Aspartame linked to vision loss, cancer and other illnesses
Aspartame – sold under the brand names NutraSweet, Sugar Twin and Equal – is one of the most popular artificial sweeteners available on the market. It is used as a low-calorie sugar substitute in more than 6,000 processed products worldwide, especially in diet or sugar-free foods and beverages.
While it remains the most used artificial sweetener, it has also faced controversy in recent years. As more and more research links aspartame to severe health effects, increasing numbers of people are becoming aware of this hidden poison and are trying to avoid it at all costs. That’s why Pepsi proactively removed it from their diet soda last year.
Complaints of various health issues have been filed since aspartame first appeared on the market in the 1980s. As reported by The Nutritional Source, aspartame is one of the most exhaustively studied chemicals in the human food supply, with more than 200 studies completed.
Dr. Betty Martini, the founder of the worldwide volunteer force Mission Possible World Health International, which is committed to removing aspartame from our food, notes that aspartame has brought more complaints to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) than any other additive; it is responsible for 75 percent of such complaints.
Over the years, more than 90 side effects – including vision loss, seizures, brain tumors, cancer and mild rashes – have been associated with regular consumption of aspartame. Furthermore, it can mimic the symptoms of diseases such as fibromyalgia, multiple sclerosis, lupus, ADD, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, chronic fatigue and depression.
When aspartame is processed by the body it breaks down into phenylalanine (50 percent), aspartic acid (40 percent) and methanol (or wood alcohol, 10 percent).
Aspartame can make you blind
We have all heard the stories about alcoholics ending up blind or dead after drinking methanol during Prohibition. Aspartame consists of 10 percent methanol which our body further breaks down into formaldehyde and formic acid. These compounds accumulate in the retina of the eye and destroy the optic nerve, causing vision loss and blindness.
Furthermore, methanol poisoning may cause central nervous system depression, and can lead to metabolic acidosis and coma.
As reported by Dr. Martini, in 1986 the Community Nutrition Institute petitioned the FDA to ban aspartame because so many people had gone blind and had seizures. Despite the apparent link, the FDA, backed up by the drug and chemical industry, refused to take aspartame out of production.
It messes with your brain
Excessive amounts of phenylalanine block the transport of essential amino acids to the brain, which contributes to reduced levels of dopamine and serotonin. While our brains need this amino acid, too much of it has been linked to emotional and behavioral disorders and brain damage.
Furthermore, too much aspartic acid, another amino acid present in aspartame, can cause over-stimulation and death of brain cells. It leaks too much calcium into the cells and triggers excessive amounts of free radicals, which may damage and kill neurons.
G.D. Searle, the company behind the discovery of aspartame, was warned as early as 1971 that excess amounts of aspartic acid caused holes in the brain of mice and posed a serious threat to human health, yet nobody found it necessary to remove aspartame from the shelves.
Induces brain tumors
Before its approval, aspartame had been rejected multiple times over fears of brain tumors and cancer, the Huffington Post reported. In 1996, Dr. John Olney, who founded the field of neuroscience called excitotoxicity, and attorney James Turner, attempted to stop the approval of aspartame.
Even the FDA’s own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross, told Congress that aspartame could cause brain tumors and brain cancer, and that approving it would violate the Delaney Amendment, which forbids putting anything in food known to cause cancer.
Sadly enough, Donald Rumsfeld – who was CEO of G.D. Searle and part of Reagan’s transition team – and Monsanto joined forces. In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the company that held the patent to aspartame. They managed to pull a few strings and played a substantial role in the approval of aspartame by the FDA.
If you need assistance in managing your aspartame intake, especially if you have diabetes, please give us a call and we can help y ou, in the comforts of your home, with all your healthcare concerns.
Health and Wellness Associates
Aspartame, Proven Linked to Leukemia and Lymphoma
As few as one diet soda daily may increase the risk for leukemia in men and women, and for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in men, according to new results from the longest-ever running study on aspartame as a carcinogen in humans. Importantly, this is the most comprehensive, long-term study ever completed on this topic, so it holds more weight than other past studies which appeared to show no risk. And disturbingly, it may also open the door for further similar findings on other cancers in future studies.
The most thorough study yet on aspartame – Over two million person-years
For this study, researchers prospectively analyzed data from the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study for a 22-year period. A total of 77,218 women and 47,810 men were included in the analysis, for a total of 2,278,396 person-years of data. Apart from sheer size, what makes this study superior to other past studies is the thoroughness with which aspartame intake was assessed. Every two years, participants were given a detailed dietary questionnaire, and their diets were reassessed every four years. Previous studies which found no link to cancer only ever assessed participants’ aspartame intake at one point in time, which could be a major weakness affecting their accuracy.
One diet soda a day increases leukemia, multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphomas
The combined results of this new study showed that just one 12-fl oz. can (355 ml) of diet soda daily leads to:
– 42 percent higher leukemia risk in men and women (pooled analysis)
– 102 percent higher multiple myeloma risk (in men only)
– 31 percent higher non-Hodgkin lymphoma risk (in men only)
These results were based on multi-variable relative risk models, all in comparison to participants who drank no diet soda. It is unknown why only men drinking higher amounts of diet soda showed increased risk for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Note that diet soda is the largest dietary source of aspartame (by far) in the U.S. Every year, Americans consume about 5,250 tons of aspartame in total, of which about 86 percent (4,500 tons) is found in diet sodas.
Confirmation of previous high quality research on animals
This new study shows the importance of the quality of research. Most of the past studies showing no link between aspartame and cancer have been criticized for being too short in duration and too inaccurate in assessing long-term aspartame intake. This new study solves both of those issues. The fact that it also shows a positive link to cancer should come as no surprise, because a previous best-in-class research study done on animals (900 rats over their entire natural lifetimes) showed strikingly similar results back in 2006: aspartame significantly increased the risk for lymphomas and leukemia in both males and females. More worrying is the follow on mega-study, which started aspartame exposure of the rats at the fetal stage. Increased lymphoma and leukemia risks were confirmed, and this time the female rats also showed significantly increased breast (mammary) cancer rates. This raises a critical question: will future, high-quality studies uncover links to the other cancers in which aspartame has been implicated (brain, breast, prostate, etc.)?
There is now more reason than ever to completely avoid aspartame in our daily diet. For those who are tempted to go back to sugary sodas as a “healthy” alternative, this study had a surprise finding: men consuming one or more sugar-sweetened sodas daily saw a 66 percent increase in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (even worse than for diet soda). Perhaps the healthiest soda is no soda at all.
I have found two diet drinks that do not have aspartame in them. Diet Rite, and Shasta products. If you know of any please share with us. Many diabetics don’t have a lot of choices.
Please share with family and loved ones.
Health and Wellness Associates
Are Artificial Sweeteners Dangerous?
I am concerned about the chlorine in sucralose and the possibility that it can cause goiters and thyroid problems. What are the dangers of chlorine? Mary P., Meadows Place Texas
The artificial sweetener sucralose contains four halogen atoms of chlorine. Ingesting too many toxic halogens, such as fluoride and bromide, can displace iodine and cause or worsen iodine deficiency.
The real problem with sucralose is when it is heated. The heated chlorine atoms turn into a dioxin-like product. Sucralose is a very sweet, sugar-like substance that tricks the body into thinking a big sugar load is coming. That causes a large increase in insulin. This problem was really a large problem when our troops went to the middle east, and a lot of coke products were sent over, but stored in the desert heat.
The large insulin load can cause problems with blood sugar such as diabetes and other issues. Sucralose, like aspartame, should be avoided.
Health and Wellness Associates
Archived – DB
Artificial Sweeteners May Be Worse than Sugar for Diabetics
Artificial Sweeteners Don’t Help Diabetes – They CAUSE It.
Diet foods and drinks are promoted to help you lose weight but compelling evidence shows that artificial sweeteners like aspartame cause weight gain rather than weight loss. That’s right, aspartame―which was once hailed as a wonder chemical because it tastes like sugar without the calories―actually makes you fatter, and adversely affects your blood glucose levels and insulin sensitivity.
Studies Repeatedly Find Aspartame Causes Weight Gain
The fact that aspartame is NOT a dieter’s best friend has been known by scientists for some time. The problem is this news has not received the necessary traction in the media. For example, a study from 19861, which included nearly 80,000 women, found that those who used artificial sweeteners were significantly more likely than non-users to gain weight over time, regardless of initial weight. According to the authors, the results “were not explicable by differences in food consumption patterns,” and concluded that:
” The data do not support the hypothesis that long-term artificial sweetener use either helps weight loss or prevents weight gain.”
Another more recent study with the telling title of Gain Weight by “Going Diet?” Artificial Sweeteners and the Neurobiology of Sugar Cravings, published in 20102, found that epidemiologic data suggest artificially sweetened foods and beverages do not reduce weight. Quite the contrary:
“Several large scale prospective cohort studies found positive correlation between artificial sweetener use and weight gain. The San Antonio Heart Study examined 3,682 adults over a seven- to eight-year period in the 1980s.
When matched for initial body mass index (BMI), gender, ethnicity, and diet, drinkers of artificially sweetened beverages consistently had higher BMIs at the follow-up, with dose dependence on the amount of consumption… Saccharin use was also associated with eight-year weight gain in 31,940 women from the Nurses’ Health Study conducted in the 1970s.
Similar observations have been reported in children.
A two-year prospective study involving 166 school children found that increased diet soda consumption was associated with higher BMI Z-scores at follow-up, indicating weight gain. The Growing Up Today Study, involving 11,654 children aged 9 to 14 also reported positive association between diet soda and weight gain for boys. For each daily serving of diet beverage, BMI increased by 0.16 kg/m2… A cross-sectional study looking at 3,111 children and youth found diet soda drinkers had significantly elevated BMI.”
Study Finds Aspartame Worsens Insulin Sensitivity
A recent study published in PLoS One3 found that chronic lifetime exposure to aspartame, commencing in utero, produces changes in blood glucose parameters and adversely impacts spatial learning and memory in mice.
The study, which was published in April, is a blow against claims that aspartame is an ideal sugar substitute for diabetics. The researchers used a dosage of aspartame that approximates the ADI for aspartame in the US (approx. 50 mg/kg body weight), and not only was aspartame found to decrease insulin sensitivity compared to controls, it also wrought havoc on brain function.
As I’ve mentioned on countless occasions, optimizing your insulin sensitivity is key for optimal health, as insulin resistance is a hallmark of virtually every chronic disease you can think of, but especially type 2 diabetes. Now, contrary to popular belief, aspartame is being revealed as a substance that actually decreases or worsens insulin sensitivity, which is the complete opposite of what you want—especially if you’re already pre-diabetic or diabetic!
According to the authors:
“At 17 weeks of age, male aspartame-fed mice exhibited weight gain, elevated fasting glucose levels and decreased insulin sensitivity compared to controls. Females were less affected, but had significantly raised fasting glucose levels.
During spatial learning trials in the MWM (acquisition training), the escape latencies of male aspartame-fed mice were consistently higher than controls, indicative of learning impairment… Interestingly, the extent of visceral fat deposition correlated positively with non-spatial search strategies such as floating and thigmotaxis, and negatively with time spent in the target quadrant and swimming across the location of the escape platform.
These data suggest that lifetime exposure to aspartame, commencing in utero, may affect spatial cognition and glucose homeostasis in C57BL/6J mice, particularly in males.”
Male mice fed aspartame experienced significantly higher weight gain compared to the control group, whereas female weight gain was unaffected by the aspartame diet compared to controls. Still, deposits of visceral fat—those dangerous fat deposits around internal organs, which are associated with an increased risk of heart disease in humans—increased in aspartame-fed mice of both sexes.
Aspartame-fed mice of both sexes also had elevated fasting blood glucose levels compared to non-consumers of aspartame, although the male mice experienced higher elevations than the females.
According to the authors:
“A random-fed insulin tolerance test administered at 19 weeks of age showed that glucose levels in male aspartame-fed mice were 120.2 percent higher than control mice following insulin challenge and remained significantly elevated above controls for up to 30 minutes, suggesting impairment of glucose and insulin regulation. The mean Area Under the Curve (AUC) in male aspartame-fed mice was significantly higher than control, suggesting deregulation of glucose homeostasis.
… Collectively these data indicate that aspartame treatment affects… weight gain… visceral fat deposition and glucose homeostasis particularly in males…” [Emphasis mine]
Surprise: Aspartame Raises Insulin Levels as Much as Sugar
Another study published in 2007 in the journal Diabetes Care4 found similar results. Here, the researchers investigated the effect of different macronutrient compositions on plasma glucose and insulin levels during an acute bout of exercise in men with type 2 diabetes. They compared the subjects in five different conditions:
high–glycemic index sucrose meal (455 kcal)
low–glycemic index fructose meal (455 kcal)
aspartame meal (358 kcal)
high-fat/low-carbohydrate meal (455 kcal)
They hypothesized that using fructose or aspartame would have a lower impact on insulin release and glucose response than a sucrose-sweetened meal. Those of you who have been reading my articles featuring experts on sugar and fructose like Dr. Richard Johnson and Dr. Robert Lustig will immediately recognize this as a fatally flawed hypothesis. And indeed, that is what they discovered as well. According to the authors:
“Contrary to all expectation, the aspartame breakfast induced a similar rise in glucose and insulin levels at baseline than the sucrose meal, even if the aspartame meal had the same taste, and was 22 percent lower in calories and 10 percent lower in carbohydrates, with an inferior glycemic index.
… Considering the lack of evidence on the aspartame utilization in patients with type 2 diabetes, we consider that these clinical observations, in an exercise setting, raise important concerns regarding the safety of aspartame as suggested by international guidelines.”
European Food Safety Authority to Re-Evaluate Aspartame
In related news, the European Commission (EC) has asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to speed up the full re-evaluation of aspartame (approved in Europe under the designation E951)5. Previously planned to be re-evaluated by 2020, the EC is now asking for the review of aspartame to be initiated this year.
According to a notice by EFSA:
“In the course of its scientific deliberations, the Panel found that there were too little data available on 5-benzyl-3,6-dioxo-2-piperazine acetic acid (DKP) and other potential degradation products that can be formed from aspartame in food and beverages when stored under certain conditions. EFSA is therefore launching an additional call for data on DKP and other degradation products of aspartame.”
Aspartame’s three components are phenylalanine (50 percent), aspartic acid (40 percent), and methanol (10 percent). When aspartame is exposed to heat or prolonged storage, it breaks down into metabolites. One of these breakdown products is Diketopiperazine (DKP), a toxic metabolite that is not usually found in our diet. The effects of these different metabolites are unknown.
It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the EFSA re-evaluation will find out about these metabolites, but regardless, it stands to reason that anything not normally found in actual food is probably not suitable to eat if you’re interested in maintaining optimal health… After all, the human body is designed to run on nutrients, not foreign chemicals.
Good News, Aspartame Sales Going DOWN
Fortunately, awareness of the dangers of aspartame is beginning to spread. According to a recent report by Foodnavigator.com, global sales of aspartame decreased significantly during the first quarter of Ajinomoto’s financial year6.
Retraining Your Taste Buds is Necessary if You Want Good Health
The idea that you can have your sweets without paying the price of excess weight and related health problems is a persistent one, but it’s not one we’re likely to solve anytime soon. Still, beverage manufacturers like PepsiCo and Coca-Cola are hard at work searching for the magic ingredient that will quench your thirst for sugary sweetness without the extra calories.
As reported by SeattlePi.com7, increasing awareness of the harmful effects of both high fructose corn syrup and artificial sweeteners has soda makers searching high and low for new naturally occurring sweeteners. Some extracts currently under consideration include stevia, monk fruit, and miracle fruit.
Whether or not any of them will actually be able to let you have your soda without suffering negative consequences remains to be seen. I highly doubt it. But one thing is for certain, and that is that artificial sweeteners have completely failed in this regard. The evidence showing that artificial sweeteners actually worsen the conditions it’s supposed to ameliorate—primarily obesity and diabetes—is quite overwhelming, and since its approval aspartame has been linked to all sorts of health problems. The following chronic illnesses can be triggered or worsened by ingesting of aspartame:
|Brain tumors||Multiple sclerosis||Epilepsy|
|Chronic fatigue syndrome||Parkinson’s disease||Alzheimer’s disease|
Aspartame and MSG Implicated in Worsening Fibromyalgia and Irritable Bowel Symptoms
Another recent study published in the journal Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology8 reveals a potential link between aspartame and conditions such as fibromyalgia and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Both monosodium glutamate (MSG) and aspartate—one of the main ingredients in aspartame—are considered “excitotoxic,” meaning they can excite brain neurons to the point of death.
According to the authors:
“Fifty-seven fibromyalgia patients who also had irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) were placed on a 4-week diet that excluded dietary additive excitotoxins including MSG and aspartame. Thirty-seven people completed the diet and 84 percent of those reported that >30% of their symptoms resolved, thus making them eligible to proceed to challenges. Subjects who improved on the diet were then randomised to a 2-week double-blind placebo-controlled crossover challenge with MSG or placebo for 3 consecutive days each week.
… The MSG challenge, as compared to placebo, resulted in a significant return of symptoms; a worsening of fibromyalgia severity… decreased quality of life in regards to IBS symptoms… and a non-significant trend toward worsening fibromyalgia pain based on visual analogue scale. These findings suggest that dietary glutamate may be contributing to fibromyalgia symptoms in some patients. Future research on the role of dietary excitotoxins in fibromyalgia is warranted.”
Are Your Health Problems Related to Artificial Sweeteners?
Many people belatedly realize they’ve been suffering reactions to one artificial sweetener or another. If you suspect an artificial sweetener might be to blame for a symptom you’re having, a good way to help you weed out the culprit is to do an elimination challenge. It’s easy to do, but you must read the ingredient labels for everything you put in your mouth to make sure you’re avoiding ALL artificial sweeteners.
To determine if you’re having a reaction to artificial sweeteners, take the following steps:
Eliminate all artificial sweeteners from your diet for two weeks.
After two weeks of being artificial sweetener-free, reintroduce your artificial sweetener of choice in a significant quantity (about three servings daily). Avoid other artificial sweeteners during this period.
Do this for one to three days and notice how you feel, especially as compared to when you were consuming no artificial sweeteners.
If you don’t notice a difference in how you feel after re-introducing your primary artificial sweetener for a few days, it’s a safe bet you’re able to tolerate it acutely, meaning your body doesn’t have an immediate, adverse response. However, this doesn’t mean your health won’t be damaged in the long run.
If you’ve been consuming more than one type of artificial sweetener, you can repeat steps 2 through 4 with the next one on your list.
Let me make it abundantly clear that even though you may not show immediate signs of any noticeable reaction after consuming artificial sweeteners, please don’t make the mistake of telling yourself “they must be OK for me”. I strongly urge you to avoid them at all costs. They are toxic to all humans and will not help you in any way, shape, or form.
Also, if you do experience side effects from aspartame, please report it to the FDA (if you live in the United States) without delay. It’s easy to make a report—just go to the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator page, find the phone number for your state, and make a call reporting your reaction. There’s no telling just how many reports they might need to receive before taking another look at aspartame’s safety and reconsidering their stance. But I CAN tell you, the more reports they get, the more likely that is to happen. So if you suspect you have experienced an adverse reaction from aspartame (or any other drug or food additive), please take a moment to make this important call.
Are there ANY Safe and Healthy Alternatives to Sugar?
The best strategy is to lower your use of sugar and eat right for your nutritional type and use the right fuel for your genetics and biochemistry making sure you have enough high quality fats. Once your body has the proper fuel, your sweet cravings will radically diminish and you will be satisfied without them. If you still have cravings it is a strong suggestion you need to further refine your attempt to identify the right fuel for your body.
If you need a sweetener you could use stevia or Lo Han, both of which are safe natural sweeteners. Remember, if you struggle with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes or extra weight, then you have insulin sensitivity issues and would benefit from avoiding ALL sweeteners.
If you’re having trouble weaning yourself off soda, try Turbo Tapping. Turbo Tapping is a clever use of the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), specifically designed to resolve many aspects of an addiction in a concentrated period of time.
Health and Wellness Associates
This was just sent today, in response to the article on sweeteners sent out yesterday. It is being sent out in its entirety.
|FDA Answers Petition To Ban
Aspartame After 14 Years
By Dr. Betty Martini,D.Hum.
When I first saw their report on Google from Law360 there were only two paragraphs. Later the rest of the release was added on google news and I realized FDA was actually responding to my 2002 petition for the toxic sweetener to be banned. FDA mentions also Dr. K. Stoller’s petition but omitted the vital fact that Stoller is an M.D.
I appreciate Law360 for revealing FDA’s long delayed answer to my petition. FDA apparently doesn’t want to communicate directly to me because I have their records and can expose their coverup. They won’t even answer a FOIA request from 2010. By law a citizen’s petition for ban must be answered in 180 days. FDA had told me they had more important things to do. The imminent health hazard amendment in 2007 that is suppose to be answered in a week or ten days was ignored.
I just wrote a long and detailed report answering what I had read from Law360 showing FDA’s many lies: http://www.rense.com/general96/fda.html Now having read the rest mentioning my petition this is part two. Some of their additional absurd remarks need to be explained. Basically they have denied the petition saying aspartame doesn’t cause cancer because they know it’s against the Delaney Amendment to approve something that does. In the first part I quoted Dr. Adrian Gross, FDA’s lead scientist and toxicologist, who clearly stated aspartame causes cancer. FDA lies about this to protect the poison producers, letting the public sicken and die. In 2009 I received a call from FDA’s Michael Delaney upset that I had added the imminent health hazard amendment. He made everything clear when he said: “We have to depopulate!”
On five acres in Elberton, Georgia stand the Georgia Guidestones which display Ten Guides to an “Age of Reason.” The first is: “Maintain Earth’s population at 500 million” a call to kill 93% of the eight billion humans now on Earth. Apparently FDA is in agreement.
It is tragic aspartame is addictive. The methyl-ester immediately becomes free methyl alcohol when consumed and is classified as a narcotic causing methanol poisoning. This affects the dopamine system of the brain creating addiction. A waitress told me: “if there are two groups, one drinking Coke and the other drinking Diet Coke, the Diet Coke group will drink three times as much.”
Aspartame is a neurotoxic drug that damages the mitochondria, powerhouse of the cell, and interacts with drugs and vaccines. These facts are laid out in the 1,000 page medical text Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic by the late illustrious H. J. Roberts, M.D., www.sunsentpress.com
FDA Rejects Ban On Diet Soda Sweetener Aspartame
Share us on: By Jeff Overley
One of the FDA’s responses addressed a petition originally lodged in 2002 by Georgia-based Mission Possible World Health International, a group focused in large part on the purported dangers of aspartame consumption. That petition attracted more than 1,000 public comments, although most have not been published by the FDA.
According to the FDA, the petition blamed incidences of brain tumors and seizures on aspartame but failed to back up its allegations with concrete data.
The anecdotal accounts of adverse effects of aspartame cited in the citizen petition are not supported by scientific evidence, FDA officials said.
Regulators at times suggested that the concerns are nothing new, writing that some of the alleged health risks were raised roughly 30 years ago and addressed in detail at the time.
Over the past decade, almost 200 adverse events tied to aspartame have been reported to the FDA, but there is little reason to give much credence to those supposed side effects, according to Fridays response.
FDA has not identified any causal link between aspartame consumption and the reported adverse events, and does not know of an established mechanism that would explain how aspartame is associated with the reported adverse events, the agency said.
One of the petitions specific concerns was that consuming aspartame results in harmful production of methanol, but the FDA said that such production is small compared to methanol that results from eating perfectly safe foods, such as apples and pears.
In any event, data reviewed by the FDA shows that methanol in aspartame or in fruits and juices does not accumulate in the body and is easily metabolized by the body’s metabolic capacities, Fridays response said.
A second response posted Friday was directed at petitioner K. Paul Stoller, who in 2009 requested revocation of the aspartame regulation. Much of the response discussed a study conducted by an aspartame-focused group called the European Ramazzini Foundation, with the FDA saying that it has not been able to access full study data and that the studys integrity appears to have been compromised.
Despite your many assertions, you have not identified any scientific data or other information that would cause the agency to alter its conclusions about the safety of aspartame, the FDA wrote to Stoller.
Although aspartame has been used abundantly around the world for many years, lingering worries about its safety have forced companies that use the artificial sweetener to constantly defend the ingredient. The Coca-Cola Co., through its Beverage Institute for Health & Wellness, promotes aspartame as helpful to dieters and calls the additive “one of the most thoroughly studied food ingredients in the world.”
Still, concerns have presented a business opportunity for some corporations, including Israel-based SodaStream International Ltd. Some of the company’s do-it-yourself soda syrups include labeling that prominently says, No aspartame.
–Editing by Philip Shea.
Actually in the original report I wrote about this release, URL above, I went into other studies and reports on the subject in detail. Having taken the cases for over 20 years from those who suffered aspartame brain tumors I have never forgotten the case of a young 28 year attorney Kelli Motluck who had a head full of aspartame brain tumors who also discussed with me many other aspartame users she knew who had brain tumors. G. D. Searle sold to Monsanto in 1985 and was the owner at the time Kelli called me. In her last conversation she said to me, “I want to live, I want to live, I want to live, but if I die promise me you will tell the world Monsanto murdered me.” After her death I lectured in the UK in 2000 and in the lecture to the Green Party and press I did this.
Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D., author of ‘Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills’
“It is interesting to note that the first experiments done to test the safety of aspartame before its final approval in l981 disclosed a high incidence of brain tumors in the animals fed NutraSweet. In fact, this study was done by the manufacturer of NutraSweet, G. D. Searle. In this study 320 rats were fed aspartame and 120 rats were fed a normal diet and used as controls. The study lasted two years. At the end of the study twelve of the aspartame fed rats had developed brain tumors (astrocytomas), while none of the control rats had. This represented a 3.75% incidence of brain tumors in the rats fed aspartame, which was twenty-five times higher than the incidence of spontaneous brain tumors developing in rats (0.15%). ”
“The study divided the rats into those exposed to low doses of aspartame and those exposed to a high dose. In the low dose group five of the rats developed brain tumors for and incidence of 3.13%. In the high dose group, seven developed brain tumors (4.38%). This indicates a dose related incidence of brain tumors. The higher the dose of aspartame, the more brain tumors were induced. ”
“When Dr. John Olney pointed out these findings to the FDA “Aspartame Board of Inquiry” he was told that the high incidence of tumors was the result of spontaneous development of brain tumors in rats. That is, that some rats develop brain tumors naturally, just as humans do. Dr. Olney is a trained neuropathologist as well as a neuroscientist. He reviewed the incidence of spontaneously occurring brain tumors in rats and found that out of seven studies using a total of 59,000 rats and only 0,08% developed brain tumors – the aspartame fed rats had a forty-seven fold higher incidence. But to be fair, he even accepted G. D. Searle’s references for spontaneously developing brain tumors in rats and arrives at a figure of 0.15%. This was still a twenty-five fold higher incidence in the aspartame fed rats than in the controls. ”
“It was then observed that when brain tumors develop spontaneously in rats, the rate at which they appear begins to accelerate after two years of age, exactly when the Searle’s study ended. Importantly, brain tumors are extremely rare before age one and one-half in the rat. So in truth the incidence of spontaneously occurring brain tumors would be even less than cited above. Yet, the aspartame fed rats developed two tumors by sixty weeks of age and five tumors by seventy weeks.”
“In a collective study of 41,000 rats no tumors were seen to occur before sixty weeks and only one by seventy weeks. The fact that 320 aspartame fed rats developed six brain tumors by seventy-six weeks indicates an “incredible and unprecedented” occurrence. Within the final twenty-eight weeks of the study six more brain tumors occurred in the aspartame fed group. Dr. Olney notes that “one must assume that many more (brain tumors) would have occurred after 104 weeks. ”
“It became obvious that the G. D. Searle Company was trying desperately to protect their potential billion dollar plus money maker. They claimed that more brain tumors were found because they searched the pathological slides so diligently. But, they searched just as diligently in the control rats and found none. Besides, neuropathologists examining the slides later stated that the tumors were large enough to be seen with the naked eye. ”
“Because of the criticism submitted by Dr. Olney, the G. D. Searle company conducted a second study which was designed to be more comprehensive. Instead of a two-year study, this would span the entire lifetime of the rats, from intrauterine life to death. The results of this study can only be characterized as bizarre. This time they reported five brain tumors in 120 control rats (an incidence of 3.13%) and four brain tumors in 120 control rats (an incidence of 3.33%). While this was designed to show that aspartame was not the cause of the brain tumors, if accepted, the study would indicate that both groups had a brain tumor incidence thirty times higher than the known rate of spontaneous brain tumor occurrence in rats.”
“But the story gets even more interesting, Dr. Olney hypothesized that one possible cause of the tumor induction was a by-product of aspartame metabolism called diketopiperazine (DKP). When nitrosated by the gut it produces a compound closely resembling a powerful brain tumor causing chemical – N-nitrosourea. ”
“The G. D. Searle company conducted a separate study to test the carcinogenicity of diketopiperazine (DKP). The results of this study were not submitted to the FDA until after aspartame had already been approved for general use by the American population. This study was not a lifetime study but rather a 115 week study which consisted of feeding rats their normal feed mixed with DKP. There were 114 control animals and 216 that supposedly ate the DKP. (Not all of the animals were even examined for tumors.) There were two brain tumors in the controls (1.62% incidence) and three (1.52% in the DKP groups. But strangely enough, the incidence of brain tumors found in both groups were sixteen times higher than would be expected from spontaneous occurring tumors. That did not make sense.”
“So how can we explain these strange findings? It is instructive at this point to know that in l975 the drug enforcement division of the Bureau of Foods investigated the G. D. Searle company as part of an investigation of “apparent irregularities in data collection and reporting practices.” The director of the FDA at that time stated that they found “sloppy” laboratory techniques and “clerical errors, mixed-up animals, animals not getting the drugs they were supposed to get, pathological specimens lost because of improper handling, and a variety of other errors, (which) even if innocent, all conspire to obscure positive findings and produce falsely negative results.”
“The drug enforcement division carried out a study under the care of agent Jerome Bressler concerning Searle’s laboratory practices and data manipulation (known as the Bressler Report He found that the feed used to test DKP had been improperly mixed so that the animals would receive only small doses of the chemical to be tested. (I have seen a photograph of the feed mix and can attest to the “sloppy” method used.) The commissioner also charged G. D. Searle company with “failure to maintain control and experimental animals on separate racks and failure to mark animals to ensure against mix-ups between experiments (animals fed aspartame and DKP) and controls.” This vital and telling report was buried in a file cabinet, never to be acted on by the FDA.”
“Such poor techniques would explain why both control animals and those eating aspartame had exceptionally high brain tumor rates, since they, most likely, were both eating the aspartame feed. What is ironic is that the FDA would accept studies from a company with an obvious heavy financial interest in having aspartame approved. But even more amazing is that they would depend on the same company to provide studies that they, FDA, knew beforehand were highly questionable and possibly fraudulent upon which they would make such an important public safety decision.”
“Thus far, no independent studies have been done to examine this vital issue. As a neurosurgeon I see the devastating effects a brain tumor has, not only on its victim, but on the victim’s family as well. To think that there is even a reasonable doubt that aspartame can induce brain tumors in the American population is frightening. And to think that the FDA has lulled them into a false sense of security is a monumental crime.” (end of quotes from book)
Searle’s shenanigans and fraud were so bad because they couldn’t prove aspartame safe they needed help to coverup the issue so on August 4, l976 they met with the FDA and convinced them to allow them to hire a private agency, University Associated for Education in Pathology (UAREP). As described by Florence Graves (l984, page s5500 of Congressional Record l985a):
“The pathologists were specifically told that they were not to make a judgment about aspartame’s safety or to look at the designs of the tests. Why did the FDA choose to have pathologists conduct an investigation when even some FDA officials acknowledged at the time that UAREP had a limited task which would only partially shed light on the validity of Searle’s testing? The answer is not clear.”
In other words, UAREP was sworn to silence, and how much did they get to be quiet? They received a half a million dollars!!!
Searle was intent on getting aspartame approved. They had invested 19.7 million dollars in an incomplete production facility and 9.2 million dollars in aspartame inventory. On Dec 8, l975, stockholders filed a class action lawsuit alleging that G. D. Searle had concealed information from the public regarding the nature and quality of animal research at G. D. Searle in violation of the Securities and Exchange Act (Farber l989, page 48).
Aspartame also triggered mammary, uterine, ovarian, pancreatic, testicular and thyroid tumors just for starters, not just brain tumors. There were also pituitary adenomas.
On the seizure issue. It is hard to believe that the FDA would even have the audacity to suggest there is not sufficient evidence., Searle’s own study, 52 week oral toxicity on 7 infant monkeys, showed that 5 had grand mal seizures and 1 died., Enter the twilight zone. This study was used as pivotal in the approval of aspartame to show safety. Here is that study in full: http://www.dorway.com/raoreport.pdf Also, in 1986 the Community Nutrition Institute with Attorney James Turner filed a petition to ban aspartame because so many people were having seizures and going blind from the methanol. Cynthia Mueggenborg wrote me that she was invited to attend the National Consumer Conference by the head of a department at OSU in January of 1986. She said there she heard a representative of the FDA tell 3000 people that FDA was pulling aspartame from human usage as it caused seizures and blindness. So here is the admission of the FDA themselves. The reason it wasn’t banned at that time as it was taken to the Supreme Court in Chicago. I was told someone got to the judge but I think that even today that judge should be made to explain why he refused to allow aspartame to be banned. It’s common knowledge, for instance, that methanol blinds. Remember prohibition?
Evidence of the whole situation of aspartame triggering seizures was sent to FDA by Mark Gold of the Aspartame Toxicity Center,.
In 1996 my husband’s Michigan cousin, Mary Lee, visited us on the way to Florida with the news: “William Reed is dying, having 6 or 8 seizures a day and his physician has not been able to stop them.” I asked if he was using NutraSweet/Aspartame/Equal and was suffering from MS symptoms, going blind, losing his memory and having headaches. He was.
I told her to call and tell him to stop the aspartame immediately. She said: “He may already be dead.” It was almost comical to hear her say, “William, Betty says you don’t have to die, get off aspartame.”
One June 19, 1997 Dr. Timothy K. Dickinson of the Allegan Medical Clinic wrote: “William Reed is a 48 year old male with diabetes mellitus type I, on insulin. I have been involved, as his family physician, with his care since 1990. In September of 1995 he began describing episodes of generalized uncontrolled shaking, lasting up to 30 seconds. He would afterward feel good, and at times, euphoric. They would often be preceded by periorbital aching. He initially interpreted these to reflect a hyperglycemic state, and nothing abnormal showed up on his exam. At a follkow up visit in October, they were still occurring, lasting less than one minute, with mild tremoring, again preceded by the retrobulbar aching, especially on the left. While I was with the patient in the room at that visit, and he was on the exam table, I witnessed one of these episodes, which I described as being generalized clonus. He was able to tell me seconds before it started that it was going to happen. He did not talk through it. It lasted approximately 10-15 seconds, cleared for about the same period of time and occurred again. During this time, he tended to hyperextend or arch his back on the table. He seemed to be weak, but not postictal afterwards, It was within the next 6 weeks that a family member came to understand that NutraSweet could cause problems of this nature, and within two days of him discontinuing all Nutrasweet use, the seizures stopped and he has none since that time. He has also had far fewer headaches since then, He was able to resume driving, which he had ceased, because of his fear of these episodes occurring while on the road.” —
Eighteen years have passed since Mary Lee said William Reed was about to die, and he is still alive.
Some years ago I worked with an allergist and the way they find out the culprit causing problems to the patient is called the “add back system”. They keep removing products from the patient’s diet until the problem stops. Then they add back the product and if the symptoms return they know they have found what caused the problem They don’t call it anecdotal – they call proof.
After taking aspartame seizures cases for over 20 years I could write a book on the cases. Robin Goodwin’s wife in the Falkland Islands developed an aspartame brain tumor and had to be air lifted to England. His daughter suffered seizures for 18 years. On reading one of my articles he had his daughter abstain. She has never had another seizure. Robin knew how hard it would be to get aspartame banned because of the power and influence of industry, so he wrote a letter to all the 3,000 or 4,000 Falkland islanders warning them, and had the information published. We thank Robin Goodwin, activist extraordinaire, for saving the lives of the people of an island nation.
It should also be noted that when Dr. Richard Wurtman of MIT decided to do studies on aspartame and seizures he was threatened by the VP of Searle that if he did his research funds would be rejected. They were. Read about it in the UPI investigation by Gregory Gordon: http://www.mpwhi.com/main.htm Scroll down to banners. Notice ILSI was set up, a research funds front group. MIT now gets research funds but Dr. Wurtman now refuses to speak out about aspartame. At one time he reported to have over 200 cases of aspartame triggered seizures which he said was enough to remove it from the market.
The FDA Rejection news release says: “The anecdotal accounts of adverse effects of aspartame cited in the citizen petition are not supported by scientific evidence,”
This statement is laughable!
Dr. H. J. Roberts in Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic said: “Aspartame disease no longer can be ignored as incidental anecdotal reactions. This sobering assertion has been validated by personal observations, those of other physicians, the FDA data, mounting epidemiologic evidence, and a host of experimental studies. — The clinical features are often severe – especially headache, convulsions, impaired vision, dizziness, confusion, profound memory loss, refractory fatigue, intense depression, gross changes in personality or behavior, eating disorders, loss of diabetes control, and the aggravation or simulation of diabetic complications.”
Page 39: “But the medical profession has a tendency to discard out of hand, and disparagingly, ‘anecdotal’ information. Digitalis, morphine, quinine, atropine, and the like are chemical derivatives that stem from anecdotal folklore remedies. After all, one anecdote may be a fable, but 1,000 anecdotes can be a biography… A vital function of the medical profession is to sift anecdotes and submit them, if possible, to scientific evaluation. But it all starts as anecdote.” Dr. Charles Harris (1987)
So what do you do with millions of anecdotes? Go to the Internet and read them all day. I picked this one as an example:
Submitted by sydlee06 on Thu, 2007-07-26 23:10
“My daughter started having very hard to control seizures in Nov 06, it was continually getting worse. She had to be admitted to the hospital 3 times in March, the last time she was admitted I had read an article about aspartame and seizures and stopped allowing it in her diet. My husband is diabetic, so we used to have quite a few aspartame sweetened things in the home, ie: pudding, jello, lemonade, etc..
“She has not had a single seizure since stopping aspartame in her diet. Not one, and she previously had 3 to 27 tonic clonic daily and almost constant partial and absence seizures daily. Her neuro did not say much about it when I told her about it, but as for me that is proof enough. Not to mention that my migraines are almost non existent since I quit drinking diet soda. I wish it would get taken of the market, because now in a fight against obesity schools are even using it in lunches. Which means my daughter can not ever eat school lunches”
Also, Dr. H. J. Roberts and I attended the Conference of the American College of Physicians at the World Congress Center in Atlanta, Georgia many years ago. We went to several workshops, especially neurological. One professor said “Can anyone tell me even if its off the wall why people everywhere are having seizures for no reason?” Dr. Roberts insisted I explain and I told him about aspartame. He seemed surprised. Another physician raised his hand and said, “Professor, I’m afraid she is right., I’m not only a physician but a pilot and have a friend who flies commercially and has seizures. We’re going to have to report him.,” Mission Possible also has an Aviation Division, and on http://www.mpwhi.com you can read Dr. Russell Blaylock’s excellent Aspartame Pilot Alert. I started Mission Possible Aviation when Cliff Evans crashed his plane on aspartame. He came to Atlanta to ask me to help the pilots. I’ve gone so far as to visit the Air Force base in New Mexico when industry got to “Flying Safety” and they retracted their warning on aspartame. I couldn’t let Air Force pilots believe the retraction and one called to thank me and said he would get the info all over the base. FAA told me that because the FDA approved this toxin they couldn’t legally do anything but on the side they warn pilots.
The FDA Rejects Ban release also says:
“Regulators at times suggested that the concerns are nothing new, writing that some of the alleged health risks were raised 30 years ago and addressed in detail at the time.” The wrong word was used, not addressed but ignored.
The cover-ups by government agencies is incredible. In November 1984 the CDC reviewed 213 of 592 cases of aspartame complaints. Some of the reported symptoms included aggressive behavior, disorientation, hyperactivity, extreme numbness, excitability, memory loss, loss of depth perception, liver impairment, cardiac arrest, seizures, suicidal tendencies, severe mood swings and death. The CDC recommended future investigations of aspartame investigate the neurological and behavioral problems and focus on symptoms such as headaches, mood alterations and behavioral chances. So how was this CDC report covered up? The CDC had Frederick L. Trowbridge add an executive summary to the report which conflicts with the investigation. He even said “Currently available information, based on data with limitations as described in the report, indicated a wide variety of complaints that are generally of a mild nature.” Frankly, I’ve never seen a mild case of such things as cardiac arrest and grand mal eizures and death! Next, CDC did not put the real investigation on their web site, simply the summary which contradicted the report where it still remains today. Check it out. In the aspartame documentary, “Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World” you will see me holding up the real investigation and we have it on my web site of www.mpwhi.com and www.dorway.com
Next the release says: “FDA has not identified any causal link between aspartame consumption and the reported adverse events and does not know of an established mechanism that would explain how aspartame is associated with the reported adverse events,”
After 30 years they don’t think physicians and researchers have documented the mechanisms?! FDA has Dr. Roberts encyclopedic medical text. “Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic” which in discussing the diseases triggered or precipitated by aspartame list the mechanisms. It not only precipitates diabetes but simulates and aggravates diabetic retinopathy and neuropathy, destroys the optic nerve, causes diabetics to go into convulsions and interacts with insulin. The free methyl alcohol causes them to lose limbs.
Dr. Roberts was a diabetic specialist, once named The Best Doctor in the United States by the medical publication, Practice 84. On page 542 of his text the headline says: “Mechanisms of Aspartame’s Diabetogenic Potential”. Dr. Roberts even sent one to the European Food Safety Authority. Would we even begin to believe the FDA has none of the medical books giving these mechanisms which are now known the world over, as well as all the independent scientific peer reviewed studies?
The release: “One of the petition’s specific concerns was that consuming aspartame results in harmful production of methanol, but the FDA said that such production is small compared to methanol that results from eating perfectly safe foods, such as apples and pears. In any event, data reviewed by the FDA shows that “methanol in aspartame or in fruits and juices – does not accumulate in the body and is easily metabolized by the body’s metabolic capacities,”
FDA knows well that the single carbon methanol in fruit is always accompanied by ethanol, the classic antidote to methanol poisoning that takes it safely out of the body. Thus the classic first aid for methanol poisoning is to administer whisky, ethanol, ethyl alcohol. Furthermore in nature methanol binds to pectin., Dr. Ralph Walton has repeatedly written about it. Now Dr. Woodrow Monte has written a book about the methanol in aspartame, “While Science Sleeps: A Sweetener Kills”, www.whilesciencesleeps.com
The National Health Federation recently published my article about this, “Rotgut Aspartame: Methanol Mania”: http://www.thenhf.com/rotgut-aspartame-methanol-mania-by-dr-betty-martini/ Also see my report to FDA on www.mpwhi.com on a banner, “FDA Violates Data Quality Act” on the issue. The Trocho Study has shown that the formaldehyde converted from the free methyl alcohol embalms living tissue and damages DNA., http://www.mpwhi.com/aspartame_and_preembalming.htm
Another FDA claim in their release: “In the past decade, almost 200 adverse events tied to aspartame have been reported to the FDA, but there is little reason to give much credence to those supposed side effects, according to Friday’s response.”
In1985 FDA published a list of 92 reactions to aspartame including blindness, and sexual dysfunction from 10,000 volunteered consumer complaints. They deny it now and have removed that report but access www.mpwhi.com and at the top of the page you will see the FDA’s report of 92 symptoms from 4 types of seizures to coma and death.
How many complaints FDA really received we will never know. In Congressional hearings and we have them on web you will notice it was reported that the FDA was so swamped with aspartame complaints they were referring them to the AIDS Hotline. Dr. David Kessler once said only 1% report adverse reactions to the FDA. He also said that in 1996 they would grant blanket approval of aspartame if the complaints went down. I figured they would probably stop taking complaints to stop them from going up and they did. Call after call from consumers told me the FDA refused to take their aspartame complaint and said they were no longer taking them. That was expected but how do you make existing complaints go down. They did, check out the 1996 report on web. Dr. H. J. Roberts called me absolutely furious at the way the FDA arrived at this reduction. He said he had a letter that stated they had to change their bookkeeping system and in order to do this they had to throw away hundreds of aspartame complaints.
The original manufacturer, G. D. Searle, actually released in congressional hearings secret trade information which stated aspartame could not be used for everything: http://www.mpwhi.com/trade_secret_information_on_aspartame.htm The FDA themselves said in the beginning you couldn’t heat aspartame which is why they originally only approved it in dry form. However, I fail to see how its not heated when you put Equal in a hot cup of coffee. Then in 1993 they approved it for baking!
For years I forwarded aspartame complaints to the FDA but they never added them to their records. I finally realized FDA will always protect aspartame to the bitter end. FDA works for the poison makers. Many of the drugs they approve are later removed and the TV is full of advertising by legal firms suing drug makers. It’s all about money! With that kind of money the drug makers make they can buy all the bureaucrats they need to sell their poisons.
FDA claims aspartame is the most tested product in history. It definitely is. They couldn’t keep the animals alive or show safety and they kept testing, but aspartame was never proven safe. Then independent researchers the world over began research on aspartame and showing the disasters it brings to us. The internet swarms with physician’s research reports and the tragic stories of the victims of this cruel commercial campaign against a world population.
Dr. Ralph Walton did research for 60 Minutes showing that almost 100% of independent scientific peer reviewed studies showing the problems aspartame triggers., He did his own study on aspartame even using a lower ADI. When the administrator of the hospital lost his vision in one eye and other complaints the institution stopped the study. He is now doing a study on birth defects. Dr. James Bowen wrote the FDA over two decades ago telling them aspartame is mass poisoning of the US and over 70 countries of the world. Now its over 100. He wrote in “Aspartame Murders Infants” that aspartame violates Title 18 of the domestic genocide law: http://www.rense.com/general/asp.htm He is a victim himself suffering from ALS.
As to what to use a safe sweetener has been made, “Just Like Sugar” http://www.justlikesugarinc.com Dr. Russell Blaylock wrote in the Blaylock Wellness Report: “Finally a safe sweetener”. The public must read labels and do research rather than accept lies of the FDA. They have approved several toxic sweeteners that have been proven to cause cancer and other problems. Never, never forget the words of Dr. M. Alemany who did the Trocho Study: “Aspartame will murder 200 million people.”
In the immortal words of Dr. H. J. Roberts: “When in doubt throw it out.”
Help make this report go viral, save a life today.
Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder