LOTS of educational and credible information presented by Cori Brackett about why aspartame is bad for you, which I believe it to be, but would've been more balanced to hear how proponents of the artificial sweetener defend their views.Many out there look to websites like Snopes.com to settle matters like these (I know... I know...) and Snopes finds the following claim to be FALSE, "The artificial sweetener aspartame has been proved responsible for an epidemic of cancer, brain tumors, and multiple sclerosis." Snopes finds it FALSE? That seems RIDICULOUS because Snopes will label many claims as being "Undetermined" and since there is so much seemingly valid support debating both sides it seems like the dangers of aspartame should be listed as undetermined but of course, they reference the FDA, MIT, and TIME magazine to support their false claim.SNOPES CALLS IT FALSE. Claim debunked - at least for those with no science or medical background who're just looking for quick answers on what to drink other than filtered water (a whole other topic). When the organizations and government entities we've been told we can trust without question and the doctors, scientists, and professionals we look to as authorities on things most of us have no intimate knowledge of so heavily debate serious issues like this it's confusing and frustrating and most people just throw their hands up & walk away.There's a LOT of great information to be found in the documentary "Sweet Misery" by credible sources and props go out to the filmmakers, Cori Brackett and crew... The main thing I found lacking was the same credible sources explaining the other side of the story - it would've been appropriate to hear from the likes of the researcher who did the work for TIME magazine or the MIT paper.I realized there's quite a bit of debate on the definition of what a documentary *is* but for me, considering the serious topic at hand, a documentary *should be* one that states mostly the facts and if opinions ARE offered, which is completely reasonable, should be balanced and reflect opinions of both sides of a topic.A documentary that fails to provide impartial viewpoints of each side of the debate could very well be interpreted as propaganda ESPECIALLY by the opposing side of whatever subject is being more heavily represented as is the case with this film.I was disappointed that the filmmakers used the word "crucial" when describing the list of websites at the end of the film, "...Recommended crucial sources of health and toxicity..."Opponents quote any amount of rhetoric as slant which brings to question the impartiality of the reporter and damages not only the filmmaker's credibility but also that of the topic being covered. I know it was only one word but it was the closing frame of the film - that coupled with the lack of info from the opposing side left me a bit disappointed.Nicely put together & very informative but left too much to pick through - still I'll recommend this whenever the topic comes up w/ friends.

I believe those who are affected by aspertame cannot metabolize Phenylalanine(one of the 3 component in aspertame), a genetic disease called Phenylketonuria (recessive), the ineffective metabolism of phenylalanine will also increase with age. The excess consumption of phenylalanine for these individuals will contribute to brain abnormalities and seizures and other neurological problems. Also notice that PKU was not effectively screened in newborn up till 1950s.It is possible that although the FDA determines aspertame to be the most tested, safe additives in the market, clinical testing in USA only require "healthy subject" for the double blinded human studies. Since aspertame is a food additive, there is no requirement for a test targeting people with PKU. There are blind spots for pharmaceutical companies to carry out tests, and claim that the product is safe. Like Darren Parker said, there is a lot of ca$h and corruption involved...The test on mice had show some concern but the FDA disregard it(according to this video), PKU exist in mice populations too. scared? use splenda.
Splenda is a mixture of dextrin, maltodextrin and some sucralose. All chemically derived from starch/sugar. It just taste 600 times sweeter than regular sugar so you use less. There are also more independent research by splanda too.