On January second this year, in a heavily advertised special health-theme issue of
Crystal Light was first marketed in 1982 to "make drinking water more enjoyable," and much less caloric than fruit juices. Aspartame is also widely used as a sweetener, 200 times more than sugar, in tea and coffee, especially by the weight conscious.
Aspartame was synthesized by G.D. Searle in 1965 after its strong sweet taste was first noted. Subsequent toxicology tests by Searle revealed brain damage in mice, and cancer in the liver, testes and thyroid of rats. However, the results of these tests were never published nor reported to the FDA.
Aspartame is the second most widely used artificial sweetener in the world. It is found in more than 6,000 products including carbonated and powdered soft drinks, hot chocolate, chewing gum, candy, desserts, yogurt, and tabletop sweeteners, as well as some pharmaceutical products like vitamins and sugar-free cough drops.
After saccharin, aspartame is the commonest sweetener, consumed by over 200 million people worldwide, and represents about 60 percent of the artificial sweetener market.
Aspartame provides food, soft drinks, candy and chewing gum manufacturers with substantial cost savings compared to sugar, which is 200 times less sweet. Aspartame is a also sweetener without calories, which helps people control their weight.
In 1975, a FDA Task Force conducted a comprehensive review of the scientific literature on the toxicity of aspartame. This revealed gross abuse in Searle's claims which trivialized or suppressed evidence on the toxic and carcinogenic effects of aspartame.
In January 1976, then Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Alexander M. Schmidt, testified before Congress that Hazleton Laboratories, under contract to Searle, had been charged with falsifying toxicological data on aspartame.
The FDA convened a Public Board of Inquiry to review concerns about the sweetener's carcinogenic effects in experimental animals. In 1980, the Board concluded that aspartame could "contribute to the development of brain tumors." The FDA then recommended that, pending confirmation of these findings, the sweetener should no longer be used.
Evidence of these toxic effects was subsequently confirmed by leading independent U.S. scientists. Reacting to these concerns in 1976, Senator Kennedy warned that "This extensive nature of the almost unbelievable range of abuses--in several major Searle products is profoundly disturbing."
At invited 1979 testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary, apart from other examples of corporate crime, I detailed evidence on the Searle's criminal denial of the carcinogenicity of aspartame. This evidence was subsequently posted in the Congressional record.
In 1996, based on a comprehensive review of the scientific literature, Dr. John Olney, a leading independent U.S. scientist, confirmed that aspartame caused brain cancer when fed to rodents.
A decade later, the prestigious Italian Ramazzini Foundation, based on large scale life-long feeding tests in large numbers of rats, commencing in infancy, confirmed that low levels of aspartame induced brain cancer and cancers at other sites. The Ramazzini study was reported in the November 2005 issue of "Environmental Health Perspectives," the peer-reviewed journal of the United States' National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. "Our study has shown that aspartame is a multi-potential carcinogenic compound whose carcinogenic effects are also evident at a daily dose less than the current acceptable daily intake for humans," the Ramazzini scientists warned.
Of further significance, these conclusions were endorsed by the Federal National Toxicology Program. Nevertheless, and not surprisingly, Searle and its consultants still attempt to challenge these conclusions, and persist in their reckless claim that aspartame is safe.
In view of the unequivocal scientific evidence of aspartame's carcinogenicity, besides the political gamesmanship that led to its original approval by the FDA, it is anticipated that Dr. Margaret Hamburg, the new FDA Commissioner, will ban all dietary uses of aspartame.
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health; Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition; and a former President of the Rachel Carson Trust. His awards include the 1989 Right Livelihood Award and the 2005 Albert Schweitzer Golden Grand Medal for International Contributions to Cancer Prevention. Dr. Epstein has authored 270 scientific articles, and 15 books on the causes and prevention of cancer. These include the groundbreaking Politics of Cancer (1979), and most recently Toxic Beauty (2009, BenBella Books) about carcinogens and other toxic ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products.
CONTACT:
Samuel S. Epstein, MD
Professor emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine
University of Illinois Chicago School of Public Health
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
Chicago, Illinois 60612
Tel. 312-996-2297
Email: epstein@uic.edu
Web: www.preventcancer.com
http://ens-news.net/lists/?p=subscribe&id=9
Aspartame - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aspartame controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
FDA continues world colonization, opens another international facility in Mexico
Artificial sweeteners and weight gain
Do You Know Nutrition: Phenylalanine is component of artificial sweetener
Speak Out Against Ill-Advised Coke-Doctors Partnership
outside of my House.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samuel-s-epstein/a-dangerous-spin-on-the-c_b_411919.html#
Just kidding.
Because of this no scientific research can be truly said to be objective. And especially when so much money is involved, in areas that have strong impact on economic concerns, money, power and politics always play a role, and somewhere down the line, lawyers are involved.
Science without con-science can hardly be called objective. And scientists today have completely forgotten the guiding principal "first, do no harm."
If you are trying to discredit me with your vague "do no harm" guiding principle, are you also trying to discredit the hundreds of other established scientists at FDA, EFSA, and many other organizations worldwide all of which have found no harm whatsoever with aspartame?
Perhaps you’re "do no harm" is just another way to say “I don't believe we should make drugs and chemicals?” If that is really your comment, might I remind you that in 1909 (about 100 years ago and well before drugs and chemicals) the average life expectancy for men was 47 years, nearly 30 years shorter than today. We all actually have drugs and chemicals to thank for our lives.
President Obama said recently (about the December jobs report) that the road to recovery is not always straight. Similarly, that scientists have concerns about some drugs or some chemicals is merely a curve on the road to the far better life really offered by our age’s mastery of drugs and chemicals. But we found those curves and straighten them. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that there is no curve with aspartame. But my main point in all this discussion is less about aspartame and more to educate people that there remains a serious problem with both people and scientists understanding the importance of folate and folate nutrition (http://www.cfp.ca/cgi/reprint/54/11/1545).
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)
More than 16 pages of hits on Google could possibly throw a wrench into that argument.
you say we have no right to tell people what they should put in their bodies, however, are you aware that Monsanto, who owns Searle, who makes aspartame, has already effectively told farmers they can now no longer save their own seed, because Monsantos genetic engineering has given them the patent to our food supply?
Methanol (and therefore aspartame) CAUSES folate deficiency. see below
Adv Exp Med Biol. 1980;132:305-15.
The role of folates in methanol toxicity.
Noker PE, Tephly TR.
In the monkey and human, methanol toxicity is characterized by a metabolic acidosis and an ocular toxicity which occur coincident with an accumulation of formate in blood. In contrast, methanol insensitive species such as the rat do not accumulate formate after methanol administration. Folate-dependent reactions are involved in the oxidation of formate to CO2 in both the rat and the monkey. Monkey liver contains a significantly lower hepatic folate level than does rat liver and, thus, formate accumulation in the monkey may be related to a functional folate deficiency in this species. Formate metabolism in the monkey can be stimulated with folate administration. After methanol administration, treatment of monkeys with repetitive doses of either 5-formyltetrahydrofolic acid or folic acid results in a marked decrease in blood formate accumulation, an absence of metabolic acidosis and no blood bicarbonate depletion. Also, methanol toxicity, once established in the monkey, can be reversed with 5-formyltetrahydrofolic acid administration. The results indicate that 5-formyltetrahydrofolic acid decreases formate accumulation after methanol by stimulating the rate of formate oxidation or utilization and provide additional evidence for the involvement of folate-dependent reactions in the metabolism and toxicity of methanol in the monkey.
Yes methanol can contribute to folate depletion. That is why the Ramazzini work is invalid; it is bad science to deplete a vitamin, but that is exactly what they did, although their folate deficiency’s consequences required two to three years. However, this provides no valid objection to aspartame. First, that methanol (actually formaldehyde, formate) depletion of folate is miniscule. It doesn't even show up in rats in traditional 90 day experiments (that's why normal rat work never established any harm from aspartame). Second, that minuscule loss of folate is completely countered in healthy people by daily folate supplements recommended by nutritionists for decades. Every vitamin is required daily, because it is somehow lost or consumed and each is different. Ascorbate (vit C) is rapidly excreted. That depletion is part of the normal folate loss explaining the need to take folate supplements. But don't think for a minute that this issue presents any reason to avoid aspartame any more than to avoid methanol-rich fruit juice. The methanol metabolites are substrates for the folate system; their availability is expected for folate to afford methyl groups to ensure proper health. Numerous other foods and chemicals also affect folate. Ethanol (actually acetaldehyde) is not a substrate; it causes urinary formate excretion because it inhibits folate processing. No wonder ethanol and low folate are linked to fetal alcohol syndrome. By any measure ethanol consumption is far worse than any aspartame consumption.
WRONG. Thats why Ramanizzis work is VALID. All the rats consumed the same type and quantity of food. The aspartame CAUSED the folate depletion, and perhaps that is the mechanism that caused illness or the cancer.
What you are arguing makes no sense. You mistake an outcome for a confounding factor. All the animals were treated in exactly the same way, except for aspartame exposure. That makes the study valid, even if the folate depletion only occurred in the aspartame group. In fact, it indicates that aspartame caused the folate depletion.
Are you suggesting that the folate depletion should have been corrected only in the treatment group? Or that harm from aspartamc can only be proven in a study where all deficiencies caused by aspartame are corrected? Sorry, but thats just not logical, and its not the world we live in, where people often have nutrient deficiencies due to toxin exposure.
Methanol from fruits is less harmful for some reason. It could be due to the presence of ethanol or a nutrient (folate?). Unfortunately, there isnt any money to be made in exploring why aspartame is toxic, so little research has been done. The Ramazzini study, and other studies showing harm (including the original Searle studies showing brain tumors) are valid, and consistent with clinically observed effects of aspartame (e.g. nerve damage, MS, seizures, headaches, eye damage etc).
All scientific arguments questioning aspartame safety must consider folate (and related vitamin) status of the animals or humans involved, yet none have taken this and related matters into consideration at all. This includes virtually everything published by all the antiaspartame conspiracy theorists. Without such consideration these reports are and will continue to be inherently flawed and the reader must realize this persistent and fatal flaw.
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)
(The author has absolutely no financial or biasing connection with the aspartame, the soft drink or their related industries, now or ever. The author also does not profit financially from misleading books, monographs, writings or web remedies. The author has a Ph.D. in Medicinal Chemistry (Pharmacy) from the University of Iowa, postdoctoral experience at Yale University (Molecular Biophysics & Biochemistry) and at Vanderbilt University and taught nutritional toxicology at the University of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana) besides having conducted federally funded research at Vanderbilt, UIUC, and at several other universities before recently entering into retirement.)
- He has no backing from the Aspartame industry.
- He has recently retired.
Therefore, perhaps he is looking for employment with them?
Chemical substances are ingested and are removed from the body; both are equally important considerations. Your worry about “all the environmental toxins….” brings me to my first point---ingestion. The essential paradigm of toxicology is that everything is a poison and nothing is non-toxic. But, it is the dose of a substance that delineates a good pharmacological drug from a lethal poison. Consequently, it is non-sense to call anything a toxin without defining that associated dose. Consider water, cyanide, and botulinum toxin; while the water overdose drowns, yet it is because of cyanide’s low dose that the food-borne cyanide we all ingest doesn’t kill. Botulinum toxin is one of the most lethal substances known, yet with judicious control of dose, it is used to deaden problem nerves in cosmetic procedures. The word poison/toxin means nothing without a dose.
Removal is just as important as ingestion to understanding total RM. Far too often the public drama focuses only on the exotic “toxin” and neglects the removal issue that equally regulates dose and RM. The phosphate in sodas is a known biological inhibitor, but it is also excreted through the kidneys so fast as to present negligible risk.
Thisis not logica! There are MANY toxins that are less harmful or minimally harmful if the exposed animal has large stores of nutrients (e.g. glutathione, vitamin C, vitamin E, lipoic acid) required for clearance of the toxin. Does this mean that the toxin is not a toxin? Absolutely not. Its also not relevant to the real world, where everyone has at least transient nutrient deficiencies all the time.
This argument of yours is patently ridiculous and makes no sense. Just because certain nutrients can alleviate the harm caused by aspartame (in a perfect world) does not mean its safe.
Lastly, the Ramazzini group has also studied many other compounds. But all their work has been rejected by true pathology authorities; their rats were sick, see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19430000?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=5; also see the linked editorial. Furthermore, I can demonstrate that their rats were likely sick, because of their ongoing folate deficiency that arose even before these experiments began.
ddanimal:
Concerning the Trocho et al studies, they made two serious mistakes. Like the flawed Ramazzini work, only their treated rats were depleted of folate. But in their study that otherwise fatal error is forgivable, because that increased methanol-derived radiolabeled binding, which was one of their endpoints. Their failure to identify the product is where this work went wrong. One wonders, but must assume that the incompleteness of their study was an honest mistake. Still I have demonstrated to regulatory agencies that knowing the specific substance actually derived from radiolabeled methanol can and will actually demonstrate and prove the safety of aspartame. In any event there is simply no scientific work left anywhere that even raises any viable questions about aspartame safety.
Goto PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/; type “folate,vision” or “folate, multiple sclerosis” to find 59 and 42 references respectively. Repeat both with aspartame instead of folate and find 3 total, one of which refutes the other.
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)
The barcelona study is a good one, and it unequivocally proves that aspartame causes methanol damage to the optic nerve. It is consistent with the association between aspartame exposure and seizures, MS and vision problems.
Work by the Ramazzini group has been rejected by "authorities" that work for the food and chemical industries. Its all politics.
But go ahead and believe whatever you want. Just remember that its not scientific.
If you ask who paid, let me ask you who paid for the flawed Ramazzini studies? It wasn't the Italian government or certainly the food and chemical industries, so where did that money come from? You fail to understand, this isn't politics at all, this problem is an endemic health (folate) problem that afflicts 40% of the population and directly or indirectly explains much cancer. Consider this conclusion, "the results of this study suggest that moderate folate deficiency has a stronger effect on chromosomal instability than BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations found in breast cancer families." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16162645?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum).
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)
Isnt that interesting. Ramazzini reported that all groups ate the same amount and type of food. Have you considered the possibility that aspartame produces a folate deficiency? Or produces the sickness you mentioned? You assert that the deficiency and sickness are cofounding factors, but I think its more likely that the deficiency and sickness are merely outcomes of aspartame exposure.
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)
Are these the same people that told us that margarine (trans fats) are good for us and more healthful than butter? The same people that publish ghostwritten "scientific" articles on pharmaceuticals, alter data on such research and even publish entire journals of phony scientific papers? `
I think you underestimate the level of deception and fraud by food/pharma companies. They lie ALL THE TIME. They know there is billions of dollars at stake in the case of aspartame, so they simply produce fraudulent science to get it approved. Searle lied to the FDA in the original aspartame application.
The studies used to approve aspartame originally showed that aspartame causes tumors in monkeys, but this was covered up. Thats why the scientific panel that originally reviewed aspartame had to be overruled by a political appointee (a reagan appointee) in order to approve aspartame. And at the time, it was a little-studied substance, with only a few studies (less than 10) performed.
You are naive.
http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/fraud.htm
The administration of labelled aspartame to a group of cirrhotic rats resulted in comparable label retention by tissue components, which suggests that liver function (or its defect) has little effect on formaldehyde formation from aspartame and binding to biological components. The chronic treatment of a series of rats with 200 mg/kg of non-labelled aspartame during 10 days resulted in the accumulation of even more label when given the radioactive bolus, suggesting that the amount of formaldehyde adducts coming from aspartame in tissue proteins and nucleic acids may be cumulative. It is concluded that aspartame consumption may constitute a hazard because of its contribution to the formation of formaldehyde adducts.
Formaldehyde adducts= nerve damage. This is apparently why aspartame causes vision problems and multiple sclerosis.
Formaldehyde derived from dietary aspartame binds to tissue components in vivo.
Trocho C, Pardo R, Rafecas I, Virgili J, Remesar X, Fernández-López JA, Alemany M.
Departament de Bioquímica i Biologia Molecular, Facultat de Biologia, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.
Adult male rats were given an oral dose of 10 mg/kg aspartame 14C-labelled in the methanol carbon. At timed intervals of up to 6 hours, the radioactivity in plasma and several organs was investigated. Most of the radioactivity found (>98% in plasma, >75% in liver) was bound to protein. Label present in liver, plasma and kidney was in the range of 1-2% of total radioactivity administered per g or mL, changing little with time. Other organs (brown and white adipose tissues, muscle, brain, cornea and retina) contained levels of label in the range of 1/12 to 1/10th of that of liver. In all, the rat retained, 6 hours after administration about 5% of the label, half of it in the liver. The specific radioactivity of tissue protein, RNA and DNA was quite uniform. The protein label was concentrated in amino acids, different from methionine, and largely coincident with the result of protein exposure to labelled formaldehyde. DNA radioactivity was essentially in a single different adduct base, different from the normal bases present in DNA. The nature of the tissue label accumulated was, thus, a direct consequence of formaldehyde binding to tissue structures.
Sucralose isnt any better.