Aspartame
see
also
FDA is NOT your
friend
see also
Sweet
Misery : A Poisoned World
(Video)
see
also
Its All in the
Food
(Video)
see also
Food From the
Matrix
(Video)
The artificial sweetener aspartame has been the subject of a
vigorous public controversy regarding its safety and the
circumstances around its approval. A few studies have
recommended further investigation into the possible
connection between aspartame and diseases such as brain
tumors, brain lesions, and lymphoma.[1][2][3] These findings,
combined with alleged conflicts of interest in the approval
process, have engendered vocal activism regarding the
possible risks of aspartame.[4][5]
Known effects
In
1995, FDA Epidemiology Branch Chief Thomas Wilcox reported
that aspartame complaints represented 75% of all reports of
adverse reactions to substances in the food supply from 1981
to 1995.[6] Concerns about aspartame frequently revolve
around symptoms and health conditions that are allegedly
caused by the sweetener. A total of 92 different symptoms and
health conditions were reported by physicians and
consumers.[7]
Questions have been raised about brain cancer, lymphoma, and
genotoxic effects such as DNA-protein crosslinks, but these
questions are primarily not based on reported case histories.
The
sources for reported symptoms and health conditions that have
raised questions include:
1. Reports and analysis of case histories in scientific
journals and at medical conferences
2. Symptoms reported to the FDA and other governmental
agencies
3. Symptoms reported to non-governmental organizations,
researchers, and physicians
4. Reports of symptoms and health conditions in the media
5. Self-reported cases on the Internet.
There is debate in the scientific and medical community as to
whether or not these symptoms are caused by short-term or
long-term exposure to aspartame. Some human and animal
studies have found adverse effects[8][9][10] and some have
found no adverse effects.[11][12][13] It is not only the
results of the research that have been questioned, but the
design of the research that led to specific outcomes. For
example, in human research of aspartame, the aspartame is
usually provided in slow-dissolving capsules. But the
concentration of aspartate in the blood from ingesting
aspartame using slow-dissolving capsules is much lower than
that from ingesting liquid aspartame (such as in carbonated
beverages).[14]
Some human studies provide more than the daily allowance of
aspartame, but in an encapsulated form. Based on the
above-cited research, the equivalent amount of “real-world”
aspartame in these human studies would be less. Other
questions that have been raised about aspartame research
involve the length of the studies, the number of test
subjects, conflict of interest issues, and improper testing
procedures.
The US Air Force issued an alert in 1992, warning air force
pilots about drinking diet drinks containing aspartame before
flying[15].
The debate over possible adverse health effects has focused
mainly on four chemical components of aspartame:
Methanol
and formaldehyde
Approximately
10% of aspartame (by mass) is broken down into methanol in
the small intestine. Most of the methanol is absorbed and
quickly converted into formaldehyde. Some experts/scientists
believe that the metabolism of aspartame does not damage the
body because: (a) the quantity of methanol produced is too
small to disrupt normal physiological processes; (b) methanol
and formaldehyde are natural by-products of human metabolism
and are safely processed by various enzymes; and (c) there is
more methanol in some natural fruit juices and alcoholic
beverages than is derived from aspartame ingestion.[16][17]
Other experts/scientists believe that (a) fruit juices and
alcoholic beverages contain protective chemicals such as
ethanol that block conversion of methanol into formaldehyde,
while beverages with aspartame contain no "protective
factors"; (b) exposure to very low levels of methanol and
formaldehyde have been proven to cause chronic toxicity in
humans; and (c) the low levels of methanol and formaldehyde
in natural human metabolism are tightly-controlled and small
increases above these levels can contribute to chronic
poisoning.[18][19]
In 1998, a team of scientists in Spain conducted an
experiment on rodents to indirectly measure the levels of
formaldehyde adducts in the organs after ingestion of
aspartame. They did this by radiolabeling the methanol
portion of aspartame. The scientists concluded that
formaldehyde bound to protein and DNA accumulated in the
brain, liver, kidneys and other tissues after ingestion of
either 20 mg/kg or 200 mg/kg of aspartame.[20] However,
representatives of the manufacturer of aspartame have argued
that these scientists were not directly measuring
formaldehyde, but simply measuring levels of some by-product
of the methanol from aspartame.[21] Tephly thinks that the
by-product was not formaldehyde. The researchers have stated
that the data in the experiment proves it was
formaldehyde.[22]
Phenylalanine
One
of the functional groups in aspartame is phenylalanine, which
is unsafe for those born with phenylketonuria, a rare genetic
condition. Phenylalanine is an amino acid commonly found in
foods. Approximately 50% of aspartame (by mass) is broken
down into phenylalanine, which is considered safe for
everyone except sufferers of phenylketonuria. Because
aspartame is metabolized and absorbed very quickly (unlike
phenylalanine-containing proteins in foods), it is known that
aspartame could spike blood plasma levels of
phenylalanine.[23][24] The debate centers on whether a
significant spike in blood plasma phenylalanine occurs at
typical aspartame ingestion levels, whether a sudden influx
of phenylalanine into the bloodstream adversely affects
uptake of other amino acids into the brain and the production
of neurotransmitters (since phenylalanine competes with other
Large Neutral Amino Acids (LNAAs) for entry into the brain at
the blood brain barrier), and whether a significant rise in
phenylalanine levels would be concentrated in the brain of
fetuses and be potentially neurotoxic.
Based on anecdotes from aspartame users, measuring levels of
neurotransmitters in the brains of animals and measuring the
potential of aspartame to cause seizures in animals, some
scientists think that aspartame may affect neurotransmitter
production.[25][26][27] They think that even a moderate spike
in blood plasma phenylalanine levels from typical ingestion
may have adverse consequences in long-term use. They are
especially concerned that the phenylalanine can be
concentrated in fetal brains to a potentially neurotoxic
level.[28][29] However, other scientists think that a rise in
blood plasma phenylalanine is negligible in typical use of
aspartame[30] and their studies show no significant effects
on neurotransmitter levels in the brain or changes in seizure
thresholds.[31][32][33] In addition, they say that proven
adverse effects of phenylalanine on fetuses has only been
seen when blood phenylalanine levels stay at high levels as
opposed to occasionally being spiked to high levels.[34]
An alternative sweetener, neotame, has been developed
apparently to solve the phenylalanine problem said to be
associated with aspartame.
Aspartic
acid
Food
contains aspartic acid as an amino acid bound to proteins.
Approximately 40% of aspartame (by mass) is broken down into
aspartic acid. Because aspartame is metabolized and absorbed
very quickly (unlike aspartic acid-containing proteins in
foods), it is known that aspartame can spike blood plasma
levels of aspartate to very high levels.[23][35] Large spikes
in blood plasma aspartate levels have not been seen when
ingesting natural foods.
Aspartic acid belongs to a class of chemicals that in high
concentrations act as an excitotoxin, inflicting damage on
brain and nerve cells. High levels of excitotoxins have been
shown in hundreds of animal studies to cause damage to areas
of the brain unprotected by the blood-brain barrier and a
variety of chronic diseases arising out of this
neurotoxicity.[36][37] The debate among scientists has been
raging since the early 1970s, when Dr. John Olney found that
high levels of aspartic acid caused damage to the brains of
infant mice.[38] Dr. Olney and consumer attorney, James
Turner filed a protest with the FDA to block the approval of
aspartame. The debate is complex and has focused on several
areas: (a) whether the increase in plasma aspartate levels
from typical ingestion levels of aspartame is enough to cause
neurotoxicity in one dose or over time, (b) whether humans
are susceptible to the neurotoxicity from aspartic acid seen
in some animal experiments, (c) whether aspartic acid
increases the toxicity of formaldehyde, (d) whether
neurotoxicity from excitotoxins should consider the combined
effect of aspartic acid and other excitotoxins such as
glutamic acid from monosodium glutamate. The neuroscientists
at a 1990 meeting of the Society for Neuroscience had a split
of opinion on the issues related to neurotoxic effects from
excitotoxic amino acids found in some additives such as
aspartame.[39]
Some scientists think that humans and other primates are not
as susceptible to excitotoxins as rodents and therefore there
is little concern with aspartic acid from aspartame.[40][41]
While they agree that the combined effects of all food-based
excitotoxins should be considered,[42] their measurements of
the blood plasma levels of aspartic acid after ingestion of
aspartame and monosodium glutamate demonstrate that there is
not a cause for concern.[43][44] Other scientists think that
primates are susceptible to excitotoxic damage[45] and that
humans concentrate excitotoxins in the blood more than other
animals.[46] Based on these findings, they think that humans
are approximately 5-6 times more susceptible to the effects
of excitotoxins than are rodents.[47] While they agree that
typical use of aspartame does not spike aspartic acid to
extremely high levels in adults, they are particularly
concerned with potential effects in infants and young
children,[48] the potential long-term neurodegenerative
effects of small-to-moderate spikes on plasma excitotoxin
levels,[49] and the potential dangers of combining
formaldehyde exposure from aspartame with excitotoxins given
that chronic methanol exposure increases excitoxin levels in
susceptible areas of the brain[50][51] and that excitotoxins
may potentiate formaldehyde damage.[52]
Aspartylphenylalanine
diketopiperazine
This
type of diketopiperazine (DKP) is created in products as
aspartame breaks down over time. For example, researchers
found that 6 months after aspartame was put into carbonated
beverages, 25% of the aspartame had been converted to
DKP.[53] Concern among some scientists has been expressed
that this form of DKP would undergo a nitrosation process in
the stomach producing a type of chemical that could cause
brain tumors.[54][55] Other scientists think that the
nitrosation of aspartame or the DKP in the stomach would not
produce a chemical that would cause brain tumors. In
addition, only a minuscule amount of the nitrosated chemical
would be produced.[56] There are very few human studies on
the effects of this form of DKP. However, a (one-day)
exposure study showed that the DKP was tolerated without
adverse effects.[57]
Recently
published research
Mario
Negri research institute
A
2007 study, published in Annals of Oncology of the European
Society for Medical Oncology, reviewed Italian studies of
incidences of cancer from 1991 and 2004 and concluded a "lack
of association between saccharin, aspartame and other
sweeteners and the risk of several common
neoplasms".[58]
Ramazzini
Foundation
Since
the FDA approved aspartame for consumption in 1981, some
researchers have suggested that a rise in brain tumor rates
in the United States may be at least partially related to the
increasing availability and consumption of aspartame.[54] The
results of a large seven-year study into the long-term
effects of eating aspartame in rats by the European Ramazzini
Foundation for cancer research in Bologna, Italy were
released in July 2005. The study of 1,800 rats demonstrates
that aspartame administered at varying levels in feed causes
a statistically significant increase of lymphomas-leukemias
and malignant tumors of the kidneys in female rats and
malignant tumors of peripheral nerves in male rats. The study
showed that there was no statistically significant link
between aspartame and brain tumors.
The Ramazzini study,[59][60] published in Environmental
Health Perspectives, raised concerns about the levels of
aspartame exposure. While a review by the American Food &
Drug Administration's (FDA) review of the Razzamini study was
still pending,[61] the European Food Safety Authority's
(EFSA) issued a press release about the report fairly
promptly.
The EFSA's press release about the Ramazzini study,[62]
published on 5 May 2006, concluded that the increased
incidence of lymphomas/leukaemias reported in treated rats
was unrelated to aspartame, the kidney tumors found at high
doses of aspartame were not relevant to humans, and that
based on all available scientific evidence to date, there was
no reason to revise the previously established Acceptable
Daily Intake levels for aspartame.[63] FDA later submitted
its findings based on the evidence, and replied[64]:
“
Based on the available data (…) we have identified
significant shortcomings in the design, conduct, reporting,
and interpretation of this study. FDA finds that the
reliability and interpretation of the study outcome is
compromised by these shortcomings and uncontrolled variables,
such as the presence of infection in the test
animals[64]
”
The European Ramazzini Foundation responded to the EFSA press
release, standing by their results and stating that they
considered the 16% increase in incidence of lymphoma and
leukemia between the aspartame group and control group
signified that these cancers were caused by aspartame
ingestion.[65] As the EFSA felt it had already addressed this
in their 5 May 2006 press release, no further press release
was made.[66] Dr. Betty Martini (founder of Mission Possible
World Health International), in an open letter to the
European Union Food Safety Authority – subsequently posted on
the website of the World Natural Health Organization on 29
December 2006 – states the EFSA's published conclusion
regarding the Ramazzini study's raw data "is bizarre", and
also draws attention to conflicts of interest regarding
members of the EFSA's panel:
“
The Guardian on 15 May 2006[67] quoted EFSA Executive
Director, Dr Herman Koeter: "Dr Koeter said, he wanted to
clear up misunderstandings about "conflicts of interest"
among his advisory panel overseeing the review. MEPs
complained last month that the scientist who chairs the
advisory panel, Dr Susan Barlow, works for the International
Life Sciences Institute, a body funded by sweetener
manufacturers and major aspartame users such as Coca Cola,
PepsiCo and Nestle, and Monsanto.[68]
The European commission was also told by MEPs of other
"conflicts of interest". One scientist involved in the review
had declared a research grant from Ajinomoto, the leading
Japanese manufacturer of aspartame, they said. Other panel
members listed links with food processors such as Nestlé in
their declarations of interest.
But to say that these scientists therefore have a conflict of
interest was a misunderstanding, Dr Koeter explained to the
Rome conference. "The expertise required (to judge any new
study on whether aspartame causes cancer) almost inevitably
means having a previous involvement." Eliminate the
scientists who had worked in the area before or who had
worked for industry and there would be no scientists left, he
said. The panel had been "fully impartial".
He insults our intelligence. Are we to believe there are no
scientists in Europe capable of conducting this study except
those paid by the aspartame industry? The one thing Dr Koeter
didn't get from the advisory panel was
impartiality.[69]
”
In response to criticism, the Ramazzini Foundation conducted
a new study confirming the carcinogenic effects of aspartame
from previous studies.[70] The results of the study have been
published in the academic journal Environmental Health
Perspectives[71]
Second ERF study on the artificial sweetener aspartame by Dr
Morando Soffritti of European Ramazzini Foundation Institute,
entitled "Lifespan Exposure to Low Doses of Aspartame
Beginning During Prenatal Life Increases Cancer Effects in
Rats" has been accepted for publication in Environmental
Health Perspectives on June 14th 2007.
“
The results of this carcinogenicity bioassay not only
confirm, but also reinforce the first experimental
demonstration of APM’s multipotential carcinogenicity at a
dose level close to the acceptable daily intake (ADI) for
humans. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that when
lifespan exposure to APM begins during fetal life, its
carcinogenic effects are increased.[72]
”
In August 2007, the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA)
published a press release commenting upon the Italian study:
“
... These studies were conducted in a way that could not
possibly have provided any information about the toxicity of
aspartame – or in fact anything else in the rats’ diet. The
animals used were allowed to live until they died naturally,
meaning that all the study did was show the results of
ageing, which as we all know is a natural process that leads,
inevitably, to death.
In fact, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the
results is that aspartame appears to be safe because the
studies showed that those rats fed it (even at very high
doses) lived as long (if not longer) as untreated rats,
despite consuming up to more than 100 times the ADI every day
of their lives. If aspartame was as horrendously toxic as is
being claimed, it would be logical to expect the rats dosed
with it to have shortened life-spans. The conclusions drawn
by the researchers were clearly not backed up by their own
data.[73]
”
National
Cancer Institute
A
study published in April 2006 sponsored by the National
Cancer Institute involved 340,045 men and 226,945 women, ages
50 to 69, found no statistically significant link between
aspartame consumption and leukemias, lymphomas or brain
tumors.[74] The study used surveys filled out in 1995 and
1996 detailing food and beverage consumption. The researchers
calculated how much aspartame they consumed, especially from
sodas or from adding the sweetener to coffee or tea. The
researchers report, "Our findings from this epidemiologic
study suggest that consumption of aspartame-containing
beverages does not raise the risk of hematopoietic or brain
malignancies."
Critics of this study point out that while the study looked
at humans, it did not look at life-long aspartame consumption
as did the Ramazzini study on rats. The Ramazzini study
simulated life-long consumption from childhood through old
age (simulating 60 to 90 years of use). However the new
National Cancer Institute study simply looked at subjects who
consumed diet drinks during a twelve-month period from 1995
to 1996, without determining aspartame intake prior to the
start of the study. Neurosurgeon Dr Russell Blaylock,
commenting on the NCI study, remarked that "The greatest risk
of leukemia and lymphoma would be in a younger population
(young children and adolescents) and they would need to be
exposed regularly from early in life."[75] Given that
aspartame has only been publicly available for about a
quarter of a century (in France from 1979, the USA since
1982, and the UK since 1983),[76] not one of the people
examined in the NCI study could have ingested any aspartame
product during their formative growth years, until they were
at least into their mid-twenties.
The Ramazzini study had the disadvantage of being an animal
study but looked at life-long consumption of aspartame. The
National Cancer Institute study was a human study, but only
looked at a limited range of older subjects with relatively
short-term consumption of diet drinks. Finally, the
questionnaire did not ask users to estimate aspartame
consumption, only diet drink consumption.[77]
FDA
approval process
The
head of the FDA, Jere E. Goyan, was removed from his post on
the first day of Ronald Reagan's presidency (1981).
Previously, Goyan refused to approve the legalization of
aspartame, due to the studies documenting increase of cancers
in rats. Reagan appointed Arthur Hayes, MD, (FDA Commissioner
1981-1983) Commissioner. He legalized aspartame a year later.
Reagan supporter Donald Rumsfeld was president and later CEO
of G. D. Searle & Company from 1977 to 1985.[78][79]
Arthur Hull Hayes MD was a defense contractor before he was
head of the FDA. In November 1983 Hayes was under fire for
accepting corporate gifts. He quit and joined Searle's
public-relations firm as senior medical advisor. Searle
lawyer Robert B. Shapiro, renamed aspartame NutraSweet.
Monsanto purchased Searle. Rumsfeld received a $12 million
bonus. Shapiro later became Monsanto president.
Several members of the FDA board left their jobs after stevia
(aspartame's main competitor then) was banned in 1991. They
were all hired at Nutrasweet in higher paying jobs, according
to national records. Dr. Michael Friedman quit the FDA when
Jane Henney was selected to become the permanent FDA
commissioner (1999). Friedman elected to sign with G. D.
Searle as a senior vice president at a purported $500,000 a
year. He later accepted a position with
Monsanto.
Books
• Dr Joseph Mercola and Dr Kendra Pearsall, Sweet Deception:
Why Splenda, NutraSweet, and the FDA May Be Hazardous to Your
Health, (Nelson Books, November 2006). ISBN 0-78522-179-4 and
ISBN-13 978-0785221791
• H.J. Roberts, MD, Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic,
(Sunshine Sentinel Press, May 2001). ISBN 1-88424-317-7 and
ISBN-13 978-1884243172.
• H.J. Roberts, MD, Breast Implants Or Aspartame (Nutrasweet)
Disease? : The Suppressed Opinion About Perceived
Medicolegal Travesty, (Sunshine Sentinel Press, July 1999).
ISBN 1-88424-310-X and ISBN-13 978-1884243103.
• Miladie L. Dillard, Food Sweeteners - Aspartame and Its
Adverse Reactions, Strange Symptoms, Illness Behavior and
Controversy: Index of New Information With Authors and
Subjects, (Abbe Pub Assn of Washington DC, Reprint edition,
March 1997). ISBN 1-55914-850-0 and ISBN-13 978-1559148504.
• Russell L. Blaylock, MD, Excitotoxins: The Taste That
Kills, (Health Press, December 1996). ISBN 0-92917-325-2 and
ISBN-13 978-0929173252.
• Christian Tschanz (Editor), Harriett H. Butchko (Editor),
W. Wayne Stargel (Editor), Frank N. Kotsonis (Editor), The
Clinical Evaluation of a Food Additive: Assessment of
Aspartame, (CRC, June 1996). ISBN 0-84934-973-7 and ISBN-13
978-0849349737.
FAIR USE
NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material, the use
of which has not been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. This website distributes this material
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use
of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C
§ 107.
NOTE TO AUTHORS: If you are the author or owner of an article
or video that I have made available through THEINFOVAULT.NET
and you do not wish to have your article or video posted on
theinfovault, please contact me and I
will remove the item.