Health experts renew call to ban aspartame
Print version
Email to a friend
Cuban tuKola, regular and diet. Image: roitberg (CC)
With a new administration, some health experts long opposed to aspartame use are hoping that the FDA will review evidence against the sweetener and revoke an approval they say was marred by falsified testing data and political interference by the Reagan administration.
Aspartame, the artificial sweetener used around the world, causes cancer in lab rats, and should be banned for human consumption, says Samuel S. Epstein, MD, professor emeritus of environmental and occupational medicine at the Chicago School of Public Health, University of Illinois, and chair of the Cancer Prevention Coalition.
Epstein warns that the use of aspartame in foods, vitamins and pharmaceuticals is based on false safety information and political interference going back to the Reagan administration.
First approved by the FDA in 1974, the approval was rescinded after two studies found that aspartame caused brain tumors in laboratory animals. It was approved again in 1981, the same year the FDA banned stevia, a natural sweeter, as unsafe.
In January 1976, then FDA Commissioner Alexander M. Schmidt, MD, testified before Congress that Hazleton Laboratories, under contract to Searle, had been charged with falsifying toxicological data on aspartame.
The FDA convened a Public Board of Inquiry to review concerns about the sweetener’s carcinogenic effects in experimental animals. In 1980, the board unanimously concluded that aspartame could “contribute to the development brain tumors” and should not be approved pending further study.
But then, according to the coalition, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration in January 1981, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame as a food sweetener, and Reagan's new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., MD, appointed a commission to review the Board of Inquiry's decision. The newly appointed Hull overruled the unanimous recommendation of the FDA's board of inquiry, paving the way for re-approval of aspartame.
Hull left the FDA amid charges of improper billing for travel expenses and joined Burston-Marsteller, the public relations firm of Searle and Monsanto, which purchased Searle in 1985.
The coalition is calling upon Hamburg, the new FDA commissioner, to ban the use of aspartame using provisions of the 1958 Delaney Amendment, which requires an automatic ban on carcinogenic food additives.
Since the initial controversy, numerous studies in the United States and in Europe have found conflicting evidence supporting and negating the carcinogenic qualities of aspartame.
For further reading:
Aspartame bioassay findings portend human cancer hazards, Int J Occup Environ Health. 2007 Oct-Dec;13(4):446-8.
Increasing Brain Tumor Rates: Is There a Link to Aspartame? Oney, John W.; Farber, Nuri B.; Spitznagel, Edward; Robins, Lee N. Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology. 55(11):1115-1123, November 1996.
Artificial Sweeteners and Cancer, National Cancer Institute website
del.icio.us |
Digg
I am by no means a conspirationist but I do have a strong feeling that the pro-Aspartame lobby must have some influential friends up there, both in the USA and Europe.
The first reality is that all aspartame research prior to 2009 is seriously and fatally flawed (and hence so is all criticism of aspartame based on such science). It was all done in a scientifically unacceptable manner as was established in preliminary work presented at the Society of Toxicology (Seattle, USA) and the American Chemical Society (New Orleans, USA) national meetings in 2008. Full comments are currently being preparing for regular publication. At those locations it was demonstrated that inappropriate controls were used in all aspartame research starting with the original Searle work and extending through the oft-cited Soffritti et al work published over the past several years (and even other work thereafter). The standard control-versus-treated animal experiments are simply invalid for aspartame, because aspartame is hydrolyzed to methanol and methanol (actually through its oxidation products formaldehyde and formate) has long been known to deplete a vitamin, namely folic acid. No properly done experiment can deplete a vitamin, but all experiments to date claiming problems have done just that! Hence, both controlled and treated groups of animals must be provided either the appropriate microgram amounts of folic acid supplement to counter methanol-induced loss OR both controlled and treated groups of animals must be provided the same intake of methanol, one directly and the other from aspartame. (However, the latter is an experimentally more challenging option.) This blatant and continuous error in virtually all aspartame research and more unrelated work invalidates all claims of harm from aspartame. That said various other studies found “no effect” from aspartame. Such animal studies were either of such short duration that folate depletion was not evidenced or equally likely were performed with corn/soybean or other diets rich in folate, such that they would not be expected to show any effect.
The second reality is that this same underlying folate issue explains human problems attributed by critics to aspartame. The folate enzyme system metabolizes the common dietary ingredient methanol and processes methanol’s oxidation products formaldehyde and formate, which are innate metabolites of many substances. Although required only in 400-600 microgram quantities, many people are folate deficient both because some people refuse to take vitamin supplements and avoid folate fortified grain products (donuts, etc), but also because some people (~20%) have genetic problems that increase their need for folate above that required by others. You should realize the adverse effects claimed by antiaspartame critics can be systematically linked far better to shortage of this vitamin (and possibly also the connected B12). This includes “migraines, dizziness, shaking and tremors, seizures, mental confusion, change in mood, Alzheimer’s and permanent blindness or other issues” linked to aspartame. A simple review of the primary literature at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ will show these issues are far better connected to folate and specifically folate deficiency, folate genetics issues, and homocysteine accrual than to aspartame [for example, type “folate,headache” without the quotes into the search line and find 43 references compared with “aspartame,headache” without the quotes for which there are 33 references.] Folate deficiency also underlies birth defects, many cancers (including breast cancer), and other conditions, so people susceptible to headaches from aspartame might actually be susceptible to many other more threatening health-related issues associated with this folate deficiency. But it is these underlying folate issues and not aspartame that explain much of this mostly internet issue. The antiaspartame critics just don’t understand the issues involved, preferring instead to manufacture a controversy where none exists. And this continues even after I showed the fallacy of all rodent aspartame research.
For either animal or man the consequences of the folate deficiency that result are the incorporation of structurally weak uridylate (uracil, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uracil) bases in DNA in place of stronger thymidylate (methyluridylate called thymine, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thymine) and/or the accrual of toxic homocysteine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homocysteine), most likely because of insufficient methylation of homocysteine to afford methionine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methionine). Much has been written about the “excitotoxic” amino acids that form the aspartame framework (phenylalanine and aspartic acid) by aspartame critics. However, those excitotoxic amino acids occur at far greater concentrations in everyday food, so neither of these amino acids are issues for most people. However, what seems to be consistently missed by the antiaspartame critics (including Blaylock) is that homocysteine is a far stronger excitotoxin than any constituent of aspartame (or oral MSG). (For a better understanding of the relationships involved and how science knows about the connection between the DNA and homocysteine in this issue, download http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/14/12/2999 and study Figure 1 at the top of page 3000. Note too that the methanol from aspartame or from many other sources is oxidized to formaldehyde and that to formic acid and that is converted to the 10-formyltetrahydrofolate (10-formylTHF) at the bottom of the upper right circle.)
In summary, there is no valid science questioning aspartame’s safety, but there is substantial direct and indirect evidence that any personal issues with aspartame reflect not aspartame per se, but a personal folate deficiency (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folate_deficiency), folate polymorphism genetic issues, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylenetetrahydrofolate_reductase), and/or issues with related biochemistry linked to vitamin B12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12). There is no data supporting any adverse effect for aspartame that cannot simply and completely be explained by the folate deficiency, folate genetics, and the homocysteine paradigm. This new information only suggests aspartame is even safer, now that what I have reported above is known to all the regulatory authorities. Given these new, stronger indications of safety, science no longer has any reason to doubt the safety of aspartame. And the European equivalent of the US FDA on April 20 just again validated the safety of aspartame, http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902454309.htm. Also check out the latest 2009 data casting real doubt on any harm from sweeteners: Artificial sweeteners and the risk of gastric, pancreatic, and endometrial cancers in Italy, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19661082?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum. Not only does this paper support aspartame safety, it came from the same country and a more prestigious group than the Soffritti et al work questioning it.
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)
(FYI, the author has absolutely no financial or biasing connection with the aspartame, the soft drink or their related industries and has made not one penny from my opposition, unlike many antiaspartame critics who profit from books, internet sales, and offer treatment not even for folate issues. Their clearly stated goals are lawsuits, where none are justified. The author has an undergraduate degree in chemistry (with emphasis in organic and biological chemistry) from the University of Kansas, a Ph.D. in Medicinal Chemistry (Pharmacy) from the University of Iowa, postdoctoral experience at Yale University (Molecular Biophysics & Biochemistry) and two postdoctoral fellowships at Vanderbilt University (physiology-pharmacology (mentor moved), then nutritional toxicology) and taught nutritional toxicology at the University of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana, UIUC) besides having conducted federally funded research at Vanderbilt, UIUC, and at several other universities before recently entering into semi-retirement.)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:33:12 -0400
To: bettym19@mindspring.com
From: "Dr. Betty Martini,D.Hum." <bettym19@mindspring.com>
Subject: John Garst
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:51:49 -0500
To: bettym19@mindspring.com
From: "Dr. Betty Martini,D.Hum." <bettym19@mindspring.com>
Subject: John Garst
ASPARTAME FLACK TRIES TO MISLEAD NEW MEXICO LEGISLATURE
John Garst brags that he played a major role in obliterating efforts to ban aspartame in 06. Hes trying to do it again by bombarding legislators with complicated lingo only a biochemist can comprehend. Its a vacuous bluff with hot air said James Bowen MD. who is a physician, surgeon, biochemist, and an aspartame victim with Lou Gehrigs.
New Mexico lawmakers are expected to take Garth's word for it and do what he wants. This last-minute blast is an ambush in bad faith, like yelling fire in a crowded theater so the legislature will run for the exits. Garst wants a stampede!
Good faith requires him to come forward in time for his assertions to be examined. But then he would be exposed. With no time for deliberation the legislators are expected to just accept his say-so.
At the say-so level: R G Walton M.D. Chairman, Center for Behavioral Medicine at NE Ohio College of Medicine analyzed 92 peer-reviewed studies not funded by aspartame industry. 92% found PROBLEMS!
There were also 74, sponsored by NutraSweet, which said its safe as rain. Dr. Walton concluded Serious questions have been raised about the reliability of industry-sponsored studies of the safety of synthetic chemicals. Aspartame, in particular, has been the focus of significant ongoing controversy Walton named numerous adverse clinical events including seizures, mood disorders, headaches and brain tumors.
In 95 the FDA listed 92 reactions from 10,000 volunteered complaints, including death.
H. J. Roberts, M.D., FACP a diabetic specialist has produced 20 books and his first text on medical diagnosis was used by 60,000 doctors to prepare for their Board examinations. In his response to Garst's allegation that aspartame sensitivity reflects folate deficiency, he wrote to the members of the New Mexico Legislature:
You have received correspondence concerning folate deficiency as the purported cause of aspartame disease. While folate plays a role in the metabolism of methanol (methyl alcohol), the severity and widespread nature of reactions to aspartame products suggest that this assertion must be tempered by the following:
*The methyl alcohol in aspartame is FREE (rarely found as such in nature.)
*The assertion that methanol concentrations never are very high after aspartame ingestion is erroneous. I devoted an entire chapter to methanol toxicity in my text, Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic (pp 668-685), and show in Figure XXI-1 the dose-related blood levels of methanollasting 8 or more hours.
*The assertion that many New Mexicans suffer from a folate deficiency is challenged. While I discussed such a theoretical deficiency in my text, there is no evidence that folate deficiency is widespread among Americans. For example, a Mayo Clinic study involving thousands of blood assays concluded that it was rare. Garst ignores the major roles of phenylalanine and aspartic acid in aspartame disease.
Enormous effort has gone into this constructive attempt to ban aspartame products. I believe that it constitutes an imminent health hazard for New Mexicans. You are to be congratulated for coming this far in the face of severe corporate resistance.
H. J. Roberts, M.D., FACP, FCCP
Dr. Maria Alemany, Departament du Nutricio I Bromatologia, Facultat de Biologia, Universitat de Barcelona, who was the researcher for the damning Trocho Study wrote that he was deeply insulted by Garsts propaganda. Remember that Dr. Alemanys study proved the formaldehyde converted from the free methyl alcohol embalms living tissue and damages DNA. As we know when you damage DNA you can destroy humanity. So concerned for the public was Dr. Alemany that after his study he reported it to the authorities. He told me personally that he was concerned aspartame could kill millions and I said has killed millions. After all aspartame can trigger all sorts of neurodegenerative diseases and tumors and can precipitate diabetes. Even the FDA found many types of tumors and brain cancer on original studies and the Ramazzini Study in 2005 confirmed FDA findings reporting the study showed aspartame to be a multipotential carcinogen. Dr. Alemany is a hero to the world and proved beyond a shadow of doubt what aspartame experts believed for years.
Dr. Alemany said: First, Garst suggests that perhaps aspartame just affects people with a metabolic deficit. If that were the case (I doubt it, deficits may just enhance the effect of aspartame), why then has it not been studied? In the case of cyclamate, the ban on its use is based on the deleterious effects on only a fraction of the population
Second. Dr. Garst accepts that aspartame yields formaldehyde... then, why not give formaldehyde to the people to help them synthesize methyl groups? Did I understood well (after speaking of the double helix which has very little to do here unless for the binding of formaldehyde to its strands to induce mutation) that Dr. Garst suggests that aspartame may be beneficial because its derived formaldehyde may supply one-carbon units for methylations through the folate pathway? If that were the case, why not get the FDA approval for aspartame as a drug/vitamin substitute? This is an outright fallacy (or better said bull-manure).
Third. Please, not again the tale of the methyl-esters of pectins! It has been proved to nausea that most of the methyl-alcohol esters of uronic acids remain esterified through intestinal passage, and that freed in the large intestine by the action of the flora is majoritarily and keenly used by these microbes for their profit. The remaining methyl alcohol leaving the intestine is largely detoxified by the liver (this is a physiological mechanism well known and proved effective for millennia). Aspartame, however, is not fully hydrolyzed in the intestine, being absorbed in part intact. After the intestine-portal vein-liver trap is surpassed, the body protection against methanol wanes, and the tiny liberation of methanol in tissues yields little amounts of formaldehyde that cause serious damage, precisely because it behaves very differently from the natural products methanol. Even in cases of wood-alcohol (methanol) intoxication, the liver helps to stem the overflow of toxic. Methanol inhalation or injection is much more dangerous, because it goes directly into the bloodstream and tissues jumping the liver barrier. This is explained in elementary physiology and biochemistry courses, it is unbelievable that this is maintained as a "serious" scientific position by somebody that got a PhD, unless this is not a discourse of science but of economy.
Theories are nice, but have to be proved true. The one Dr. Garst exposes here is that maintained by pro-aspartame fellows for decades. This is how they explained the incorporation of aspartame label into protein and DNA in the earliest experiments on aspartame using tracers that were published (none was published by this group thereafter). This theory fits very well with the story of a harmless aspartame, but it has been proven untrue. We did it, and this is why our study was so damaging. If the theory recycled by Dr. Garst were true, then, the carbon of the methyl alcohol of aspartame would enter the one-carbon path mediated by tetrahydrofolate, this can be done via formaldehyde or via formate. These one-carbon units may be processed (depending on demand) to methyl groups, such as those found in carnitine, thymine and methionine (the only amino acid that can get back methyl groups in mammals), thus explaining the presence of label in protein (methionine) or DNA (thymine). We gave labeled aspartame to rats, and got their DNA and protein from a number of tissues, and found large proportions of label. So far no differences with the Aspartame-lovers theory. However, we hydrolyzed the protein and DNA and looked for label in thymine in DNA and methionine in protein. We found none. Instead, the label was in unknown spots in the chromatograms, which plainly indicates that the incorporation of label into DNA and protein was NOT through the incorporation of methyl groups, i.e. the one-carbon folate pathway. Other ways of label incorporation should explain the attachment of the label. The most logical explanation (justified by innumerable studies that show that formaldehyde attaches to protein and other molecules) was that aspartame-derived formaldehyde was chemically bound to protein and DNA, inactivating (embalming, in fact) proteins and altering DNA structure causing mutations.
The experimental studies show that the theory is faulty. No counter-experiments were published showing our possible "errors", nor the theory of folate pathway incorporation has been proved experimentally (it is fairly easy to demonstrate, it only needs to be true, however). This is why I felt insulted. It is an insult to the intelligence of anybody with even a thin varnish of scientific knowledge to discard proven facts and stick to self-fulfilling harebrained theories. If what the aspartame lovers say about the fate of aspartame carbon is true, why nobody has proved it experimentally? It is easy to carry out and much less expensive than hiring lawyers to defend bad science with top dollar legal expertise
I used as heading the famous initial words of the second Catilinary by Cicero, which I remember from my early high-school Latin. Since probably most Americans were lucky enough not to study Latin when 10-11 years old, I provide an approximate translation: "Up to when do you, Catilina, will abuse our patience?", substitute Catilina for the present aspartame producers and probably it fits very well the picture.
Good luck on the banning of this menace to our collective health.
Best regards,
--------------------------
Dr. Maria Alemany
Departament de Nutrici i Bromatologia
Facultat de Biologia, Universitat de Barcelona
Av. Diagonal, 645
08028 Barcelona. Espanya / Espaa / Spain
Today in Dr. Roberts medical text there is a page on pre-embalming thanks to the work of the courageous Dr. Maria Alemany
--------------------------
Dr. James Bowen was extremely upset that John Garst tried to deceive the legislature, especially the day before the discussion and said, This is a brazen attempt to violate every due process procedure with respect to all scientific and legal hearings.. Dr. Garth's ambush is only an attempt to win against the health and welfare of the people of New Mexico, by unlawful and unscientific ambush and by utilizing brazen pseudo science lying.
He hopes to impress by using impressive Big Words from science! This is merely science trash I will mention one case of his falsity: abuse of science and scientific process. Dr. Garst says that the folate issue is one reason not to disturb the present commerce of aspartame. This causes a highly synergized form in human metabolism, obligatory: methanol to formaldehyde to formic acid to carbon monoxide toxic axis! Molecule for molecule, the deadly formic acid congener (formate) from aspartame metabolism consumes (molecule per molecule) one molecule of folic acid (folate) to eliminate the formate without creating subsequent carbon monoxide poisoning.
Aspartame has caused many years of folate iatrogenic deficiency, already causing many human illness epidemics, fetal deformities. When in l984 I called the FDA about this, because they had concurrent with their licensure of aspartame, abandoned their 50 year standard of folic acid ingestion by pregnant women (1 mg), leading to grievous fetal defects, they like Dr. Garst lied their way out saying: We have already checked all that out. There just aren't any problems at all. But neural tube, bladder defects and cardiac deformities escalated within our newborn population victimized by aspartame. Birth defects are a major epidemic caused by aspartame, with full protection and avid cooperation from the US FDA. James Bowen, M.D.
Mark Gold of the Aspartame Toxicity Center says this short document answers all of the aspartame industrys claims about aspartame and formaldehyde poisoning: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/abuse/methanol.html
Dr. John Garst is a Ph.D and its obvious he knows he is publishing false information. His modus operandi is to use his credentials to deceive others because he cant debate true experts who can easily take apart his nonsense.
The New Mexico legislature has better sense to even consider Garst's claptrap. Aspartame manufacturers must sit up at night thinking of ways to deceive. Families all over the world have been destroyed by this poison causing male sexual dysfunction, cancer and diabetes and sudden death. Enough is enough. Aspartame must be banned from the planet to save the human race.
Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder
Mission Possible International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
770 242-2599
www.wnho.net and http://www.dorway.com
Aspartame Toxicity Center, http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame
Aspartame Information List, http://www.mpwhi.com
Aspartame Documentary: Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World
You misunderstand the problem. It is not a lack of scrutiny of aspartame; this product has had more worldwide scrutiny than just about any food substance. The problem is that those like Ms Martini and others claiming aspartame to be unsafe just won't listen or accept the facts, so they simply get ignored by regulatory authorities. Consequently, they have to make their case to lay people over the internet and their case is to restate questionable and disproven facts. It’s no surprise you get left wondering, but the evidence for the safety of aspartame is strong. Consider this point: the only arguments claiming a problem with aspartame comes from two 2006 and 2007 European Ramazzini Foundation (ERF) papers. The problem is that all their work, not just work on aspartame, but on various other substances too, is highly questionable--all for the same reason. Their work used rats unprotected from infection—that is, not specific pathogen free (SPF) rats. This fact is deemed understandable by those visiting their questionable animal facilities and laboratory. Their observations are not problems at all, but artifacts occurring also in their controls and arising from infection by Mycoplasma pulmonis. Read the facts: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19430000?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum. Others have independently come to the same conclusion both at the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority, see their website) and at FDA and two separate rebuttals have been voiced to work by Caldwell, who tried unsuccessfully to defend the ERF aspartame work.
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)
You wrote above that "the only arguments claiming a problem with aspartame comes from two 2006 and 2007 European Ramazzini Foundation (ERF) papers."
Actually, there are numerous non-industry funded studies that have found adverse effects associated with aspartame. The FDA is the only non-industry entity to consistently find the product safe. http://www.dorway.com/nonindus.html
On the other hand, every industry-funded study found aspartame safe. http://www.dorway.com/industry.html
Is it not in the best interest of public health to consider all of the research as well as the politics that were so clearly involved in the approval of this sweetener?
Personally, I have greater faith in research that is conducted independent of those who make a profit from the very item being tested.
Your resoluteness on this issue does not jive with the almost daily reports on industry’s conflict of interest in pharma research. http://tinyurl.com/mmr8vy
No you are incorrect. I have carefully studied all the aspartame studies to find any that are concerning. There are no studies with any scientific validity from anyone; even the original Searle studies were done incorrectly, as I discussed previously. And to date no new studies have taken folate into direct consideration. But for any work involving methanol, formaldehyde, or formate such experiments must consider proper folate (vitamin) nutrition. No substance can be guilty of any toxicity that can be overcome by a vitamin! Check for yourself; none of these studies (industry or not), but particularly those old studies by antiaspartame critics Roberts, Olney, Walton, Trocho et al (Alemany) have ever properly controlled for folate deficiency, for folate enzyme polymorphisms, or for homocysteine problems in their animals or patients. Industry got lucky; in their latter studies they used the newer corn-soy diets high in folate and those studies showed no problem with aspartame.
All of these non-industry studies are easily dismissible (e-mail me for the specifics). But the Trocho et al (Alemany) study is a bit different. They too didn't control for folate in their rats, but they gave a near toxic dose to rats to force binding by radiolabeled carbon from the aspartame methanol. What is different about the latter study is that their own binding experiment actually PROVES the safety of aspartame (e-mail me for more). They found radiolabel binding to proteins of label coming from the 14C-methanol of their aspartame. I know what they did and, while it wasn't wrong, the fact is that they didn't determine the nature of that protein binding; they showed it wasn't binding to the amino acid methionine (S-methylhomocysteine) and stopped. I assure you their incompleteness is where they ran aground; my alternataive will reveal a quite precedented alternative bound protein that will not only disprove their conclusion of safety issues with aspartame, but actually PROVE the safety of aspartame. This will be the subject of a future letter by me to the editor of their publishing journal about this work.
The FDA is not the only non-industry entity to find aspartame safe. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) just reiterated for the second time that they have nothing to suggest even a problem with aspartame, but they do have serious problems with the ERF studies (go to their website and read the reports). And what you don’t know too is that many of the other European agencies agree and have said the same, see this from Britain http://www.palgrave-journals.com/rm/journal/v10/n4/abs/rm200811a.html.
The aspartame approval process happened well over twenty years ago. And all these approval questions you raised center around original FDA concerns. Why are these being held up as valid by antiaspartame critics today. First, these are very old arguments; my folate paradigm totally explains these early FDA concerns (in 1976 folate deficiency was rampant). Second, aspartame has been safely used for twenty years without one scientifically valid criticism being raised. Sure you hear otherwise from the critics, but you must realize people can be allergic or intolerant of anything including peanuts and milk too. There is just no issue with aspartame, much less any issues (headache included) that cannot be understood through personal factors (allergy, intolerance or the folate/homocysteine paradigm). Third, there have been multiple confirmations of its safety, the last being this year: Artificial sweeteners and the risk of gastric, pancreatic, and endometrial cancers in Italy, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19661082?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum. Not only does this paper support aspartame safety, it came from the same country and a far more prestigious group than the ERF work that questioned aspartame.
Now let me raise another fundamental problem to you about the increasingly disproven ERF papers and the question of concern about industry profit. Who provides the money for ERF; no one knows from where it comes. It certainly is not public money. Might it be donations from antiaspartame critics supporting and perpetuating this conspiracy theory (Martini and Soffritti were close; http://www.wnho.net/soffritti_martini_picture.htm)? After all I don’t sell books, treatments, etc, but many critics have a financial interest in this not to speak of desire to litigate aspartame makers. That might be the real story behind your story.
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)
<div class="dnn_dnnContent" style="margin-left: -1500px;"><a href="http://otimizacao-de-websites.com">otimização de sites</a> <a href="http://desentupidorasanehidro.com.br">desentupidora</a> <a href="http://www.graficavendahoje.com.br">grafica</a> <a href="http://www.deeplaser.com.br">clinica de estetica</a> <a href="http://asacompanhantessp.com.br">acompanhantes sao paulo</a> <a href="http://pactotransportes.com.br">transportadora</a> <a href="http://www.mtksistemas.com.br">relogio de ponto</a> <a href="http://www.dentistaespecialista.com.br">dentista</a></div>
Post your comment