Aspartame: Killing You By Degrees,
Part III
By Pat Thomas
Part three of this continuing series on aspartame
looks at
the current state of affairs with regard to the chemical, and presents
a timeline of its history. This article first appeared in the September
2005 issue of The Ecologist, Volume 35, No.7.
Time for Action
The story of aspartame is the story of the triumph of
corporate might over scientific rigor. It shines a spotlight on the
archaic and unbalanced procedure for approving food additives.
We ingest food additives daily, yet their approval does not require 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 interact with other additives. Nor
does it take into account whether the additive exacerbates damage
caused by other aspects of the modern lifestyle (for instance, the
neurological damage caused by pesticide ingestion or exposure).
Nor does it look for subtle chronic effects (for
instance,
the gradual build-up of methanol in the body with regular aspartame
ingestion).
There are other problems. Most studies into aspartame
are
animal studies, which are notoriously difficult to relate to humans. So
why bother performing them in the first place?
The answer is, manufacturers and regulators use animal
research as a double-edged sword. If an animal study reveals no
evidence of harm, the manufacturer can use it to support its case. If
it reveals harm, however, the manufacturer is free to flip-flop into
the argument that the results of animal studies are inconclusive in
relation to humans.
Faced with inconclusive evidence regulators will
always err
on the side of the manufacturer, who has after all demonstrated proper
bureaucratic procedure by funding and submitting its animal tests for
consideration.
The approval process for any substance that humans put in their mouths
on a daily basis should be based on solid human data and on the
precautionary principle when such data is not available.
But, as it stands, the regulation of food additives in
the
United States, the UK and elsewhere leaves the burden of proof of harm
on average people, despite the fact that most of us are either too
detached or too timid to complain or simply don't have the energy to
take on multinational corporations.
The history of aspartame is all the more remarkable because of the
number of motivated people who have refused to accept the mantra 'if
it's approved by the government it must be safe.' Nearly every piece of
independent research shows the outrage of these people, who have had to
withstand threats of litigation and being vilified in the media as
'hysterics,' is justified.
After 30 years of aspartame's commercial success, it would be easy to
conclude it is too late to act. And yet earlier this year hundreds of
products were swept off supermarket shelves on the chance that they
might have contained minuscule amounts of a potentially carcinogenic
dye, Sudan
1.
No studies existed to show that Sudan
1 could cause cancer in humans. The likelihood of any one person's
exposure to Sudan
1 being high enough to produce a tumor was minute. Nevertheless, on the
basis of the precautionary principle, action was taken.
Aspartame is not a life-saving drug. It is not even a very effective
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, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled
human trials (the gold standard of scientific proof) it should be taken
out of our food.
Aspartame Time Line
December
1965
While working on an ulcer drug, a chemist at
pharmaceutical manufacturer GD Searle accidentally discovers aspartame,
a substance that is 180 times sweeter than sugar, yet has no calories.
Spring
1967
Searle begins safety tests, necessary for FDA
approval.
Autumn
1967
GD
Searle approaches eminent biochemist Dr Harry Waisman, director of the
University of Wisconsin's Joseph P Kennedy Jr Memorial Laboratory of
Mental Retardation Research and a respected expert in the toxicity of
phenylalanine (which comprises 50 percent of the aspartame formula), to
conduct a study of the effects of aspartame on primates. Of seven
monkeys fed aspartame mixed with milk, one dies and five others have
grand mal epileptic seizures.
Spring
1971
Dr John Olney, professor of neuropathology and
psychiatry at Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine,
whose research into the neurotoxic food additive monosodium glutamate
(MSG, a chemical cousin of aspartame) was responsible for having it
removed from baby foods, informs Searle that his studies show that
aspartic acid, one of the main constituents of aspartame, causes holes
in the brains of infant mice. One of Searle's researchers, Ann
Reynolds, confirms Olney's findings in a similar study.
February
1973
Searle applies for FDA approval and submits over
100
studies it claims support aspartame's safety. Neither the dead monkeys
nor the mice with holes in their brains are included in the submission.
September
12, 1973
In a memorandum, Dr. Martha M. Freeman of the
FDA
Division of Metabolic and Endocrine Drug Products criticizes the
inadequacy of the information submitted by Searle with particular
regard to one of the compound's toxic breakdown products,
diketopiperazine (DKP). She recommends that marketing of aspartame be
contingent upon the sweetener's proven clinical safety.
August
1974
Before aspartame can reach the marketplace, Dr.
John
Olney, James Turner (attorney, consumer advocate and former 'Nader's
Raider' who was instrumental in removing the artificial sweetener
cyclamate from the U.S. market), and the group Label Inc. (Legal Action
for Buyers' Education and Labeling) file a formal objection to
aspartame's approval with the FDA, citing evidence that it could cause
brain damage, particularly in children.
July
26, 1974
FDA commissioner Dr. Alexander Schmidt grants
aspartame its first approval as a 'food additive' for restricted use in
dry foods. This approval comes despite the fact that his own scientists
found serious deficiencies in the data submitted by Searle.
July
1975
Concerns about the accuracy of test data
submitted to
the FDA by Searle for a wide range of products prompt Schmidt to
appoint a special task force to examine irregularities in 25 key
studies for aspartame and Searle drugs Flagyl, Aldactone and Norpace.
December
5, 1975
Searle agrees to an inquiry into aspartame
safety
concerns. Searle withdraws aspartame from the market pending its
results. The sweetener remains off the market for nearly 10 years while
investigations into its safety and into Searle's alleged fraudulent
testing procedures are ongoing. However, the inquiry board does not
convene for another four years.
March
24, 1976
The FDA task force completes its 500-page report
on
Searle's testing procedures. The final report notes faulty and
fraudulent product testing, knowingly misrepresented product testing,
knowingly misrepresented and 'manipulated' test data, and instances of
irrelevant animal research in all the products reviewed.
Schmidt says: '[Searle's studies were]
incredibly
sloppy science. What we discovered was reprehensible.'
July
1976
The FDA forms a new task force, headed by
veteran
inspector Jerome Bressler, to further investigate irregularities in
Searle's aspartame studies uncovered by the original task force. The
findings of the new body will eventually be incorporated into a
document known as the Bressler Report.
January
10, 1977
FDA chief counsel Richard Merrill formally
requests
the U.S. Attorney's office to begin grand jury proceedings to
investigate whether indictments should be filed against Searle for
knowingly misrepresenting findings and 'concealing material facts and
making false statements' in aspartame safety tests. This is the first
time in the FDA's history that it requests a criminal investigation of
a manufacturer.
January
26, 1977
While the grand jury investigation is underway,
Sidley
& Austin, the law firm representing Searle, begins recruitment
negotiations with Samuel Skinner, the U.S. attorney in charge of the
investigation. Skinner removes himself form the investigation and the
case is passed to William Conlon.
March
8, 1977
Searle hires prominent Washington insider Donald
Rumsfeld as its new CEO to try to turn the beleaguered company around.
A former member of Congress and defense secretary in the Ford
administration, Rumsfeld brings several of his Washington colleagues in
as top management.
July
1, 1977
Samuel Skinner leaves the US Attorney's office
and
takes a job with Searle's law firm. Conlon takes over Skinner's old
job.
August
1, 1977
The Bressler Report is released. It focuses on
three
key aspartame studies conducted by Searle. The report finds that in one
study 98 of the 196 animals died but weren't autopsied until later
dates, making it impossible to ascertain the actual cause of death.
Tumors were removed from live animals and the
animals
placed back in the study. Many other errors and inconsistencies are
noted. For example, a rat was reported alive, then dead, then alive,
then dead again. Bressler comments: 'The question you have got to ask
yourself is: why wasn't greater care taken? Why didn't Searle, with
their scientists, closely evaluate this, knowing full well that the
whole society, from the youngest to the elderly, from the sick to the
unsick? will have access to this product.'
The FDA creates yet another task force to review
the
Bressler Report. The review is carried out by a team at the FDA's
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and headed by senior
scientist Jacqueline Verrett.
September
28, 1977
The FDA publishes a report exonerating Searle of
any
wrongdoing in its testing procedures. Jacqueline Verrett will later
testify to the U.S. Senate that her team was pressured into validating
data from experiments that were clearly a 'disaster'.
December
8, 1977
Despite complaints from the Justice Department,
Conlon
stalls the grand jury prosecution for so long that the statute of
limitations on the aspartame charges runs out and the investigation is
dropped. Just over a year later Conlon joins Searle's law firm, Sidley
& Austin.
1978
The journal Medical World News reports that the
methanol content of aspartame is 1,000 times greater than most foods
under FDA control. In high concentrations methanol, or wood alcohol, is
a lethal poison.
June 1, 1979
The FDA finally establishes a public board of
inquiry
(PBOI), comprising three scientists whose job it is to review the
objections of Olney and Turner to the approval of aspartame and rule on
safety issues surrounding the sweetener.
1979
In spite of the uncertainties over aspartame's
safety
in the United States, aspartame becomes available, primarily in
pharmaceutical products, in France. It is sold under the brand name
Canderel and manufactured by the food corporation Merisant.
September
30, 1980
The FDA's PBOI votes unanimously against
aspartame's
approval, pending further investigations of brain tumors in animals.
The board says it 'has not been presented with proof of reasonable
certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive'.
1980
Canderel is now marketed throughout much of
Europe
(but not in the UK) as a low-calorie sweetener.
January
1981
Rumsfeld states in a Searle sales meeting that
he is
going to make a big push to get aspartame approved within the year.
Rumsfeld vows to 'call in his markers' and use political rather than
scientific means to get the FDA on side.
January
20, 1981
Ronald Reagan is sworn in as president of the
United
States. Reagan's transition team, which includes Rumsfeld, nominates
Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. to be the new FDA commissioner.
January
21, 1981
One day after Reagan's inauguration, Searle
re-applies
to the FDA for approval to use aspartame as a food sweetener.
March
1981
An FDA commissioner's panel is established to
review
issues raised by the PBOI.
May
19, 1981
Arthur Hull Hayes Jr., appoints a five-person
commission to review the PBOI's decision. Three of the five FDA
scientists on it advise against approval of aspartame, stating on the
record that Searle's tests are unreliable and not adequate to determine
the safety of aspartame. Hayes installs a sixth member on the
commission, and the vote becomes deadlocked.
July
15, 1981
Hayes ignores the recommendations of his own
internal
FDA team, overrules the PBOI findings and gives initial approval for
aspartame to be used in dry products on the basis that it has been
shown to be safe for its proposed uses.
October
22, 1981
The FDA approves aspartame as a tabletop
sweetener and
for use in tablets, breakfast cereals, chewing gum, dry bases for
beverages, instant coffee and tea, gelatins, puddings, fillings,
dairy-product toppings and as a flavor enhancer for chewing gum.
1982
The aspartame-based sweetener Equal,
manufactured by
Merisant, is launched in the US.
October
15, 1982
The FDA announces that Searle has filed a
petition for
aspartame to be approved as a sweetener in carbonated beverages,
children's vitamins and other liquids.
1983
Searle attorney Robert Shapiro gives aspartame
its
commercial name, NutraSweet. The name is trademarked the following
year. Shapiro later becomes president of Searle. He eventually becomes
president and then chairman and CEO of Monsanto, which will buy Searle
in 1985.
July
8, 1983
Aspartame is approved for use in carbonated
beverages
and syrup bases in the United States and, three months later,
Britain. Before the end of the year Canderel tablets are launched in
the UK. Granular Canderel follows in 1985.
August
8, 1983
James Turner, on behalf of himself and the
Community
Nutrition Institute, and Dr. Woodrow Monte, Arizona State University's
director of food science and nutritional laboratories, file petitions
with the FDA objecting to aspartame approval based on possible serious
adverse effects from the chronic intake of the sweetener. Monet also
cites concern about the chronic intake of methanol associated with
aspartame ingestion.
September
1983
Hayes resigns as FDA commissioner under a cloud
of
controversy about his taking unauthorized rides aboard a General Foods
jet (General Foods was and is a major purchaser of aspartame). He
serves briefly as provost at New York Medical College, and then takes a
position as senior scientific consultant with Burston-Marsteller, the
chief public relations firm for both Searle and Monsanto.
Autumn
1983
The first carbonated beverages containing
aspartame go
on sale in the United States.
February
17, 1984
The FDA denies Turner and Monte's requests for a
hearing, noting that aspartame's critics had not presented any
unresolved safety questions. Regarding aspartame's breakdown
components, the FDA says that it has reviewed animal, clinical and
consumption studies submitted by the sweetener's manufacturer, as well
as the existing body of scientific data, and concludes that 'the
studies demonstrated the safety of these components'.
March
1984
Public complaints about the adverse effects of
aspartame begin to come in. The FDA requests that the U.S. agency the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) begins investigations
of a select number of cases of adverse reactions to aspartame.
May
30, 1984
The FDA approves aspartame for use in
multivitamins.
July 1984
A study by the state of Arizona Department of
Health
into aspartame is published in the Journal of Applied Nutrition. It
determines that soft drinks stored at elevated temperatures promote
more rapid deterioration of aspartame into poisonous methanol.
November
2, 1984
The CDC review of public complaints relating to
aspartame culminates in a report, Evaluation of Consumer Complaints
Related to Aspartame Use, which reviews 213 of 592 cases and notes that
re-challenge tests show that sensitive individuals consistently produce
the same adverse symptoms each time they ingested aspartame.
The reported symptoms include: aggressive
behavior,
disorientation, hyperactivity, extreme numbness, excitability, memory
loss, loss of depth perception, liver impairment, cardiac arrest,
seizures, suicidal tendencies and severe mood swings.
The CDC nevertheless concludes that aspartame is
safe
to ingest. On the same day that the CDC exonerates aspartame, Pepsi
announces that it is dropping saccharin and adopting aspartame as the
sweetener in all its diet drinks. Others quickly follow suit.
October
1, 1985
Monsanto, the producer of recombinant bovine
growth
hormone, genetically engineered soy beans, the pesticide Roundup and
many other industrial and agricultural chemicals, purchases Searle for
$2.7 billion.
April
21, 1986
The U.S. Supreme Court, headed by Justice
Clarence
Thomas, a former Monsanto attorney, refuses to consider arguments from
the Community Nutrition Institute and other consumer groups that the
FDA has not followed proper procedures in approving aspartame, and that
the liquid form of the artificial sweetener may cause brain damage in
heavy users of low-calorie soft drinks.
October
16, 1986
Turner files another citizen's petition, this
time
concerning the risk of seizures and eye damage from aspartame. The
petition argues that medical records of 140 aspartame users show them
to have suffered from epileptic seizures and eye damage after consuming
products containing the sweetener and that the FDA should ban aspartame
as an 'imminent hazard to the public health'.
November
21, 1986
The FDA denies Turner's new petition, saying:
'The
data and information supporting the safety of aspartame are extensive.
It is likely that no food product has ever been so closely examined for
safety. Moreover, the decisions of the agency to approve aspartame for
its uses have been given the fullest airing that the legal process
requires.'
November
28, 1986
The FDA approves aspartame for non-carbonated
frozen
or refrigerated concentrates and single-strength fruit juice, fruit
drinks, fruit-flavored drinks, imitation fruit-flavored drinks, frozen
stock-type confections and novelties, breath mints and tea beverages.
December
1986
The FDA declares aspartame safe for use as an
inactive
ingredient, provided labeling meets certain specifications.
1987
An FDA report on adverse reactions associated
with
aspartame states the majority of the complaints about aspartame --
now numbering 3,133 -- refer to neurological effects.
January
2, 1987
NutraSweet's aspartame patent runs out in
Europe,
Canada and Japan. More companies are now free to produce aspartame
sweeteners in these countries.
October
12, 1987
United Press International, a leading global
news-syndication organization, reports that more than 10 federal
officials involved in the decision to approve aspartame have now taken
jobs in the private sector that are linked to the aspartame industry.
November
3, 1987
A U.S. Senate hearing is held to address the
issue of
aspartame safety and labeling. The hearing reviews the faulty testing
procedures and the 'psychological strategy' used by Searle to help
ensure aspartame's approval. Other information that comes to light
includes the fact that aspartame was once on a Pentagon list of
prospective biochemical-warfare weapons.
Numerous medical and scientific experts testify
as to
the toxicity of aspartame. Among them is Dr. Verrett, who reveals that,
while compiling its 1977 report, her team was instructed not to comment
on or be concerned with the overall validity of the studies.
She states that questions about birth defects
have not
been answered. She also states that increasing the temperature of the
product leads to an increase in production of DKP, a substance shown to
increase uterine polyps and change blood cholesterol levels. Verrett
comments: 'It was pretty obvious that somewhere along the line, the
bureau officials were working up to a whitewash.'
1989
The FDA has received more than 4,000 complaints
from
consumers about adverse reactions to the sweetener.
October
14, 1989
Dr HJ Roberts, director of the Palm Beach
Institute
for Medical Research, claims that several recent aircraft accidents
involving confusion and aberrant pilot behavior were caused by
ingestion of products containing aspartame.
July
20, 1990
The Guardian publishes a major investigation of
aspartame and delivers to government officials 'a dossier of evidence'
that draws heavily on the transcripts of the Bressler Report and
demands that the government review the safety of aspartame. No review
is undertaken. The Guardian is taken to court by Monsanto and forced to
apologize for printing its story.
1991
The
US National Institutes of Health publishes Adverse Effects of
Aspartame: January '86 through December '90, a bibliography
of 167 studies documenting adverse effects associated with aspartame.
1992
NutraSweet signs agreements with Coca-Cola and
Pepsi
stipulating that it is their preferred supplier of aspartame.
January
30, 1992
The FDA approves aspartame for use in malt
beverages,
breakfast cereals, and refrigerated puddings and fillings and in bulk
form (in large packages like sugar) for tabletop use. NutraSweet
markets these bulk products under the name 'NutraSweet Spoonful.'
December
14, 1992
NutraSweet's U.S. patent for aspartame expires,
opening up the market for other companies to produce the substance.
April 19, 1993
The FDA approves aspartame for use in hard and
soft
candies, non-alcoholic flavored beverages, tea beverages, fruit juices
and concentrates, baked goods and baking mixes, and frostings, toppings
and fillings for baked goods.
February
28, 1994
Aspartame now accounts for the majority (75
percent)
of all the complaints in the U.S. adverse-reaction monitoring system.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services compiles a report that
brings together all current information on adverse reactions attributed
to aspartame. It lists 6,888 complaints, including 649 reported by the
CDC and 1,305 reported by the FDA.
April
1995
Consumer activist, and founder of anti-aspartame
group
Mission Possible, Betty Martini uses the U.S.'s Freedom of Information
Act to force the FDA to release an official list of adverse effects
associated with aspartame ingestion.
Culled from 10,000 consumer complaints, the list
includes four deaths and more than 90 unique symptoms, a majority of
which are connected to impaired neurological function. They include:
headache; dizziness or problems with balance; mood change; vomiting and
nausea; seizures and convulsions; memory loss; tremors; muscle
weakness; abdominal pains and cramps; change in vision; diarrhea;
fatigue and weakness; skin rashes; deteriorating vision; joint and
musculoskeletal pain.
By the FDA's own admission, fewer then 1 percent
of
those who have problems with something they consume ever report it to
the FDA. This means that around 1 million people could have been
experiencing adverse effects from ingesting aspartame.
June
12, 1995
The FDA announces it has no further plans to
continue
to collect adverse reaction reports or monitor research on aspartame.
June 27,
1996
The FDA removes all restrictions from aspartame
use,
and approves it as a general-purpose sweetener, meaning that aspartame
can now be used in any food or beverage.
November
1996
Drawing on data compiled by the U.S. National
Cancer
Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program, which
collects and distributes data on all types of cancer, Olney publishes
peer-reviewed research in the Journal of Neuropathology and
Experimental Neurology. It shows that brain-tumor rates have risen in
line with aspartame consumption and that there has been a significant
increase in the conversion of less deadly tumors into much more deadly
ones.
December
1996
The results of a remarkable study conducted by
Dr.
Ralph G. Walton, professor of clinical psychology at Northeastern Ohio
Universities, are revealed. Commissioned by the hard-hitting U.S.
national news program 60 Minutes, it sheds some light on the absurdity
of aspartame-safety studies.
Walton reviewed 165 separate studies published
in the
preceding 20 years in peer-reviewed medical journals. Seventy-four of
the studies were industry-funded, all of which attested to aspartame's
safety. Of the other 91 non-industry funded studies, 84 identified
adverse health effects.
Six of the seven non-industry funded studies
that were
favorable to aspartame were from the FDA, which has a public record of
strong pro-industry bias. To this day, the industry-funded studies are
the ones that are always quoted to the press and in official rebuttals
to aspartame critics. They are also the studies given the greatest
weight during the approval process and in official safety reviews.
February
10, 1998
Monsanto petitions the FDA for approval of a new
tabletop sweetener called Neotame. It is around 60 times sweeter than
aspartame and up to 13,000 times sweeter than sugar. Neotame is less
prone to breaking down in heat and in liquids than aspartame because of
the addition of 3,3-dimethylbutyl, a poorly studied chemical with
suspected neurotoxic effects. Strengthening the bond between
aspartame's main constituents eliminates the need for a health warning
directed at people suffering from PKU.
May
13, 1998
Independent scientists from the University of
Barcelona publish a landmark study clearly showing that aspartame is
transformed into formaldehyde in the bodies of living specimens (in
this case rats), and that this formaldehyde spreads throughout the
specimens' vital organs, including the liver, kidneys,
eyes and brain.
The results fly in the face of manufacturers'
claims
that aspartame does not break down into formaldehyde in the body, and
bolster the claims of aspartame critics that many of the symptoms
associated with aspartame toxicity are caused by the poisonous and
cumulative effects of formaldehyde.
October
1998
The UK's Food Commission publishes two surveys
on
sweeteners. The first shows that several leading companies, including
St Ivel, Müller and Sainsbury's, have ignored the legal
requirement to
state 'with sweeteners' next to the name of the product. The second
reveals that aspartame not only appears in 'no-sugar added' and 'light'
beverages but also in ordinary non-dietetic drinks because it's three
times cheaper than ordinary sugar.
February 8, 1999
Monsanto files a petition with the FDA for
approval of
the general use of Neotame.
June
20, 1999
An investigation by The Independent on Sunday
reveals
that aspartame is made using a genetic engineering process. Aspartame
component phenylalanine is naturally produced by bacteria. The
newspaper reveals that Monsanto has genetically engineered the bacteria
to make them produce more phenylalanine.
Monsanto claims that the process had not been
revealed
previously because no modified DNA remains in the finished product, and
insists that the product is completely safe; though scientists counter
that toxic effects cannot be ruled out in the absence of long-term
studies.
A Monsanto spokeswoman says that while aspartame
for
the US market is often made using genetic engineering, aspartame
supplied to British food producers is not. The extent to which US
brands of low-calorie products containing genetically engineered
aspartame have been imported into Britain is unclear.
May
2000
Monsanto, under pressure -- not least from
the
worldwide resistance to genetically manipulated food and ongoing
lawsuits -- sells NutraSweet to JW Childs Associates, a
private-equity firm comprised of several former Monsanto managers, for
$440m. Monsanto also sells its equity interest in two European
sweetener joint ventures, NutraSweet AG and Euro-Aspartame SA.
December 10,
2001
The UK's Food Standards Agency requests that the
European Commission Scientific Committee on Food conducts an updated
review of aspartame. The committee is asked to look carefully at more
than 500 scientific papers published between 1988 and 2000 and any
other new scientific research not examined previously.
July
9, 2002
The FDA approves the tabletop and general use of
Neotame. The 'fast-track' approval raises eyebrows because,
historically, the FDA takes at least 10 years to approve food
additives. Neotame is also approved for use in Australia and New
Zealand, but has yet to be approved in the UK.
December
10, 2002
The European Commission Scientific Committee on
Food
publishes its final report on aspartame. The 24-page report largely
ignores independent research and consumer complaints, relying instead
on frequently cited articles in books and reviews put together 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 of brain chemistry, a human study linking
aspartame to neurophysiological changes that could increase seizure
risk, another linking aspartame use with depression in individuals
susceptible to mood disorder, and two others linking aspartame
ingestion with headaches are all dismissed.
The report's conclusion amounts to a single
sentence:
'The committee concluded that ... there is no evidence to suggest that
there is a need to revise the outcome of the earlier risk assessment or
the [acceptance daily intake] previously established for aspartame.'
As with the FDA, there are concerns about the
neutrality of some of the committee's members and their links with the
International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), an industry group that
funds, among other things, research into aspartame. ILSI members
include Monsanto, Coca-Cola and Pepsi.
February
19, 2003
Members of the European Parliament's
Environment,
Public Health and Consumer Policy Committee approve the use of
sucralose and an aspartame-acesulfame salt compound (manufactured in
Europe by the aspartame-producing Holland Sweetener Company and sold
under the name Twinsweet), agreeing to review of the use of both in
three years' time.
At the same time, a request by European greens
that
the committee re-evaluate the safety of aspartame and improve the
labeling of aspartame-containing products is rejected.
May 2004
The feature-length documentary Sweet Misery is
released on DVD (see http://www.soundandfuryproductions.com/).
Part-documentary, part-detective story, it includes interviews with
people who have been harmed by aspartame, as well as credible testimony
from advocates, doctors, lawyers and long-time campaigners, including
James Turner, HJ Roberts and renowned neurosurgeon Dr. Russell
Blaylock. (UK orders: Namaste Publishing,
[email protected].)
September
2004
U.S. consumer group the National Justice League
files
a $350m class-action lawsuit against the NutraSweet Corporation (the
current owner of aspartame products), the American Diabetes Association
and Monsanto. Some 50 other defendants have yet to be named, but
mentioned throughout the lawsuit is the central role of Donald Rumsfeld
in helping to get aspartame approved through the FDA.
The plaintiffs maintain that this litigation
will
prove how deadly aspartame is when it is consumed by humans. Little
progress has been made so far in bringing the action to court.
March
2005
The
NutraSweet Company reopens its plant in Atlanta, Georgia, (dormant
since 2003) in order to meet increased demand for its sweetener.
Aspartame, sold commercially as NutraSweet, Equal, Equal-Measure,
Spoonful, Canderel and Benevia, is currently available in more than 100
countries and used in more than 5,000 products by at least 250 million
people every day. Worldwide, the aspartame industry's sales amount to
more than $1 billion yearly. The US is the primary consumer.
July
2005
The Ramizzini Institute in Bologna, a
non-profit,
private institution set up to research the causes of cancer, releases
the results of a very large, long-term animal study into aspartame
ingestion. Its study shows that aspartame causes lymphomas and leukemia
in female animals fed aspartame at doses around 20 milligrams per
kilogram of body weight, or around half the accepted daily intake for
humans.
|