Aspartame again

Federal Study Rejects Aspartame Risks
News source link
April 4, 2006, 8:54 PM EDT
WASHINGTON -- A huge federal study in people -- not rats -- takes the fizz out of arguments that the diet soda sweetener aspartame might raise the risk of cancer.

No increased risk was seen even among people who gulped down many artificially sweetened drinks a day, said researchers who studied the diets of more than half a million older Americans.
A consumer group praised the study, done by reputable researchers independent of any funding or ties to industry groups.

"It goes a fair way toward allaying concerns about aspartame," said Michael Jacobson, head of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which had urged the government to review the sweetener's safety after a troubling rat study last year.

Findings were reported Tuesday at a meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Aspartame came on the market 25 years ago and is found in thousands of products -- sodas, chewing gum, dairy products and even many medicines. NutraSweet and Equal are popular brands.

Research in the 1970s linked a different sweetener, saccharin, to bladder cancer in lab rats. Although the mechanism by which this occurred does not apply to people and no human risk was ever documented, worries about sugar substitutes in general have persisted.

They worsened after Italian researchers last year reported results of the largest animal study ever done on aspartame, involving 1,800 lab rats. Females developed more lymphomas and leukemias on aspartame than those not fed the sweetener.

The new study, by scientists at the National Cancer Institute, involved 340,045 men and 226,945 women, ages 50 to 69, participating in a research project by the National Insitutes of Health and AARP, formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons.

From surveys they filled out in 1995 and 1996 detailing food and beverage consumption, researchers calculated how much aspartame they consumed, especially from sodas or from adding the sweetener to coffee or tea.

Over the next five years, 2,106 developed blood-related cancers such as lymphoma or leukemia, and 376 developed brain tumors. No link was found to aspartame consumption for these cancers in general or for specific types, said Unhee Lim, who reported the study's findings.

The dietary information was collected before the cancers developed, removing the possibility of "memory bias" -- faulty recollection influenced by knowing you have a disease.

"It's very reassuring. It's a large study with a lot of power," said Richard Adamson, a senior science consultant to the American Beverage Association, the leading industry group.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest still warns about one potential hazard of aspartame use: thinking that calories "saved" from using a sugar substitute justify "spending" more on unhealthy foods.

"Drinking a diet soda at lunch does not mean it's okay to have a larger dessert at dinner," the group's Web site warns.

Aspartame fact sheet:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/artificial-sweeteners

Cancer conference: http://www.aacr.org

===================================

Reaction to above news story and a different point of view (less corp. and govt. funded)... just for your reading pleasure...

Government Says Aspartame Is Good For You
news source link
The deadly toxin Aspartame which is included in more than 6,000 food and drink products around the world is good for you according to a new government study. The Associated Press falsely labels the results as independent and omits referencing previous human studies undertaken by groups with no corporate or government ties that concluded the opposite.

Associated Press health correspondent Marilynn Marchione seems to revel in suggesting the study is beyond reproach because it uses human subjects rather than rats.

"A huge federal study in people -- not rats -- takes the fizz out of arguments that the diet soda sweetener aspartame might raise the risk of cancer," smarms the article in an attempt to discredit last year's Italian study which linked aspartame to an increased risk of leukaemias and lymphomas in female lab rats "at doses very close to the acceptable daily intake for humans."

In putting the study in this context, the Associated Press has lied by omission. Numerous independent controlled studies (not ones conducted by corporations or government) using human subjects have concluded that aspartame is deadly. They are Camfield (1992), Elsas (1988), Gulya (1992), Koehler (1988), Kulczycki (1995), Spiers (1988), Van Den Eeden (1994), Walton (1993). Why doesn't the AP mention any of these studies?

Why doesn't the AP mention the fact that "out of 90 independently-funded studies, 83 of them found one or more
problems caused by aspartame. But out of the 74 studies funded by the aspartame industry (e.g., Monsanto, G.D. Searle, ILSI, etc.), every single one of them claimed that no problems were found?"

The AP immediately draws the conclusion that the study was, "done by reputable researchers independent of any funding or ties to industry groups."

The AP cites the Center For Science in the Public Interest as praising the results of the study. CFSPI is a Rockefeller front organization that also receives funding from Ted Turner's Nuclear Threat Initiative. Its board of directors is also littered with former government henchmen, including former FDA officials.

Having the federal government conduct studies that heavily impact profits of major corporations depending on the results and calling them independent is like Charles Manson being judged by Jeffrey Dahmer. In the 21st century of corporate fascism the two are inseparable from one another.

The Aspartame controversy is noted for the fact that it explicitly connects government conflicts of interest with corporations. Donald Rumsfeld became the chief executive officer of a worldwide pharmaceutical G.D. Searle & Company (later bought out by Monsanto) in 1977, 12 years after aspartame was discovered by G.D. Searle chemist James Schlatter.

A story by Rishi Mehta, associate commentary editor for the University of Connecticut Daily Campus newspaper, points out the following: “In 1981, after over 15 years of FDA disapproval of aspartame, Rumsfeld said in a Searle sales meeting that he would use ‘political rather than scientific means’ to finally get FDA approval. Only 20 days later, Ronald Reagan was sworn in as 40th President of the United States, appointing Rumsfeld as Special Envoy to the Middle East and Arthur Hayes Hull Jr. - a friend of Rumsfeld's - to FDA commissioner."

If one of the most influential members of the current administration has publicly stated that he would use political pressure to force the acceptance of aspartame would it would therefore overwhelmingly be in the interest of a federal government study to conclude that the use of aspartame was acceptable?

Yes.

Therefore the study is not independent and it is not credible.

Futhermore, the FDA has been caught in the past removing negative data from government studies that indicated aspartame was dangerous to humans.

According to consumer rights group Mission Possible, "Since its 1981 approval, the FDA has published a list of 92 symptoms of aspartame poisoning, which includes headaches, vision loss including blindness, seizures, neurological problems, cardiovascular problems and death. The FDA admits adverse reactions to aspartame comprise about 80 percent of consumer complaints it receives each year."

Proponents of aspartame are like the idiots in the 50's who said there were no health dangers in smoking. Moves by British parliamentarians and bills such as one in New Jersey calling for the outright banning of aspartame in all foods should be supported and this poison-peddling industry shut down.