Dangers of Artificial Sweetners - 2

Governments Continue Suppression and Coverup on Aspartame

In 1991, the National Institutes of Health.[17] listed 167 symptoms and reasons to avoid the use of aspartame , but today it is a multi-million dollar business that contributes to the degeneration of the human population, as well as the deliberate suppression of overall intelligence, short-term memory[18] and the added contribution as a carcinogenic environmental co-factor. The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control continue to receive a stream of complaints from the population about aspartane. It is the only chemical warfare weapon available in mass quantities (should keep the cone-heads happy) on the grocery shelf and promoted in the media. It has also been indicated that women with an intolerance for phenylalinine, one of the compoents of aspartame, may give birth to infants with as much as a 15% drop in intelligence level if they habitually consume products containing this dangerous substance.[19]

FAA Collusion in Suppression of Facts on Aspartame

The March 1995 issue of The Pacific Flyer published a pro-aspartame article in which it stated, "the Federal Aviation Administration conducted its own cognitive research and, according to experts, found no contraindications that would prevent pilots, or anyone, from ingesting aspartame." This flies in the face of consistent reports from pilots who maintain they have suffered severe and dangerous repercussions in the air after drinking soft drinks containing aspartame. Virtually every time, symptoms disappeared when aspartame-laced drinks were discontinued.[20] Over 600 pilots have reported this problem.

FDA "Findings" on Aspartame Remain Based on Faked Tests

So, the faked Searle tests remain. The FDA bases its findings on the faked Searle tests, and the Journal of the American Medical Association, examining the FDA findings, based on the faked Searle tests, announced "the consumption of aspartame poses no health risk for most people." Searle officials argue that the use of aspartame as an artificial sweetener "has been officially approved not only by the FDA, but by foreign regulatory agencies and the World Health Organization" - based on Searle-sponsored aspartame research, not independently conducted tests.

Symptoms of Aspartame Intoxication: Minimal to Severe

The symptoms of aspartame intoxication include severe headaches, nausea, vertigo, insomina, loss of control of limbs, blurred vision, blindness, memory loss, slurred speech, mild to severe depression often reaching suicidal levels, hyperactivity, gastrointestinal disorders, seizures, skin lesions, rashes, anxiety attacks, muscle and joint pain, numbness, mood changes, loss of energy, menstrual cramps out of cycle, hearing loss or ringing in the ears, loss or change of taste, and symptoms similar to those in a heart attack. In addition, aspartic acid chelates (combines) with chromium - which is a necessary element for proper operation of the thyroid gland. People who consume large quantities of aspartame may end up with a false diagnosis of Graves disease and suffer allopathic irradiation of their thyroid gland for no reason. Complaints about aspartame represent 80-85% of all food complaints registered with the FDA. More than 6,000 complaints have been made concerning the effects of aspartame. Thirty independent doctors and scientists have conducted research on the adverse effects of aspartame or have compiled supporting data against its use.The use of NutraSweet® or Equal® should be seriously curtailed or stopped.

Aspartame Use Part of Planetary Biomedical Genocide

The fact that tons of aspartame is pumped into the world population each year, knowingly and deliberately, especially with the historical and documented record of fraud and misrepresentation, constitutes a conspiracy of the highest order, as well as criminal negligence. The rewards of continued use are increased profits for the medical and pharmaceutical industries and chemical companies who produce aspartame and treat people suffering from the effect of it. Aspartame is the only biochemical warfare product on grocery shelves. And, the band plays on ....

The artificial sweetener aspartame is said by some commentators to be the most fully tested and safest food additive in industrial history. Because it is a dipeptide of two familiar and essential amino acids, namely aspartic acid and phenylalanine, there are prima facie reasons for thinking that it should be safe. It is, moreover, one of the most successful synthetic chemicals every produced. The dominant producer is the Nutrasweet Corporation (a subsidiary of Monsanto), and a recently published estimate suggested that world sales amounted to approximately $1,000 million in 1995.(1)

Doubts about the safety of this compound have, however, surfaced repeatedly during its turbulent history, and a particularly serious set of fresh doubts have recently emerged in a paper in the journal Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology, focusing on the possibility that aspartame might be contributing to the increasing incidence of brain cancer.(2)

Prof. John Olney of Washington University St Louis and his colleagues have based their hypothesis on several sets of considerations. Firstly, they analyzed the cancer statistics gathered by the US National Cancer Institute from catchment areas representing approximately 10% of the US population for the period since 1975. They found that the introduction of aspartame into the USA, into dry goods in 1981 and soft drinks in 1983, was followed by an abrupt increase (of approximately 10%) in the reported incidence of brain tumors. The change was most noticeable between 1984 and 1985, and it corresponded to approximately 1,500 extra cases of brain cancer per year in the USA.

Their second main finding is that there has also been a marked change in the incidence of particular types of brain tumors, with a reduction in the proportion of a relatively nonaggressive (and often preliminary) type of tumor (astrocytomas) and a sharp increase in the incidence of a far more aggressive (and all too often terminal) type of tumor (glioblastomas).

The investigators argue, moreover, that the reported changes in tumor incidence were unlikely to have been artefacts of improvements in diagnostic technologies. The introduction and rapid diffusion of computerised tomography in the early to mid- 1970s, and of magnetic resonance imaging technology in the early to mid-1980s, certainly improved diagnostic precision. But they contend that the impact of those innovations upon the reported incidence of these central nervous system (CNS) tumors had fully worked their way through before aspartame was introduced.

Before these imaging technologies were introduced, it was far harder to diagnose brain cancer. Consequently, it was often not until tumors developed into glioblastomas that they were diagnosed, and a relatively high portion of tumors at the earlier astrocytoma stage went undetected. When the imaging technologies were introduced, brain tumors tended to be detected at the earlier stage, and consequently in the late 1970s the number of reported astrocytomas went up, while the number of glioblastomas exhibited a corresponding decline.

After aspartame was introduced, however, the opposite pattern can be found. The incidence of glioblastomas rose sharply, and starting in the late 1980s the number of astrocytomas declined even more sharply. Since those latter changes run counter to the direction which could be attributed to the introduction of better diagnostic technologies, it is hard to see how the reported changing tumor incidence could be ascribed to innovations in diagnosis. If the apparent increase in overall incidence had been due to improved diagnostics, then we should expect a marked change in post- diagnostic survival rates, but no such change was evident.

Olney and his colleagues suspect aspartame to be implicated in the aetiology of the extra cases of brain cancer for three main reasons. Firstly, the type of CNS tumor found to be increasing most rapidly in the USA is the same kind of lesion as was found in one of the animal studies conducted on aspartame in the 1970s.(3) Indeed, when the safety of aspartame was considered by a Public Board of Inquiry in 1980, it recommended against the approval of aspartame primarily because of a concern that aspartame appeared to be a brain carcinogen in rodents. A team of scientists at the US Food and Drug Administration concurred with the judgement of the Board, and they too recommended that further studies be conducted to clarify the issue before aspartame could be considered acceptably safe for use. Both the Public Board of Inquiry and the FDA staff scientists were, however, over-ruled by the incoming FDA Commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes, who asserted that the brain cancer risk was minimal and that further research was not necessary.

Olney and his colleagues have also drawn attention to the results of a study by Shephard et al published in 1993.(4) Shephard and her colleagues attempted to simulate in vitro the conditions that can occur in the human digestive tract, and in particular the conditions which result in the nitrosation of dietary ingredients. They reported that the nitrosated aspartame had significant mutagenic action. That evidence may be important because it suggests not only a mechanism through which aspartame could exert a possible carcinogenic action, but also why the interval between the compound's introduction and the elevation of brain cancer rates appears to have been so brief.

Olney et al also suggest that aspartame may reasonably be suspected of responsibility because the other main candidates for responsibility, such as ionising radiation, smoke inhalation, pesticides, electromagnetic fields and various other chemicals were gradually introduced over recent decades rather than all at once in the early 1980s. Exposures to those potential hazards are, furthermore, occupationally linked and it is hard to see how they could explain why males and females seem to be equally affected.

If Olney's hypothesis is to be substantiated it will be necessary to analyse several long-term brain cancer time- series data sets for other countries covering the period both before and since aspartame was introduced. That has proved difficult because while aggregate brain cancer statistics are readily available, information on tumors types is hard to obtain. If aspartame were to act by modifying an already present or nascent brain cancer, we should expect its impact to vary in different countries in ways which depend on the age structure of the consumers of this sweetener. Anecdotal evidence suggests that a larger proportion of 50 to 70 year old Americans consume aspartame-sweetened products than is the case in the UK or in other European countries. An alternative approach might therefore entail conducting new long-term animal feeding studies, but their relevance to humans is endlessly contestable.

While Olney and his colleagues have raised complex questions about the safety of aspartame, other questions have previously been raised without having been fully answered. The manner in which no fewer than 15 of the initial safety tests were conducted and reported during the 1970s has been repeatedly criticised. An FDA task force showed, for example, that in one particular study it was impossible to identify the occasion on which a particular animals had died. As the report says: "Observation records indicated that animal A23LM was alive at week 88, dead from week 92 through week 104, alive at week 108, and dead at week 112."(5) That represented just one of 52 significant shortcomings in the conduct and reporting of just one of those 15 studies. Those studies have, moreover, never been repeated.

Several commentators have therefore argued that unless and until those 15 pivotal studies are repeated, no-one can be in a position confidently to assert that aspartame is safe. In the mid-to-late 1980s, a series of reports started to emerge suggesting that aspartame is capable of acute adverse reactions in a small proportion of sensitive consumers. The symptoms reported include headaches and blurred vision at the most mild through to epileptic-type seizures at the most severe.

The accumulation of evidence, concerning both acute and chronic hazards, now poses a substantial problem for both regulatory officials and for the general public. The challenge for policy-makers, as ever, is to decide how much evidence is sufficient to support a judgement that something is either sufficiently safe or that it poses a significant hazard. A decision of that sort, in relation to an artificial sweetener, will depend on a judgement about the balance of benefits and risks. It is, however, quite hard to demonstrate that artificial sweeteners are beneficial to any group other than diabetics. The period since the early 1980s has seen a rapid rise in the consumption of artificial sweeteners, but there has been no corresponding decline in the consumption of sugar, either in the USA, the UK or in the European Union as a whole. That implies that, in aggregate, artificial sweeteners are not acting as sugar substitutes but merely as supplements to sugar consumption.

Many of the products containing artificial sweeteners are labelled as 'diet' products implying that consuming artificially sweetened products helps people to control or even to reduce their weight. There is however no reliable evidence to indicate that artificial sweeteners actually help people loose weight. On the contrary, the bulk of the available evidence suggests that in relation to attempted weight loss, artificial sweeteners are at best ineffective and at worst counter-productive. There is, in particular, evidence that artificial sweeteners are appetite stimulants, and while a particular mouthful of artificially sweetened food or drink may contain fewer calories than their sugar-sweetened analogues, the consumption of artificial sweeteners may provoke people into going on, what might be termed, 'a calorie hunt'.

If the likely benefits and risks of aspartame are to be properly explored, and if consumers are to be properly informed and protected, these complex issues need to be explored in a comprehensive and open fashion, and not behind closed doors, be they in Whitehall, in the European Commission in Brussels or at the World Health Organisation's office in Geneva. The public are entitled to be sure, in particular, that none of the experts advising the authorities are acting as paid consultants to the companies which either manufacture or utilise artificial sweeteners. Neither the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food nor the Department of Health, nor the European Commission nor even the WHO can provide such an assurance.

Aspartame Dosing of the Military in the Gulf War
During the 1991 Gulf War, all military personnel were provided free supplies of aspartame-laced soft drinks together with experimental vaccines, nerve gas antidotes and personal insecticides. They were also treated to direct biochemical warfare compounds. The result is Gulf War Syndrome, which is communicable and deadly, and 50,000 military personnel and their dependents are wasting away before our eyes. Criminal negligence? Of course. Criminal conspiracy? Yes. Genocide? Probably - we’re waiting to see.
Aspartame Alters Brain Chemicals That Affect Behavior
Independent tests on animals have shown that aspartame alters brain chemicals that also affect behavior. The chemical nature of aspartame was also shown to defeat its own alleged "purpose" as a "diet aid", since high doses instill a craving for calorie-laden carbohydrates. Then, the aspartame-carbohydrate combination further increases the effect of aspartame on the brain.[15]

Aspartame: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You
If a product is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and composed of natural ingredients, would you assume it is safe to consume?
If the same product is an artificial sweetener, would you assume it helps control your weight?
Millions of people use aspartame, the artificial sweetener known as NutraSweet™, with these assumptions in mind.
Aspartame can be found in thousands of products such as:
instant breakfasts
breath mints
sugar-free chewing gum
cocoa mixes
coffee beverages
frozen desserts
gelatin desserts
juice beverages
milk drinks pharmaceuticals and supplements, including over-the-counter medicines
shake mixes
soft drinks
tabletop sweeteners
tea beverages
instant teas and coffees
topping mixes
wine coolers
However, aspartame's tainted history of approval and potentially toxic ingredients cast serious doubt on the safety of this sugar substitute. Furthermore, aspartame may actually increase your appetite (Farber 52).
While the FDA approval may signal the green light for safe consumption, 85 percent of all complaints registered with the FDA are for adverse reactions to aspartame, including five reported deaths. A closer look at the unscientific studies, suspicious approval methods, and its harmful ingredients, reveal the hidden dangers of this artificial sweetener. In reality, aspartame poses a public health threat.
Ailments Resulting From Aspartame

The components of aspartame can lead to a wide variety of ailments. Some of these problems occur gradually while others are immediate, acute reactions.
A few of the many disorders associated with aspartame include the following:
Birth Defects
A study funded by Monsanto to study possible birth defects caused by consuming aspartame was cut off after preliminary data showed damaging information about aspartame. Additionally, in the book, While Waiting: A Prenatal Guidebook, it is stated that aspartame is suspected of causing brain damage in sensitive individuals. A fetus may be at risk for these effects. Some researchers have suggested that high doses of aspartame may be associated with problems ranging from dizziness and subtle brain changes to mental retardation.
Cancer (Brain Cancer)
In 1981, an FDA statistician stated that the brain tumor data on aspartame was so "worrisome" that he could not recommend approval of NutraSweet.(14)
In a two-year study conducted by the manufacturer of aspartame, twelve of 320 rats fed a normal diet and aspartame developed brain tumors while none of the control rats developed tumors, and five of the twelve tumors were in rats given a low dose of aspartame.(15)
The approval of aspartame was a violation of the Delaney Amendment, which was supposed to prevent cancer-causing substances such as methanol (formaldehye) and DKP from entering our food supply. A late FDA toxicologist testified before the U.S. Congress that aspartame was capable of producing brain tumors. This made it illegal for the FDA to set an allowable daily intake at any level. He stated in his testimony that Searle's studies were "to a large extent unreliable" and that "at least one of those studies has established beyond any reasonable doubt that aspartame is capable of inducing brain tumors in experimental animals ... " He concluded his testimony by asking, "What is the reason for the apparent refusal by the FDA to invoke for this food additive the so-called Delaney Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act? ... And if the FDA itself elects to violate the law, who is left to protect the health of the public?"(16)
In the mid-1970s it was discovered that the manufacturer of aspartame falsified studies in several ways. One of the techniques used was to cut tumors out of test animals and put them back in the study. Another technique used to falsify the studies was to list animals that had actually died as surviving the study. Thus, the data on brain tumors was likely worse than discussed above. In addition, a former employee of the manufacturer of aspartame told the FDA on July 13, 1977 that the particles of DKP were so large that the rats could discriminate between the DKP and their normal diet.(12)
The American Diabetes Association (ADA) is actually recommending this chemical poison to persons with diabetes, but according to research conducted by a diabetes specialist, aspartame: 1) Leads to the precipitation of clinical diabetes. 2) Causes poorer diabetic control in diabetics on insulin or oral drugs. 3) Leads to the aggravation of diabetic complications such as retinopathy, cataracts, neuropathy and gastroparesis. 4) Causes convulsions.
In a statement concerning the use of products containing aspartame by persons with diabetes and hypoglycemia, the researchers says:
"Unfortunately, many patients in my practice, and others seen in consultation, developed serious metabolic, neurologic and other complications that could be specifically attributed to using aspartame products. This was evidenced by the loss of diabetic control, the intensification of hypoglycemia, the occurrence of presumed 'insulin reactions' (including convulsions) that proved to be aspartame reactions, and the precipitation, aggravation or simulation of diabetic complications (especially impaired vision and neuropathy) while using these products ... Dramatic improvement of such features after avoiding aspartame, and the prompt predictable recurrence of these problems when the patient resumed aspartame products, knowingly or inadvertently."
Another researcher stated that excitotoxins such as those found in aspartame can precipitate diabetes in persons who are genetically susceptible to the disease.(5)
Emotional Disorders
In a double blind study of the effects of aspartame on persons with mood disorders, findings showed a large increase in serious symptoms for persons taking aspartame. Since some of the symptoms were so serious, the Institutional Review Board had to stop the study. Three of the participants had said that they had been "poisoned" by aspartame. Researchers concluded that "individuals with mood disorders are particularly sensitive to this artificial sweetener; its use in this population should be discouraged."(18) One researcher stated about aspartame, "I know it causes seizures. I'm convinced also that it definitely causes behavioral changes. I'm very angry that this substance is on the market. I personally question the reliability and validity of any studies funded by the NutraSweet Company."(19)
Additionally, there are numerous reported cases of low brain serotonin levels, depression and other emotional disorders that have been linked to aspartame and often are relieved by stopping the intake of aspartame.
With the large and growing number of seizures caused by aspartame, it is sad to see that the Epilepsy Foundation is promoting the "safety" of aspartame. At Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 80 people who had suffered seizures after ingesting aspartame were surveyed. Community Nutrition Institute concluded the following about the survey:
"These 80 cases meet the FDA's own definition of an imminent hazard to the public health, which requires the FDA to expeditiously remove a product from the market."
Both the Air Force's magazine, Flying Safety, and the Navy's magazine, Navy Physiology, published articles warning about the many dangers of aspartame including the cumulative delirious effects of methanol and the greater likelihood of birth defects. The articles note that the ingestion of aspartame can make pilots more susceptible to seizures and vertigo. Twenty articles sounding warnings about ingesting aspartame while flying have also appeared in the National Business Aircraft Association Digest (NBAA Digest 1993), Aviation Medical Bulletin (1988), The Aviation Consumer (1988), Canadian General Aviation News (1990), Pacific Flyer (1988), General Aviation News (1989), Aviation Safety Digest (1989), and Plane & Pilot (1990) and a paper warning about aspartame was presented at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Aerospace Medical Association (Gaffney 1986).
A hotline was even set up for pilots suffering from acute reactions to aspartame ingestion. Over 600 pilots have reported symptoms including some who have reported suffering grand mal seizures in the cockpit due to aspartame.(21)
Why don't we hear about these things?
The reason many people do not hear about serious reactions to aspartame is twofold: 1) Lack of awareness by the general population. Aspartame-caused diseases are not reported in the newspapers like plane crashes. This is because these incidents occur one at a time in thousands of different locations across the United States. 2) Most people do not associate their symptoms with the long-term use of aspartame. For the people who have killed a significant percentage of their brain cells and thereby caused a chronic illness, there is no way that they would normally associate such an illness with aspartame consumption.
How aspartame was approved is a lesson in how chemical and pharmaceutical companies can manipulate government agencies such as the FDA, "bribe" organizations such as the American Dietetic Association, and flood the scientific community with flawed and fraudulent industry-sponsored studies funded by the makers of aspartame.
Erik Millstone, a researcher at the Science Policy Research Unit of Sussex University has compiled thousands of pages of evidence, some of which have been obtained using the freedom of information act 23, showing: 1. Laboratory tests were faked and dangers were concealed. 2. Tumors were removed from animals and animals that had died were "restored to life" in laboratory records. 3. False and misleading statements were made to the FDA. 4. The two US Attorneys given the task of bringing fraud charges against the aspartame manufacturer took positions with the manufacturer's law firm, letting the statute of limitations run out. 5. The Commissioner of the FDA overruled the objections of the FDA's own scientific board of inquiry. Shortly after that decision, he took a position with Burson-Marsteller, the firm in charge of public relations for G.D. Searle.
A Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) was conducted in 1980. There were three scientists who reviewed the objections of Olney and Turner to the approval of aspartame. They voted unanimously against aspartame's approval. The FDA Commissioner, Dr Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr. then created a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the PBOI findings. After it became clear that the Commission would uphold the PBOI's decision by a vote of 3 to 2, another person was added to the Commission, creating a deadlocked vote. This allowed the FDA Commissioner to break the deadlock and approve aspartame for dry goods in 1981. Dr Jacqueline Verrett, the Senior Scientist in an FDA Bureau of Foods review team created in August 1977 to review the Bressler Report (a report that detailed G.D. Searle's abuses during the pre-approval testing) said: "It was pretty obvious that somewhere along the line, the bureau officials were working up to a whitewash." In 1987, Verrett testified before the US Senate stating that the experiments conducted by Searle were a "disaster." She stated that her team was instructed not to comment on or be concerned with the overall validity of the studies. She stated that questions about birth defects have not been answered. She continued her testimony by discussing the fact that DKP has been shown to increase uterine polyps and change blood cholesterol and that increasing the temperature of the product leads to an increase in production of DKP.(13)
Revolving Doors
The FDA and the manufacturers of aspartame have had a revolving door of employment for many years. In addition to the FDA Commissioner and two US Attorneys leaving to take positions with companies connected with G.D. Searle, four other FDA officials connected with the approval of aspartame took positions connected with the NutraSweet industry between 1979 and 1982 including the Deputy FDA Commissioner, the Special Assistant to the FDA Commissioner, the Associate Director of the Bureau of Foods and Toxicology and the Attorney involved with the Public Board of Inquiry.(24)
It is important to realize that this type of revolving-door activity has been going on for decades. The Townsend Letter for Doctors (11/92) reported on a study revealing that 37 of 49 top FDA officials who left the FDA took positions with companies they had regulated. They also reported that over 150 FDA officials owned stock in drug companies they were assigned to manage. Many organizations and universities receive large sums of money from companies connected to the NutraSweet Association, a group of companies promoting the use of aspartame. In January 1993, the American Dietetic Association received a US$75,000 grant from the NutraSweet Company. The American Dietetic Association has stated that the NutraSweet Company writes their "Facts" sheets.(25)
What is the FDA doing to protect the consumer from the dangers of aspartame?
Less than nothing.
In 1992, the FDA approved aspartame for use in malt beverages, breakfast cereals, and refrigerated puddings and fillings. In 1993 the FDA approved aspartame for use in hard and soft candies, non-alcoholic favored beverages, tea beverages, fruit juices and concentrates, baked goods and baking mixes, and frostings, toppings and fillings for baked goods.
In 1991, the FDA banned the importation of stevia. The powder of this leaf has been used for hundreds of years as an alternative sweetener. It is used widely in Japan with no adverse effects. Scientists involved in reviewing stevia have declared it to be safe for human consumption--something that has been well known in many parts of the world where it is not banned. Some people believe that stevia was banned to keep the product from taking hold in the United States and cutting into sales of aspartame.(26)
What is the U.S. Congress doing to protect the consumer from the dangers of aspartame?
What is the U.S. Administration (President) doing to protect the consumer from the dangers of aspartame?
Aspartame consumption is not only a problem in the United States--it is being sold in over 70 countries throughout the world.

Time Challenger Labs International, Inc.