Equal (aspartame) - bleeding eyes warning on packaging

Factual Questions
1

Last night, my mother nagged me about a cosmetic prescription drug I was thinking about getting (Propecia), and warned that I should study the side effects. She joking suggested that it could make my eyeballs bleed, thinking that she came up with some outrageously implausible and horrifying hypothetical.

That urged me to remind her that it’s her artificial sweetener that has bleeding from the eyes as a known side-effect. I read that years ago, as a kid, right off of the package - I think. This was long before we’ve heard of the internet, let alone had access to it, so I wouldn’t have stumbled across the claim online.

We had a long laugh about it after I reminded her about the warning, because she insisted that there’s no way any company would be able to sell a food product that warned, right on the package, that it could make your eyes bleed. And I’d agree, but I’m certain I read it on an Equal packet. I’ve searched online, and while that’s confirmed that knowledge of that side-effect exists, relevant hits are surprisingly sparse, and nothing suggests that it’s ever been printed on the actual packaging.

And we’ve both checked an Equal packet, recently (as well as Sweet-and-Low, just in case I got that detail wrong), and the warning isn’t there. Does anyone here know for sure if “bleeding from the eyes” was ever printed as a warning on Equal (or at least have the same vague memory of it)?

2

Possibly as a side effect of the high blood pressure.

(d&r)

3

The eye bleeding could also be because it thined the blood and prevented clotting.

Aspartame was originaly researched for it’s use in war as a nurotoxin, but you won’t see that on the package.

4

I think you’re accidentally conflating some of the wide spread Aspartame crack-pottery you read once, with an actual warning. The only currently used mass market sweetener that predates the net is “Sweet & Low” and it never (nor did any of the others) have “bleeding eyes” warnings)

Here is the crack-pottery.

5

[QUOTE=Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]
Possibly as a side effect of the high blood pressure.

(d&r)
[/QUOTE]

**ES-HT ** was referencing this thread:

You may read my research there.

I can find no scientific research that links aspartame with “eye bleeding”. I do find lots of *non-scientific * articles that blame aspartame for eye bleeding and everything else, including AFAIK- alien anal implants. :dubious:

The only scientific article I can find that even has both terms is one where *diabetes * causes “proliferative diabetic retinopathy (lesions in the retina of the eye, bleeding, which leads to blindness)” and the author later remarks on artificial sweetners in the diet. (It’s an interesting rad, so I link to it, even though it has nothing to do with the OP’s question, other than perhaps show a negative):
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant570/Papers/King/king.htm

But here’s a good one:
http://www.mindfully.org/Health/Aspartame-Adverse-Reactions-1993.ht
“The fact that two patients developed significant eye problems entered into the decision to halt the study. Although for statistical purposes the eye pain, and subsequent retinal detachment, were recorded as adverse events occurring during the placebo week, there was concern that the process may have been initiated by the preceding week’s aspartame trial. There are precedents for concern: Fernstrom et al (1991) demonstrated very large increments in rate retinal phenylalanine concentration after aspartame administration, and in 1988 Roberts reported that in a group of 505 aspartame reactors eye pain or visual changes represented 35% of all complaints (Wurtman 1988). On the basis of this study, one certainly cannot make any definitive statement about aspartame and the eye. We do suggest, however, that further studies be undertaken.”

6

[QUOTE=Harmonious Discord]

Aspartame was originaly researched for it’s use in war as a nurotoxin, but you won’t see that on the package.
[/QUOTE]

Cite? Plenty of cites say “aspartame = neurotoxin” but most of them are written by dudes wearing tinfoil hats. Can I see an unbiased cite that makes the claim that aspartame was developed as a neurotoxin?

Now, I know this is Wiki, thus not 100% solid, but still: “Aspartame was discovered in 1965 by James M. Schlatter, a chemist working for G.D. Searle & Company. Schlatter had synthesized aspartame in the course of producing an anti-ulcer drug candidate. He discovered its sweet taste serendipitously when he licked his finger, which had accidentally become contaminated with aspartame.”

But here’s another cite:

"Discovery
It was December, 1965. Jim Schlatter, a chemist at G.D. Searle, was working on a project to discover new treatments for gastric ulcers. To test new anti-ulcer drugs, the biologists used a tetrapeptide (four amino acids) normally produced in the stomach; Schlatter was synthesizing this tetrapeptide in the lab, and one of the steps in the process was to make a dipeptide intermediate, aspartyl-phenylalanine methyl ester.

In the course of his work, Schlatter accidentally got a small amount of the compound on his hands without noticing it. Later that morning, he licked his finger as he reached for a piece of paper, and noticed a sweet taste. His curiosity drove him to ask “Where did that sweet taste come from?” His first thought was of the doughnut he had eaten during his coffee break, but he realized that he had been to the bathroom and had washed his hands since then. It could only be the aspartyl-phenylalanine methyl ester he had worked with. He knew that aspartic acid and phenylalanine, which make up this product, are natural amino acids present in all proteins, so he felt it would be safe to taste the material. It was sweet! He and his lab partner, Harman Lowrie, both tasted the material in 10 milliliters of black coffee, noting the sweet taste as well as the absence of any bitter aftertaste, and recorded the results in Schlatter’s laboratory notebook. His boss, Dr. Bob Mazur, convinced the company of the potential value of this discovery. Twenty years later, Schlatter’s curiosity had resulted in a billion dollar per year sweetener."

7

[QUOTE=astro]
I think you’re accidentally conflating some of the wide spread Aspartame crack-pottery you read once, with an actual warning. The only currently used mass market sweetener that predates the net is “Sweet & Low” and it never (nor did any of the others) have “bleeding eyes” warnings)

Here is the crack-pottery.
[/QUOTE]

That’s funny, because my vague memory has me reading the warning off of a pink package - but my mother claims she’s an Equal girl, so I thought I was mis-remembering that detail. I never asked if she was ever a Sweet & Low user, but then I never considered that Sweet & Low significantly predated its main rival.

8

[QUOTE=Harmonious Discord]
Aspartame was originaly researched for it’s use in war as a nurotoxin, but you won’t see that on the package.
[/QUOTE]

Even if it were, that wouldn’t mean it was a neurotoxin in the amounts that most people consume it. Drinking excessive amounts of water can kill you, but that doesn’t mean that drinking any water is bad for you.

9

[QUOTE=pizzabrat]
That’s funny, because my vague memory has me reading the warning off of a pink package - but my mother claims she’s an Equal girl, so I thought I was mis-remembering that detail. I never asked if she was ever a Sweet & Low user, but then I never considered that Sweet & Low significantly predated its main rival.
[/QUOTE]

Which leads me to change the question to being about Sweet N’ Low. Now I’m sure I read about this eye thing - but Google brings up matches with aspartame and not saccharin. Again this was before the internet…which leaves…“Current Affair”? Wikipedia confirms the fact that there was a warning on Sweet N’ Low that’s no longer printed on today’s packages, but it’s regarding cancer only. Does nobody else share my memory?

10

[QUOTE=Anne Neville]
Even if it were, that wouldn’t mean it was a neurotoxin in the amounts that most people consume it. Drinking excessive amounts of water can kill you, but that doesn’t mean that drinking any water is bad for you.
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t say the amounts in food were toxic. Obviously the world population would be much less by now if it was. I haven’t seen any articles that have a person being found dead, with a can of diet coke in their hand.

11

I didn’t say don’t use it either. I said it was researched as a possible nurotoxin. It was never used for that purpose either. Quantites of a material do make a difference.

12

[QUOTE=Harmonious Discord]
I didn’t say don’t use it either. I said it was researched as a possible nurotoxin. It was never used for that purpose either. Quantites of a material do make a difference.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry. I’ve just seen it argued so many times that, because something is toxic at high levels, that must mean that it’s not so good for you at low levels.

13

[QUOTE=Harmonious Discord]
I didn’t say don’t use it either. I said it was researched as a possible nurotoxin. It was never used for that purpose either. Quantites of a material do make a difference.
[/QUOTE]
Don’t you mean ant poison?

14

[QUOTE=Harmonious Discord]
I didn’t say don’t use it either. I said it was researched as a possible nurotoxin. It was never used for that purpose either. Quantites of a material do make a difference.
[/QUOTE]

My cites say elsewise. Do you have a legit cite that backs you up?

15

I haven’t read it for about a year and I don’t plan on looking for one as it’s not of importance to me. I will post a link if I run accross the article agian. I won’t be wasting my time looking though. Your free to google and research for the articles to disprove the specific people that wrote them at anytime. I’ll post if I find a link, otherwise I won’t

16

[QUOTE=Harmonious Discord]
Your free to google and research for the articles to disprove the specific people that wrote them at anytime.
[/QUOTE]

No, that’s your job, you being the one who made the claim and all. What we’re free to do is to dismiss your claims in the absence of a reliable supporting cite. Which I, for one, am doing. I’m also calling BS, since that’s clearly what it is from where I’m sitting.

17

[QUOTE=Q.E.D.]
No, that’s your job, you being the one who made the claim and all. What we’re free to do is to dismiss your claims in the absence of a reliable supporting cite. Which I, for one, am doing. I’m also calling BS, since that’s clearly what it is from where I’m sitting.
[/QUOTE]

Not to mention, I had two preety good cites that disproved it.

18

For more than you would want to know about Sweet N Low, read the book! It’s actually quite entertaining on many levels.

Sweet N Low: A Family Story, by Rich Cohen

19

NO, your not getting it. I’m not interested enough to care if it can be proved to your satisfaction. Please feel free to ignore it you want, that’s fine with me. I would research a topic I thought was worth it, and this ain’t one of them. You may continue to post as much as you want after this, but it’s a dead horse to me, and I ain’t staying around to beat a dead horse.

20

“When come back, bring… cites”. :stuck_out_tongue: :smiley: