Nanotechnology represents an entirely new field of biochemistry and microbiology because particle size does matter at the cellular and molecular levels. The particle size and chemical makeup of substances BOTH play an integral role in biochemical reactions within the body.

It is presumptive and quite simply, bad science, to issue a blanket statement “Nanotechnology not a problem in cosmetics”. Moreover, ongoing experiments have determined that the topical application of fullerene results in carbon-aborbtion at the cellular level.

Because carbon is the cornerstone of all organic compounds and has a high affinity for bonding, it is significant that carbon delivered in a nano form has a reactive effect within the human body. The implications – if you understand intracellular biochemisty – are staggering.

Therefore, I beg to differ with the Miss Beauty Brains and hereby suggest that nanotechnology has the potential to cause great bodily harm. Does that mean all nanotechnology in cosmetics is harmful? While I would like to say “probably not”, that would be the same as saying Russian Roulette is probably not dangerous because the odds of firing the live round are 1-in-6.

Show me some toothpaste and I’ll show you some colloidal silica…er silica nanoparticles.

Maybe the reason that I’m not panicking is that I’m a scientist.

People who want to be scared will find some thing to be scared of. And since, for most of us at least, the wolf is not at the door, common fears are likely to be irrational.

Freaky!

There’s a detailed report about it at http://www.myproductalert.com/lead-in-lipsticks.html

I merely stated my opinion about aspartame based upon the facts presented to me. The research I cited is in pubmed. Most likely it has not been included on the ACS website yet because it was just published in September 2007:

Life-span exposure to low doses of aspartame beginning during prenatal life increases cancer effects in rats.
Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Tibaldi E, Esposti DD, Lauriola M.
Click here for this article and related articles

The safety of aspartame has been heavily debated over the past 30 odd years, however up until this lifespan study was completed, the long term effects were not known. This study is a hallmark study. Of course I would like to see it repeated (which will take time) with different strains of mice (some transgenic with susceptibility or resistance to cancer would be interesting) and rats to further validate their study. The study however, was quite large which in itself is a strength for their argument.

Here is an excerpt from their article which I think answers your question as to why we haven’t seen the toxic effects yet in humans (besides the obvious answer which is how do you prove what a human gets cancer from when there are too many variables?): “Furthermore, the study demonstrates that when life-span exposure to APM begins during fetal life, its carcinogenic effects are increased.” The unfortunate fact about this is that if this model holds true to humans, we will not see any marked affect in our population until our children are elderly. The repair mechanisms against cancer start to break down around 40 years of age. In about 10 to 20 years, if we see an increase in cancer rates, we still won’t be able to blame aspartame bc of all of the other carcinogens that could be responsible. The only thing we have is controlled animal studies which are giving me a strong enough indication that I won’t feed aspartame to my children and I won’t ingest it myself.

Not to say that the government agencies that you have cited are to be trusted, but as a scientist I prefer to look at the actual publications rather than what has been dumbed down for the masses. Any scientist worth their grain of salt will be very skeptical of anything they are told and will review all of the data prior to making a conclusion. In fact, the scientific method is based upon that model. Scientific Method

Furthermore, a quick news search will help you find a lot of articles in which the FDA is coming under scrutiny for it’s own “scientific” practices. Many scientists that work for the FDA have come out recently in the news and stated that they have been pressured by pharmaceutical companies to massage their data to help the drugs pass FDA approval. Whether this is true or not is yet to be determined, however there are a few drugs which were recently pulled from the market (past 10 years) where the harmful side effects were seen in human controlled studies and the data was buried. There is an ongoing investigation as to the validity of the FDA’s finding and their scientific method.

Therefore, I have to believe the science of independent researchers who are not paid for their results vs. researchers whose validity has come under question (FDA).

As argumentative as you have been in your last post, I can see that I have thrown a few red herrings your way as well. Hopefully, ego aside, you can read the article I cited and at the very least begin to think for yourself.

Thank-you!

Of course, you are absolutely correct that correlation doesn’t imply causation. It was a bit of a red herring I was throwing you.

As you also know, actual human exposure is much more valuable than animal studies. People have been ingesting aspartame for nearly 30 years now. Where is the evidence that it is causing harm in humans?

Also, the studies from the 1970’s showed that the recommended highest levels of aspartame were equivalent to 19 cans of soda per day. You can see this on the ACS website too. What is new about the research you’ve cited?

Sometimes I find scientists to be the least skeptical people I know, and I’m a scientist. One study proves very little. You have to look at the weight of all studies. To say aspartame causes cancer without any real proof is just non-skeptical. That’s not to say that it isn’t a controversial topic, it is still being studied. But right now, the experts from the FDA, the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, and the World Health Organization have all concluded that aspartame does not cause cancer or other adverse health effects in the general population.

Why are all those experts wrong and you are right?