Posted: 01 July 2008
From: Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum., Bettym19@mindspring.com
Date: Mon, Jun 30, 2008 1:59 pm
Subject: To Food Standards: European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, No Controversy on aspartame; it's a deadly poison
So you still haven't told me why you have people working for you who are pro-industry and why you have done nothing when you know aspartame is a deadly, deadly addictive excitoneurotoxic carcinogenic drug that interacts with virtually all drugs and toxins. An article in the New York Times recently said that more people die from prescription drugs than illegal drugs, and that's because if they are using aspartame whatever they take is no doubt going to interact. I wonder how many drugs this man was using for his heart and Dr. H. J. Roberts who wrote the medical text said aspartame interacts with all cardiac medication. Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic, http://www.sunsentpress.com I would suggest you get a copy.
Here is the article on the latest death: http://www.mpwhi.com/george_carlin_and_diet_coke.htm
What does it take Ms. Griffith-Sackey to get you people to ban aspartame? All you have on your web is industry propaganda. Even when damning and prestigious studies are done on aspartame showing so much toxicity that you can't question the fact that the formaldehyde embalms living tissue (Trocho Study) and aspartame is a multipotential carcinogen (Ramazzini) you add rebuttals by industry flacks. There are efforts around the world to ban this deadly poison. 47 members of the UK Parliament have even asked for a ban, and a member of the European Food Safety Authority has confessed on their rebuttal on Ramazzini that industry pressured them to high jack science.
Why does it take so long for you to answer? Food Standards was set up to distance it from industry and instead your web site shows their influence and your refusal to publish the truth.
Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum.
Founder, Mission Possible World Health International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
Aspartame Toxicity Center: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame
Aspartame documentary: Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World, http://www.soundandfury.tv
From Jack Samuels, http://www.truthinlabeling.org
Humphries, Pretorius and Naude (from South Africa) did a nice review of "Direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain" (European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. (2008) Vol 62, pages 451-462.) They talk about the toxic effects of aspartame, present their review, and conclude by saying "From all the adverse effects caused by this product, it is suggested that serious further testing and research be undertaken to eliminate any and all controversies surrounding this product." I took that as an opportunity to write to the journal saying, "There really is no controversy." It was published on-line last week, and will appear in the journal itself in the next couple of months. For those wanting to look up the Letter to the Editor, the Medline reference number is 18545263.
Letter to the Editor
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition advance online publication 11 June 2008; doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2008.38
There really is no controversy
Solana Beach, CA, USA
Correspondence: A Samuels, E-mail: email@example.com
It is noted in the excellent review by Humphries et al. (2008) that debate [over safety] still continues 20 years after the FDA had approved the use of aspartame.
Regarding that debate, the following comments are in order.
Aspartame has never been shown to be safe for human consumption. Aspartame was discovered in 1965. Required safety testing began in 1967. To date, no research outside of the aspartame industry has found aspartame to be safe for human consumption.
In June 1979, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) established a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) to rule on aspartame safety issues. The PBOI concluded that NutraSweet/aspartame should not be approved pending further investigations of brain tumors in animals.
In 1981, Ronald Reagan became President of the United States; Arthur Hull Hayes Jr was named FDA Commissioner; a Commissioner's panel was established to review issues raised by the PBOI; the panel advised against approval of aspartame; Hayes overruled the PBOI, ignored the recommendations of his own internal FDA team and approved aspartame for use in dry products.
The so-called aspartame-industry 'science' is flawed to the point of being worthless. Controversy about the safety of aspartame is a device used by those who profit from production and sale of the product. Industry sponsored studies referring to brain damage draw conclusions without basis. Illustrating this practice is a 1980 study which reads, in part, "On the basis of blood absorption curves...[ it] is concluded that (aspartame)...does not result in hypothalamic damage in the newborn monkey (Reynolds et al., 1980)".
Using techniques similar to those of the glutamate industry (Samuels, 1999), the aspartame industry, in studies of adverse reactions, has manipulated subjects, procedures and statistics to enable researchers to draw the conclusion that there is no significant difference in reactions following ingestion of aspartame as opposed to ingestion of placebo. The study of Geha et al., 1993 illustrates the point.
The FDA gives every appearance of cooperating with the aspartame industry in promoting the 'safety' of aspartame. Badly flawed industry sponsored studies have gone unchallenged.
Following the unwarranted approval of aspartame, the FDA Adverse Reactions Monitoring System began receiving, and accepting, unsolicited reports of reactions to aspartame. A 26 June 1997 Memorandum from Technical Information Specialist (HFS-728) to Health Hazard Evaluation Board reported that the FDA has received 7259 complaints of adverse reactions attributed to the use of aspartame.
The FDA has a history of minimizing the extent and severity of adverse reactions to food. Reports of debilitating or life-threatening reactions are not routinely investigated, and >reports of 'death,' for example, are listed as 'other.'