aspartame - ecologist (sep 2005)

17
WHAT DO ~. x BIO-WEAPONRY , SICK MICE AND DIET COKE HAVE IN COMMON? ASPARTAME The shocking story of the world's bestselling sweetener ON A WING AND A PRAYER the beginning of the end for cheap flights DECLINE AND FALL OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE... will the US be a third world economy by 2024? ARE WE ALL TELEPATHIC?

Upload: onder-koffer

Post on 18-Jan-2016

28 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Aspartame - Ecologist (Sep 2005)

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Aspartame - Ecologist (Sep 2005)

WHAT DO~. x

BIO-WEAPONRY,SICK MICE

AND DIET COKEHAVE IN COMMON?

ASPARTAMEThe shocking story of

the world'sbestsellingsweetener

ON A WINGAND A

PRAYERthe beginningof the end forcheap flights

DECLINE ANDFALL OF THEAMERICAN EMPIRE...will the US be a thirdworld economy by 2024?

ARE WE ALL TELEPATHIC?

Aaron
Note
Weak photocopy source document. Fast sloppy OCR.
Page 2: Aspartame - Ecologist (Sep 2005)

ecologistEditor Zac Goldsmith

Editor 's Assistant Layla DayaniManaging Editor Harry RamDeputy Editor Jeremy Smith

Associate Editor Matilda LeeSub-editor Ben Skelton

Health Editor Pat ThomasScience Editor Peter Bunyard

Art Director Sarah WardDistribution Manager Kim SteffenMarketing Manager Selina Barker

Researchers Daniel Glass, Frankie Mullin,Marietta Sandilands, Freddie Ventura,

Clemency WellsPublisher Tyler Moorehead

Advertising Manager Zayda Kebede

Founding Editor Edward GoldsmithEditorial Board Helena Norberg-Hodge,

Steven Gorelick, John Page, all of ISECEditorial Office

Unit 18, Chelsea Wharf,15 Lots Road, london, SW10 0QJ , UK

Tel: +44 (0)20 7351 3578Fax: +44 (0)20 7351 3617

Email [email protected]

SUBSCRIPTIONSwww.theecologist.org; 01795 414 963

The Ecologist's International Serial Number is ISSN 0261-3 t 31. The Ecologist is a member of the Independent News

Collective (INK). Periodicals Postage Paid at Rahway, NI.Postmaster: Send address corrections to: The Ecologist, doMercury Airfreight International ltd, 365 Blair Road, Avenel

NJ 07001.

Mixed Sources

FSC :Net

ADVERTISING POLICY: Every advertiser featured in

The Ecologist has been vetted to ensure its prod-ucts or services don ' t damage the environment,

the people it employs or the consumer. As a result,we won 't accept advertising from any organisa-

tion that relies on or profits from: nuclear energy,fossil fuels, mining, arms, sweatshop labour, animal

testing, pharmaceuticals, large-scale dams, GM,pesticides, exploitative trade practices, nanote-chnology, toxic chemicals, industrial agriculture,

supermarkets or deforestation.

All information correct at time of going to press. All rightsreserved. Reproduction in whole or in pan is prohibited

without prior written permission of the copyright owner. Noresponsibility will be accepted for any errors or omissions, orcomments made by writers or interviewees. Views expressed

and goods advertised are not necessarily the views of, orare endorsed by, Ecosystems Ltd. Printed in UK by The Friary

Press. © The Ecologist 2005.

Printed on Emerald FSC made from up to 75% recycledpost-consumer waste and at least 17.5% certified pulp fromwell managed forest independently certified in accordancewith the rules of the Forest Stewardship Council, supplied

by Paperback under chainof custody SGS-COC-0621.FSC Trademark 1996 Forest

Stewardship Council A.C.

E E T O R A L

To describe China as a 'sleeping giant' is wishful thinking. Chinais wide awake, and is set to dominate in every sense. So much so

that Chinese nannies (I'm told) are now going for a premium in

Washington, with wealthy businessmen eagerly looking to boost their

children's chances in life with early Mandarin lessons.

No serious investor today can afford to ignore China. Jim Rogers,

co-founder with George Soros of the Quantum Fund, begins his latest book by warningthat 'when China sneezes, the rest of the world will be reaching for aspirin'. For him,

we are on the verge of a commodity boom. It's hard to disagree.

China is currently laying out plans for 16 underground railway systems, which

would he comparable to anything in Europe. The implications for steel and copper

alone are staggering. And there are plans to build a road infrastructure larger than that

in the US - except China hopes to accomplish in years what the US took decades to

pull off.

Already, we're seeing the effect on 'soft commodities' of China's expansion. It has

become, for instance, the world's second largest oil consumer and the world's biggest

soya bean importer. It became a net importer of food for the first time last year. Rogers'

prediction of a new boom looks solid. And that's wonderful news for some investors.

But it's the worst possible news for the environment. It's true that an economic

hiccup in China will send prices temporarily tumbling, but they will recover along withdemand. And it's usually true that high commodity prices will lead to general belt-

tightening - although that doesn't appear to be happening yet in relation to oil.

Fundamentally, China's growth means more mines, more deforestation, more

pressure on resources. Ibis, combined with the fact that China's own bread basket in

the country's northern plains is shrinking as a consequence of climate change, means

still greater pressure on the world's natural riches.

The global economy, then, is being reshaped by China in a way that is obvious

to everyone - except, apparently, EU leaders. The recently rejected (but far from

abandoned) EU constitution goes well beyond providing a framework for decision-

making. It actively enshrines a commitment to accelerated trade liberalisation and

globalisation. In effect, it is a manifesto. At its heart is the assumption that accelerated

tree trade with China is a sustainable policy. It's not.

Look at textiles. The World Bank predicts that China's share of the world tradeintextiles could jump front 17 per cent today to more than 50 per cent in the next four

years. As a result, some analysts predict the loss of more than a million EU jobs before

the end of next year. The effect in poorer countries, like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and

Pakistan, will be many times worse. And textiles aren't the only area under threat. The

McKinsey Global Institute issued a report last month predicting that nearly 10 millionUS service jobs are at serious risk to China.

The scale of China's expansion is almost impossible to take in. But that's what

our leaders have to do. It's no longer possible to hold the view that countries gain

more than they lose when they open their borders and seek comparative advantagein a specialised economic sector. China enjoys, or is coming to enjoy, comparative

advantage in virtually every sector. We cannot compete with China. And we shouldn't

attempt to do so any more than we should force, as a condition of overseas aid, loans

and debt relief, poorer nations to enter a competition they cannot win.

Globalisation and free trade are still regarded by our leaders as evolutionary forces.

But the rise and rise of China will change that. And it may be that France and Holland's

rejection of the EU constitution will one day be recognised as the beginning of thatvital shift.

THE ECOLOGIST SEPTEMBER 2005 005

Page 3: Aspartame - Ecologist (Sep 2005)

ASPARTAME

Aspartame is the most controversial food additive in history. The

most recent evidence, linking it to leukaemia and lymphoma,

has added substantial fuel to the ongoing protests of doctors,

scientists and consumer groups who allege that this artificial

sweetener should never have been released onto the market

and that allowing it to remain in the food chain is killing us by

degrees. PAT THOMAS REPORTS

nce upon a time, aspartame

was listed by the Pentagon as abiochemical warfare agent. Todayit's an integral part of the moderndiet. Sold commercially under

names like NutraSweet and Canderel, aspartamecan be found in more than 5,000 foods,including fizzy drinks, chewing gum,table-top sweeteners, diet and diabetic

foods, breakfast cereals, jams, sweets, vitamins,prescription and over-the-counter drugs. Thismeans that there is a good chance that you andyour family are among the two thirds of theadult population and 40 per cent of childrenwho regularly ingest this artificial sweetener.

Because it contains no calories, aspartameis considered a boon to health-consciousindividuals everywhere; and most of us, ifwe think about it at all, think it is safe. Butindependent scientists say aspartame canproduce a range of disturbing adverse effectsin humans, including headaches, memory

loss, mood swings, seizures, multiple sclerosisand Parkinson's-like symptoms, tumours andeven death.

Concerns over aspartame's toxicity meantthat for eight years, the US Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) denied it approval,effectively keeping it off the world market. Thiscaution was based on compelling evidence,brought to light by numerous eminentscientists, litigators and consumer groups,

that aspartame contributed to serious centralnervous system damage and had been shown tocause cancer in animals. Eventually, however,political muscle, won out over scientific rigour,and aspartame was approved for use in 1981(see timeline for details).

The FDA's about-turn opened the floodgatesfor aspartame's swift approval by more than70 regulatory authorities around the world.But, as the remarkable history of the sweetenershows, the clean bill of health given to it bygovernment regulators — whose raison d ' etreshould be to protect the public from harm — issimply not worth the paper it is printed on.

036 THE ECOLOGIST SEPTEMBER 2005

Page 4: Aspartame - Ecologist (Sep 2005)

Searle applies for FDAapproval and submits over100 studies it claims supportaspartame's safety. Neither thedead monkeys nor the mice withholes in their brains are includedin the submission.

Before aspartame can reach themarketplace, Dr John Olney, James Turner (attorney,consumer advocate and former 'Nader's Raider' whowas instrumental in removing the artificial sweetenercyclamate from the US market), and the group LabelInc (Legal Action for Buyers' Education and Labeling)file a formal objection to aspartame's approval with theFDA, citing evidence that it could cause brain damage,particularly in children.

In a memorandum, Dr MarthaM Freeman of the FDA Divisionof Metabolic and EndocrineDrug Products criticises theinadequacy of the informationsubmitted by Searle withparticular regard to one of thecompound's toxic breakdownproducts, diketopiperazine(DKP). She recommends thatmarketing of aspartame becontingent upon the sweetener'sproven clinical safety.

DECEMBER1965While working on an ulcer drug,a chemist at pharmaceuticalmanufacturer GD Searleaccidentally discovers aspartame,a substance that is 180 timessweeter than sugar, yet has nocalories.

1965

Dr JohnOlney showsthat Asparticacid, one ofaspartame'smainconstituents,causes holes inthe brains ofinfant mice

AUTUMN 1967GD Searle approaches eminentbiochemist Dr Harry Waisman,director of the University ofWisconsin's Joseph P Kennedy JrMemorial Laboratory ofMental Retardation Researchand a respected expert in thetoxicity of phenylalanine(which comprises 50 per centof the aspartame formula), toconduct a study of the effectsof aspartame on primates. Ofseven monkeys fed aspartamemixed with milk, one dies andfive others have grand ma/epileptic seizures.

FDA commissioner DrAlexander Schmidt grantsaspartame its first approval asa 'food additive' for restricteduse in dry foods. This approvalcomes despite the fact thathis own scientists foundserious deficiencies in the datasubmitted by Searle.

Concerns about the accuracy oftest data submitted to the FDAby Searle for a wide range ofproducts prompt Schmidtto appoint a special task forceto examine irregularities in 25key studies for aspartame andSearle drugs Flagyl, Aldactoneand Norpace.

SPRING 1967 Searlebegins safety tests, necessary forFDA approval.

Dr John Olney, professor ofneuropathology and psychiatryat Washington University in StLouis School of Medicine, whoseresearch into the neurotoxicfood additive monosodiumglutamate (MSG, a chemicalcousin of aspartame) wasresponsible for having itremoved from baby foods,informs Searle that his studiesshow that aspartic acid, oneof the main constituents ofaspartame, causes holes inthe brains of infant mice. Oneof Searle's researchers, AnnReynolds, confirms Olney'sfindings in a similar study.

THE ECOLOGIST SEPTEMBER 2005 037

Page 5: Aspartame - Ecologist (Sep 2005)

Searle agrees to an inquiry intoaspartame safety concerns.Searle withdraws aspartamefrom the market pending itsresults. The sweetener remainsoff the market for nearly 10years while investigations into itssafety and into Searle's allegedfraudulent testing proceduresare ongoing. However, theinquiry board does not convenefor another four years.

While the grand jury investigation is underway, Sidley &Austin, the law firm representing Searle, begins recruitment negotiations with SamuelSkinner, the US attorney in charge of the investigation. Skinner removes himself form theinvestigation and the case is passed to William Conlon.

The FDA forms a new task force,headed by veteran inspectorJerome Bressler, to furtherinvestigate irregularities inSearle's aspartame studiesuncovered by the originaltask force. The findings of thenew body will eventually beincorporated into a documentknown as the Bressler Report.

The Bressler Report isreleased. It focuses on three key aspartame studiesconducted by Searle. The report finds that in one study98 of the 196 animals died but weren't autopsieduntil later dates, making it impossible to ascertain theactual cause of death. Tumours were removed from liveanimals and the animals placed back in the study. Manyother errors and inconsistencies are noted. For example,a rat was reported alive, then dead, then alive, thendead again. Bressler comments: 'The question you havegot to ask yourself is: why wasn't greater care taken?Why didn't Searle, with their scientists, closely evaluatethis, knowing full well that the whole society, from theyoungest to the elderly, from the sick to the unsick...will have access to this product.'The FDA creates yet another task force to review theBressler Report. The review is carried out by a team atthe FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutritionand headed by senior scientist Jacqueline Verrett.

1975

TheFDA task force completes its 500-page report on Searle's testingprocedures. The final reportnotes faulty and fraudulentproduct testing, knowinglymisrepresented product testing,knowingly misrepresented and' manipulated' test data, andinstances of irrelevant animalresearch in all the productsreviewed. Schmidt says: '[Searle'sstudies were] incredibly sloppyscience. What we discoveredwas reprehensible.'

FDA chief counsel RichardMerrill formally requests theUS Attorney's office to begingrand jury proceedings toinvestigate whether indictmentsshould be filed against Searlefor knowingly misrepresentingfindings and 'concealingmaterial facts and making falsestatements' in aspartame safetytests. This is the first time in theFDA's history that it requestsa criminal investigation of amanufacturer.

Samuel Skinner leaves the USAttorney's office and takes a jobwith Searle's law firm. Conlontakes over Skinner's old job.

The FDA describes the scienceof aspartame's manufacturer as'i ncredibly sloppy', saying: 'What wediscovered was reprehensible'

Searle hires prominentWashington insider Donald Rumsfeldas its new CEO to try to turn the beleagueredcompany around. A former member ofCongress and defence secretary in the Fordadministration, Rumsfeld brings severalof his Washington colleagues in as topmanagement.

038 THE ECOLOGIST SEPTEMBER 2005

Page 6: Aspartame - Ecologist (Sep 2005)

The FDA publishes areport exonerating Searle ofany wrongdoing in its testingprocedures. Jacqueline Verrettwill later testify to the US Senatethat her team was pressuredinto validating data fromexperiments that were clearlya 'disaster'.

Searle CEO Donald Rumsfeldvows to 'call in his markers' anduse political rather than scientificmeans to get the FDA on side

The FDA's PBOI votes unanimouslyagainst aspartame's approval, pending further investigations ofbrain tumours in animals. The board says it 'has not been presentedwith proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as afood additive'.

The journal Medical

World News reports that themethanol content of aspartameis 1,000 times greater than mostfoods under FDA control. In highconcentrations methanol, orwood alcohol, is a lethal poison.

In spite of theuncertainties over aspartame'ssafety in the US, aspartamebecomes available, primarilyin pharmaceutical products,in France. It is sold under thebrand name Canderel andmanufactured by the foodcorporation Merisant.

Ronald Reagan is sworn in aspresident of the US. Reagan'stransition team, which includesRumsfeld, nominates Dr ArthurHull Hayes Jr to be the new FDAcommissioner.

1977

Despite complaints fromthe Justice Department,Conlon stalls the grand juryprosecution for so long thatthe statute of limitations onthe aspartame charges runsout and the investigationis dropped. Just over a yearlater Conlon joins Searle'slaw firm, Sidley & Austin.

The FDAfinally establishes a public boardof inquiry (PBOI), comprisingthree scientists whose job it isto review the objectionsof Olney and Turner to theapproval of aspartame and ruleon safety issues surroundingthe sweetener.

Canderel is nowmarketed throughout much ofEurope (but not in the UK) as alow-calorie sweetener.

Despite complaints from theJustice Department, federalattorney William Conlon stalls agrand jury prosecution of Searlefor so long that the statute ofli mitations runs out and theinvestigation is dropped

Rumsfeld states in a Searle salesmeeting that he is going to make a big push to getaspartame approved within the year. Rumsfeld vows to 'callin his markers' and use political rather than scientific meansto get the FDA on side.

THE ECOLOGIST SEPTEMBER 2005 1 039

Page 7: Aspartame - Ecologist (Sep 2005)

The FDA approves aspartame asa tabletop sweetener and foruse in tablets, breakfast cereals,chewing gum, dry bases forbeverages, instant coffee andtea, gelatines, puddings, fillings,dairy -product toppings aridas a flavour enhancer forchewing gum.

Aspartame is approved for usein carbonated beverages andsyrup bases in the US and, threemonths later, Britain. Before theend of the year Canderel tabletsare launched in the UK. GranularCanderel follows in 1985.

One day after Reagan'sinauguration, Searle re-appliesto the FDA for approval to useaspartame as a food sweetener.

Arthur HullHayes Jr, appoints a five-personcommission to review the PBOI'sdecision. Three of the five FDAscientists on it advise againstapproval of aspartame, statingon the record that Searle's testsare unreliable and not adequateto determine the safety ofaspartame. Hayes installs a sixthmember on the commission, andthe vote becomes deadlocked.

1981

An FDA commissioner's panelis established to review issuesraised by the PBOI.

Three out of five FDAscientists on a specialcommission adviseagainst approval ofaspartame, statingon the record thatSearle's tests areunreliable andnot adequate todetermine the safetyof aspartame

The FDA announces thatSearle has filed a petition foraspartame to be approved asa sweetener in carbonatedbeverages, children's vitaminsand other liquids.

The aspartame-basedsweetener Equal, manufacturedby Merisant, is launched inthe US.

Searle attorney Robert Shapiro givesaspartame its commercial name, NutraSweet.The name is trademarked the following year.Shapiro later becomes president of Searle.He eventually becomes president and thenchairman and CEO of Monsanto, which willbuy Searle in 1985.

MONSANTO

The NutraSweet Company

Hayesignores the recommendationsof his own internal FDA team,overrules the PBOI findingsand gives initial approval foraspartame to be used in dryproducts on the basis that it hasbeen shown to be safe for itsproposed uses.

040 I THE ECOLOGIST SEPTEMBER 2005

Page 8: Aspartame - Ecologist (Sep 2005)

James Turner, on behalf ofhimself and the CommunityNutrition Institute, and DrWoodrow Monte, ArizonaState University's director offood science and nutritionallaboratories, file petitions withthe FDA objecting to aspartameapproval based on possibleserious adverse effects fromthe chronic intake of thesweetener. Monte also citesconcern about the chronicintake of methanol associatedwith aspartame ingestion.

Publiccomplaints about the adverseeffects of aspartame begin tocome in. The FDA requests thatthe US agency the Centers forDisease Prevention and Control(CDC) begins investigationsof a select number of cases ofadverse reactions to aspartame.

1983

The first carbonated beveragescontaining aspartame go on salein the US.

The CDC review ofpublic complaints relating to aspartame culminates ina report, Evaluation of Consumer Complaints Relatedto Aspartame Use, which review, 213 of 592 casesand notes that re-challenge tests show that sensitiveindividuals consistently produce the same adversesymptoms each time they ingested aspartame. Thereported symptoms include: aggressive behaviour,disorientation, hyperactivity, extreme numbness,excitability, memory loss, loss of depth perception, liverimpairment, cardiac arrest, seizures, suicidal tendenciesand severe mood swings. The CDC neverthelessconcludes that aspartame is safe to ingest. On thesame day that the CDC exonerates aspartame, Pepsiannounces that it is dropping saccharin and adoptingaspartame as the sweetener in all its diet drinks. Othersquickly follow suit.

Hayes resigns as FDAcommissioner under a cloud ofcontroversy about his takingunauthorised rides aboard aGeneral Foods jet (GeneralFoods was and is a majorpurchaser of aspartame). Heserves briefly as provost atNew York Medical College,and then takes a position assenior scientific consultant withBurston-Marsteller, the chiefpublic relations firm for bothSearle and Monsanto.

The FDAapproves aspartame for use inmultivitamins.

A studyby the state of ArizonaDepartment of Health intoaspartame is published inthe Journal of AppliedNutrition. It determinesthat soft drinks stored atelevated temperaturespromote more rapiddeterioration of aspartameinto poisonous methanol.

The FDA denies Turner and Monte'srequests for a hearing, noting that aspartame's critics had notpresented any unresolved safety questions. Regarding aspartame'sbreakdown components, the FDA says that it has reviewedanimal, clinical and consumption studies submitted by thesweetener's manufacturer, as well as the existing body of scientificdata, and concludes that 'the studies demonstrated the safety ofthese components'.

On the same day that the USagency the CDC exoneratesaspartame, Pepsi announces

it is adopting it as thesweetener in all its diet drinks

THE ECOLOGIST SEPTEMBER 2005 041

Page 9: Aspartame - Ecologist (Sep 2005)

UPI reports that 10 federal officialsinvolved in approving aspartame havetaken private sector jobs linked to theproduct's manufacture

The FDA approves aspartamefor non-carbonated frozen orrefrigerated concentrates andsingle-strength fruit juice, fruitdrinks, fruit-flavoured drinks,imitation fruit-flavoured drinks,frozen stock-type confectionsand novelties, breath mints andtea beverages.

Monsanto, the producerof recombinant bovinegrowth hormone, geneticallyengineered soya beans, thepesticide Roundup and manyother industrial and agriculturalchemicals, purchases Searle for$2.7 billion.

Turner files another citizen'spetition, this time concerningthe risk of seizures and eyedamage from aspartame. Thepetition argues that medicalrecords of 140 aspartameusers show them to havesuffered from epilepticseizures and eye damage afterconsuming products containingthe sweetener and that theFDA should ban aspartame asan 'imminent hazard to thepublic health'.

1985

An FDAreport on adversereactions associatedwith aspartame statesthe majority of thecomplaints aboutaspartame, nownumbering 3,133,refer to neurologicaleffects.

The US Supreme Court, headedby Justice Clarence Thomas,a former Monsanto attorney,refuses to consider argumentsfrom the Community NutritionInstitute and other consumergroups that the FDA has notfollowed proper procedures inapproving aspartame, and thatthe liquid form of the artificialsweetener may cause braindamage in heavy users oflow-calorie soft drinks.

The FDA declares aspartame safefor use as an inactive ingredient,provided labelling meets certainspecifications.

NutraSweet's aspartamepatent runs out in Europe,Canada and Japan. Morecompanies are now free toproduce aspartame sweetenersin these countries.

United Press International,a leading global news-syndication organisation,reports that more than 10federal officials involvedin the decision to approveaspartame have now takenjobs in the private sectorthat are linked to theaspartame industry.

The FDA denies Turner's newpetition, saying: 'The data and information supporting the safetyof aspartame are extensive. It is likely that no food product hasever been so closely examined for safety. Moreover, the decisionsof the agency to approve aspartame for its uses have been giventhe fullest airing that the legal process requires.'

042 THE ECOLOGIST SEPTEMBER 2005

Page 10: Aspartame - Ecologist (Sep 2005)

A US Senate hearing is held toaddress the issue of aspartame safety and labelling. The hearingreviews the faulty testing procedures and the 'psychologicalstrategy' used by Searle to help ensure aspartame's approval.Other information that comes to light includes the factthat aspartame was once on a Pentagon list of prospectivebiochemical-warfare weapons.Numerous medical and scientific experts testify as to the toxicityof aspartame. Among them is Verrett, who reveals that, whilecompiling its 1977 report, her team was instructed not tocomment on or be concerned with the overall validity of thestudies. She states that questions about birth defects have notbeen answered. She also states that increasing the temperatureof the product leads to an increase in production of DKP, asubstance shown to increase uterine polyps and change bloodcholesterol levels. Verrett comments: 'It was pretty obvious thatsomewhere along the line, the bureau officials were working upto a whitewash.'

1987

20 JULY 1990 TheGuardian publishes a majorinvestigation of aspartame anddelivers to government officials'a dossier of evidence' thatdraws heavily on the transcriptsof the Bressler Report anddemands that the governmentreview the safety of aspartame.No review is undertaken. TheGuardian is taken to courtby Monsanto and forced toapologise for printing its story.

TheGuardian

Dr HJ Roberts, director ofthe Palm Beach Institute forMedical Research, claims thatseveral recent aircraft accidentsinvolving confusion andaberrant pilot behaviour werecaused by ingestion of productscontaining aspartame.

The FDA has receivedmore than 4,000 complaintsfrom consumers about adversereactions to the sweetener.

It is reavealed during a Senatehearing that aspartame was onceon a Pentagon list of prospectivebiochemical-warfare weapons

1991 Britain's NationalInstitutes of Health publishesAdverse Effects of Aspartame:January '86 through December'90, a bibliography of 167 studiesdocumenting adverse effectsassociated with aspartame.

30 JANUARY 1992The FDA approves aspartamefor use in malt beverages,breakfast cereals, andrefrigerated puddings andfillings and in bulk form (inlarge packages like sugar)for tabletop use. NutraSweetmarkets these bulk productsunder the name 'NutraSweetSpoonful'.

14 DECEMBER 1992 NutraSweet's USpatent for aspartame expires,opening up the market forother companies to producethe substance.

1992 NutraSweet signsagreements with Coca-Cola and Pepsi stipulatingthat it is their preferredsupplier of aspartame.

THE ECOLOGIST SEPTEMBER 2005 043

Page 11: Aspartame - Ecologist (Sep 2005)

APRIL 1995 Consumer activist, and founder of anti-aspartame group Mission Possible, Betty Martini uses theUS's Freedom of Information Act to force the FDA to releasean official list of adverse effects associated with aspartameingestion. Culled from 10,000 consumer complaints, the listincludes four deaths and more than 90 unique symptoms, amajority of which are connected to impaired neurologicalfunction. They include: headache; dizziness or problems withbalance; mood change; vomiting and nausea; seizures andconvulsions; memory loss; tremors; muscle weakness; abdominalpains and cramps; change in vision; diarrhoea; fatigueand weakness; skin rashes; deteriorating vision; joint andmusculoskeletal pain.By the FDA's own admission, fewer then 1 per cent of those whohave problems with something they consume ever report it tothe FDA. This means that around 1 million people could havebeen experiencing adverse effects from ingesting aspartame.

27 JUNE 1996The FDA removes all restrictionsfrom aspartame use, andapproves it as a 'general-purpose sweetener', meaningthat aspartame can now be usedin any food or beverage.

28 FEBRUARY 1994Aspartame now accountsfor the majority (75 percent) of all the complaintsin the US adverse-reactionmonitoring system. The USDepartment of Health andHuman Services compiles areport that brings togetherall current information onadverse reactions attributedto aspartame. It lists 6,888complaints, including 649reported by the CDC and1,305 reported by the FDA.

John Olney shows that brain-tumour rates haverisen in line with aspartame consumption andthat there has been a significant increase in theconversion of less deadly brain tumours to muchmore deadly ones

19 APRIL 1993The FDA approves aspartame for use

in hard and soft candies,non-alcoholic flavouredbeverages, tea beverages, fruit

juices and concentrates, bakedgoods and baking mixes, andfrostings, toppings and fillingsfor baked goods.

12 JUNE 1995 The FDAannounces it has no furtherplans to continue to collectadverse reaction reports ormonitor research on aspartame.

NOVEMBER 1996Drawing on data compiledby the US National CancerInstitute's Surveillance,Epidemiology and End Resultsprogramme, which collectsand distributes data onall types of cancer, Olneypublishes peer-reviewedresearch in the Journal

of Neuropathology andExperimental Neurology.It shows that brain-tumourrates have risen in line withaspartame consumptionand that there has been asignificant increase in theconversion of less deadlytumours into much moredeadly ones.

DE CEMBER 1996 The results ofa remarkable study conducted by Dr RalphG Walton, professor of clinical psychologyat Northeastern Ohio Universities, arerevealed. Commissioned by the hard-hittingUS national news programme 60 Minutes,it sheds some light on the absurdity ofaspartame-safety studies. Walton reviewed165 separate studies published in thepreceding 20 years in peer-reviewed medicaljournals. Seventy-four of the studies wereindustry-funded, all of which attestedto aspartame's safety. Of the other 91non-industry funded studies, 84 identifiedadverse health effects. Six of theseven non-industry funded studiesthat were favourable to aspartame werefrom the FDA, which has a public recordof strong pro-industry bias. To this day,the industry-funded studies are the onesthat are always quoted to the press andin official rebuttals to aspartame critics.They are also the studies given the greatestweight during the approval process and inofficial safety reviews.

044 | THE ECOLOGIST SEPTEMBER 2005

Page 12: Aspartame - Ecologist (Sep 2005)

ASPARTAME

10 FEBRUARY 1998Monsanto petitions theFDA for approval of a newtabletop sweetener calledNeotame. It is around 60 timessweeter than aspartame andup to 13,000 times sweeterthan sugar. Neotame is lessprone to breaking downin heat and in liquids thanaspartame because of theaddition of 3,3-dimethylbutyl,a poorly studied chemical withsuspected neurotoxic effects.Strengthening the .bondbetween aspartame's mainconstituents eliminates the needfor a health warning directed atpeople suffering from PKU.

1998

13 MAY 1998Independent scientists from theUniversity of Barcelona publish alandmark study clearly showingthat aspartame is transformedinto formaldehyde in the bodiesof living specimens (in this caserats), and that this formaldehydespreads throughout thespecimens' vital organs,including the liver, kidneys, eyesand brain. The results fly in theface of manufacturers' claimsthat aspartame does not breakdown into formaldehyde in thebody, and bolster the claims ofaspartame critics that many ofthe symptoms associated withaspartame toxicity are caused bythe poisonous and cumulativeeffects of formaldehyde.

20 JUNE 1999 An investigation by The Independenton Sunday reveals that aspartame is made using a geneticengineering process. Aspartame component phenylalanineis naturally produced by bacteria. The newspaper revealsthat Monsanto has genetically engineered the bacteria tomake them produce more phenylalanine. Monsanto claimsthat the process had not been revealed previously becauseno modified DNA remains in the finished product, and insiststhat the product is completely safe; though scientists counterthat toxic effects cannot be ruled out in the absence of long-term studies .A Monsanto spokeswoman says that while aspartame forthe US market is often made using genetic engineering,aspartame supplied to British food producers is not. Theextent to which US brands of low-calorie products containinggenetically engineered aspartame have been imported intoBritain is unclear.

An investigation by TheIndependent on Sunday revealsthat aspartame is made using agenetic engineering process

February 8 1999Monsanto files a petition withthe FDA for approval of thegeneral use of Neotame.

MAY 2000 Monsanto, under pressure- not least from the worldwide resistance togenetically manipulated food and ongoinglawsuits - sells NutraSweet to JW ChildsAssociates, a private-equity firm comprisedof several former Monsanto managers, for$440m. Monsanto also sells its equity interestin two European sweetener joint ventures,NutraSweet AG and Euro-Aspartame SA.

OCTOBER 1998 TheUK's Food Commission publishestwo surveys on sweeteners. Thefirst shows that several leadingcompanies, including St Wei,Muller and Sainsbury's, haveignored the legal requirementto state 'with sweeteners' nextto the name of the product. Thesecond reveals that aspartamenot only appears in 'no-sugaradded' and 'light' beveragesbut also in ordinary non-dieteticdrinks because it's three timescheaper than ordinary sugar.

December 10 2001

The UK's FoodStandards Agency requeststhat the European CommissionScientific Committee on Foodconducts an updated reviewof aspartame. The committeeis asked to look carefullyat more than 500 scientificpapers published between1988 and 2000 and any othernew scientific research notexamined previously.

THE ECOLOGIST SEPTEMBER 2005 045

Page 13: Aspartame - Ecologist (Sep 2005)

9 JULY 2002 The FDAapproves the tabletop andgeneral use of Neotame. The'fast-track' approval raiseseyebrows because, historically,the FDA takes at least 10 yearsto approve food additives.Neotame is also approvedfor use in Australia and NewZealand, but has yet to beapproved in the UK.

19 FEBRUARY 2003 Members of theEuropean Parliament's Environment, Public Healthand Consumer Policy Committee approve theuse of sucralose (see page 50) and an

aspartame-acesulfame salt compound (manufactured inEurope by the aspartame-producing HollandSweetener Company and sold under the nameTwinsweet), agreeing to review of the use of bothin three years' time. At the same time, a request byEuropean greens that the committee re-evaluatethe safety of aspartame and improve the labellingof aspartame-containing products is rejected.

2002

10 DECEMBER 2002 The European Commission ScientificCommittee on Food publishes its final report on aspartame. The 24-pagereport largely ignores independent research and consumer complaints,relying instead on frequently cited articles in books and reviews puttogether by employees or consultants of aspartame manufacturers.When independent research is cited, it is generally refuted with industry-sponsored data. An animal study showing aspartame's disruption ofbrain chemistry, a human study linking aspartame to neurophysiologicalchanges that could increase seizure risk, another linking aspartame usewith depression in individuals susceptible to mood disorder, and twoothers linking aspartame ingestion with headaches are all dismissed.The report's conclusion amounts to a single sentence: 'The committeeconcluded that... there is no evidence to suggest that there is a need torevise the outcome of the earlier risk assessment or the [acceptance dailyintake] previously established for aspartame.'As with the FDA, there are concerns about the neutrality of some ofthe committee's members and their links with the International LifeSciences Institute (ILSI), an industry group that funds, among otherthings, research into aspartame. ILSI members include Monsanto, Coca-Cola and Pepsi.

SEPTEMBER 2004 US consumer group theNational Justice League files a $350m class actionlawsuit against the NutraSweet Corporation (thecurrent owner of aspartame products), the AmericanDiabetes Association and Monsanto. Some 50 otherdefendants have yet to be named, but mentionedthroughout the lawsuit is the central role of DonaldRumsfeld in helping to get aspartame approvedthrough the FDA. The plaintiffs maintain that thislitigation will prove how deadly aspartame is whenit is consumed by humans. Little progress has beenmade so far in bringing the action to court.

JULY

2005The Ramizzini Institute in Bologna,a non-profit, private institutionset up to research the causes ofcancer, releases the results ofa very large, long-term animalstudy into aspartame ingestion.Its study shows that aspartamecauses lymphomas and leukaemiain female animals fed aspartame atdoses around 20 milligramper kilogram of body weight, oraround half the accepted dailyintake for humans.

MARCH 200 5 The NutraSweet Companyreopens its plant in Atlanta, Georgia, (dormantsince 2003) in order to meet increased demandfor its sweetener. Aspartame, sold commercially asNutraSweet, Equal, Equal-Measure, Spoonful, Candereland Benevia, is currently available in more than 100countries and used in more than 5,000 products byat least 250 million people every day. Worldwide, theaspartame industry's sales amount to more than$1 billion yearly. The US is the primary consumer.

MAY 2004 The feature-length documentary Sweet Miseryis released on DVD (see www.soundandfuryproductions.com). Part-documentary, part-detective story, it includesinterviews with people who have been harmed by aspartame,as well as credible testimony from advocates, doctors, lawyersand long-time campaigners, including James Turner, Hi Robertsand renowned neurosurgeon Dr Russell Blaylock. (UK orders:Namaste Publishing, [email protected].)

046 | THE ECOLOGIST SEPTEMBER 2005

Page 14: Aspartame - Ecologist (Sep 2005)

TIME FOR ACTIONThe story of aspartame is the story of the triumph of corporate

might over scientific rigour. It shines a spotlight on the archaicand unbalanced procedure for approving food additives.

We ingest food additives daily, yet their approval does notrequire the same scientific thoroughness as drug approval; and,unlike drugs, there is no requirement for surveillance of adverse

effects that crop up once the additive is in use.Approval does not involve looking at what people are

already eating and whether the proposed substance will interactwith other additives. Nor does it take into account whetherthe additive exacerbates damage caused by other aspects of themodern lifestyle (for instance, the neurological damage causedby pesticide ingestion or exposure). Nor does it look for subtlechronic effects (for instance, the gradual build-up of methanolin the body with regular aspartame ingestion).

There are other problems. Most studies into aspartameare animal studies; which are notoriously difficult to relate tohumans. So why bother performing them in the first place? Theanswer is, manufacturers and regulators use animal research asa double-edged sword. If an animal study reveals no evidence ofharm, the manufacturer can use it to support its case. If it revealsharm, however, the manufacturer is free to flip-flop into theargument that the results of animal studies are inconclusive in

relation to humans. Faced with inconclusive evidence regulatorswill always err on the side of the manufacturer, who has afterall demonstrated proper bureaucratic procedure by funding andsubmitting its animal tests for consideration.

The approval process for any substance that humans put intheir mouths on a daily basis should be based on solid humandata and on the precautionary principle when such data is notavailable. But, as it stands, the regulation of food additives in theUS, the UK and elsewhere leaves the burden of proof of harmon average people, despite the fact that most of us are eithertoo detached or too timid to complain or simply don't have theenergy to take on multinational corporations.

The history of aspartame is all the more remarkable becauseof the number of motivated people who have refused to acceptthe mantra 'if it's approved by the government it must be safe'.Nearly every piece of independent research shows the outrageof these people, who have had to withstand threats of litigationand being vilified in the media as 'hysterics', is justified.

After 30 years of aspartame's commercial success, it wouldbe easy to conclude it is too late to act. And yet earlier this yearhundreds of products were swept off supermarket shelves on thechance that they might have contained minuscule amounts ofa potentially carcinogenic dye, Sudan 1. No studies existed toshow that Sudan 1 could cause cancer in humans. The likelihoodof any one person's exposure to Sudan 1 being high enough toproduce a tumour was minute. Nevertheless, on the basis of theprecautionary principle, action was taken.

Aspartame is not a life-saving drug. It is not even a veryeffective diet aid, as shown by widespread obesity in the West.Until the many concerns about it have been examined in'corporate-neutral', large-scale, long-term, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled human trials (the gold standard ofscientific proof) it should be taken out of our food.

a significant spike in blood-plasma levels of aspartate afterthe administration of aspartamein liquids. Too much aspartate inthe brain produces free radicals,.unstable molecules that damage

and kill brain cells.

H umans are five times moresensitive to the effects ofaspartic add (as well as glutamicacid, found in MSG) thanrodents, and 20 times moresensitive than monkeys, becausewe concentrate these excitatoryamino acids in our blood atmuch higher levels and for alonger period of time. Asparticacid has a cumulative harmfuleffect on the endocrine andreproductive systems. Severalanimal experiments have shownthat excitotoxins can penetrate

the placental barrier and reachthe foetus.In addition, as levels of asparticacid rise in the body so do levelsof the key neurotransmitternorepinephrine (also knownas noradrenaline), a 'stresshormone' that affects partsof the human brain whereattention and impulsivityare controlled. Excessivenorepinephrine is associatedwith symptoms such as anxiety,agitation and mania.

METHANOLMethanol (wood alcohol)

comprises 10 per cent ofaspartame. It is a deadly poisonthat is liberated from aspartameat temperatures in excess of86° Fahrenheit (30° centigrade)– for instance, during storageor inside the human body. TheUS Environmental ProtectionAgency considers methanol a'cumulative poison due to thelow rate of excretion once it isabsorbed', meaning that evensmall amounts in aspartame-containing foods can build upover time in the body.The most well known problemsfrom methanol poisoning arevision disorders, including

misty or blurry vision, retinaldamage and blindness. Othersymptoms include headaches,tinnitus, dizziness, nausea,gastrointestinal disturbances,weakness, vertigo, chills,.memory lapses, numbness

and shooting pains in theextremities behaviouraldisturbances, and neuritis.The EPA tightly controlsmethanol exposure, allowingonly very minute levels tobe present in foods or-inenvironmental exposures. ButBlaylock says: 'The level allowedin NutraSweet is seven times theamount that the EPA will allowanyone else to use.'

FORMALDEHYDEThe methanol absorbed fromaspartame is converted toformaldehyde in the liver.Formaldehyde is a neurotoxinand known carcinogen. It

causes retinal damage and

birth defects, interferes withDNA replication, and has beenshown to causesquamous-cell carcinoma, a form of skincancer, in animals. Severalhuman studies have found thatchronic, low-level formaldehydeexposure has been linked with avariety of symptoms, includingheadaches, fatigue, chesttightness, dizziness, nausea,poor concentration and seizures.

FORMIC ACIDFormic acid is a cumulativepoison produced by thebreakdown of formaldehyde.It concentrates in the brain,kidneys, spinal fluid and otherorgans, and is highly toxic tocells. Formic acid can lead toaccumulation of excessive acidin the body fluids – a conditionknown as acidosis. The smallamounts of formic acid derivedfrom the methanol absorbedfrom aspartame may or maynot be dangerous; there are nohuman or mammalian studies toenlighten us.

THE ECOLOGIST SEPTEMBER 2005 049

Page 15: Aspartame - Ecologist (Sep 2005)

LIFE AFTERAspartame should never have reached the marketplace.But even if the authorities were to remove it from saletomorrow, how much faith should consumers place in theother artificial sweeteners on the market? PAT THOMAS REPORTS

believes that its newaspartame-basedsweetener, Neotame,is 'revolutionary'; but,seemingly, it is only amore stable version ofaspartame. This leavesthe market wide openfor sucralose.

Sucralose, soldcommerciallyas Splenda, wasdiscovered in 1976by researchers working for British sugarrefiner Tate & Lyle. Four years later, Tate& Lyle joined forces with Johnson &Johnson to develop and commercialisesucralose under the auspices of a newcompany, McNeil Specialty Products (nowcalled McNeil Nutritionals). Sucralosehas been approved by more than 60regulatory bodies throughout the world,and is now in more than 3,000 productsworldwide. In the ITS, Coca-Cola hasdeveloped a new diet drink sweetenedwith Splenda, and other major soft drinkmanufacturers are expected to follow suit.

Splenda has had to rethink it's slogan"made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar"in the wake of a heated US legal challengeand a recent ruling by the New ZealandAdvertising Standards Authority thatsaid it confused and mislead consumers.While it is true that sugar, or sucrose, isone of the starting materials for sucralose,its chemical structure is significantlydifferent from that of sucrose.

In a complex chemical process, the

sucrose is processedwith, among otherthings, phosgene(a chemical-warfareagent used duringWW1, now a commonintermediary in theproduction of plastics,pesticides and dyes),and three atoms ofchlorine are selectivelysubstituted for threehydroxyl (hydrogenand oxygen) groups

naturally attached to the sugar molecule.This process produces 1,6-dichloro-1,6-

dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside(also known as trichlorogalactosucroseor sucralose), a new chemical substancewhich Tate & Lyle calls a 'water-solublechlorocarbohydrate'.

Accepting Tate & Lyle's classificationof sucralose as a chlorocarbohydrate atface value raises reasonable concernsabout its suitability as a food additive.Chlorinated carbohydrates belongto a class of chemicals known as

chlorocarbons. This class of chemicalsincludes a number of notorious humanand environmental poisons, includingpolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs);aliphatic chlorinated carbohydrates;aromatic chlorinated carbohydratessuch as DDT; organochlorine pesticidessuch as aldrin and dieldrin; andaromatic chlorinated ethers such aspolychlorinated dioxins (PCDD) andpolychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF).

Most of the synthetic chlorinatedcompounds that we ingest, such as thepesticide residues in our food and water,bio-accumulate slowly in the body; andmany cause developmental problems inthe womb or are carcinogenic. How do weknow that sucralose is any different?

Tate & Lyle insists that sucralosepasses through the body virtually intact,and that the tight molecular bondbetween the chlorine atoms and the sugarmolecule results in a very stable andversatile product that is not metabolisedin the body for calories. This doesn'tmean, however, that sucralose is notmetabolised in the body at all, and critics

here is not a single artificialsweetener on the marketthat can claim, beyond allreasonable doubt, to be safefor humans to consume.

Saccharin, cyclamate and acesulfame-Khave all been show to cause cancer in

animals. Even the family of relativelybenign sweeteners known as polyols, suchas sorbitol and mannitol, can cause gastricupset if eaten in quantity.

NutraSweet

...if sucralose is sosafe, why doesmanufacturerTate & Lyle havesuch a ferventneed to suppressany criticism of it?

050 | THE ECOLOGIST SEPTEMBER 2005

Page 16: Aspartame - Ecologist (Sep 2005)

like HJ Roberts argue that, duringstorage and in the body, sucralosebreaks down into among other things1,6 dichlorofructose, a chlorinatedcompound that has not been adequatelytested in humans.

Tate & Lyle maintains that sucraloseand its breakdown products have beenextensively tested and proven safe forhuman consumption. The companynotes that in seeking approval from theUS Food and Drug Administration (FDA),McNeil Specialty Products submittedmore than 110 studies that attested tothe safety of sucralose.

BUT CAN CONSUMERS TRUST THISRESEARCH DATA?

The vast majority of studies submitted tothe FDA were unpublished animal andlaboratory studies performed by Tate &Lyle itself, and therefore liable to chargesof potentially unacceptable bias. Onlyfive involved human subjects, and thesewere short-term, often single-dose,studies that clearly could not adequatelyreflect the expected real-world usage ofsucralose. After questions were raised bythe FDA about the safety of sucralose fordiabetics, and prior to approval, a furtherfive human studies were eventuallysubmitted. On 1 April 1998 the FDAapproved sucralose for limited uses; oneyear later it approved it as a general-purpose sweetener.

Some questions about sucralose 'ssafety, arising from the data submittedto the FDA, remain unanswered. Thesestudies included unsettling findings aboutanimals, which, when exposed to highdoses of sucralose, experienced:

shrunken thymus and spleen;enlarged liver and kidneys; andreduced growth rate in adults and

newborns.

In the FDA's 'final-rule' report, severalof the studies submitted by McNeil werefound to have 'inconclusive' resultsor were 'insufficient' to draw firmconclusions from them. These included:1 a test that examined the clastogenicactivity (ability to break chromosomesapart) of sucralose, and a test that lookedfor chromosomal aberrations in humanlymphocytes exposed to sucralose';

|■ a series of three animal genotoxicitystudies; and■ laboratory studies using lymphomatissue from mice which showed thatsucralose was 'weakly mutagenic' (capableof causing cellular mutations).

Clastogenic, genotoxic and mutagenicsubstances are all potential risk factors. inthe development of cancer.

In addition to these, three studies thatlooked at very specific 'anti-fertility'effects of sucralose and its breakdownproducts, especially with regard to spermproduction were also deemed insufficient;this is particularly worrying, since other'chlorosugars', such as 6-chloroglucose,are currently being studied as anti-spermatogenic drugs.

Furthermore, the administrationobserved that McNeil had failed toexplain satisfactorily a reduction in bodyweight seen in animals fed sucralose andthat 'additional study data were needed toresolve this issue'. Ironically for a productthat 'tastes like sugar', McNeil arguedthat weight loss was due to the 'reducedpalatability of sucralose-containingdiets'. FDA reviewers also found thatat mid to high doses there was a trendtowards 'decreasing white blood cell andlymphocyte counts with increasing doselevels of sucralose'. This was dismissedas having no 'statistical significance' bythe FDA; in healthy animals and humansthis may be so, but what happens whenalready immune-compromised individualsingest sucralose?

Tate & Lyle says that any lingeringconcerns about sucralose are unfoundedand that only a small amount, 15-20 percent, of sucralose is absorbed and brokendown in the human gut. The rest passesthrough the body unmetabolised and isexcreted in urine and faeces. This in itselfprovokes important questions.

What happens to sucralose that isflushed down the toilet? Does it remainstable or react with other substances (forinstance, the chlorine used in water-treatment plants, or microbial life) toform new compounds?

Is sucralose or any resulting chemicalcompound it may form safe for theenvironment? Is it harmful to aquatic lifeor wild animals?

Will sucralose begin to appear in ourwater supply, in the way that certaindrugs have, silently increasing ourexposure to it? And would that increasedexposure be safe?

PUBLISH AND BE SUED

In the face of emerging public criticism,lawyers for Tate & Lyle are alreadygearing up for a battle. According toattorney James Turner, a key player inthe aspartame drama, 'there's going to bea huge fight about Splenda in the nextfew months... [Tate & Lyle's] lawyersare already on the case trying to shuteverybody up'.

It's a tactic that worked well forMonsanto, which certainly used legalpressure against anyone who criticisedNutraSweet Recently, the publisher ofthe local newspaper the Brighton Argus

considered it prudent to publish anapology composed by Tate & Lyle (ortheir lawyers) or face a legal action fordefamation and loss of sales after printingan article suggesting that sucralose washarmful to humans.

Tate & Lyle's first high-profile victim,however, was mercola.com — one ofthe world's most visited internet healthsites. Run by Dr Joseph Mercola, thesite has been a vocal critic of sucralosefor years. Instead of carrying freelyavailable information on sucralosethat might stimulate spirited publicdebate, it now carries the followingmessage: 'Attorneys acting on behalfof the manufacturers of sucralose,Tate & Lyle Plc, based in London,England, have requested that theinformation contained on this pagenot be made available to internet usersin England.'

At this point, concerned consumersshould be asking themselves severalquestions. Does the story of sucralosesound familiar? If sucralose is safe beyondany reasonable doubt, why is there such afervent need to suppress any criticismof it? Finally, whom do such tacticsreally serve? Do they serve the consumerand the principles of choice, information,safety and redress? Or do they servethe corporate machine and its needto keep generating profits withouttaking responsibility for the human costof doing so?

THE ECOLOGIST SEPTEMBER 2005 051

Page 17: Aspartame - Ecologist (Sep 2005)

... GLOBAL NEWS ...cooperation is needed to establish a com-mon language and standards, said CalSlemp, vice-president and global leader forsecurity and privacy services at IBMGlobal Services.

The common language for exchanginguser access information is also known asfederated IAM.

" Governments have a huge part to playin this, because they have ultimate respon-sibility for their citizens, and depending onthe country they may have ultimate respon-sibility for the businesses and e-commerceas well," Slemp said.

What's missing right now, he noted, is atrusted third party to authenticate trustwor-thiness. "So we've got inconsistent andincomplete implementation [in individualcountries], and also no standard approachto the future nor a target to shoot at."

Slemp believes that now is the right timeto establish a global body that will considerthe interests of all countries and build up afoundation, which the individual countriescan expand upon to fulfil their uniquerequirements.

"There are organisations that worktogether on this issue and issues like thatacross borders all the time, and it can be asgrandiose as to say the UN has a process inplace to share information like that and cre-ate working groups to try to create stan-dards or expectations and across multiplejurisdictions," said Slemp. "I just don'tknow what the name would be."(Source: ZDNet Asia, November 10, 2005)

HYPERBARIC OXYGENMOBILISES STEM CELLSA study , to be published in the April

2006 edition of the American Journalof Physiology – Heart and CirculatoryPhysiology, reveals that hyperbaric oxygentreatments increase by eightfold the num-ber of stem cells circulating in a patient'sbody. Stem cells, also called progenitorcells, are crucial to injury repair.

Stem cells exist in the bone marrow ofhuman beings and animals and are capableof changing their nature to become part ofmany different organs and tissues. Inresponse to injury, these cells move fromthe bone marrow to the injured sites, wherethey differentiate into cells that assist in thehealing process.

The movement, or mobilisation, of stemcells can be triggered by a variety of stim-uli including pharmaceutical agents as wellas hyperbaric oxygen treatments.(Source: via http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-12/cops-p sf122805.php)

BRITISH MP CALLS FOR URGENT BAN ON ASPARTAMEA member of the parliamentary select committee on food and the environment yes-

terday called for emergency action to ban the artificial sweetener aspartame, usedin 6,000 food, drink and medicinal products.

The Liberal Democrat MP Roger Williams said in an adjournment debate in theCommons that there was "compelling and reliable evidence for this carcinogenic sub-stance to be banned from the UK food and drinks market altogether". In licensing

aspartame for use, regulators around the world had failed in their main task of protect-ing the public, he told MPs.

Mr Williams highlighted new concerns about the additive 's safety, raised by arecent Italian study that linked aspartame to cancer in rats. He said the history ofaspartame ' s licensing put " regulators and politicians to shame", with the likes ofDonald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary and former head of Searle, the companythat discovered the sweetener, "calling in his markers" to get it approved.

Responding for the government, the public health minister, Caroline Flint, said athorough independent review of safety data had been conducted as recently as 2001and the Food Standards Agency advice remained the same: aspartame is safe for usein food. She said the government took food safety very seriously.

"1 am advised that aspartame does not cause cancer," she said, adding that artificialsweeteners also help to control obesity.

The European Food Safety Authority would be reviewing the Italian study as soonas it had full data on it, but an initial review by the UK 's expert committee on toxicityhad not been convinced by its authors' interpretation of their data.

Aspartame is now consumed on average every day by one in 15 people worldwide,most of whom are children, according to the MP. It is used to sweeten no fewer than6,000 products, from crisps, confectionery, chewing gums, diet and sports drinks tovitamin pills and medicines, including those for children. Yet the science that sup-ported its approval was "biased, inconclusive and incompetent".

Mr Williams said he was using the immunity he was afforded under parliamentaryprivilege to initiate a debate about aspartame's safety, which had been largelyrepressed since the early 1980s with the help of the sweetener industry ' s lawyers.

Independent research published in November by the European RamazziniFoundation showed that moderate regular consumption of aspartame led to a repeatedincidence of malignant tumours in rats and "should have set alarm bells ringing inhealth departments around the world", said Mr Williams. "The World HealthOrganization recognises such findings in rats as being highly predictive of a carcino-genic risk for humans. The contrast between the quality of the science in theRamazzini study and the industry studies could not be more clear and more damagingto the industry."

Mr Williams, the MP for Brecon and Radnorshire and a Cambridge science gradu-ate, said he had been looking into the safety of aspartame for more than a year. Atfirst he had been unconvinced by the "internet conspiracy theories", but he said thatwhat he had found "truly horrified" him. Sound science and proper regulatory andpolitical independence had been notable by their absence in the approval of aspar-tame, he said. In addition to Mr Rumsfeld being instrumental in securing aspartame'sapproval with the support of the then newly elected US president Ronald Reagan,there had been numerous examples of decision-makers who were worried about aspar-tame's safety being discredited or removed from their positions. Industry sympathis-ers had been appointed to replace them and, in turn, were recompensed with lucrativejobs working for the sweetener industry.

The European Food Safety Authority said last night [December 14] that it plannedto review the safety of aspartame as "a matter of high priority" in the light of theRamazzini Foundation study. The foundation's director, Dr Morando Soffritti, said heexpected to send the authority a 1,000-page dossier by the end of the month.

The industry's Aspartame Information Service said Mr Williams ' s material broughtno new information to the public. "The minister's response was accurate and onpoint", according to a statement.

(Source: By Felicity Lawrence, The Guardian, UK, December 15, 2005)

MARCH – APRIL 2006 www.nexusmagazine.com NEXUS NEW TIMES* 9