if it doesn't turn into formaldehyde it is lost to the body in the Urine, sweat, breath and tears.

Everyone should get a copy of this outstanding book, "While Science Sleeps: A sweetener kills" by Dr. Monte"
You won't be able to put it down. Go to www.whilesciencesleeps.com

Aug 13 2013:
Hi <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_PERSON> many thanks for your comments; I find the word “interesting”, Interesting, it has many connotations.

EG here it diverts attention away from the really important message in the passage, that METHANOL, when it metabolises to formaldehyde within a cell, that formaldehyde has reached a part of the body it would never on its own ever have access to, it is too big. METHANOL is the Trojan horse for formaldehyde which is the real danger in METHANOL Poisoning.

Formaldehyde disappears from the bloodstream within minutes of appearing during METHANOL metabolism – can you answer the question please; “WHERE DOES IT GO?”

Aug 12 2013:
Ted Admin I have flagged this conversation as spam as there have been numerous factual rebuttals of claims made by the OP and the OP continues to refer to "evidence" that is unsubstantiated and make claims that are factually innaccurate including describing editorial content as "peer reviewed research". I have no arguement with people expressing their opinion in a discussion as long as they describe it as such. I would also suggest that if a poster describes themselves as a "doctor" perhaps some explanation of their use of the title would be helpful.
Thankyou Peter

If anything, the conversation might help highlight the problem of scientific illiteracy and other problems about how people think and buy into such charlatanry as the propaganda against aspartame or against GMOs.

Aug 13 2013:
Peter, I think it is always okay to ask people who use titles like doctor or scientist to ask them the area of their professional education. People might choose not to answer, to protect their privacy, but I think it's typically reasonable to ask.

Obviously just because someone has a doctorate, one should not assume that he is an expert in every area in which he may express an opinion. People are typically quite narrowly specialized.

In terms of claims that editorial content is peer reviewed research, it is a great service within community to call attention to such misleading claims when they occur.

Go to www.mpwhi.com and under aspartame videos see the movie, "Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World" and you wll hear from the world experts and attorney James Turner who with the famed Dr. John Olney tried to prevent approval. On the banners read the UPI Investigation. At the top read the FDA's eown report of 92 documented symptoms, and you wil also see peer reviewed research. Almost 100 per cent of independentstuies have shown the problems. The medical text, "spartame Didease: An Ignored Epidemic" by the late world expert H. J. Roberts, M.D. is 1000 pages of horrors, and gives the mechanism b which aspartame causes the neurodegenerative diseases and cancers. Google: "No Safe Dose of Aspartame, "National Health Federation" and hear whaet the FDA toxicologist told Congress. The congressional records and even the UPI Investigation are on the banners on www.mpwhi.com along with the Board of Inquiry revoked petition for approval and Dr. John Olney's 50 page testimony to the FDA. The new book, "While Science Sleeps: A Sweetener Kills by Dr. Woodrow Monte explains so perfectly why it kills and reaqd neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock's , "Excitotocins: The Taste That Kills. On www.whilesciencekills.com you can read the last chapter in Dr. Monte's book and how the FDA ended up making a deal with the original manuacturer never to allow the public to see the teratology studies and why it is responsible for the autism epidemic. All my best, Betty

Aug 10 2013:
I have no idea what courses you take but I pity your audience. If your course is on how wonderful aspartame has been for the world and they are of the faithful you might just get some sympathy. A normal switched on independent bunch of listeners who can think for themselves, will easily see through your arrogant, bigoted, indoctrinated clap trap.

As a parting gesture I give you permission to use any information I have provided in my posts, provided it is quoted verbatim and is not subjected to your interpretation.

Aug 10 2013:
The courses I teach are on science, and I touch a lot on scientific illiteracy. They are not about the wonders of aspartame. For one, I don't think that aspartame is wonderful. I actually think that we could do mostly without it. But my reasons are different to yours. I prefer educated people with a well developed character who can control excessive cravings for sugary flavours, rather than producing false impressions, like those coming from alternative sweeteners, whichever they are, natural or unnatural. The only reason I show your propaganda for what it is is because it is propaganda. Scientifically illiterate propaganda.

Thanks for the permission. I commonly mention no names, but I do use complete sentences and paragraphs. All will be verbatim. Not to worry.

Aug 10 2013:
You’ve missed the point again, listen carefully. MeOH is handled differently BY THE BODY, when it encounters it naturally and when it is introduced via aspartame unnaturally. What part of that don’t you understand. Clearly you have been indoctrinated to object to anything outside or challenging the standard aspartame propaganda.

By the way, the stomach-ache you experience comes from consuming unnatural MeOH; We all know that the body protects us from natural MeOH and we suffer no ill effects from that.

Aug 10 2013:
No Jim, the stomachache comes from thinking about what it would feel like if I was ignorant enough to think that natural and unnatural methanol have any differences. It hurts to see someone claiming with so much confidence that the body would know the difference between two identical molecules just because one was produced "unnaturally."

Aug 9 2013:
I hope with GMO’s they are acting on the precautionary principle and actually putting the UK population before Monsanto greed. The aspartame saga is as I have described it is a special case; having made a monumental mistake 32 years ago and supported aspartame ever since, they will no doubt find it uncomfortable to backtrack now – but they will.

Regarding the dodgy scientific studies EFSA relies on. Science is but one tool in the box, to rely on clearly controversial data full of holes is unsustainable. I would suggest it is not the quantity of studies they can field at any time that is important; it is the quality of the work that counts. Observation, Intuition, common sense and answering ALL the Questions successfully however controversial they may be, wins the day for me.

Regarding the Hull pilot study, I would caution, you cannot believe what the FSA reports on its website on this study. Fully funded by the FSA, it was to last 18 months and cost £150,000. I can report its results are 3 years late and the budget will be 250% over spent. This is the study I mentioned in my last post EFSA were waiting for to conclude their 2010 review!

At a meeting in February 2013 in the London offices of the FSA, in answer to a direct question from me, the Chief scientist Andrew Wadge said “the results of the Hull Pilot study would be published in JUNE”- they weren’t. . Answering a direct question from a colleague of mine at the FSA Board Meeting on 16th of JULY Andrew Wadge stated the results were at that moment being typed up. No mention of when they will be ready. Here is a transcript of the meeting, go to point 246.

Aug 7 2013:
Ah Peter you are now entering my territory; I am based in Scotland and quite familiar with the FSA and EFSA and the long history of their Literary Reviews of aspartame, which they sometimes refer to as testing. My opinion of our safety authorities where aspartame is concerned is, they are not fit for purpose.

Ok that out of the way, your post. Don’t be surprised if I suggest that any aspartame studies referenced by FSA/EFSA or FDA must be regarded at first look with deep suspicion. Their studies of aspartame on animals go back to the 1970’s and Fully 75% of them are predominantly aspartame manufacturers studies commissioned to get aspartame approved and have been heavily criticised by good independent scientists ever since. In the game of who has the most studies “proving aspartame safe” the deep pockets of the manufacturer and sweeteners industry wins every time.

I am very familiar with the report you refer to which is the standard EFSA set piece conclusion they come up with time after time; by the way, if you read the same studies every time you do a literary review, is it any surprise that you get the same conclusion – “they found nothing to alter their previous opinion, therefore no need to alter the ADI. Strangely this report is not dated and there is the normal disclaimer on every page.
EFSA do not decide whether a product/chemical is safe, their job is only to provide a risk assessment (your attached report) which then goes to the AF (Advisory Forum) for ratification.

The AF is a meeting of representatives from each European Country. This is normally a rubberstamp job confirming their acceptance of their experts risk assessment – NOT THIS TIME. the 36th AF meeting did not accept (took note) of the experts opinion but deferred making a decision until the UK HULL Pilot Study results were available. Below are the minutes of the 36th AF meeting point 6.4 disusses aspartame.

Aug 9 2013:
If the EFSA are so easily influenced by industry why did they ban GMOs?
Regarding the 75% it matters not who funded the study, if it appears in a journal (as the majority do) and is peer reviewed (as the majority are) then the science is sound. For a journal to be taken seriously it has to defend its scientific reputation with great vigor.

Aug 7 2013:
Thank you Peter you are quite right, anyone drinking 70 cans of coke even without METHANOL would probably feel very ill, however that would take a long time and is not very realistic. (114mg/kg) is Methanol’s blinding dose, I imagine them consuming one tablespoon of Pure Methanol (taking seconds) and being blind and suffering many other symptoms within 24 hrs. Now that is realistic.

I keep saying “unnatural” when referring to aspartame’s methanol because the distinction is very important – this is not what the aspartame industry wants to hear.

Methanol outside the body or a living plant etc. is a manmade industrial chemical, produced primarily from Methane Gas or coal at 99.9% purity (pure Methanol) This is what goes directly into aspartame as methyl ester, then straight into our bloodstream as methanol.

Natural methanol is present within the fibres and structure of fruits and vegetables at an indeterminable strength, to get into the bloodstream natural methanol has to be extracted from its source. After chopping and cooking (where significant amounts of Methanol can be lost to the atmosphere) the fruit/veg. is then masticated and digested. Some of this methanol is used by the body for its own purposes but is very tightly controlled.

Clearly the body does not handle natural and unnatural methanol in the same way nor can the strengths of methanol the same.

While your comment here is a prime example of scientific illiteracy, useful for my curses, it gives me something of a stomachache to think that you really think that there's a difference between natural and unnatural methanol. Are you serious?

Aug 6 2013:
Entropy?? I checked the meaning of that word in my little dictionary and got two definitions:

1. Measure of the unavailability of a systems thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work.
2. Measure of the disorganisation of the universe.

That’s for other readers who might be interested.

Stubborn? Never / determined? unquestionably. - You have found I am not easily intimidated by your predictable methods - I’m sure you must be getting paid for this.

Why do I continue? When someone tells me I am wrong without offering a shred of substance to back it up and uses the anonymity of the internet to take every opportunity to insult and cast aspersions, I carry on, trying to bring the discussion back to intelligent Q &A’s but I fear you have almost reached your limit.

I trust other readers of this subject will be able to decide for themselves, whether you have made the case for the world to continuing to consume METHANOL in aspartame, at the levels demonstrated here to be well in excess of what is safe. I hope I have supplanted some doubt their minds and they will they look past all the normal aspartame rhetoric you have been spouting here to explore the truth further.

Aug 7 2013:
If you look further down yiou will find a link to a page that lists over 1000 peer reviewed studies into the effects of aspartame ingestion. None of them indicate it represents a danger.http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/doc/1641.pdf
Here I found it for you.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I doubt that anything I've done would look, even remotely, as attempts at intimidating you. I doubt anything would look as if I'm using any rhetorics, since it has been you who has "forgotten" a few details here and there. Your insistence and stubbornness despite being so basically wrong (yes basically: elementary-school level wrong) are astounding to say the least. That you would not even care to check, for example, that methanol, from whatever source, is still methanol is of the most astounding proportions. Epic. I will use that in my courses as example of how scientifically illiterate people can be even when dealing with very basic knowledge. What you wrote above about how methanol is made artificially and bound to aspartame is beautiful in how much it reveals, not just of your scientific illiteracy, but on how complicatedly and spectacularly wrong someone can be in such illiteracy. If anything, I have to thank you for such examples.

Since it is clear that you failed at many things, all at very basic levels, I doubt that there's anything I can add. It won't help you, and anybody who paid attention at elementary school will be able to understand that far from trying to intimidate you, I was just pointing to the obvious flaws in your illiterate rhetoric.

Aug 5 2013:
I find this topic very intriguing and obviously, by the numerous comments, highly debatable. I would like to see some more solid evidence on this topic. I've done my research and I can't find a really solid resource stating that aspartame is harmful. I'm sure our bodies are better without an unnatural substance, but where are the studies proving all of the harm?

One of the problems with the propaganda against aspartame, is the myth that whatever is "unnatural" has to be harmful, and whatever is natural has to be good. However, for example, a bunch of hungry tigers around me would not be good for my health no matter how naturally and organically they were grown. Another example, a piece of pointy wood from an organically grown tree submerged in organically produced curare would be lethal, while a metallic syringe with artificially produce water would do you no harm.

But you don't need to believe me. Just make sure to learn to distinguish propaganda from actual scientific data and you'll be all right.

Aug 5 2013:
Hi Charlena, The first thing you need to realise is that aspartame is harmless. It ceases to exist in the GI tract after swallowing. It does not enter the bloodstream so cannot be held responsible for any harm observed, what actually happens is this.

Aspartame is a compound of three chemicals; two amino acids, 50% Phenylalanine and 40% Aspartic acid and 10% METHANOL. Apart from being by far aspartame’s most dangerous ingredient, METHANOL also provides the sweetness in aspartame and binds the two amino acids to it to form the aspartame molecule.
Aspartame’s work is done at the taste receptors in the mouth, its toxic waste (METHANOL) is then discharged into our gut for our body to get rid of. The bond with the two amino acids is a weak one, at a temperature of 86 degrees f in the GI tract the bond breaks, aspartame is no more and the 3 individual components are free to enter the bloodstream separately and metabolise. Any resulting harm must be caused by one or other of these components – not aspartame.

To attribute the results of studies good or bad to aspartame is at the very least misleading. You need to go back to the very beginning of the sordid aspartame story to get a flavour of the animal.

Aspartame was first “discovered” in 1965. It was so unsafe it took 16 years for it to be “Approved” by the FDA, following manipulations by the Reagan Government in 1981. 16 years is a long time to get all your ducks in a row and establish a powerful source of “scientific evidence” of aspartame’s safety NOTE it is the manufacturers responsibility to provide this evidence – you should be aware of relying entirely on aspartame industry studies, they have been heavily criticised by independent scientists.

My interest is in getting unnatural METHANOL out of our daily diet, If that takes aspartame down so be it. They always have the option to reformulate to exclude the METHANOL. Aspartame is the only significant source of unnatural METHANOL in the modern diet.

Aug 2 2013:
Ah the truth hurts. It is not me who is out of words it is merely the limit of your website comments facility.

The fallacious case is obviously yours, I can fully justify my position (maths and all) when I state aspartame has never been safe. Regarding the 6 can consumption, halve it if you must - 3 years is still a very short period in anyone’s lifetime, by the way they are not MY children and it is disingenuous of you to suggest they are.

We were not talking about “sugar-loaded cans of soda” they were aspartame, loaded with methanol cans of soda; Your further comments - my maths have been proven and you have no idea what I know about metabolism, I can only guess what “and much more” means.

This is fairly normal I find. When anyone from the aspartame camp is losing the argument they resort to bullying, casting aspersions and become insulting - no change here then.

I have to comment on the non-sense that is your last paragraph; you need to get out a bit more.
1) Reaching the “dangerous levels” does not suggest anything other than the facts, in a mathematical exercise.

2) We would die of methanol poisoning out of eating fruit” the unpalatable truth is we don’t. No one to my knowledge has ever come close to dying from fruits and vegetables, even at the huge amounts of METHANOL claimed to be in them. Methanol in nature is protected by nature; Methanol from aspartame is unnatural, our bodies have no protection from unnatural methanol.

3) Methanol produced by our bodies for its own use is tightly controlled by the body and is never is a danger.

4) The METHANOL released from aspartame is unnatural and quickly enters the bloodstream to metabolise. The 1st metabolite is Formaldehyde which disappears within minutes of appearing. If you can tell me where the formaldehyde goes and why it is not a threat I will be happy to discuss this item further.

5) Not properly taking into consideration the countless cases of anecdotal evidence against aspartame is disgrace

I truly don't know why you insist after been proven so wrong. The rhetorical and fallacious case has always been yours. It was you who started by conveniently ignoring the proper math about how much soda you would have to consume before reaching a dangerous concentration of methanol. It was you who after confirming my math started adding nonsense to your claims.

I didn't say those were your kids. I used an "if" and a generic "your," neither is disingenuous. I suggest you to take reading comprehension lessons.

Of course we were talking about diet soda. My point was that sugared soda at those levels produces well established problems, and thus, your complain should not be about aspartame but about exaggerated consumption of soda, diet or otherwise.

1. As I said, your "facts" ignore many things: that methanol and formaldehyde are metabolized, excreted, secreted, breathed out, shitted, etc. Therefore there's no way they would accumulate to dangerous levels in 222 days of six-cans-a-day consumption.

2. You make my point. If we don't die of methanol poisoning out of fruit consumption, those six cans of soda a day should be no problem, since fruits increase methanol concentration in blood more than diet soda. Your ignorance of chemistry is showing: there's no difference between artificial and natural methanol. They are identical molecules.

3. Maybe. But it is still a fact that methanol is always detected in our breath and blood. Therefore methanol produced from aspartame should be as metabolized as that produced by our metabolism, and/or as that produced from fruits and such.

4. That it is "unnatural" has no weight on what will happen to it in the body. Methanol is methanol. Learn some basic chemistry.

5. I told you that they have been taken into consideration and found lacking. Anecdotes are not proofs. Learn some logic.

Aug 4 2013:
Enthropiers:
Who are you people? do any of you have a name? What do you do? I refuse to communicate with people I don’t know who persist in rubbishing everything I say at slightest opportunity: my claims are nonsense, My maths don’t add (up even when they agree with yours) I need comprehension lessons, Learn some basic chemistry, Learn some Logic. Don’t you have anyone prepared to have a sensible discussion on what is actually a very serious subject I assume you do have some discerning members out there who can make their own mind up?- Here is a copy from my post a day ago:-

“This is fairly normal. I find. When anyone from the aspartame camp is losing the argument they resort to bullying, casting aspersions and become insulting - no change here then.”

Is this site financed by the aspartame industry? I can find no other explanation for the rubbish you keep coming out with (my apologies for falling to your level)

Here is a recap - None of this has been refuted by you so I assume you must agree:-

a.The NOAEL of aspartame is not safe - the METHANOL in it will kill you.
b. If the NOAEL of aspartame is unsafe so is the ADI.
c. A NOAEL of aspartame in rats is not a NOAEL of METHANOL in humans.
d.The blinding dose of METHANOL in humans is (114mg/kg)
e.The Fatal dose of METHANOL in humans is (343mg/kg)
f. The ADI of aspartame (50mg/kg) = (5mg/kg) is 44 times higher than is demonstrated to be safe.

I asked you specifically to explain where the Formaldehyde went – you side stepped that one.

The only thing the same about natural and unnatural METHANOL is its chemical name MeOH

Your point 3. “Should be as metabolized” not very scientific show me what you mean?

Unnatural has everything to do with METHANOL in the body.

Anecdotal evidence unfortunately does not fit scientists little tidy format so is deemed unreliable; remember tobacco. – That’s what was said there also - no smoke without fire; no pun intended

I'm not part of TED. I'm not funded by the aspartame industry either. Anyway, so far I have been far from losing any argument. You have done nothing but rhetorical and ignorant claims. That's far from being a winning argument.

I did not say that your math did not add up. I said that you had to be bad at it since you did not attempt to calculate how much you would have to drink before getting that dangerous dose you claimed. So, I showed you the math. Basic arithmetic. What proves that you are playing rhetorics is that you conveniently did not show any of that in your first post. Then you attempted to salvage your case by adding claims that ignore the most basic knowledge about metabolism and chemistry for starters. If what I said was rubbish you would have shown that my math was wrong, yet you had no option but to admit that my math was right, then add to your rubbish. I'm never sorry to call a spade a spade.

a. Maybe, but to reach those concentrations via diet soda is impossible.
b. Maybe, but to reach those concentrations via diet soda is impossible.
c. Maybe, but to reach those concentrations via diet soda is impossible.
d. Maybe, but to reach those concentrations via diet soda is impossible (you would need to consume twice your weight of diet soda in one go).
e. Maybe, but to reach those concentrations via diet soda is impossible (you would need to consume ~6.7 times your weight in diet soda in one go).
f. Since when have 50mg/kg being equal to 5mg/kg? And your math is good?

I told you where formaldehyde goes. What part of metabolized, breathed out, shitted, secreted, did you not understand? Oh, sorry. I was forgetting that you have no idea about metabolism, chemistry, and now we can add human physiology.

Why do you insist on showing that ignorance of chemistry. Natural and unnatural methanol are atom-by-atom identical, otherwise they would not be both methanol.

Aug 5 2013:
I find it difficult to believe you are not part of the aspartame industry or perhaps one of the authorities who have kept METHANOL shamelessly in our food all these years. You continuously trot out the standard aspartame blurb and misinformation; by the way, Misinformation is the international by word for Aspartame.

You may not believe this but I am not in the least interested in aspartame, save for its ability to deliver METHANOL into our bodies in quantities that are demonstrably unsafe (see my last post) Methanol is aspartames best kept secret, the data you see there is definitely not what the aspartame industry wants to see or debate they can’t, it comes from their own data.

Have you any idea what an NOAEL or and ADI is? Check out my first post and see if you can explain away, how they managed to convince us, scientists and all, that aspartame is safe, with methanol at a level that would kill us. I know I would like to hear what you say.

My case is simple; aspartame is not safe due to its METHANOL content. I have justified that in my posts, you on the other hand have not questioned refuted nor intelligently debated anything, except your fixation on diet soda. Who cares whether someone can drink enough diet soda to kill themselves that is not real life, real life is looking at what the authorities say is safe for us to eat and checking it out. When we do that we find the ADI of aspartame is much too high to be safe.

You obviously know nothing about the metabolism of METHANOL in the human body nor that formaldehyde, (a well known carcinogen) is the hidden danger.

I have already said that natural and unnatural METHANOL share the same chemical name MeOH the difference is how the body handles them. Natural methanol does us no harm protected by nature. Unnatural METHANOL has no option but to metabolise to formaldehyde.

Once more. The math shows you wrong. Your lack of knowledge of chemistry, biochemistry, human physiology and metabolism don't help your case.

Once more, since natural and unnatural methanol are atom-to-atom identical, the body has no way of telling them apart. They don't just share a chemical name, they are identical. So they are metabolized identically, etc.

Truly amazing how little you understand and how stubborn you are despite being shown so obviously and openly wrong. Weird if, as you say, you are not interested in aspartame.

I really don't understand why you continue despite being shown so wrong at the most basic level. Go finish elementary school, continue on to middle school, and maybe you'll start understanding why you're wrong. (If you already went through school, pay attention this time around.)

Aug 2 2013:
Thank you Jim. The reason aspartame is addictive is the methyl ester immediately becomes free methyl alcohol which is classified as a narcotic. This causes chronic methanol poisoning which effects the dopamine system of the brain and causes the addiction. So many of these victims go through horrible withdrawal getting off of it. So often these victims end up with cancer from the formaldehyde. Plus it breaks down to DKP, a brain tumor agent. Betty

Aug 2 2013:
I wish you guys would stop trying to do maths; you are not very good at it.

Presumably what you are struggling with is; how many 335ml cans of soda containing 18mg of METHANOL would a 70kg adult need to consume before the METHANOL killed them.

What do we know? The lethal dose of Methanol in humans is an acute dose of 24,000mg and the Methanol in your can is 18mg; the answer is 24000/18 = 1333 cans of soda; no argument there.

Converting this to litres of aspartame is a pointless exercise and is irrelevant. What might be more helpful is to ascertain how long it would take, for an adult consuming the modest amount of say 6 cans of soda per day, to consume the lethal dose of METHANOL; the answer is – 1333/6 = 222 days or 18 .5 months. You may not know it but many of our youngsters today are addicted to diet carbonated drinks – 18 .5 months is an incredibly short time - Aspartame is not safe because of the METHANOL it carries daily into our bodies.

Let’s have another reality check.
What we have been discussing here is the severe metabolic toxicity of METHANOL and its ability to kill us (case proven) Aspartame is the only significant source of unnatural METHANOL in our diet today and has been for the last 32 years; since we are not all dead yet what can be the problem?

The problem is METHANOL and it’s 1st metabolite Formaldehyde are cumulative poisons; very small amounts delivered daily (Via aspartame) build up over time (0-20 yrs) causing severe neurological, organ and tissue damage, This is testified by the vast numbers of anecdotal cases naming aspartame, which unfortunately science ignores.

We are assured by our health authorities time and again that aspartame is safe to consume for a lifetime at their ADI (50mg/kg) - we will stay in the US; that is where it all began - we need to examine that ADI.

Aug 2 2013:
I'm not struggling with anything. It's all clear cut. It is you who wants to present a fallacious case. There's nothing modest about consuming six cans of soda per day. If your youngsters do that then the problem is not aspartame, but mindless consumption. Consuming sugar-loaded cans of soda has consequences that have been detailed by scientific evidence, while your case against aspartame remains being bad math, ignorance about metabolism, and much more.

For 222 days to be needed for someone to reach those "dangerous levels" you are assuming that the methanol stays forever in your blood. If that were the case then we would die of methanol poisoning out of eating fruit, which increase methanol concentrations in our blood by at least an order of magnitude more than aspartame-containing soda. It methanol stayed in we would not be able to detect methanol in our breath (that's methanol leaving the body). But methanol is produced by our own metabolism, and metabolized, secreted, exuded, shitted, and breathed out. It does not stay forever, otherwise those concentrations, just from our own metabolism, would lead to increases in methanol in our blood with time, and no experiments show such a thing.

So, no, neither methanol, nor formaldehyde are "cumulative poisons." Both are produced by our own bodies, yet their concentrations do not increase with the age of the individual.

Anecdotal cases have been taken into consideration for further experimentation and have been found to be unsound. If anecdotes were all that there is to it, then we would have an endless list of contradictory stuff that we would have to believe because those anecdotes suggest so.

It's good that you ran out of words. Otherwise we would be reading much more misinformation.

Aug 5 2013:
Hello Peter, You are absolutely correct it should be 7.5 months (infinitely worse) I do make maths mistakes therefore I am human – well spotted.

Like Ethanol when broken down with water, the METHANOL molecule is still intact. What makes unnatural Methanol a cumulative poison, Is the body’s inability to clear methanol quickly from the bloodstream. Following zero order of kinetics irrespective of the amount of METHANOL ingested it takes the same amount of time to clear the system. It clears through the breath, urine and sweat.

Consuming daily doses of aspartame is the worst case scenario for a cumulative poison, some or all of yesterday’s consumption could still be in the system, when today’s lot arrives.

Please check out the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) for Methanol. It is the Methanol producer’s legal responsibility to keep details for this sheet up to date. Employers prepare their own MSDS according to the type of use they have for the methanol, they are duty bound to make the MSDS available to all their who may come into contact with METHANOL.

For 150 years the methanol producers have known METHANOL to be a severe cumulative, metabolic toxin in man and even today warn; “Don’t drink it”, “Don’t breath it in” and “Don’t get it on your skin” Yet in 1981 FDA approved aspartame containing 10%w/w METHANOL for use in our food??

Aug 5 2013:
It only accumulates if your daily dose exceeds the bodies ability to remove it. just like any other chemical. For this to happen from aspartame ingestion you would have to eat grams of it. It's been shown experimentally that even after unrealistically high doses of aspartame are given to humans it only takes a few hours for methanol levels to return to baseline, so the is no residue.
Cumulative poisoning is generally used to describe poisoning by fat soluble chemicals or substances that are fixed in some way like strontium 90. While it is possible to accumulate methanol you need to be exposed to it in levels that are close to causing acute poisoning.

You see; this is what I mean by a reality check I set it out nice and simpl so it would be easily understood but you still don’t get it. Step back for a minute and concentrate.

1) I assume since you did not mention it, you agree aspartame per sae can do us no harm? So what is the point of using it to test reactions in the rats, if you don’t know which component might be causing it, what the relative toxicity of each component is or what tolerance the rats might have for each?

2) 10% of the NOAEL of aspartame did go to methanol in the rats. if you were paying attention, you would see I indicated that Searle failed to take into account that the LD50 of methanol in rats is (5286mg/kg) feeding the rats (500mg/kg) is not likely to produce any reaction; the rats use it as food at that level.

3) Nothing wrong with my maths, this task is so easy. What I don’t do is mix up my units of measurement. Step back again.

The NOAEL of aspartame contains (500mg/kg) of METHANOL, the lethal dose of METHANOL in humans is (343mg/kg).

The result found with the rats is supposed to be directly transferrable to humans?? if a human consumed (500mg/kg) of METHANOL it would kill him. The NOAEL of aspartame is not safe.

A NOAEL of aspartame in rats – is NOT an NOAEL of Methanol in humans. You must try and understand this.

4) You are assuming the ADI of aspartame is safe I have indicated here it is not and your math’s are way of line. The lethal dose of METHANOL in a human is (343mg/kg) if that human weighed 70kg the amount of METHANOL that would kill him is 343 x 70 = 24,000mg (24gm)

Aug 1 2013:
I noticed that you edited your original post where you were claiming that 500mg/kg of aspartame would kill a human. But even now you still make very basic mathematical mistakes. In order for a 70Kg human to be able to get 24,000mg of methanol from aspartame this human would have to consume 240,000 mg of aspartame. Since a can of 355ml of diet soda has 180 mg of aspartame this person would have to drink: 240,000/180 = 1,333 cans of soda in one go. That's 1,333 times 355 ml = 473,215 ml or 473.2 litres of diet soda. That's again more than 6 times the volume of the person in question.

Aug 1 2013:
Hi there, glad to be joining this discussion; I believe a reality check is needed here.

ASPARTAME is the name of a product which is designed to convince our taste buds that we are consuming sugar when we are not; this of course takes place in the mouth. The aspartame molecule then proceeds to the GI tract where it disappears; it separates into its 3 component parts Methanol, Phenylalanine and Aspartic Acid which separately enter the general circulation and are metabolised. Aspartame per sae cannot enter the bloodstream, cannot metabolise, so is incapable of causing us any harm, by default therefore any harm must come from one or a combination of its three components.

Logic tells us that if we are constructing a product for human consumption, it would be wise to establish a toxicity level for each component to ensure complete safety; not so with aspartame. After 35 years in the methanol industry I knew that methanol was by far the most dangerous component (10% w/w of aspartame) and to ignore that was wrong. - How did they get away with it?

G.D. Searle tested rats on aspartame to achieve an NOAEL of 5000mg/kg. When questioned why they used the whole aspartame molecule they said “if there was anything wrong with the product it would show up in the testing” they also failed to take into account the LD50 for methanol in rats which is 5286mg/kg. The methanol in the aspartame NOAEL is 500mg/kg; the rats would not show any observable adverse effects at that level, they would treat the methanol as food.

Let’s look at the amount of each constituent in the NOAEL of aspartame (5000mg/kg)
50% Phenylalanine - (2500mg/kg)
40% Aspartic Acid – (2000mg/kg)
10% Methanol – (500mg/kg)
The generally accepted fatal chronic dose of methanol in humans is 30ml - (343mg/kg)
If a human consumed the methanol in the NOAEL of aspartame (500mg/kg) it would kill them.

1. There's nothing wrong with using the whole molecule of aspartame to test whether aspartame is bad for those rats. You said that 10% of the molecule would go to methanol, therefore this should have happened in those rats. Otherwise your whole theatre fall apart.

2. It seems that you can't count very well. If accepted fatal chronic dose of methanol in humans is 343mg/kg, and humans consumed 500mg/kg of aspartame, the methanol would reach 50mg/kg, which would only be around 15% of your dangerous concentration.

3. A can of a common diet soda has 180mg of aspartame. That would make, in your own scenario, 18mg of methanol. So, to achieve that concentration that you consider bad for humans, a human weighting only one kg would have to consume 19 cans of diet soda (343/18=19). So, that means that you need 19 diet sodas per kg in order for the methanol to be at a dangerous level. Do you really think that a person can drink 19 diet sodas per kg of their weight? Let's see: if a diet soda can contains around 355ml of liquid, then 19 diet soda cans would make 6745ml. 6.7 litres per kg! That's more than six times the volume of the human in question! I bet that consuming six times your weight of anything would achieve dangerous concentrations of anything even if it was all "organic."

Jul 30 2013:
You got it Aarthi. At one point Wikipeia let you add the facts but something changed and all of a sudden they started deleting what was accurate. A lot of people got involved. It's difficult to find out who is responsible so you can correct the information. When there was a question of whether I lectured for the World Environmental Conference I tried to get the letters asking me to speak and then thanking me for speaking, it wasn't accepted. Others have tried to correct them without success. Here is the history of aspartame: http://rense.com/general50/KILLER.HTM If you go to my web site, www.mpwhi.com and click on aspartame videos see "Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World". It has the experts in it and an attorney who explains how Don Rumsfeld got it on the market after the FDA tried to have them indicted for fraud and revoked the petition for approval. Then Rumsfeld went into action. It's all in the movie. All my best, Betty www.mpwhi.com

Jul 30 2013:
I've always had my own doubts about such products and hence I do not consume any flavored drink, aerated waters or other food items containing other chemical preservatives. But wikipedia seems to be very convinced with the fact that aspartame is very safe and is the most rigorously tested chemical. I do not buy this, but it makes me question the content of wikipedia. I hope it is not like news, where these agencies want us to read what they want us to believe :)

Jul 30 2013:
Yes, Dr. Walton is a psychiatrist. He did his own aspartame study because he knew aspartame triggers psychiatric and behavioral problems and interact with all antidepressants. Yet, there are people who suffer depression and other problems. He wondered if people were already depressed what would happen if they used aspartame. Monsanto would't even sell him the aspartame because they could not control the study, so he got it elsewhere. In th healthy group the adminnistrator lost his vision in one eye from a retinal detachment, another had conjunctival bleeding. Those in the compromized group said they were being poisoned. Dr. Walton didn't even use a high ADI. The institution stopped the study because of the reactions. Shows you when you do an honest study aspartame always shows the problems. Dr. Walton did the research for 60 Minutes as well on funding and scientific peer reviewed research.

Jul 30 2013:
The blunders are yours, not Dr. Monte. Methanol being bound to pectin is as well known as 2 plus 2. Dr. Monte is known te world over and is highly respected. I'm familiar with his knowledge of chemistry but not yours. I know methanol binds to pectin because I've heard it from world experts on aspartame. From a TV interview here is what Ralph Walton, M.D. " Walton explained why he disagrees. "In fruit you have the antidote along with it. And also the methanol component is bound to something called pectin, in fruit. We humans don't
have the enzyme to split methanol off from pectin. So, in fruit it's perfectly harmless, but that's not the case in aspartame," he said." You simply didn't know all the facts.