The Skeptics Society & Skeptic magazine

Safe Sweetener or Perilous Poison?

Aspartame is a low calorie sugar substitute marketed under brand names such as Equal and NutraSweet. It is a combination of two amino acids: L-aspartic acid and L-phenylalanine. It is available as individual packets for adding to foods and it is a component of many diet soft drinks and other reduced- calorie foods. Depending on who you listen to, it is either a safe aid to weight loss and diabetes control or it is evil incarnate, a deadly poison that is devastating the health of consumers. A reader sent me an ad from his local newspaper that recommended using Stevia instead of aspartame, and made these startling claims about aspartame:

  1. It is derived from the excrement of genetically modified E. coli bacteria.
  2. Upon ingestion, it breaks down into aspartic acid, phenylalanine, methanol, formaldehyde, and formic acid.
  3. It accounts for over 75% of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA each year including seizures, migraines, dizzinesss, nausea, muscle spasms, weight gain, depression, fatigue, irritability, heart palpitations, breathing difficulties, anxiety, tinnitus, schizophrenia and death.

Let’s look at those claims one by one.

  1. In some markets, aspartame manufacture takes advantage of modern genetic laboratory processes. A plasmid introduces genes into E. coli bacteria; the genes are incorporated into the bacterial DnA and they increase production of enzymes that enhance the production of phenylalanine. The bacteria produce more phenylalanine, serving as little living factories. The phenylalanine these workhorses produce for us is exactly the same as phenylalanine from any other source. It is disingenuous and inflammatory to characterize it as “derived from excrement.” Genetic processes like this are widely used today. One stunning example is Humulin. Diabetics used to develop allergic reactions to the beef and pork antigens in insulin derived from cows and pigs because it was slightly different from human insulin and contained impurities. Scientists found a way to put human insulin genes into E. coli bacteria and put them to work producing true, pure human insulin. This was such a great advantage to diabetics that animal insulins are no longer even available.
  2. Some of the things we ingest are directly absorbed and utilized unchanged, like water. But most of what we ingest is metabolized. Aspartame is metabolized. It does indeed break down into aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol. Aspartic acid and phenylalanine are amino acids that we need to survive. Methanol is produced in small amounts by the metabolism of many foods; it is harmless in small amounts. A cup of tomato juice produces six times as much methanol as a cup of diet soda. Methanol is completely metabolized by formaldehyde into formic acid; no formaldehyde remains. Lastly, the formic acid is broken down into water and carbon dioxide. Human studies show that formic acid is eliminated faster than it is formed after ingestion of aspartic acid. So yes, those compounds appear, but so what? We get much larger amounts of the same compounds from our food, and they don’t hurt us.
  3. I searched for documentation of that claim, and I couldn’t find the 75% figure anywhere. What I did find was that FD&C dyes (not aspartame) are the food additives most frequently associated with adverse reactions. Anyway, a list of reported adverse reactions is meaningless by itself. People can report any symptom they noticed after using aspartame, but they can be fooled by the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy: just because a symptom occurred after ingesting aspartame, that doesn’t prove aspartame caused the symptom. Controlled studies are needed to determine if the symptom occurred more often in people using aspartame than in people not using it. Many such studies have been done and have not shown a correlation of aspartame use with any of those symptoms.
Internet Hoax

So the ad amounts to scare tactics based on false and distorted information. Actually, this ad is pretty mild compared to some of the alarmist misinformation circulating on the Internet. There we are told that there is a widespread epidemic of aspartame poisoning, causing headaches, seizures, Alzheimer’s, cancer, diabetes, blindness, multiple sclerosis, birth defects, even Gulf War Syndrome. We are told that “If you…suffer from fibromyalgia symptoms, spasms, shooting pains, numbness in your legs, cramps, vertigo, dizziness, headaches, tinnitus, joint pain, depression, anxiety attacks, slurred speech, blurred vision, or memory loss—you probably have ASPARTAME DISEASE!” We are expected to believe the unsubstantiated claim that “When they remove brain tumors, they have found high levels of aspartame in them.”

Aspartame has been found to be safe for human consumption by the regulatory agencies of more than ninety countries worldwide.

All this misinformation has been identified by various sources including, and as a hoax or urban legend. Much of it hinges on a widely disseminated e-mail by a “nancy Markle” who was accused of plagiarizing it from Betty Martini. Martini is the founder of Mission Possible World Health International, which is “committed to removing the deadly chemical aspartame from our food.” She is also anti-vaccine, anti-fluoride, anti-MSG, a conspiracy theorist, and thinks she was cured of breast cancer by an herbal formula. Her website consists of misinformation, testimonials, and hysterical rants. She implores readers: “YOUR personal horror story needed NOW!” She is associated with a number of others notorious for circulating unreliable information, including the infamous Joseph Mercola. There’s even a book, Sweet Poison, by Janet Hull, creator of the Aspartame Detox Program.

Scientific Studies

Aspartame has been found to be safe for human consumption by the regulatory agencies of more than ninety countries worldwide,with FDA officials describing aspartame as “one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved” and its safety as “clear cut.”

When the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Food evaluated aspartame, they found over 500 papers on aspartame published between 1988 and 2001. It has been studied in animals, in various human populations including infants, children, women, obese adults, diabetics, and lactating women. numerous studies have ruled out any association with headaches, seizures, behavior, cognition, mood, allergic reactions, and other conditions. It has been evaluated far more extensively than any other food additive.

When new rat studies by the Ramazzini Foundation in Italy appeared to show an association with tumors, the European Food Safety Authority examined Ramazzini’s raw data and found errors that led them to discredit the studies. Their updated opinion based on all the data available in 2009 said there was no indication of any genotoxic or carcinogenic potential of aspartame and that there was no reason to revise their previously established ADI (Acceptable Daily Intake) for aspartame of 40 mg/kg/day. Studies have shown that actual consumption is well below that limit.

People who are absolutely convinced they get adverse effects from aspartame have been proven wrong. For instance, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study of people who reported having headaches repeatedly after consuming aspartame. When they knew what they were consuming, 100% of them had headaches. In a double blind crossover trial, when they did not know what they were getting, 35% had headaches after aspartame, and 45% had headaches after placebo.

Is Stevia Safer?
Skeptic magazine 16.3 (Islam)

This article appeared in Skeptic magazine 16.3 (2011)
Buy the print edition
Buy the digital edition

Stevia comes from a plant, and the Guaraní Indians of South America have been using it to sweeten their yerba mate for centuries. The “natural fallacy” and the “ancient wisdom fallacy” sway many consumers, but for those of us who are critical thinkers, who want to avoid logical fallacies and look at the scientific evidence, what does science tell us? Is stevia preferable to aspartame? We really don’t know. Concerns have been raised about possible adverse effects such as cancer and birth defects. Stevia is banned in most European countries and in Singapore and Hong Kong because their regulatory agencies felt that there was insufficient toxicological evidence to demonstrate its safety. The U.S. banned its import in 1991 as a food additive, but the 1994 Diet Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) legalized its sale as a dietary supplement. Most of the safety concerns have been dismissed, but so have the concerns about aspartame. Arguably, the concerns about stevia are more valid than those about aspartame, because there is less evidence refuting them.

The plant extract is refined using ethanol, methanol, crystallization and separation technologies to separate the various glycoside molecules. The Coca- Cola Company sells it as Truvia. Pepsi sells it as Purevia. It is a product of major corporations and is prepared in a laboratory using “toxic” chemicals like methanol. For some reason that doesn’t bother those who are promoting stevia as a natural product.

What about HFCS?

High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is also being demonized. “High” fructose isn’t really so high. HFCS is 55% fructose. Sucrose (table sugar) is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Honey is 50% fructose. Apples have 57% fructose; pears have 64%. Fructose has been blamed for obesity, diabetes, heart disease and a wide variety of other illnesses, but the evidence is inconclusive. Avoiding fructose would mean avoiding all sources of fructose, not just HFCS. Avoiding fruit is probably not healthy. An International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Expert Panel concluded that “there is no basis for recommending increases or decreases in [fructose] use in the general food supply or in special dietary use products.” HFCS is 25% sweeter than sucrose, so you can use less of it and get fewer calories. Limiting total calorie intake is healthy, and both HFCS and aspartame can contribute to that goal.

Is Aspartame Safe?

Yes! Aspartame is safe for everyone except people who have the genetic disorder phenylketonuria (PKU). They must avoid aspartame because they can’t process phenylalanine, and accumulated high levels of phenylalanine can damage their brains. Science has adequately demonstrated that aspartame is safe for everyone else. END

About the Author

Dr. Harriet Hall, MD, the SkepDoc, is a retired family physician and Air Force Colonel living in Puyallup, WA. She writes about alternative medicine, pseudoscience, quackery, and critical thinking. She is a contributing editor to both Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer, an advisor to the Quackwatch website, and an editor of, where she writes an article every Tuesday. She is author of Women Aren’t Supposed to Fly: The Memoirs of a Female Flight Surgeon. Her website is

Recommended by Amazon
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 4, 2016 6:36 am

Here is another bit of possibly useful info:

Avoiding Hidden Aspartame & Artificial Sweeteners

Soft drinks, over-the-counter drugs & prescription drugs (very common and listed under “inactive ingredients”), vitamin & herb supplements, yogurt, instant breakfasts, lollies, breath mints, cereals, sugar-free chewing gum, cocoa mixes, coffee beverages, instant breakfasts, gelatine desserts, frozen desserts, juice beverages, laxatives, milk drinks, shake mixes, tabletop sweeteners, tea beverages, instant teas and coffees, topping mixes, wine coolers, etc.

When you’re consuming MSG, the level of glutamate in the blood can rise as high as 20-fold. You get very high glutamate levels in the blood after eating a meal containing MSG. You’re stimulating all of the glutamate receptors. That’s why some people get explosive diarrhoea and dyspepsia, because it stimulates the receptors in the oesophagus and small bowel. Others may develop irritable bowel, or if they have irritable bowel, it makes it a lot worse. If they have reflux, it makes that a lot worse. The thing about the cardiac conduction system glutamate receptors is this may explain the rise in sudden cardiac death.

What you see in almost all these cases is low magnesium. When the magnesium level is low, the glutamate receptors become hypersensitive, and so people – athletes in particular, if they are not supplementing with magnesium – are prone to sudden cardiac death, because of the glutamate receptors. If they eat a meal or something that contains glutamate or drink a diet cola before practice, it will produce such intense cardiac irritability; they’ll die of sudden cardiac death. We know the sudden cardiac death is due to two things: Most commonly arrhythmia and coronary artery spasm. Both of which can be produced by glutamate.

***Now for the kicker: Consume aspartame WITH MSG and the problems can be amplified, much like taking certain drugs with alcohol.

Many people make the mistake of not checking labels carefully and continue to poison themselves.

July 5, 2016 12:12 pm
Reply to  Tim

Any references to your assertions would be appreciated. I note that Critical Reviews in Toxicology stated “The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener.”
And Food and Chemical Toxicology notes that ” The available data therefore support the conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that aspartame is non-genotoxic.”

July 4, 2016 6:27 am

Aspartame 951 (NutraSweet, Equal)

Aspartame is another excitotoxin and it took 20 years of lobbying and debate before it was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This was despite scientific data showing a link to the development of brain tumours in rats. One month after approval for use in soft drinks the FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Jr. M.D., became a senior consultant for Burson-Marsteller, the Public Relations firm that managed G.D Searle’s account.

Aspartame is made up of methanol (10%), phenylalanine (50%) and aspartic acid (40%). Methanol breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde in the body. Formaldehyde is a deadly neurotoxin. While formic acid is found in the venom of bee and ant stings. Phenylalanine in excess can cause the serotonin levels in the brain to decrease leading to disorders such as depression.

Free methanol is created from aspartame when it is heated to above 30° C such as in a coffee or in cooked items. This will also occur if soft drinks are not refrigerated all the time, such as during transport and during storage at the retailer. On 27 June 1996, without public notice, the FDA removed all restrictions from aspartame allowing it to be used in everything, including all heated and baked goods. Aspartame accounted for more than 75% of all adverse reactions reported to the US FDA’s Adverse Reaction Monitoring System (ARMS).

Cyclamates 952 (Sucaryl; Sweetex)

Cyclamates were banned in the USA and UK in 1969 however it is still used in Australia. A Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) survey in 2004 determined that the average consumer exceeded the acceptable daily intake.

Saccharin 954

In 1977, after a study indicating an increased rate of bladder cancer in rats, Canada banned saccharin while the US and other countries required a warning label on all saccharin products. In 2000 the labelling requirements were lifted.
As the new NTP (National Toxicology Program) report explains: “Although it is impossible to absolutely conclude that it poses no threat to human health … saccharin is not reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen under conditions of general usage as an artificial sweeten.”

Neotame 961

Neotame has similar structure to aspartame – except that, from its structure, appears to be even more toxic than aspartame.

Aspartame Reactions

The FDA had to list notified reactions to aspartame under Freedom of Information. Of the 92, some are:

ADD/ADHD Alzheimer’s Asthma Birth defects Brain cancer
Chronic fatigue Death Depression Epilepsy Fibromyalgia
Headaches/migraines Impotency Joint pains Memory loss Menstrual problems
Nausea vomiting Palpitations Panic attacks Parkinson’s Weight gain

July 3, 2016 11:46 am

In this thread: A dozen different axes and four dozen grinders.

The Scoundrel
June 14, 2016 7:25 am

I enjoyed the article and I would like to see a similar, non emotional, non anecdotal article assessment of the pop-phenomenon variously called “gluten intolerance”.

June 10, 2016 11:17 pm

Frankly I think that you are all arguing about the wrong thing.
The real problem is putting sweeteners into just about everything.

Cut out the sweeteners and you will find the natural sweetness of food much more satisfying

Richard scott
June 9, 2016 5:04 pm

Sent article to friend a retired pediatric neurologist. He noted a patient with plus, phenylketonuria, who was well controlled but during pregnancy drank large amounts of aspartame diet pop. When child was born had severe deficits. The load during early stages of intrauterine growth was toxic.
Physicians caring for patients with such metabolic diseases should be aware.

Greg Manko
June 9, 2016 2:32 pm

I love it – no BS (bad science) at all. Adressess all of my “favourite” fallacies – esp. the “natural is better” BS! Thanks. As a high school science teacher, I love a good reasoned argument, but sadly don’t hear them as much I’d like to.

June 9, 2016 1:22 pm

I’ve gained even more knowledge about artificial sweeteners having read Dr. Hall’s information and subsequent responses to her information. Those responses are interesting, informative, entertaining and some down right scary.

I’m not a scientist, medical researcher, doctor or nutritionist, but I am a person who suffered from optic migraines linked to artificial sweeteners. Five were enough for me. Substituting diet soda with water, unsweetened tea and coffee has ended my optic migraines. What hasn’t ended is my curiosity why?

Neither my one trip to the ER, nor appointments with my internal medicine physician, GYN, ophthalmologist and neurologist that included an MRI resulted in any explanation other than they’ve “seen this with other patients.”

Until other theories or new evidence challenging and disproving Dr. Hall’s explanation currently considered the best univerally, scientifically held beliefs, in general, that Aspertame and some artificial sweeteners are safe who am I to dispute those claims. As imperfect as it can sometimes be, I’ll continue to accept science over pseudoscience. I’ll also explore the possibility of having the genetic disorder phenylketonuria with my doctor.

I don’t disagree with checking Dr. Hall’s credentials, questioning or disagreeing with her but resorting to cheap name calling because one doesn’t agree with what Dr. Hall has to say is unacceptable and immediately discredits that person.

As a lay person, I feel all that I can do when trying to understand anything unfamiliar is to start with those with whom I respect. I respect science and the Skeptic Society. Since Dr. Hall is the SkepDoc, a family physician who writes about alternative medicine, pseudoscience, quackery, and critical thinking and is a contributing editor to both Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer, an advisor to the Quackwatch website, and editor she has my attention.

June 9, 2016 10:25 am

I grew a stevia plant in my garden. I chopped up the leaves and used them, together with a reduced amount of sugar, to cook rhubarb. Have not seen the plants for sale for a few years.

June 9, 2016 1:53 am

Kilty has not given us the full story. A) she ingested aspartame, and B) she was hospitalised. She fails to say what else she ingested at the same time (surely she did not merely eat a spoonful of the sweetener on its own?). Secondly, she does not say for what reason she went to hospital – could it have been for a broken leg, a case of measles, bubonic plague, or to give birth?

June 9, 2016 12:47 am

I like this article a lot. There is finally some logic thinking going on.

My only small concern is the paragraph on fructose. Specifically:

“Avoiding fructose would mean avoiding all sources of fructose, not just HFCS.”

There is a massive difference to how one’s body deals with concentrated HFCS from drinks or in processed carbohydrates as opposed to fruit that have natural fiber in them. The fiber content in the fruit causes a much slower uptake and processing of the sugars, whereas in a drink laced with lots of sugar, one’s liver cannot always deal with such high concentrations of sugars in the blood, hence the need to release insulin to clean all these sugars up.

Continuously causing your body to react in this way to cope with high volumes of glucose/sugars can cause insulin resistance which leads to diabetes in the end.

June 8, 2016 11:26 pm

I agree w/Jared; article is lacking recent data. (how could it…article appeared in Skeptic Magazine 16.3 (2011)) Article is lacking any footnotes; needs citations to various stated studies, legal journals, FDA published data etc. Article was generated based upon a reader’s submitting an “ad from his local newspaper, that recommended using Stevia, instead of aspartame…” What can I say, I’m a ‘chapter/verse’ kind of gal…I’d even like to know which newspaper, date, and section ad appeared in…

June 8, 2016 11:21 pm

I agree w/Jared; article is lacking recent data. (how could it… is from Skeptic 16.3 (2011)) Article is lacking any footnotes; needs citations to various stated studies, legal journals, FDA published data etc. Article was generated based upon a reader’s submitting an “ad from his local newspaper, that recommended using Stevia, instead of aspartame…” What can I say, I’m a ‘chapter/verse’ kind of gal…I’d even like to know which newspaper, date, and section ad appeared in…

David Dressler, BA, RMT
June 8, 2016 10:23 pm

I am going to come at this from “left field” with what at first may seem off topic, but then you may see how it is on target….

The question in the post is not only about whether certain food additives are harmful or safe, but about what counts as evidence as to their safety or benefit, or if in fact there is any evidence one way or the other.

I am going to question whether there is evidence that there is evidence. That was not a misprint. I am questioning the scientific method itself.

Medicine is supposedly based on “evidence.” Sometimes it is called “evidence-based medicine” (as though were medicine not based on evidence). But did you know that what is called evidence-based medicine (EBM) only began in the early 1960s?

In an investigative report I wrote in 1999 I spoke with the “father” of evidence-based medicine, Dr. Kerr White. He is the man who started the movement in the 1960s. Dr. Archie Cochrane of the famed Cochrane Collaboration, that analyzes for scientific accuracy every medical research article ever written, was Dr. White’s student.

In my interview, I asked Dr. White what medicine was based on, if not evidence, before 1960. His answer was shocking: “Opinion.” It was 1999 so I asked him what medicine was based on in 1999. “Opinion,” he answered.

I asked him for a more exact answer, and Dr. White said this: “Only 15% of all medical procedures [drugs and surgeries] are proven scientifically to do more good than harm.” Shocking. This means 85% of all medical procedures are of unproven safety or efficacy.

Would you drive a car that had an 85% chance of blowing up? Or investing in a stock you had reason to believe had an 85% likelihood of bankrupting you? In that year (1999), “correctly” prescribed drugs and surgeries killed over 110,000 Americans and this number is rising.

I checked Dr. White’s horrific statement by researching the safety and efficacy issue in medicine by reading research on the topic in several European countries and Canada. I found percentages of 10-15% most often and a single Canadian figure of 20%. In other words, Dr. White’s “diagnosis” as to the evidence base in medicine appears to be corroborated.

This 15% applies to “medicine” as a generalization. It does not mean that any particular procedure will be either beneficial or harmful. This remains to be seen in each individual patient’s case. Hence the “art” of medicine! It is not all science.

And that brings us back to the case in point: the sweet truth about aspartame and stevia. My point in all this is that one cannot trust so-called “evidence” one way or the other in the matter, exactly because the evidence quite likely is flawed because evidence-based medicine itself is flawed. Research methods themselves are often flawed.

In the end, there is every reason to be skeptical about medical opinion based on medical evidence because there is probably only a 15% likelihood of it being right.

Greg Manko
June 9, 2016 2:42 pm

You seem to be basing your distrust on this 15% number, for which the evidence is anecdotal even if accepted as an accurate figure. I am quite certain that better than 15% of the medical procedures I’ve had so far have been positive. True that none of them will prevent me from dieing one day, but they have made things better, overall. I’m sure in better health than someone from even 100 years ago. 200 years ago, at my age, I’d be long dead – so medical science is good for something.

June 8, 2016 8:54 pm

Hi Harriet,

Excellent article and I agree with most of it. However, you should probably re-think this line:

“Fructose has been blamed for obesity, diabetes, heart disease and a wide variety of other illnesses, *but the evidence is inconclusive*.”

There is a growing mountain of evidence that leads precisely to that conclusion.

June 8, 2016 7:15 pm

Sounds like propaganda put out by the sugar industry–or competing artificial sweetner manufacturers.

June 8, 2016 6:20 pm

Please explain the logical fallacy in this statement: “You are a Republican or you hate the United States”. Now compare your reasoning with this statement to the author’s statement that aspartame is “a safe aid to weight loss and diabetes control or it is evil incarnate, a deadly poison that is devastating the health of consumers.”

I don’t consume aspartame, but I don’t see it as evil incarnate. I just don’t like its taste. This article ignores a number of reasonable concerns. There is a correlation between weight and artificial sweeteners. Not every scientist agrees that the pros of artificial sweeteners, including aspartame, exceed the cons. A quick cite that appears reputable is:

Kilty may have relied too much on personal experience, but that doesn’t mean that the author’s argument is logically sound.

Howard Winet
June 8, 2016 5:50 pm

It is easy to smugly assume that Kilty was a plant. She certainly evoked some very entertaining responses from a host of skeptic warriors, eager to do battle with this unfortunate ignorant potential voter. If it weren’t for the vast size of the “Armies of Ignorance”, this little game would be fun. But they are real and too large to be so dismissed. We should be discussing ways to penetrate the wall she will set up to rationalize her rejection of the reasoned responses. Our childrens’ futures depend on it.

June 8, 2016 3:17 pm

Kitty, I know what you mean. Several years ago I mistakenly had a drink with some in it. Since then all my kids have been born naked. Robert

bob pease
June 8, 2016 3:52 pm
Reply to  Robert

post hic ergo Propter hock??

Janice Muir
June 8, 2016 2:49 pm

Sadly, my daughter and I both tested allergic to aspartame. This doesn’t mean aspartame is poisonous for other people. If we vilified and banned every food someone is allergic to, there would likely be nothing left to eat, not even chicken. (My daughter’s father is allergic to chicken.)

Paul vg
June 8, 2016 2:23 pm

I have a theory – it’s that worrying overmuch about “foods that can kill you” will increase your level of stress – and probably kill you – eventually.

bob pease
June 8, 2016 3:50 pm
Reply to  Paul vg

Mad Magazine Cascaade follows

1. ” people who believe that worrying overmuch about “foods that can kill you” will increase your level of stress – and probably kill you – will increase their level of stress and probably kill them.”

people who believe that worrying overmuch about
people who believe that worrying overmuch about “foods that can kill you” will increase your level of stress – and probably kill you – will increase their level of stress and probably kill them.worrying overmuch about “foods that can kill you” will increase your level of stress – and probably kill you – will increase their level of stress and probably kill them.

Deborah Graham
June 8, 2016 1:42 pm

I don’t understand how one compares fruit and honey with High Fructose Corn Syrup! The latter is a processed food stuff that is made from corn, which most likely is processed from GMO corn. Apples, pears and honey are natural foods that when eaten in their natural state have not been processed. Personally, I do not trust any of these artificial sweetners and would not consume them.

S. Brown
June 8, 2016 12:23 pm

I haven’t read all the comments, so this might be redundant… but check out the sweetener “WheyLo” on the web. I use that. My problem w/aspartame is, as some say above, the taste. Splenda is fine but the problem with it is that it’s fluoridated sugar… the fluorine is fine for consumption because it makes the compound too stable to be broken down by our digestive systems and thus not absorbed… but that’s also its *problem*, since it tends to just sit and accumulate in sewers and whatever they drain to. It’s *too* stable. Check out WheyLo.

Billy J
June 8, 2016 12:22 pm

J Gravelle you are correct.
Everything including DJT Tweets are perfectly true.
Six or seven billion people who get their news over the internet
could not be proven wrong in their “knowledge” of the facts.

J. Gravelle
June 8, 2016 11:24 am

Pretty sure they couldn’t put it on the Internet if it weren’t true…

June 8, 2016 12:24 pm
Reply to  J. Gravelle

Abe Lincoln warned us of just that. His picture was posted, so I know it is true.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how Akismet processes your comment data. Comments are closed 45 days after an article is published.

Get eSkeptic

Be in the know.

eSkeptic delivers great articles, videos, podcasts, reviews, event announcements, and more to your inbox.

Sign me up!

Donate to Skeptic

Please support the work of the Skeptics Society. Make the world a more rational place and help us defend the role of science in society.

Detecting Baloney

Baloney Detection Kit Sandwich (Infographic) by Deanna and Skylar (High Tech High Media Arts, San Diego, CA)

The Baloney Detection Kit Sandwich (Infographic)

For a class project, a pair of 11th grade physics students created the infographic shown below, inspired by Michael Shermer’s Baloney Detection Kit: a 16-page booklet designed to hone your critical thinking skills.

FREE PDF Download

Wisdom of Harriet Hall

Top 10 Things to Know About Alternative Medicine

Harriet Hall M.D. discusses: alternative versus conventional medicine, flu fear mongering, chiropractic, vaccines and autism, placebo effect, diet, homeopathy, acupuncture, “natural remedies,” and detoxification.

FREE Video Series

Science Based Medicine vs. Alternative Medicine

Science Based Medicine vs. Alternative Medicine

Understanding the difference could save your life! In this superb 10-part video lecture series, Harriet Hall M.D., contrasts science-based medicine with so-called “complementary and alternative” methods.

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Myths of Terrorism

Is Terrorism an Existential Threat?

This free booklet reveals 10 myths that explain why terrorism is not a threat to our way of life or our survival.

FREE PDF Download

The Top 10 Weirdest Things

The Top Ten Strangest Beliefs

Michael Shermer has compiled a list of the top 10 strangest beliefs that he has encountered in his quarter century as a professional skeptic.

FREE PDF Download

Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future (paperback cover)

Who believes them? Why? How can you tell if they’re true?

What is a conspiracy theory, why do people believe in them, and can you tell the difference between a true conspiracy and a false one?

FREE PDF Download

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

Mind altering experiences are one of the foundations of widespread belief in the paranormal. But as skeptics are well aware, accepting them as reality can be dangerous…

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Myths About Evolution

Top 10 Myths About Evolution (and how we know it really happened)

If humans came from apes, why aren’t apes evolving into humans? Find out in this pamphlet!

FREE PDF Download

Learn to be a Psychic in 10 Easy Lessons

Learn to do Psychic “Cold Reading” in 10
Easy Lessons

Psychic readings and fortunetelling are an ancient art — a combination of acting and psychological manipulation.

FREE PDF Download

The Yeti or Abominable Snowman

5 Cryptid Cards

Download and print 5 Cryptid Cards created by Junior Skeptic Editor Daniel Loxton. Creatures include: The Yeti, Griffin, Sasquatch/Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, and the Cadborosaurus.

Copyright © 1992–2020. All rights reserved. | P.O. Box 338 | Altadena, CA, 91001 | 1-626-794-3119. The Skeptics Society is a non-profit, member-supported 501(c)(3) organization (ID # 95-4550781) whose mission is to promote science & reason. Privacy Policy.