For More Information GO TO Aspartame (NutraSweet) Toxicity Home Page: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/ 14. Public Relations Much like the tobacco companies did in the past, Monsanto/NutraSweet has not let honesty or ethics get in the way of its attempts to convince the world that a dangerous neurotoxin, aspartame, is "safe." They have spared no expense in their public relations campaign. What follows is a list of the most common public relations techniques used by Monsanto to buy public opinion. A. "Scientific" Studies --> Press Releases This technique was discussed in a previous section. I have no doubt that Monsanto/NutraSweet is preparing to release additional press releases in the guise of "scientific" studies. They know that by flooding the scientific community with deceptive and mostly irrelevant studies (much as the tobacco companies did) that they can convince the scientific community and the general public of just about anything. It is likely that Monsanto/NutraSweet will do everything in their power to create the appearance of an independent, quality study in order to offset the bad publicity from previous unethical practices and the growing number of serious adverse reactions. In order to help prevent continued abuses in this area, I have created what I feel to be the minimally acceptable protocol for research into the affects of aspartame in the next chapter. B. "Scientific" Reviews This technique was discussed in a previous section. Editors who accept these "scientific" reviews by extremely biased researchers are only promoting the abuse of the scientific method. An enormous number of people are giving up on medical science, at least in part, because of these abuses. Many people are finding solutions to their problems by giving up aspartame and other "scientifically" accepted toxic substances and pursuing a more holistic-oriented healing approach. Medical science can play an important part in the discovery of useful healing tools and regimens in the future. But by promoting toxic products such as aspartame, the medical community is only succeeding in hastening the alienating of educated individuals and causing them to lose all faith in medical science. C. Statements from the FDA This technique was discussed in a previous section. The promotion of aspartame by the FDA gives me mixed feelings. On the one hand, the officials who are doing such promotion are responsible for the continuing development of serious health problems amongst tens of thousands of persons in the United States as well as countless thousands of people worldwide who actually believe what the FDA says is something more than Monsanto/NutraSweet PR. In addition, the FDA is responsible for the continuing the abuse of science by ignoring research abuses which, in my personal opinion, amount to scientific fraud. They are also continuing to abuse the laws of the United States by banning stevia use as a sweetener without any reasonable cause. On the other hand, by promoting toxic products such as aspartame and banning safe products, a growing number of people are realizing that the FDA, with its revolving door employment policy, is in many cases, simply a mouthpiece for industry and will do what it takes to serve its industry clients. This is causing many people to realize that accurate and helpful information can and should be found in sources other than the FDA and industry public relations departments. D. Industry Public Relations Groups The International Food Information Council (IFIC) is the Public Relations organization for the dangerous food and the junk-food industry. According to IFIC's World Wide Web homepage (as of 12/1/95) (IFIC 1995): "Formed in 1985, IFIC's programs and activities are supported by a number of leading food and beverage companies." IFIC's function is to propogate inaccurate information about dangerous and generally unhealthy food and agriculture products to healthcare professionals, reporters, educators, parents, and consumers. The information is generally based on inadequate, or often times, severely flawed "scientific" studies. Since the articles put out by IFIC sound authoritative, most individuals and even some scientists take what they say to be factual. Unfortunately, these articles are usually no more factual than articles about the "safety" of cigarettes put out by the Tobacco Institute. After all, IFIC is a group of chemical and junk-food companies which funds their own flawed studies and tries to pass them off as "science" just like the tobacco companies did. IFIC promotes aspartame, MSG, food additives and coloring, caffeine, refined sugar, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), pesticides, and other unhealthy and dangerous products. Much of the information provided by IFIC is simply industry public relations. Some information provided is a mixture of fact and fiction. If a person really wants to eat a healthy diet, he/she would be wise to avoid the junk food promoted by IFIC and gradually move towards a natural foods diet such as described by well-known and well-respected authors such as Colbin (1979, 1986) and Ornish (1990). If a person then wants to take the healthy ideas presented in these books and add a little more meat or naturally-made snacks (from natural food stores), that would be perfectly acceptable. But the junk promoted by IFIC is simply not healthy food even if IFIC can find some scientist, somewhere in the world, to say it is. E. Throwing Large Sums of Money at Organizations Monsanto/NutraSweet gives large sums of money to organizations so that those organizations will help promote the "safety" of aspartame. In January 1993, the American Dietetic Association (ADA) Courrier published a notice that NutraSweet gave the ADA a $75,000 grant (ADA 1993). The notice went on to say that NutraSweet helps write the ADA "Fact" sheets. Monsanto/NutraSweet funds a number of organizations such as the ADA which then reciprocate by proclaiming the "safety" of aspartame despite the evidence of harm. While individual Registered Dieticians can do quality work, any information they receive from the American Dietetic Association often comes by way of a junk food company. The ADA receives funds from numerous junk food companies and then turns around and promotes these companies' products (Burros 1995). Monsanto/NutraSweet funds the American Diabetes Association (Monsanto 1995a, Martini 1995, Stoddard 1995b), the Juvinile Diabetes Association (Mosanto 1995a), and other organizations. These financially- dependent organizations then "review" the flawed research performed by Monsanto/NutraSweet and proclaim the "safety" of aspartame, adding the appearance of credibility to NutraSweet's safety arguments. F. Sponsoring Events Sometimes NutraSweet sponsors sporting events. I find nothing wrong with a company sponsoring a sporting event. However, it is extremely disappointing that an event organizer would let the maker of a neurotoxin sponsor their event. Monsanto/NutraSweet sponsored the 1994 London Marathon. I will never understand why a health-promoting sport such as marathoning would help promote a slow poison, aspartame, by letting Monsanto/NutraSweet sponsor their event. They sponsored the professional figure skating competition in Landover, Maryland on December 9, 1995. On December 14, 1995 NutraSweet sponsored the "[NutraPoison] World Challenge of Champions" figure skating event in London, England. It will be rebroadcast on ABC on January 13, March 9, and May 11, 1996. It is disheartening that such a beautiful sport would be supported by such a dangerous "food" product. Monsanto also sponsors golf and tennis tournaments (Monsanto 1995a). While some of the tournaments raise money for worthy causes, the sale of this neurotoxin does far more damage to people than their sponsorship money could ever help. In addition, since their sponsorship encourages people to ingest aspartame, it perpetuates the damage done to these people. G. Other Companies Other companies such as the soft drink manufacturers, the junk food industry, and even some suppliment manufacturers (e.g., Twin Laboratories) promote aspartame by promoting the "safety" of their product. Soft drink manufacturers are particularly amoral when it comes to addressing the major health problems caused by aspartame in food products. In 1983 the National Soft Drink Association (NSDA) drafted a document which detailed some of the dangers and potential dangers of aspartame (NSDA 1983). People have written to soft drink manufacturers detailing the terrible health damage caused by long-term ingestion of aspartame (e.g., Fitchpatrick 1995). Yet, these companies still push aspartame in the United States and are now expanding the health damage to the rest of the world. When people talk about the lack of morality in society, it is crucial to look at some business leaders who are poisoning people's health with aspartame and a wide range of dangerous and unhealthy food and environmental products. One or two "Mea culpa's" or a quick prayer in their place of worship every week cannot make up for the pain and suffering that they cause. Twin Laboratories, Inc. is a popular supplement manufacturer. Like the soft drink manufacturers, this company has received extensive documentation as to the health problems caused by aspartame (Martini 1995b). It is extremely disappointing that a company which creates an image that it sells healthy products is continuing to push aspartame even though a) it knows of the dangers, and b) there are alternatives that are available (Mayerhoff 1995). H. Government "Contributions" As was discussed in the history section, G.D. Searle, the original manufacturer of aspartame (now owned by Monsanto) was caught making "payments to employees of certain foreign governments to obtain sales of their products." (Searle 1975). Recently, a Monsanto official was caught offering one to two million dollars to Health Canada's Bureau of Veterinary Drugs on the condition that rBGH (a dangerous synthetic hormone given to cows) be approved without any further testing (Lloyd 1995). It appears that paying off government officials may be another way to "promote" the sales and "safety" of a dangerous product. One wonders how many payoffs might have happened in various foreign countries without Monsanto/NutraSweet getting caught. In addition to possible illegal payoffs, G.D. Searle, company owners (and their wives, family members, etc.) contributed significant amounts to the campaign coffers of Congressional Representatives that helped G.D. Searle. I would be shocked if Monsanto/NutraSweet did not do the very same thing in the United States and all other countries that they are pushng their poison. Monsanto/NutraSweet representatives will often state: "The safety of aspartame is recognized not only by the FDA, but also by the regulatory agencies of more than 80 other nations (Moser 1990)." According to Dr. H.J. Roberts (Roberts 1990b): "To the best of my knowledge, neither the FDA, the WHO [World Health Organization], nor the regulatory agencies of 80 countries that Dr. Moser continually cites have conducted independent animal and human studies to confirm the earlier report, especially about toxicity and brain tumors. Most merely rubber-stamp the previous literature and bibliography." I. Attacking Critics As an example of how Monsanto (owner of NutraSweet) can attack critics, the following is an excerpt from an article about studies done by independent scientist, Rosiland Anderson, Ph.D. which showed that air passed over carpeting and breathed by animals produced nervous system damage (Duehring 1994): "p. 2 -- 'Erode the credibility of the Anderson study ...' [ellipses in memorandum] -- This kind of statement written down in a document is dangerous from a public relations viewpoint. It is possible that this document could fall into the wrong hands or be subpoenaed. There are several references like this throughout the document that could be phrased better. It would be better to say something like: 'Determine the validity of Anderson's research and educate the public concerning its scientific credibility.' "p. 4 -- Last paragraph, last sentence -- 'The key is to discredit her methodology, results and motives.' We need to be careful with this tactic. It may be necessary to publicly discredit and disgrace her but this is a risky endeavor. Even if we can prove she is incompetent, consumer advocates generally are difficult to discredit and we would run the risk of turning her into a martyr. That's not to say it shouldn't be done, but we should be on very strong foodting if we go this route." (1) "Attorney Kevin McIvers of Santo Barbara, California, responds, 'That's atrocious because what they're implying is that they're not trying to objectively look at the validity of her work. They're out to destroy it. I view her as a very honorable person doing her humble best in her little laboratory to share her information with people who are in a position to do something about it, and their response is to personally discredit and disgrace her rather than take what she has to offer." 1. Monsanto memorandum from Dallas A. Meneely to T.G. Iversen, L.J. O'Neill, C.B. Beckmann, V.L. Rhodes, L.W. Wassell, and B.A. Vanderbeck, regarding "Fleishman Hillard IAQ Proposal.' (November 11, 1992). I am confident that Monsanto/NutraSweet will attack this review if it becomes public. There is nothing wrong with them responding. It is my hope that they will not act in an underhanded sort of way as they did with Dr. Anderson and begin "eroding my credibility" rather than addressing the important points raised in this document.