Aspartame Is Dangerous For Everyone ----------------------------------- "I know that the average consumer has a devil-may-care something-is-gonna-kill-me attitude... but they don't realize that before THIS stuff kills they are going to have a miserable declining existence with LOTS of pain and other problems (not to mention cancer, tumors, and maybe even alzheimer or similar things) before death solves the problem." - An Aspartame Victim Long-Term Damage ---------------- It appears to cause slow, silent damage in those unfortunate enough to not have immediate reactions and a reason to avoid it. It may take one year, five years, 10 years, or 40 years, but it seems to cause some reversible and some irreversible changes in health over long-term use. Brain Cancer ------------ Aspartame caused large brain tumors in life-long animal experiments at a dose that could be considered within the "Acceptable Daily Intake" limit after adjusting for differences in metabolism of aspartame's breakdown products between humans and rodents. Not long after the FDA Commissioner went to work as a consultant for the PR firm of the aspartame manufacturer, FDA Investigator and Toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross stated the following: In view of all these indications that the cancer- causing potential of aspartame is a matter that had been established way beyond any reasonable doubt, one can ask: What is the reason for the apparent refusal by the FDA to invoke for this food additive the so-called Delaney Amendment to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act? Is it not clear beyond any shadow of a doubt that aspartame had caused brain tumors or brain cancer in animals, and is this not sufficient to satisfy the provisions of that particular section of the law? Given that this is so (and I cannot see any kind of tenable argument opposing the view that aspartame causes cancer) how would the FDA justify its position that it views a certain amount of aspartame (50 mg/mg body-weight) as constituting an ADI (Allowable Daily Intake) or "safe" level of it? Is that position in effect not equivalent to setting a "tolerance" for this food additive and thus a violation of that law? And if the FDA itself elects to violate the law, who is left to protect the health of the public? Uterine Polyps -------------- Pre-approval experiments showed that an aspartame breakdown product caused uterine polyps in experimental animals. Not long after the FDA Commissioner went to work as a consultant for the PR firm of the aspartame manufacturer, FDA Investigator, Dr. Jacqueline Verrett stated the following: "This (DKP) is the famous study with the uterine polyps, and it is also the study in which there were changes in serum cholesterol, significant changes over the dose range. "Now, we still are not sure exactly how much of DKP each group of animals or any individual animal got; they may not have gotten what would be calculated on the basis of daily consumption had the diet been homogeneous. "The fact is, in spite of that, there were significant increases--and I think everybody agrees with that--of uterine polyps and also changes in blood cholesterol. "When that was then taken into consideration, they said, oh, well, obviously, they must have gotten the diet, because we have these changes. But then they disregarded the changes as being significant- -you know, uterine polyps were not pre- carcinogenic. Well, I can rustle up 15 million women by this afternoon who will disagree with that." Other Hazards ------------- The following is a selection of other hazards from long-term use of aspartame. Once these effects are seen clinically, the internal damage has often been done. Removing aspartame from the diet may clear up some of the symptoms but the damage from the breakdown products such as methanol may be permanent. Seizures and convulsions, arthritic and joint pain, chronic fatigue, depression, memory loss, vision damage and loss, tingling in the extremities, slurring of speech, irritability, severe anxiety attacks, menstrual problems, blood sugar control problems, symptoms similar to multiple sclerosis, worsening of fibromyalgia, parkinson's tremors, etc., etc. Internet PR ----------- It appears that the PR firms for the chemical company "selling" aspartame (i.e., slowing poisoning people), Monsanto Chemical Company are desparate to rescue their junky product despite the growing evidence of its dangers. On the Internet, there are many nonsensical and scientifically indefensible posts by persons who are only interested in confusing the issue and creating havoc. For example, one person recently claimed that orange juice releases 400 times more methanol than aspartame upon ingestion. The scientific facts are that aspartame has much more methanol than orange juice. (Many store-bought orange juices have 10-30 times less methanol.) In addition, the methanol from aspartame is converted to the extremely toxic formaldehyde and formic acid in the body, while protective factors in the orange juice may prevent this conversion to formaldehyde and formic acid. An avid aspartame consumer will be getting the equivalent amount of methanol as a person working part-time and inhaling methanol fumes in a methanol-laden chemical plant. Other aspartame breakdown products may potentiate the methanol/formaldehyde toxicity. Another standard PR technique is the following: 1. Hire people to join Internet groups and become a "regular" poster. At least one report of recruitment has been published recently. Such a recruited individual can have almost any email address from a company name to a university email address. 2. When honest, legitimate concerns about a toxic product are posted, respond with a large number of angry, "knee-jerk" responses attempting to paint the persons posting as "radicals" when they are simply one of many, many concerned citizens. These large numbers of postings will flood the group(s) and get the legitimate participants angry. 3. There may be many postings about people who have had "no problems" with the toxic product even though, in the case of aspartame it has been on the market and used in significant amounts for such a short period of time. There may be postings trying to claim that their freedoms are being taken away even though by allowing the sale such a toxic product when there are many healthier alternatives, the FDA is clearly violating their own safety statutes. Most of these posts are probably legitimate, but there is not way to know for certain. 4. Some people and possibly some PR persons will post demanding that the "concerned citizens" (although they will not use that term) stop posting to the group. The reality almost always is that there were relatively few posts by concerned citizens and endless "knee-jerk" posts. 5. Finally, please be aware that posts from the International Food Information Council (IFIC), the PR organization for junk food companies (in the guise of an independent "nutrition" organization) and the American Dietetic Association (which received $75,000 from Monsanto and an offer to help write their "fact" sheets) often put inaccurate PR on the Internet. This is simply a modification for the Internet of very common unethical PR techniques that are sometimes applied by companies trying to rescue the image of a toxic product like aspartame. A new, extremely well-researched and well-documented book about these techniques (and a "must-read") is: Toxic Sludge is Good For You! (Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry) by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine (USA), c1995 ISBN 1-56751-061-2 or ISBN 1-56751-060-4 (pbk.) This book will help you understand what tricks to expect from Monsanto as scientists and the general population recognizes the dangers of aspartame. It is a real eye-opener and I highly recommend it. Alternatives ------------ Please do not switch from one dangerous artificial sweetener (aspartame) to another (e.g., acesulfame-k). I have a resource list of "healthier" sweeteners and sources on my web page. Please use these more natural, time-tested sweeteners to promote long-term health as opposed to destroying it.