http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1045
critique of 12.4.2 EU SCF aspartame report by Gold 2.3.3:
Murray 12.15.3 rmforall

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/965
summary of 59-page critique by Gold of 12.4.2 EC SCF report on aspartame:
Murray 2.16.3 rmforall

Mark D. Gold for years has provided informed, referenced, balanced, and
civil critiques on aspartame toxicity and related issues on the Net
as a layman expert. I here provide a plain text version of his critique, so
it can conveniently be posted, copied, printed and used in other documents.
Only minor typos have been edited. At the end of his critique, I add a few
recent research listings.

EP, FSA AND SCF WEBSITES
1. The Explanatory Statement and Draft Report by Anne Ferreira, the
Rapporteur, relating to the Amendments to the Sweeteners Directive 94/35/EC
http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/envi/20030121/envi20030121.htm

2. The Opinion of Aspartame by the Scientific Committee on Food given
4th December 2002 http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/aspartamereview

3. SCF website http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scf/out155_en.pdf

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/989
On April 10, 2003 the European Union Parliament voted 440 to 20 to
approve sucralose, limit cyclamates & reevaluate aspartame & stevia:
Murray 4.12.3 rmforall
***********************************************************************

Conclusion:

Persons ingesting aspartame are being exposure
to significant amounts of formaldehyde that has been shown by
independent research to accumulate throughout the body.

Chronic, low-level exposure to formaldehyde (even without accumulation)
has been shown in human research to cause irreversible genetic damage,
headaches, seizures, neurobehavioral problems, gastrointestinal and
cardiovascular problems, fatigue, chest pains, dizziness, etc.

Exposure to a free-form excitotoxic amino acid from aspartame would be
expected to worsen the adverse effects from chronic formaldehyde
poisoning.

Aspartame manufacturer-sponsored studies are designed in a way as to
avoid the possibility of finding adverse effects, yet the Committee
accepted these studies without any question.

In contrast, nearly all independent research on aspartame in animals or
humans has found that aspartame can cause problems.

Human studies and clinical reports published in the medical literature
linking aspartame use to fibromyalgia, seizures, panic attacks, mania,
brain cancer, migraines / headaches, vertigo, symptoms related to
depression, memory loss, hives, irregular heart beats, vision loss, and
numerous of symptoms were largely ignored by the Committee.

It appears that the Committee obtained most of its information from
aspartame industry public relations books that they repeatedly cited
(Stegink 1984, Tschanz 1996),
published reviews by manufacturer employees (Butchko 1994, Butchko 2001),
a report from the French Food Agency (AFSSA 2002) written by some unknown
individual(s), and perhaps
the occasional published study, primarily manufacturer-sponsored studies.

A significant amount of independent research was ignored, and when
independent studies were mentioned, they were quickly labeled as flawed.

There is evidence that the Committee did not read some or most of the
research they cited and is only familiar with aspartame-related research
from the aspartame manufacturer's perspective.

It appears that there is far too much food industry influence on the
Scientific Committee on Food.

In fact, it would be unlikely that an unbiased review could be performed
on aspartame, stevia or any other controversial food related subjects
without refilling the Committee positions from scratch.

New Committee members should meet the following criteria:

1. No food industry ties. Disclosure of past and current ties to the food
industry.

2. History of ability to stand up to food industry interests when necessary.

3. Expertise in various specialties (e.g., neuroscience, toxicology,
immunology, etc.).

4. Willingness to read all of the relevant research and hear both
independent and food industry testimony.
***********************************************************************

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/scf2002.html
Independent Analysis of the "Opinion of the European Commission,
Scientific Committee on Food: Update on the Safety of Aspartame / E951"
[Dec. 4, 2002] MS Word (Rich Text Format) Version and

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/scf2002-response.htm
HTML Version: 59 pages, 230 references.

Independent Analysis of the
"Opinion of the European Commission, Scientific Committee on Food:
Update on the Safety of Aspartame / E951" (SCF 2002) [Dec 4, 2002]
[ The EC SCF report is also available at [23 pages in 2 parts, references]:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/957
safety of aspartame Part 1/2 12.4.2: EC HCPD-G SCF:
Murray 1.12.3 rmforall

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/958
safety of aspartame Part 2/2 12.4.2: EC HCPD-G SCF:
Murray 1.12.3 rmforall ]

by Mark D. Gold Aspartame Toxicity Information Center*
12 East Side Dr., Suite 2-18 mgold@...
Concord, New Hampshire, 02139 USA 1-603-225-2110
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/

Draft Version 4a: February 3, 2003

*The Aspartame Toxicity Information Center is funded by Mark D. Gold. No
funding has been received from the food industry for any work performed by
the author or by the Aspartame Toxicity Information Center.

Table of Contents
Introduction *
Aspartame Industry Influence and the Scientific Committee on Food *
Scientific Committee on Food Does Not Read the Research *
Aspartame and Formaldehyde Poisoning *
Aspartame and Migraines / Headaches *
Aspartame and Seizures *
Aspartame and Brain Cancer *
Aspartame and Reproductive Effects *
Aspartame and Behavior, Cognition, Mood *
Aspartame and Other Effects *
Conclusion *
References *

Introduction

In 2001, the United Kingdom Food Standards Agency requested that the
European Commission Scientific Committee on Food conduct an updated
review of the artificial sweetener, aspartame / E951 (FSA 2001a).

The Scientific Committee on Food was asked to look at more than 500
scientific papers published between 1988 and 2000 and any other new
scientific research not examined previously by the Committee (FSA 2001b).

On December 10, 2002, the Scientific Committee on Food published its
final report (SCF 2002).

This response will demonstrate that:

1. Members of the European Commission Scientific Committee on Food
have ethical and financial conflicts of interest with the food industry
that should have disqualified them from participation on the Committee.

2. Members of the Scientific Committee on Food did not read
some or most of the research papers they cited.

3. The report ignored independent research related to
aspartame and instead relied heavily on and frequently cited articles in
books and reviews put together by employees or consultants of the
aspartame manufacturers (Monsanto and Ajinomoto).

4. Persons ingesting aspartame are being exposed to significant
amounts of formaldehyde that has been shown by independent research to
accumulate throughout the body.

5. Aspartame manufacturer-sponsored studies are designed in a way
as to avoid the possibility of finding adverse effects, yet the
Committee accepted these studies without any question.
In contrast, nearly all independent research on aspartame in humans and
animals has found that it can cause problems.

6. Human studies and clinical reports published in the medical
literature linking aspartame use to fibromyalgia, seizures, panic
attacks, mania, brain cancer, migraines / headaches, vertigo, symptoms
related to depression, memory loss, hives, irregular heart beats, and
numerous other symptoms were largely ignored by the Committee.

In addition to the analysis of the Scientific Committee on Food report,
there will be numerous sample aspartame poisoning case reports within
the text to give the reader an idea of the clinical effects being
reported. The reports will be taken from
the medical literature and from the Aspartame Toxicity Information
Center listing of cases (ATIC 1997, 1998). [marked with ***]

References [230 listed] for this analysis appear at the end of the report.

***January 27, 1995 Dear Dr. Roberts:

The purpose of this letter is to thank you for saving me from the clutches
of aspartame. I admire your courage in standing up to the F.D.A. and other
organizations and individuals who make the public believe this substance is
safe.

For several years I had been hearing about your book, papers, and public
appearances regarding the dangers of aspartame, but, like so many others,
thought I could trust that the F.D.A. wouldn't approve anything for human
consumption which wasn't safe. I had to be brought to my knees before I
finally purchased and read your book last month. It was out of desperation,
as over a period of 8 years I have had one ailment after another, most of
which the doctors and specialists could not diagnose or treat. I have been
to all of them mentioned in your book and had all the tests as well.

I have had most all of the symptoms as those you surveyed: petit mal
seizures, headaches (felt like my brain was going to come out of my heat),
loss of vision, dry eyes, dry mouth, dry skin, disorientation, dizziness,
sleeplessness, diarrhea, sensitivity to noise and bright light, stomach
bloat and gas, inability to lose weight on what had previously been a
successful diet and might have gained weight, shortness of breath, chest
pains, irregular heart beat. I always had the feeling I was seeing the world
through a clouded lens.

I took myself off aspartame about a month ago. The above symptoms are either
gone or are greatly reduced at this point. Thank you, thank you.

I do have a question - you mention rheumatic disorders in your book - I was
diagnosed as having Polymyalgia Rheumatica about 8 years ago and was treated
for almost 3 years with prednisone. I had gone from perfect health to almost
being crippled at age 53 for no apparent reason. Could that have also been
brought on by the consumption of aspartame? That would have been about the
time that substance was first appearing on the market.

Another purpose of this letter is to let you know I am an activist type and
am willing to fight for causes I believe in. If I can help you in any way,
please let me know. I'll write letters. I'll speak. It would be good therapy
for me. Right now I have a mountain of resentment about the years of pain
and suffering needlessly caused by ingesting something harmful into my boy
without even being warned. When you consider that I drive a lot, it could
have cost me my life.

Sincerely, Gwenne Allen (ATIC 1997)

Date: Sun, 04 Feb 96 21:27:15 0600
Subject: Aspertame

Sir I am reading the postings on the internet about aspertame with great
intrest and anger.

I had been drinking Diet Coke for the past 12 years. This was the only form
of liquid I consumed, with the very odd glass of water or even less often a
glass of milk. The quantity of consumption varied between 2 and 5 litres a
day. Every day for almost 12 years.

In March of 1995 I saw part of a TV program that was about aspertame. The
interviewer was talking to a representative from the company that makes
aspertame. The representative said that the company had received 6,000
written complaints about the product, everything from strokes to liver and
kidney failure to joint problems. He sat there and said that their doctors
and scientists could not confirm even one of the complaints. My
understanding of the American ratio of actual complaints to written
complaints is in the neighbourhood of 5,000 to 1 and may be as high as
10,000 to 1. This would mean that between 30,000,000 and 60,000,000 million
people were having problems with this product. I quit drinking diet coke
immediately.

Problems that I had attributed to stress of running my own business included
high blood pressure, gout, kidney stones, joint problems had been with me
for several years. Other problems that were present, but masked included;
burn out and depression, confussion in decision making, general lack of
drive and loss of feeling in my hands. The withdrawl process was not easy,
but I have been off aspertame for approximately 10 months now and many of my
problems are going away. I understand that it make take a long time to perge
the body of the residual toxins, but it is happening. (ATIC 1998)***

Aspartame Industry Influence and the Scientific Committee on Food

A. Food Industry Conflict of Interest and Corruption - United States
"Science is losing credibility. Conflicts of interest, biased studies, and
secrecy are undermining science's reputation and its truth-seeking
objective.

"Scientist-consultants who are paid by industries but who serve as faculty
professors frequently testify before Congress and federal regulatory
agencies without pausing to reveal their industry connections. Science
departments in public universities enter into multi-million-dollar contracts
with private corporations, yet few details are revealed about the nature of
such agreements. Medical and other science journals all too frequently
publish articles without adequately disclosing even major conflicts of
interest." [Collins (2000) - Director of the Integrity in Science Project at
the Center for Science in the Public Interest].

In the United States, corruption of governmental and scientific committees
by the food industry was disclosed in the late 1960's and early 1970's. In
an article in the journal Science (1972), it was revealed that the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) Food Protection Committee was being funded by the
food, chemical and packaging industries. The U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) was relying on the NAS Committee for "independent"
information. The Chairman of the NAS Subcommittee investigating monosodium
glutamate (MSG) had recently taken part in research partially funded by the
MSG manufacturer. Another member of the Subcommittee became a spokesperson
for the MSG industry. (Science 1972). Other members of the Subcommittee had
ties to the MSG industry. Since that time numerous governmental committees
have been corrupted by the placement of food industry-funded consultants on
these committees (Samuels 1999, Collins 2000).

B. Food Industry Conflict of Interest and Corruption - Worldwide

On January 9, 2003, The Guardian reported that they obtained a confidential
report relating to the food industry experts "infiltrating" the World Health
Organization (WHO) Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) committees
(Guardian 2003). The report found that:

- Food companies attempted to place scientists favourable to their views on
WHO and Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) committies.

- They financially supported non-governmental organisations which were
invited to formal discussions on key issues with the United Nations (UN)
agencies.

- They financed research and policy groups that supported their views.

- They financed individuals who would promote "anti-regulation ideology" to
the public, for instance in newspaper articles.

"One industry-led organization, International Life Sciences Institute
(ILSI), has positioned its experts and expertise across the who spectrum of
food and tobacco policies: at conferences, on FAO/WHO food policy committees
and within WHO, and with monographs, journals and technical briefs."
(Guardian 2003)

The International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) is an industry group
founded in 1978 by Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, Heinz Foundation, General Foods,
Kraft Foods (owned by Philip Morris), and Proctor & Gamble. Manufacturers of
aspartame, Monsanto and Ajinomoto, have branches in various parts of the
world that have separate memberships in the ILSI. Holland Sweetener Company,
another company that sells aspartame, is a member of ILSI (ILSI 2003,
Guardian 2003). The ILSI funds research on aspartame and other industry
concerns. The ILSI Aspartame Committee is made up of the NutraSweet Company,
Ajinomoto Co., Coca Cola Co., Pepsico, Inc., Royal Crown Co., Seven-Up,
Inc., and other manufacturers of aspartame-containing products [Gordon
1987]. The manufacturer of aspartame threatened to have the ILSI research
funding vetoed for one scientist who said negative things about aspartame in
public (Wurtman 1987).

Governmental committees are often corrupted by companies and industry trade
organizations that are able to get paid consultants or other biased persons
on the committee. Monsanto and Ajinomoto of Japan marketed aspartame in
Europe in the 1980's and 1990's. A confidential memo obtained by GeneWatch
demonstrates that Monsanto tries to influence who is put on scientific
committees with "scientific outreach":

"Scientific outreach and Ag Regulatory was instrumental in assuring that key
internationally recognized scientific experts were nominated to the FAO/WHO
expert consultation on food safety which was held in Geneva this past month.
The consultation and final report were very supportive of plant
biotechnology, including support for the critical role of substantial
equivalence in food safety assessments, antibiotic resistance markers used
in these products, and the reservation of animal feeding studies to address
specific questions rather than for routine safety" (Monsanto 2000)

Ajinomoto of Japan has benefited tremendously by having key committees
corrupted by biased, industry-paid consultants (Samuels 1999)

C. Conflict of Interest on the Scientific Committee on Food

Members of the European Commission Scientific Committee on Food have
admitted to a conflict of interest:

According to Baby Milk Action, the UK partner of the International Baby Food
Action Network, four members of the committee -- Professor Ablert Flynn
(Ireland), Professor Ronald Walker (United Kingdom), Wim H M Saris (the
Netherlands), and Professor Anna Ferro Luzzi (Italy) -- have declared
"economic or ethical interests which might be considered prejudicial" to
their independence. (BMJ 2000)

One member of the European Commission Scientific Committee on Food, Ronald
Walker, spent seven (7) years as the ILSI's Chairman of their Scientific
Committee on Toxicology/Food Safety in Europe (Walker 2001). Another member
of the Committee, W.H.M. Saris, is the chairman of the ILSI Scientific
Committee on Nutrition (NUTRIM 2000). At least half of the Committee members
have been involved in ILSI projects and/or participated in ILSI workshops
(ILSI 1999).

The Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) documents are presented without any
information as to the past or current financial ties between the Committee
members and the food industry. Despite the efforts by independent
organizations, the members of the Scientific Committee on Food do not
provide a detailed accounting of their food industry ties even after such
ties are discovered (BMA 1997)

***April 16, 1995

I had used Equal/NutraSweet/aspartame for 4 or 5 years with no idea that
it's poisonous, as I assumed that FDA approval means it's perfectly safe for
us. I Used about 12 paks of Equal in hot coffe each day.

The first symptoms were depression and vertigo, but I didn't connect them
with Equal. My legs cramped constantly and pained at night, and I had
insomnia and terrible nightmares and memory loss. My vision deteriorated
until I expected to go blind, but my eye doctor couldn't explain why. My
life became a nightmare, and I turned to prayer.

It worked! I received a NUTRASWEET IS A NEUROTOXIN flyer listing all my
symptoms, so I abandoned aspartame in any form. My vision returned, the
cramps disappeared, and I could sleep without nightmares. The depression and
vertigo vanished. It was a miracle because I had thought I was dying and had
Multiple Sclerosis.

If you have a serious problem, it's natural to investigate it. Often the
Experts are publicity mills funded by the pirates that make the stuff. It's
like asking the Mafia about the crime rate. Both the American Dietetics and
American Diabetic Associations get big bucks from NutraSweet. Such
organizations propagandize physicians on how safe it is, so doctors are
often [not] aware of the danger.

Much research confirms aspartame toxicity as do 80% of complaints the FDA
has received on food additives. Heated aspartame is the most hazardous. My
12 packs/day in coffee almost cost my health, sanity and life. Now FDA has
approved its use in baked goods, 350 degrees! Before Equal I used saccharin
without a problem. It looks like we have no protector, so we must warn each
other. In this spirit I attest to the nightmare Equal made of my life. I
urge you to take the no aspartame test and discover if your health problems
are the results of continuous daily poisoning.
Mrs. Gloria Collins (ATIC 1997)***

D. Scientific Committee on Food and Obvious Bias

Almost all aspartame studies conducted and funded independently of the
aspartame manufacturer (and related trade groups) have linked aspartame to
adverse effects or adverse biochemical changes. This includes numerous human
studies (e.g., clinical, double-blind) and animal studies (Walton 1996). As
discussed throughout this document, the Scientific Committee on Food either
ignored many of these independent studies or had negative things to say
about almost all of the independent studies that they did mention. An
enormous number of reports of serious adverse effects from aspartame are
being sent to governmental agencies, scientists, clinicians, and independent
organizations (DHHS 1993, Roberts 1988a, Food 1986, Walton 1988, ATIC 1998,
ATIC 1997, ACSN 1997, AVSG 2003, NM 2003).

On the other hand, the Committee accepted almost all of the aspartame
industry-funded studies without any negative comment. In fact, the Committee
relied heavily on and repeatedly cited parts of books and reviews written
and compiled by employees of the aspartame manufacturer (e.g., Stegink 1984,
Tschanz 1996, Butchko 1994, Butchko 2001).

In contrast, the Scientific Committee on Food succeeded in banning the sale
of the natural sweetener, stevia throughout parts of Europe (SCF 1999).
Stevia has been used for centuries in South America and for many decades in
Japan and South Korea (AHPA 1991). No adverse reactions have been reported
from stevia use (in contrast to an endless flow of adverse reactions from
aspartame use). Since stevia is low calorie and diabetic-safe, it would be
competition to the manufacturers of aspartame and other artificial
sweeteners. A large number of animal studies have been conducted adding to
the clinical evidence that demonstrates that stevia is safe (AHPA, 1991,
Stevia 2003, HRF 1993, Kinghorn 1988, Kinghorn 1992). Despite the contrast
in independent research and clinical reports between stevia and aspartame,
the Committee focused on a tiny subset of the stevia animal studies where
adverse effects were seen at tremendously-large doses and made a decision
that banned the sale of stevia in parts of Europe.

E. Scientific Committee on Food -- Solutions to the Bias

Some medical journals require authors to submit conflict of interest
statements and some of those journals will print the relevant conflicts of
interest along with the journal article (Krimsky 2001). Scientists who read
the article and see a conflict of interest can read it very carefully to see
if there are flaws in the experimental design, compare the results with
independent research, or even choose to ignore such articles. The Scientific
Committee of Food appears to avoid admitting to conflict of interest even
after it is discovered (BMA 1997).

Appropriate immediate changes would be as follows:

1. Require that members of the Scientific Committee on Food submit (and keep
updated) a detailed conflict of interest statement detailing:

- Whether the individual members or their laboratories have received money
from food companies manufacturing or selling aspartame or other
products/ingredients they are reviewing.

- Whether the individual members or their laboratories have received money
from food industry trade groups such as ILSI or the International Glutamate
Technical Committee (IGTC).

- Whether the members have had a professional relationship with relevant
companies or trade groups such as working on their committees, testifying as
an expert witness, etc.

2. Appropriate conflict of interest statements should be placed on the
Internet and attached to each report published by the Scientific Committee
on Food. Press releases related to report findings should have attached
conflict of interest statements.

The immediate changes will not solve the main problem, however, as the
Committee reports can still be heavily tainted with food industry bias. The
second- step in fixing the problem would be to replace all of the Committee
members with scientists who have proven independence, a proven track record
of standing up to food industry pressure, and a willingness to thoroughly
investigate the matters being studied.

***Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 13:13:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Welcome Back To Life, Aspartame Free

I wanted to write to let you know that I have now been completely off of
aspartame for one month and I can feel the results!

First, for two years I have had fibromyalgia-like symptoms. I hurt all over.
Shoulders, legs, back, neck ankles, all were painful most of the time. I had
chronic insomnia and could hardly sleep at night. My vision was getting
worse all of the time. In the single month that I eliminated aspartame, I
feel 100% better. I don't hurt. The carpal tunnel in my wrist and shoulder
has finally subsided. My memory seems to be improving. I have more energy
and I don't get as hungry.

I found that I was drinking 3-4 diet Cokes everyday. Fortunately, I did not
use Equal in my tea or coffee. I use either sugar or sweet n low. I don't
know much about saccharin testing but I cannot believe that it is as bad as
aspartame. I am going to get some stevia and try that.

I have made copies of some of the articles and sent them to a number of
people who have also "sworn off" of aspartame.

Obviously the FDA does not care one bit about product safety. If a company
is as big as Monsanto, they can market any kind of poison they please
without a whimper from the FDA. And, it appears that Congress is powerless
to stop them. Or, that Congress is too busy with their "in-fighting" to do
anything for the people who voted them into office. (ATIC 1998)***

Scientific Committee on Food Does Not Read the Research

Throughout the Committee's report on aspartame, there is evidence that the
Committee members do not read some or most of the research that they cite.
One example will be given in this section.

The Committee cites as evidence that aspartame does not cause seizures two
aspartame industry-funded human studies (Rowan 1995, Shaywitz 1994). Had
they read these studies, the Committee would know that nearly 100% of the
subjects in these studies were taking anti-seizure medication while the
studies were being conducted! Obviously, anti-seizure medication will reduce
or eliminate seizures during the study. But the Committee report presented
these aspartame industry-funded studies as if they provided legitimate
evidence about aspartame use and seizures in the general population. The
Committee did not have a negative word to say about these two studies!

There are three possible reasons that the Committee cited these two studies
and had nothing negative to say about them:

1. The Committee did not read the studies.

2. The Committee is so biased that they will cite any aspartame
industry-funded study no matter how irrelevant or absurd it is.

3. The Committee actually believes that anti-seizure medication doesn't
reduce or prevent seizures, has no effect on the studies, and therefore the
studies apply to the general population not taking anti-seizure medication.

It is unlikely that the Committee is completely ignorant about anti-seizure
medication. Even though members of the Committee have a conflict of
interest, it is hoped that their bias is not so extreme that they would know
about the use of anti-seizure medication and still cite these studies as
evidence. It is more likely that some or all of the Committee members did
not read these studies. There are numerous instances in the report where it
becomes clear that the Committee members did not read the research they were
reviewing and have only marginal familiarity with aspartame research in
general.

***Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 00:50:00 GMT
Subject: Not getting Your Mail
LA>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 23:06:08 GMT
LA>Subject: Request (help) LA>Organization: The Source BBS
LA panic-attacks Lancet article: Aspartame triggers panic

I am very eager to get all the info you have, but for now do not have WEB
access and only have an Internet E-Mail drop. I have personally experienced
temporary blindness, panic attacks, and many other unpleasant side effects
from Aspartame. I have given literature to all my family members and many of
my friends, and ALL that I have given the info to have eliminated aspartame
from their diet. Is there some way that I can get all your help files by
downloading them somehow?

[continued information]
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 20:52:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Not getting Your Mail

My last bout with NutraSweet was over a year ago now, thank goodness! I live
in fear that it will sneak into food or a drink and I check labels very
carefully. The near-blindness episode combined with a panic attack and heart
arythmia and a frightening drop in blood pressure were all triggered by *a
single stick* of Trident sugarless gum! Maybe if we started suing the
companies that use aspartame in their products they'll show a little more
moral responsibility than the greed-driven Monsanto moguls.***

Aspartame and Formaldehyde Poisoning

"These are indeed extremely high levels for adducts of formaldehyde, a
substance responsible for chronic deleterious effects that has also been
considered carcinogenic.
....
"It is concluded that aspartame consumption may constitute a hazard because
of its contribution to the formation of formaldehyde adducts." (Trocho 1998)

A. Aspartame & Formaldehyde Research Ignored by the Scientific Committee on
Food

The Scientific Committee on Food appears to be completely unfamiliar with
the current research and reviews related to aspartame, formaldehyde, and
methanol. The Committee cited and relied solely on a commentary by an
aspartame industry researcher (Tephly 1999) and an article in a book put
together by aspartame industry researchers (Stegink 1984a) as evidence of
safety. In fact, the Committee appears to shy away from the use of the term
"formaldehyde" in the report, mentioning it only once when they quote
another review (AFSSA 2002). Since the Committee largely ignored the
formaldehyde issue, some of the relevant research will be summarized below.

B. Aspartame & Formaldehyde Summary of Research

Methanol is quickly absorbed from aspartame ingestion (Davoli 1986).
Methanol is converted into formaldehyde in the body (Kavet 1990). Some of
the formaldehyde is converted into formic acid and eliminated by the body
(Kavet 1990). However, Trocho (1998) demonstrated that aspartame ingestion
at low levels by rodents: 10 mg/kg body weight, lead to formaldehyde
accumulation in the liver, brain, kidneys and other parts of the body. The
formaldehyde was bound as "adducts" to proteins and DNA. Research in humans
demonstrates that adduct formation can occur from formaldehyde exposure
(Carraro 1997, 1999).

Setting aside the very serious issue of formaldehyde accumulation from
aspartame ingestion and just considering the proven formaldehyde exposure
from aspartame, one can see numerous human studies where adverse effects
have been reported from chronic, low-level formaldehyde exposure:

- Irreversible genetic damage from long-term, low-level exposure (Shaham
1996)
- Headaches, fatigue, chest tightness (Main 1983)
- Sleeping problems, burning skin, fatigue, chest pain, dizziness (Liu 1991)
- Headaches, fatigue, IgE-mediated sensitization (Wantke 1996)
- Musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular symptoms (Srivastava
1992)
- Headaches, tiredness (Olsen 1982)
- Headaches, dizziness, nausea, lack of concentration ability (Burdach 1980)
- Cytogenic effects of blood lymphocytes (Suruda 1993)
- Fertility (adverse effects) (Taskinen 1999)
- Cognitive adverse effects (Kilburn 2000)
- Seizures and neurobehavioral impairment (Kilburn 1994)
- Headaches, skin problems (Proietti 2002)
- Low birth weight (Maroziene 2002)
- Neurobehavioral symptoms (Kilburn 1985)
- Memory problems, equilibrium and dexterity impairment.(Kilburn 1987)

Formaldehyde exposure estimates have been calculated previously by this
author based on the intake of aspartame, percentage of methanol derived from
aspartame, and the molecular weights of formaldehyde and methanol (ATIC
2000).

C. Public Relations, Aspartame, Methanol, and Formaldehyde

Before we discuss what little the Committee did say related to aspartame and
formaldehyde, it is important to answer all of the typical public relations
statements from the manufacturer and their consultants who claim there is no
problem with aspartame and formaldehyde. The answers provided below will be
brief. Much more detailed and referenced answers can be found at ATIC (2001)
on the Internet at: [
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/abuse/methanol.html ].

Chart of Aspartame Manufacturer Public Relations Statements
Related to Methanol and Formaldehyde

Manufacturer Claim --- Independent Response

Methanol is found in fruits and alcoholic beverages at higher levels than in
aspartame products. --- Alcoholic beverages contain large amounts of
ethanol (a protective factor) which allows methanol to be excreted before
much of it is converted into formaldehyde (Leaf 1952, Liesivuori 1991, Roe
1982).

Fruit juices have protective factors as well that prevent formaldehyde
poisoning. Fruit juices produce enough methanol to "qualify as significantly
methanol-contaminated liquor" (Lindinger 1997) -- more methanol than what
causes chronic health problems in occupational exposure (Kazeniac 1970,
Kavet 1990, Frederick 1984, Kingsley 1954-55). Since we do not see chronic
poisoning from fruit juices, they must contain protective factors as well.
Fruit juices have ethanol as well as other possible protective factors.

Blood methanol levels do not increase when aspartame is ingested. --- In
every study cited by the aspartame manufacturer, they used a very old
methanol measuring method (Baker 1969) that is incapable of registering
increases that are less than ~500%. Appropriate methanol testing techniques
show as much as a doubling of blood methanol levels when ingesting
relatively small quantities of aspartame (Davoli 1986).

The level of methanol ingested from aspartame is not enough to cause
poisoning. --- The manufacturer is referring to levels of methanol that
cause death or near-death in one dose. It is the formaldehyde and formic
acid (metabolites of methanol) that cause the poisoning from low-level,
chronic exposure as described earlier.

The manufacturer sometimes cites Reynolds (1984) where monkeys were given
the equivalent of 300 mg/kg of methanol per day for nine months without
adverse effects. --- Methanol and its metabolites are much more toxic in
humans than in other animals (Roe 1982). One dose of 300 mg/kg of methanol
is potentially lethal
in humans (Kavet 1991).

Formaldehyde and methanol is found in the body. --- The levels of
formaldehyde and methanol in the body are very tightly controlled so that
even very small exposures cause adverse health effects. Exposure to
formaldehyde at levels of only ~0.75 mg/day caused adverse health effects
(Wantke 1996)

Significant levels of formate (methanol metabolite) are not seen in the
blood and urine of persons ingesting moderate doses of aspartame. --- For
chronic formaldehyde poisoning "formic acid in urine is not an appropriate
parameter for biological-monitoring of low level exposure to formaldehyde."
(Heinzow 1992). Blood formate measurements are not appropriate for chronic,
low-level formaldehyde exposure (Osterloh 1996, d'Alessandro 1994)

Higher levels of formaldehyde can be found in some foods. --- Formaldehyde
is produced in the body after the methanol from aspartame is absorbed.
However, unlike methanol, formaldehyde in foods is not well absorbed:
"Ingestion represents a minor route of [formaldehyde] exposure because the
dilution factor and the binding to the macromolecules present in food reduce
substantially the [formaldehyde] concentration that enters into contact with
the gastrointestinal mucos." (Restani 1991)

***Aspartame Consumer Safety Questionnaire
Age: 39 Sex: Male
British Columbia, Canada

I have had many medical problems as the result of Aspartame (Sweet Death).

Q. Why do you believe aspartame caused these problems?
A. The problems presented themselves after only a few months of consuming
food products with aspartame.
Q. Did the symptoms go away when you stopped using the products?
A. Yes, but it took some time for the symptoms to subside.
Q. Did you see a Doctor?
A. Yes.
Q. Did the Doctor think it related to aspartame?
A. No, he related it to stress, caffeine, etc. Aspartame never entered the
picture.
Q. Did you report problems to FDA?
A. No. I only reported the problem to my Doctor. He displayed a lot of
interest in my findings and wanted to know where he could find more
information.
Q. What specific products were you consuming?
A. Gum (One pack per day) and diet drinks (about one per day).
Q. How long have you been consuming these products?
A. About 5-6 months. As time marched on, I consumed more products.

MY SYMPTOMS:
1. Dizziness
2. Severe headaches
3. Confusion
4. Numbness and tingling of extremities
5. Chronic fatigue
6. Irritability
7. Rapid heart beat, Tachycardia
8. Nausea
9. Diarrhea
10. Burning urination
11. Burning of eyes
I hope this gives you an idea of what this stuff does to the poor
consumer... (ATIC 1998)***

D. Scientific Committee on Food and Formaldehyde Poisoning

The Committee made two comments related to methanol and formaldehyde
poisoning in their report:

1. Referring to the methanol absorbed from aspartame, the Committee stated:

"Methanol is also rapidly metabolised and blood levels are usually not
detectable unless large bolus doses of aspartame (>50 mg/kg bw) are
administered."

They cite Stegink (1984a) as evidence. The second item listed in the chart
above details how the manufacturer funded numerous studies using an outdated
methanol measuring test (Baker 1969) that was incapable of registering
increases that were less than ~ 500%. Why is the Committee relying on an
aspartame industry public relations book (Stegink 1984a) when millions of
people are getting accurate information from independent sources in the
medical literature or on the Internet?

2. Referring to Trocho (1998) where formaldehyde adducts were found to
accumulate in the liver, brain, kidneys and other parts of the body after
aspartame ingestion, the Committee stated:

"...radiolabelled methanol will be split off and enter the body's one-carbon
pool, with the potential to appear anywhere there is methylation. The
Committee therefore agrees with the analysis of Tephly (1999) that formation
of DNA adducts has not been demonstrated."

Formaldehyde is difficult to measure directly. What Trocho (1998) did was
radiolabel the methanol portion of aspartame so that it could be tracked in
the body. As methanol travels through the body, it is converted into
formaldehyde and then at least some of it is converted into formic acid
(formate). Trocho (1998) demonstrated with the data that the buildup of
radiolabelled material in the brain, liver, kidneys of could not be methanol
or formic acid or any other metabolite of methanol -- other than
formaldehyde bound to protein.

Trocho (1998) gave a relatively small dose of aspartame to rodents and
discovered that formaldehyde from aspartame was binding to protein and DNA
(as "adducts") and accumulating in the brain, liver and other organs and
tissues.

".... The "alternative" point expressed by Tephly [(1999}], suggesting that
aspartame methanol-label goes all the way into formic acid and the C1
pathway was thoroughly refuted by us, using experimental data. There was no
labelled methionine nor thymine in protein and DNA respectively in the rat
protein we recovered from rats treated with aspartame. This
means--unequivocally-- that the label present in DNA and protein adducts was
NOT incorporated into amino acids or nucleic acid bases. The only
explanation for our data was that the label was in the form of formaldehyde
adducts. ...." (Alemany 2002)

If we assume that the Committee read the Trocho (1998) study and actually
believes (without any alternate explanation) that it was not formaldehyde
accumulating from aspartame ingestion, then the following questions are
raised:

a. Why did the Committee choose not focus on formaldehyde exposure issues if
it was unsure about formaldehyde accumulating from aspartame use? After all,
a large number of studies of formaldehyde exposure in humans have shown it
causes adverse effects.

b. Why did the Committee show absolutely no concern about what was
accumulating in the body from aspartame ingestion in the Trocho (1998)
experiment even if they were not sure it was formaldehyde?

c. Why didn't the Committee bring in the researchers from the Trocho (1998)
experiment or independent experts on chronic formaldehyde and methanol
poisoning to advise them on this issue?

***Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 06:07:05 GMT
Subject: Aspartame

My story? I was drinking a lot of Ribena light (a reduced sugar blackcurrant
drink) and using a lot of low sugar chewing gum in January this year. I
started getting severe heart rhythm abnormalities (known as "ectopic" beats)
which have stopped since I removed all Aspartame products from my diet.

I feel I have a duty to let more people know about this poison. Do you have
an info pack you can send? Is Monsanto likely to take legal action (or have
they done so) against people campaigning against Aspartame? I'd be
interested to take this one to court...***

E. Formaldehyde and Excitotoxins: Synergistic Poisoning

The Committee discounted health issues relating to the free-form (unbound to
protein) excitotoxic amino acid obtained from aspartame by relying on and
citing old and inaccurate information from an aspartame industry book
(Stegink 1984a). Because they relied on aspartame industry research (Stegink
1984a) (or perhaps MSG industry research (Walker 2000)) for information
about food-based excitotoxins, the Committee was unaware of the need to
discuss potential synergistic adverse effects from exposure to formaldehyde
and a free-form excitotoxic amino acid.

It is not the goal of this report to provide details about the effects of
food-based excitotoxins. Excellent information about both acute and chronic
effects from food-based excitotoxins can be obtained from Samuels (1999,
2002), Blaylock (1994), Olney (1984, 1988, 1990, 1994), Science (1972).
Samuels (1999) (which is available on the Internet) is a particularly
important paper for information about the manipulation of research by the
food industry.

After aspartame is ingested, approximately 40% of it breaks down into a
free-form excitotoxic amino acid which is quickly-absorbed (as long as it is
not given in slow-dissolving capsules) (Stegink 1987a). The sudden
absorption can cause a dramatic spike in blood plasma levels of this
excitotoxin (Stegink 1987a). It is well known that free-form excitotoxin
exposure can cause irreversible damage to brain cells (in areas such as the
retina, hypothalamus, etc.) in rodents and primates (Olney 1980, 1994). In
order to remove excess, cell-destroying excitotoxic amino acids from
extracellular space, glial cells surround the neurons and supply them with
energy (Blaylock 1994, page 39, Izumi 2002). This takes large amounts of
ATP. However, formate, a formaldehyde metabolite, is an ATP inhibitor
(Liesivuori 1991).

It appears that methanol is converted to formate in the eye (Eells 1996,
Garner 1995, Kini 1961). Eells (1996a) showed that chronic, low-level
methanol exposure in rats led to formate accumulation in the retina of the
eye. Gonzalez-Quevedo (2002) demonstrated that chronic administration of
methanol to rodents increased levels of excitotoxic amino acid levels (e.g.,
aspartic acid) in the retina. Excitotoxic amino acids are believed to be a
cause of retinal damage (Romano 1998, Calzada 2002, Kapin 1999, Izumi 2002).

Roberts (1988a) reported that 25% of the aspartame reactors he examined had
decreased vision or other eye problems (blurring, "bright flashes," tunnel
vision), 9% had pain in one or both eyes, 8% had decreased tearing, and 3%
had blindness. Dr. Morgan Raiford, Ophthamalogist and methanol poisoning
expert testified before U.S. Congress regarding aspartame and damage to the
eye:

This product has some highly toxic reactions in the human visual pathway,
and we are beginning to observe the tragic damage to the optic nerve, such
as blindness, partial to total optic nerve atrophy. Once this destructive
process has developed there is no return of visual restoration. We are
beginning to see and observe another toxic reaction which affects the
central nervous system which is related to phenylalanine levels in the
central nervous system. These observations are more vague, however, it
stimulates the damaging to the brain and the central nervous system, having
the manifestations as PKU Neuro Damage. Over 3,000 cases have been reported,
and the FDA to date has ignored this existence.

Human Visual Pathway Damage

The human visual pathway admits ninety percent of our intellectual input to
the brain and central nervous system. All of the learning processes are
centered during ones life time. The mechanism of this tragic damage to the
human visual system from this product is and has been known for over a
decade that visual loss takes place. When this drug enters the digestive
tract, largely the upper portion, this aspartame molecule spins off a by
product known as methanol or methyl-alcohol. This product enters the
bloodstream and when these portions reach the highly metabolic region of the
optic nerve and retina, partial atrophy can and does take place. The vision
can not do without oxygen and nutrition for more than ninety seconds without
revealing some damage. Total loss of vision is present and there is no
return. In the very early stages in which is referred to as the "wet stage",
treatment can be given and will reserve the destructive pathology to the
optic nerve and retina. This must be in the mind of the physician and he
must understand the chemical ongoing process. The writer has seen many cases
where the patient was allowed to go to the degrees of blindness, as this
diagnosis of optic neuritis was rendered, as the term idiopathic neuritis of
optic nerve was given, usually steroids until systemic gross body and facial
moon developed. This therapy has demonstrated the total lack of
understanding of the basic lack of biochemical physiology at the molecular
level.

The variability or onset of the optic nerve atrophy is of a type that one
must first think of this pathology, and it requires a certain amount of
listening to the patient. The quantity of symptoms vary with each patient.

Over the past year the writer has observed the fact that any portion of the
central nervous system can and is affected. Since the chemical phenylalanine
is mixed up with some metabolic mess, we have seen symptoms of varying hue
in the extremities, sensations of dullness of the intellect, visual shadows,
evidence of word structure reversing and some hearing impairment is noted by
the individual. This can and will in time cause problems in learning. The
medical community must alert itself that we have a problem that has surfaced
due to the factor of the drug industry. Parents must be alerted to the side
reactions of this toxic product and its reactions. (Raiford 1987)

***Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 10:49:00 -0400

Last friday, 5/10/97, I discovered what caused a peripheral vision loss that
was diagnosed in 1994. Aspartame. I couldn't believe it when I found out
this crap has methyl alcohol in it. Everyone knows wood alcohol makes you
blind, and here I have been drinking it since 91. I have also had headaches,
memory loss, confusion, anger and who know's what else. In just 6 days
without Diet Coke I have come to feel a heck of a lot better. I am writing
to thank you for your efforts at educating the public (me) on the dangers of
Aspartame. Keep up the fight. (ATIC 1998)***

Aspartame and Migraines / Headaches

***Date: Sat, 1 Mar 97 23:39:26 PST
From the United Kingdom
Subject: Aspartame

Found you via web search for aspartame to show a friend who had purchased a
'health' product containing aspartame and acesulfame-K. The product is
'Redoxon' vitamin-C, from, wait for it, Roche Consumer Health. Acesulfame-K
is unknown to me and will remain so. My experiences (2) with aspartame were
involuntary and only identified after I nearly died both times. The
headaches caused were of such severity that 2 grams aspirin were required
each time to alleviate them. The tension in the muscles of my neck would
otherwise have broken it! This stuff is seriously bad. I cannot understand
the continued marketing of it. The people who make and manufacture are
seriously insane. Please notify my report to any interested parties. Please
do not worry about hiding my identity - I don't care who knows what I think
of this kind of misbehaviour by the Megagreedies of this world. May they die
in agony!"
Regards and Good Luck (ATIC 1998)***

A. Scientific Committee on Food -- Ignoring Part of the Evidence and
Discounting the Rest

To the credit of the Committee, their report cited two independent,
double-blind studies demonstrating that aspartame could cause migraines and
headaches (Koehler 1988, Van Den Eeden 1994). Like almost all independent
studies listed, the Committee quickly discounted these studies as flawed.
The report also listed a questionnaire-based study (Lipton 1989) that linked
aspartame to headaches. The report did not mention:

- 1558 headaches reported to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in
the first 10 years after aspartame was approved for use in carbonated
beverages (DHHS 1993). Reactions reported to the FDA represent less than 1%
of adverse reactions experienced according to a former FDA Commissioner
(Kessler 1993)

- Dr. H.J. Roberts reported on 249 cases of aspartame-induced headaches in a
questionnaire-based study (Roberts 1988a).

- Other case reports of aspartame-induced headache or migraines have
appeared in the scientific literature (Johns 1986, Blumenthal 1997, Strong
2000, Watts 1991)

- Formaldehyde that is obtained from aspartame is known to cause headaches
(Main 1983, Wantke 1996, Olsen 1982, Burdach 1980, Proietti 2002)

- Excitotoxic amino acids such as monosodium glutamate (MSG), similar to the
excitotoxin obtained from aspartame is known to cause migraines and
headaches (Kenney 1972, Ghadimi 1971, Schaumburg 1969, Scopp 1991, Ratner
1984). Note: industry-funded MSG experiments did not find increased
headaches because:

1) In MSG manufacturer-funded experiments conducted since 1978, aspartame
was hidden in the drink mix given to the control groups (Ebert 1991, Samuels
1999);

2) The MSG was sometimes combined with a large amount of sugar to completely
change the way it is absorbed (e.g., Yang 1997);

3) MSG was given in slow-dissolving capsules to reduce typical blood plasma
changes (Stegink 1987a, Olney 1994); and

4) Numerous other experimental design or statistical tricks were employed to
avoiding finding adverse effects as discussed by Samuels (1999)).

- Chronic headaches (such as those reported from aspartame use) cause
impairment of function often worse than that associated with chronic medical
conditions such as arthritis and diabetes (Solomon 1993).

In summary, all of the scientific and clinical evidence points to aspartame
causing migraines and headaches except for one badly flawed, aspartame
manufacturer-sponsored study discussed below.

***Newsgroups: alt.support.dissociation
Subject: Re: education on drugs...
Date: 27 Oct 1995 17:54:21 GMT

It seems that aspartame has been implicated in aggravating both MPD and
attention deficit disorder, among others. I experienced my first
uncontrolled switching when I was doing a lot of aspartame. I was also
getting severe migraines and visual disorders including tunnel vision,
moving shadows, and color dropouts (I would lose the green/blue range). All
of these are known side effects of aspartame, it seems. In some people,
aspartame is known to inhibit seratonin production. Swell.

But what was scariest was the shaking fits (like I was having an epileptic
seizure) and hypoglycemic problems so severe I was known to pass out. (Sugar
revived me.) This last is why I stopped doing Nutrasweet. I'm borderline
hypoglycemic.

When I stoppped Nutrasweet, the uncontrolled switching stopped, too. It took
a while for the migraines and visual disorders to work out, but they were
gone within a few months, as was the switching. (The switching was severe
enough that friends thought I was "drunk" because I was acting so strange,
but alcohol was not involved!)

Subject: Re: aspartame and depression
Date: 10 Nov 1995 00:31:10 GMT

Well, in my personal case, I was at a party a few months back, and consumed
quite a bit of punch. Within 8 hours, I started getting a migraine headache,
color dropouts in my vision, and loss of my night vision. Realizing that
these previously-experienced symptoms (for which I spent several years and
doctors trying to find causes) seemed to be linked to aspartame, I checked
back and asked about artificial sweeteners . Yup, Nutrasweet in the punch.
(ATIC 1998).***

B. Scientific Committee on Food -- Industry Studies Accepted Without
Question

The Committee based its whole argument on aspartame not causing headaches on
a single, one-day, double-blind study that was partially funded by the
manufacturer of aspartame (Schiffman 1987).

The study was partially funded by Monsanto/NutraSweet and conducted at the
Searle Center at Duke University. (G.D. Searle was owned by Monsanto.) Susan
Schiffman performed her research at the Searle Center at Duke University.
The Searle Center was under the guidance of William Anlyan, a former G.D.
Searle director. Schiffman is a former General Foods and G.D. Searle
consultant (Gordon 1987, Shapiro 1987).

The Committee report neglected to mention numerous problems with the study
including:

- The aspartame test was only one day long. In fact almost all
manufacturer-sponsored aspartame studies on susceptible population groups
are less than 7 days long. The independent double-blind studies that found
that aspartame could cause headaches were four weeks (Koehler 1988) or 14
days (Van Den Eeden 1994) long. A one-day study combined with other major
flaws listed below guaranteed that the researchers could report that there
were no "statistically significant" adverse effects.

- The aspartame was given in a way that even aspartame industry consultants
admit is not "bioequivalent" (the same) as aspartame taken in real-world
products (Stegink 1987a). The aspartame was given in slow-dissolving
capsules. Giving aspartame in slow-dissolving capsules tremendously-reduces
the biochemical changes that normally occur from real-world aspartame
ingestion. The methanol absorption is slowed tremendously, allowing the body
to eliminate more of it before it is transformed into formaldehyde. The
absorption of the excitotoxic amino acid is slowed so that the liver can
prevent the sudden spike in plasma levels of this amino acid normally seen
when aspartame is ingested in liquids (Stegink 1987a, 1987b).

- 77.5% of the subjects taking the placebo experienced adverse reactions
during the one-day period! 45% of the subjects taking the placebo
experienced headaches. This is a ridiculously high percentage of subjects
reporting adverse reactions to "placebo" in a single day. The number of
participants used in this study was "sufficient to ensure that a difference
of 33% in the incidence rates of headache" between the aspartame and placebo
control groups would be seen as statistically significant. This means that
if less than 78% (45% + 33%) of the persons taking aspartame reported
headache reactions, it would not be considered statistically significant.

- Numerous changes for the subjects. What could cause 77.5% of the subjects
taking placebo to experience adverse reactions in a single day? What could
cause 45% of the subjects taking placebo to experience headaches? None of
the subject had any major medical condition. Unlike the independent
double-blind studies on aspartame and headache (Koehler 1988, Van Den Eeden
1994), the following changes were made:

The diet of the subjects was changed from their normal diet to food prepared
at the Medical Center. Apparently, the researchers made no attempt to
ascertain whether the new diet contained monosodium glutamate (MSG), hidden
forms of MSG (e.g., hydrolyzed proteins), or substances that might cause an
intolerance reaction. Many of the subjects took off time from their jobs
(data processing managers, statistician, CPA, sales director, executive
assistants, etc.) and flew in from out of state to stay at the Medical
Center for at least 5 days. They were put through numerous laboratory tests
during their stay. Diet change reactions, travel stress, taking vacation
time from work, laboratory tests, or the combination of all of these things
may have led to such a ridiculously-high placebo reaction rate.

No baseline measurements taken. The researchers did not carefully measure
the subjects' normal frequency of headaches while they were on their normal
diet and in their normal environment (i.e., baseline measurement). One
reason that this is very important is so they would know if the design in
the experiment caused an unusual and unintended change in the frequency of
headaches reported in both the placebo and aspartame groups. Even though
these researchers did not conduct baseline measurements, we can be sure that
there was something wrong with the experiment that caused a large number of
adverse reactions for the large majority of subjects because: 1) 77.5% of
the placebo control group subjects experienced adverse reactions, and 2) the
subjects had no major medical conditions that would cause such a high
percentage symptoms in a one-day period. Both independent double-blind
studies on aspartame and headaches had baseline measurements (Koehler 1988,
Van Den Eeden 1994).

While the Committee briefly alluded to (and quickly discounted) a commentary
on and a critique of the Schiffman (1987) research by the Editor of the
journal, Headache (Edmeads, 1988), the members of the Committee seem unaware
of published criticism of the Schiffman (1987) study by independent
researchers:

"Unfortunately, their experimental design was flawed in such a way that
their negative results in no way support their conclusion that 'aspartame is
no more likely to produce headache than placebo.'" (Elsas 1988)

"We believe that the study of Schiffman et al had some serious flaws and did
not reflect the realities of migraine due to dietary factors." .... "Persons
susceptible to migraine and other vascular headaches should continue to be
warned of the possible aggravating role of aspartame." (Steinmetzer 1988)

***Re: aspartame
Date Sat, 20 Jul 1996 14:29:51 GMT
Newsgroups alt.med.allergy

I began having migraines in the late 1980's, some so severe I wound up in
the emergency room. I have sought the cause for years.

I had read about the possible relation to food allergies, but I had never
tested it. My headaches grew worse, for the last 2 years I've had daily
headaches.

About 3 months ago I decided to try the elimination test. When I eliminated
Aspartame from my diet, the severe migraines began to disappear. I am mostly
migraine-free now, with headaches attacking only about 1-2 times per month.
I believe aspartame is the cause.

I used Aspartame almost religiously once it became available in my town.
I've used large quantities of it, replacing every bit of sugar
I could with it.

I just hope that my system has a chance to recover completely. (ATIC
1998)***

C. Scientific Committee on Food -- Discounting All Independent Studies

Finally, the Committee criticized the Koehler (1988) and Van Den Eeden
(1994) studies that found that aspartame can cause migraines and headaches.
The Committee stated that these studies did not control the diet during the
study itself. That is accurate. The researchers decided to allow the
subjects to live their lives in a normal setting and ingest their normal
diet. Because both studies performed baseline measurements of the frequency
of headaches of their subjects, they could see that only one change that was
introduced for part of the experiment, aspartame ingestion (but not
placebo), increased the average number of headaches significantly,
especially in the longer study by Koehler (1988).

The Committee also criticized the Koehler (1988) study for a high dropout
rate. In other words, a number of subjects dropped out of the study. The
total study length was 13 weeks (4 weeks for baseline testing, 4 weeks for
aspartame testing, 4 weeks for placebo testing, 1 week between the aspartame
and placebo testing). The subjects were required to keep a diary of their
headaches and dietary intake. It is to be expected that after 13 weeks, many
subjects will drop out or will not have done an adequate job keeping their
headache and dietary diaries. However, there were still enough subjects left
in the Koehler (1988) study to see a rather large and statistically
significant increase in headaches in the aspartame group. In addition, there
were more subjects left in the Koehler (1988) study than in some aspartame
industry studies cited in the Committee report without any mention of the
small number of subjects (e.g., Shaywitz 1994, Stegink 1984a). Of course, if
would be preferable to conduct a larger independent study with similar
subject inclusion / exclusion criteria and similar (or longer) lengths of
time on and off aspartame. But at this time, all of the reasonably designed
double-blind studies, all of the clinical evidence, and all of the evidence
related to aspartame metabolites point to it causing migraines and
headaches.

***Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 16:28:50 MDT
Subject: Re: Another NutraSweet Horror - TO EMBALM...OR NOT TO EMBALM (fwd)

I'm a little too busy to write up my "60 days without aspartame" experience
fully right now, but I'll do it soon. In summary, after getting & reading
your info on Feb 14, I cut aspartame out completely (I'd been taking it in
coffee, diet drinks, etc. for years). The results were startling. Normally,
in the past 60 days I'd have expected to suffer 2 or 3 severe,
incapacitating migraine headaches, and 12 to 15 days with other low-grade,
persistent headaches. (Each one could last 1-2 days, being generally
unresponsive to analgesics. Over the years, I'd just got used to getting on
with my life despite these annoying headaches.) In fact, I had ONE minor
headache in the 60 days, due, I'm sure, to a specific food I ate! Just ONE!
I haven't had 2 months like this for about 17 years! As a scientist (a
former pharmaceutical chemist -- yes, I SHOULD have known better, but I
guess I was looking for headache causes in other directions!), I realize one
has to consider ALL possible explanations for a phenomenon like this; but
the difference here was so striking, and the timing coincided so perfectly,
that I cannot attribute this relief to anything else in my lifestyle other
than giving up aspartame. I'm eating, exercising, worrying & working just as
before. Your information has made a major change in my life. Thanks SO MUCH!
(ATIC 1998)

Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Aspartame/Nutrasweet
Date: Thu May 16 13:43:33 1996

I'm a medical research scientist with doctorate credential from polytechic
university, etc, and 25 years of experience. We were able to cure 75% of
people in the migraine clinic at mount sinai medical center in nyc by simply
taking them off aspartame. Of course nutrition is far more than just staying
away from aspartame. (ATIC 1998)***

Aspartame and Seizures

***A 65-year-old man experienced his first grand mal seizure while reading
in bed. Preceding the seizure, there had been a six-month history of
episodic involuntary smacking of the lips, chewing movements, and twitching
of the right thumb. The patient calculated that he had been consuming an
average of 210 mg of aspartame per day in the form of "Crystal Light" iced
tea mix. After discontinuing all aspartame-containing products, there have
been no further involuntary movements or seizures. (Walton 1988).***

A. Evidence Listed and Not Listed by the Committee

The Committee should be credited with mentioning in the report an
independent, double-blind study, Camfield (1992), that "demonstrated that
aspartame could increase the duration of certain types of epileptic seizure
in children." However, that study was only one day long. A longer
independent study may have found additional effects related to seizures. The
Committee pointed out that Walton (1986) reported one case of seven seizures
and mania after high intake of aspartame. Finally, the Committee did cite
three independent animal studies demonstrating a connection between
aspartame and seizures (Guiso 1988, Maher 1987, Pinto 1988).

The following information was not available in the Committee report:

- Between 481 and 700 cases of seizures reported to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) in the first 10 years after aspartame was approved for
use in carbonated beverages (DHHS 1993). (Note: The way the FDA categorizes
neurological reactions makes it difficult to determine the exact number of
seizures reported.) Reactions reported to the FDA represent less than 1% of
adverse reactions experienced according to a former FDA Commissioner
(Kessler 1993)

- Walton (1988) described eight additional cases of seizures linked to
aspartame use.

- Dr. Richard Wurtman received 80 cases of seizures linked to aspartame use
(Food 1986) and three of those seizure cases were described in a medical
journal by Wurtman (1985).

- Eshel (1992) reported two cases of seizure linked to aspartame use.

- In a questionnaire-based study, Roberts (1988a) reported 80 cases of
convulsions and seizures linked to aspartame use.

- Seizures have been reported in humans from chronic formaldehyde exposure
(Kilburn 1994).

- The Committee did not cite all of the other independent animal studies
linking aspartame to seizures (or lowering seizure threshold levels)
(Diomede 1991, Garrattini 1988, Kim 1988, Pinto 1986, Helali 1996). Nor did
they cite the discussion by Wurtman (1988) as to one of many reasons a
higher dose in rodents must be used to simulate the biochemical changes from
aspartame in humans.

- Seizures and other adverse effects from aspartame use by pilots have been
mentioned in numerous aviation periodicals (Aviation Consumer 1988, Aviation
Medical Bulletin 1988, Pacific Flyer 1988, CAA General Aviation 1989,
Aviation Safety Digest 1989, General Aviation News 1989, Plane & Pilot 1990,
Canadian General Aviation News 1990, NBAA Digest 1993, ICAS 1995, Pacific
Flyer 1995, US Air Force 1992).

***Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:54:11 -0400
Subject: Guestbook

I have been plagued with unknown health problems for 3 years. Been to
several doctors, had all kinds of tests run, and after the tests confirmed I
had nothing wrong, and I was still having seizures, I begin to eliminate
foods from my diet, I still had all kinds of problems, such as fatigue,
heart palpitations, hypertension, abdominal pain, hair loss, memory loss,
vision loss, to name a few, but the seizures were the worst. When I
eliminated Equal from my diet 6 weeks ago, I have not had another seizure,
and all other ailments except the irregular heart beats have improved. I
wish I knew the long range damage of Equal to my body, and I might have a
better outlook on life. Do you know a lawyer working on this for the people
with damage to their health from Nutrasweet, and where can I contact them.
(ATIC 1998)

Case 1

A 19-y-old female experienced grand mal seizures for the first time while
consuming aspartame soft drinks. When this relationship was suspected, she
stopped using aspartame-containing products, and remained seizure-free for
11 mo[nths]. Repetitive grand mal convulsions then occurred minutes after
she inadvertently chewed a piece of "sugar-free" gum handed her at a ball
game. (Roberts 1988a)***

B. Overwhelming the Reader with an Long List of References

The Committee quoted the following from the AFSSA (2002) report:

"This causal relationship between aspartame and epileptic seizures has been
refuted by a large number of scientists who base their opinions on numerous
experimental studies conducted on laboratory animals or on clinical or
tolerance studies in humans (Anderson et al., 1996; Gaull, 1985, Rowan et
al., 1995; Shaywitz et al., 1994; Tollefson et al., 1992, 1993; Daily et
al., 1991; Zhi et al., 1989; Sze, 1989; Tilson et al.,. 1989)."

At first glance, that seems like a very impressive list of 10 studies.
There are only two studies in the list that involve giving aspartame to
human subjects (Rowan 1995, Shaywitz 1994):

1. Nearly all of the subjects in these aspartame industry-sponsored studies
were taking anti-seizure medication during the study! Clearly anyone who
cites these two studies as safety evidence has not read the scientific
literature.

2. The Rowan (1995) study administered aspartame for only one day to 18
subjects (16 were taking anti-seizure medication). The Shaywitz (1994) study
administered aspartame for only two weeks to 10 children (nine were taking
anti-seizure medication). Roberts (1988a) looked at 551 cases and reported
that reactions to aspartame appeared anywhere from immediately to more than
one (1) year after initial use began. Keeping the studies short helped
guarantee that there would be few, if any, adverse reactions.

3. The aspartame was given in a way that even aspartame industry consultants
admit is not "bioequivalent" (the same) as aspartame taken in real-world
products (Stegink 1987a). The aspartame was given in slow-dissolving
capsules. Giving aspartame in slow-dissolving capsules tremendously-reduces
the biochemical changes that normally occur from real-world aspartame
ingestion. The methanol absorption is slowed tremendously, allowing the body
to eliminate more of it before it is transformed into formaldehyde. The
absorption of the excitotoxic amino acid is slowed so that the liver can
prevent the sudden spike in plasma levels of this amino acid normally seen
when aspartame is ingested in liquids (Stegink 1987a, 1987b).

Please note that the Rowan (1995) study used a susceptible population
group -- persons who had reported seizures from aspartame use. But by having
almost all of the subjects taking anti-seizure medication, administering
aspartame for only one day, and administering it in a way that reduces the
toxicity, there was little chance that adverse reactions would appear. In
addition, the small number of subjects in both studies meant that if there
were reactions to aspartame, it would be unlikely that the number of
reactions would be considered "statistically significant."

***Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:25:57 -0700
Subject: Asparatme Settlements ??
....
By the way, I quit drinking Diet Coke on September 2nd this year after
suffering a "Status Epilepticus" (as in "dead") and immediately my seizure,
disorientation spells, chronic fatigue, migraines, sore muscles and joints
all went away completely !
This was the only change in my diet and prior to that time I had been
experiencing seizures, disorientation every 2-3 weeks at a minimum. Also, my
"woman-friend" is an RN and has witnessed my condition, seizures etc. for
the past 1 and 1/2 years. She also was the one who administered CPR after my
September 2nd incident. She has also kept a very detailed log during this
time (as I find out) which has come in very handy at this point. (ATIC
1998)***

Continuing with the studies the Committee listed relating to aspartame and
seizures.

Anderson (1996) is simply a review related to aspartame and seizures in an
aspartame industry-compiled public relations book. Gaull (1985) is a Letter
to the Editor by a NutraSweet Company physician in response to a Letter to
the Editor summarizing several case reports of aspartame-induced seizures
(Wurtman 1985). There is nothing wrong with Letters to the Editor, but
Gaull's
opinion does not represent a new experimental study as implied by the
Committee. Sze (1989) is a review of early animal research related to
aspartame and seizures. The review is useful (like most reviews), but it
does not contain any original research. Tollefson (1993) is a review of
clinical research related to Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and summarizes
the same information about aspartame in Tollefson (1992) that the Committee
also cited above.

The following three studies cited by the Committee are animal studies
related to aspartame and seizures Dailey 1991, Tilson 1989, Zhi 1989). These
studies contrast with the many independent animal studies cited above that
link aspartame to seizure susceptibility in animals.

This leaves us with one study cited by the Committee that looked at case
reports to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) related to aspartame
and seizures (Tollefson 1992). The author reported that the FDA had received
251 case reports of seizures linked to aspartame. The truth is that the FDA
separates "Seizures" from "Grand Mal Seizures," "Petit Mal Seizures,"
"Complex Partial Seizures" and possibly "Other Neurological" (DHHS 1993).
The Tollefson (1992) report focused only on the 251 seizures listed in the
"Seizures" category.

Tollefson (1992) then inappropriately classified 13 cases as "highly
unlikely to be associated with aspartame" because medical records were not
available. A more appropriate category would have been "Unconfirmed Cause."
Another 111 cases was also classified as "highly unlikely to be associated
with aspartame" if there was any another possible cause of the seizures or
the physician did not agree with the patient that aspartame caused the
seizures. Again, a more appropriate category would be "Unconfirmed Cause."
Of the remaining 127 cases, in 32% of the cases the symptoms (seizures)
recurred each time the person consumed different products containing
aspartame. In 28% of the cases the symptoms (seizures) recurred each time
the person consumed the same product containing aspartame. Despite the
unusual way that Tollefson (1992) classified patients, there were still a
large number of patients who had clinically-reproducible seizures from
aspartame. The full text of this study does not support the Committee's
contention that aspartame does not cause seizures.

In summary, the Committee ignored much of the independent evidence linking
aspartame to seizures. They relied primarily on industry reviews, a
manufacturer employee letter, manufacturer-sponsored animal studies, two
very short double-blind studies on subjects taking anti-seizure medication,
and an analysis that demonstrates that some subjects do have reproducible
seizures after ingesting aspartame from the same or different products.

***January 19, 1995
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

I am a diabetic and have been using insulin for 18 years. My doctor advised
me to use sugar substitutes in my diet. He also said I could drink as much
diet soft drinks as I wanted. This I did. I used Equal in my coffee. I used
a lot of diet soft drinks and used NutraSweet in many other foods I ate.

I started having headaches all the time, as they got worse, I started having
seizures. I would get a severe pain in my left eye, and then I would have
seizures that would make the left side of my body shake. In time I was no
longer able to tell when these were going to start, they would just come on
all of a sudden and I would have up to eight seizures one right after the
other. The seizures were not the only symptoms I had, I couldn't sleep, my
mouth was dry all the time. I had sores on my tongue, I started having
trouble with my memory. My eating habits changed, foods that I liked no
longer tasted good to me. The smell of some foods I just couldn't stand. My
stomach bothered me a lot, I had to use Anusol all the time because of the
burning I had after a bowel movement. This was very painful. I had muscle
spasms in my legs almost every night which caused my legs to be sore all day
long, and my back was sore from the seizures.

I was so sick that I thought I was dying, and so depressed that I was losing
the will to live.

My doctor requested a cat scan, and other tests which were inconclusive. I
was scared, I didn't know what to do.

Fortunately a relative of my son-in-law informed me that my problems may be
due to the use of NutraSweet. I thought anything is worth a try, so I quit
using NutraSweet on a Sunday, and by Tuesday the seizures stopped. I haven't
had any seizures since, and all of the other symptoms have stopped except
the change in my eating habits..

I feel very strongly that I may have died if I had continued to use
NutraSweet. This poison should be taken off the market. How many others are
suffering because of it?
Sincerely, William Reed (ATIC 1997)***

Aspartame and Brain Cancer

A. Evidence Related to Aspartame and Brain Tumors

In 1996, a group of researchers led by Olney (1996) analyzed brain tumor
incidence rates in the United States and other research related to aspartame
and brain tumors. They came to the following conclusions:

1. Within several years after aspartame approval, the incidence of specific
types of deadly brain tumors (glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas)
increased tremendously in vulnerable population groups (middle aged and
elderly). During the same period of time, the incidence of less deadly
astrocytoma tumors decreased tremendously. Olney (1996) showed that while
the overall brain tumor incidence rate remained somewhat constant, there was
a shift in malignancy from the less deadly to more deadly types of brain
tumors shortly after aspartame came on the market.

What is very important to understand is that Olney (1996) was not looking at
the overall brain tumor rates in the general population. He looked at the
conversion of less deadly to more deadly brain tumors (i.e., a "conversion
of [existing] astrocytic tumors from a lower to higher grade of malignancy")
in a vulnerable population group (middle age and elderly). This conversion
to a higher and more deadly grade of malignancy was seen as a tremendous
increase in incidence of glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas shortly
after aspartame came on the market and a nearly equal decrease in
astrocytomas during the same period of time.

Brain tumors in adults tend to develop over a long period of time before
they are diagnosed. If aspartame causes the growth of brain tumors it might
take 20 or 30 years (or more) before one would be able to see the increase
in the overall brain tumor rates when examining the brain cancer incidence
statistics from all age groups of the general population. But Olney (1996)
was able to prove that there was a very large change (worsening) of existing
malignancies in a vulnerable population group shortly after aspartame came
on the market. By itself, the large increase in deadly tumors, shortly after
aspartame approval, does not prove that aspartame causes brain cancer or
effects existing tumors. But along with evidence in items #2 and #3 below,
there is enough evidence to warn people about the possibility.

2. Animals in aspartame pre-approval studies showed an increased rate of the
same types of brain tumors.

3. Aspartame has mutagenic potential in vitro.

It is not surprising that the Committee, being somewhat unfamiliar with
aspartame research, neglected to mention that Hardell (2000) looked at
various risk factors for brain cancer. A significant association was found
between subjects with higher ingestion of diet drinks and malignant brain
tumors. The mean age of the subjects was 50 years old. While the number of
subject was very small, it is the only study conducted that looked at an
older (vulnerable) population group and aspartame intake.

B. The Committee is Not Familiar with Aspartame and Brain Cancer Research

Any intelligent discussion of the Olney (1996) study and brain cancer data
must look at incidence rates of glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas in
middle age and elderly population groups. A discussion of overall brain
tumor rates is meaningless because Olney (1996) showed that the overall
brain cancer rates remain stable due to the drop in less deadly astrocytoma
incidence rates.

It becomes clear that the Committee has no familiarity with the Olney (1996)
study because they make the following criticisms of Olney (1996) in the
report:

1. The rates of brain cancer was looked at in France and remained relatively
stable between 1980 and 1997 (Menegoz 2001). The Committee apparently has no
idea that they must look at specific types of brain tumors in vulnerable
population groups to see if aspartame may be having an effect on existing
malignancies. Had they read Olney (1996), they would not be focusing on
overall brain cancer rates.

2. Gurney (1997) found no link between aspartame and brain cancer in 56
children. Had the Committee read Olney (1996) they would know that the brain
cancer increases would be expected to be seen first in vulnerable population
groups -- middle-aged and elderly for specific types of brain cancer (e.g.,
glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas). The Gurney (1997) study is not
relevant because it combined all types of brain tumors in a relatively small
number of children. But the Olney (1996) analysis demonstrated that the
large shift to higher-grade brain tumor malignancies was seen first in the
middle-aged and elderly population groups (and not in children).

3. The Committee claimed that the incident rates increased due to better
diagnostic methods (Modan, 1992). In the early and mid-1980's magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) was introduced as a method of detecting brain cancer
earlier. However, the types of brain cancer that Olney (1996) showed an
increase for in vulnerable population groups was large and easily-detectable
without the use of MRI equipment. In fact, the incidence rate of the smaller
astrocytomas in the vulnerable population groups went down despite the
introduction of MRI technology. One would expect MRI technology to increase
the discovery and incidence of smaller, harder-to-detect astrocytomas.
Instead, the astrocytoma rate in the vulnerable population group went down.
This means that some other factor or factors were a major influence on the
changes in brain tumor rates in vulnerable population groups.

4. The Committee cited several letters and papers that claim the Olney
(1996) methodology was flawed (Levy 1996, Linet 1999, Ross 1998, Seife 1999,
Smith 1998). Before looking at these references, it is important to know
that the scientific journal, The Lancet (1996) reported that the Editor of
the journal publishing Olney's (1996) study was pressured by the NutraSweet
Company to publish a rebuttal in the same issue as Olney's study. The Editor
refused, but as soon as he agreed to NutraSweet's request to publish
followup correspondence, he received "a blitz of letters."

Linet (1999) and Smith (1998) are articles (not related to aspartame) that
look at brain cancer incidence in children -- not the vulnerable population
groups looked at by Olney. Seife (1999) is a letter from a Journalist who
disagrees with Olney's analysis. Both Smith (1998) and Levy (1996) focused
much of the criticism on the overall brain cancer rates in all population
groups. In fact, Levy (1996) combined population groups rather than looking
at the same age ranges from the Olney (1996) study.

Surprisingly, the Committee did not mention a criticism of the Olney (1996)
study that can be found in aspartame industry literature (e.g., Butchko
2002). It is sometimes claimed that changes in diagnostic criteria during
the mid-1980's were the cause of the changes in incidence rate for specific
brain tumors seen by Olney (1996). As Olney (1996) points out:

"If the shift were artefactual (i.e., assignment of glioblastoma diagnosis
to tumors which in the prior era would have been considered astrocytomas),
it should cause the < 2 year death rate for glioblastomas to drop
substantially, especially in younger age groups in which the characteristic
< 2 year death rate is much lower for astrocytomas than for glioblastomas.
We found that the < 2 year death rate did not change appreciably from the
early period to later period for either astrocytomas or glioblastomas in any
of the four age groups. Thus, tumors diagnosed as astrocytomas in either
time period behaved as astrocytomas and those diagnosed as glioblastomas
behaved as glioblastomas. These results favor the interpretation that the
shift reflects a real increase in the rate of conversion of astrocytic
tumors from a lower to higher grade of malignancy rather than a mere change
in diagnostic assignment practices."

The Committee referred to pre-approval animal studies that they claim showed
that aspartame did not produce brain cancer in rodents. The information they
used came from articles written by manufacturer employees and consultants in
an aspartame industry public relations book (Koestner 1984, Cornell 1984),
and from an FDA Commissioner (FDA FR, 1981-1984). This FDA Commissioner
ignored the unanimous vote against aspartame by the independent Public Board
of Inquiry (Brannigan 1983) and ignored his own scientists who considered
the brain tumor data so worrisome that they could not recommend approval of
aspartame (Gordon 1987). This FDA Commissioner left office shortly after he
approved the use of aspartame in carbonated beverages and became a high-paid
consultant for the aspartame manufacturer's public relations firm (Gordon
1987 and GAO 1986).

The Committee did not even cite the testimony of Olney (1987) where he
addresses the issues surrounding brain cancer seen in pre-approval studies.
Dr. Olney is an independent scientist and experienced Neuropathologist. The
Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) that looked at the aspartame and brain tumor
issue and other issues convened in 1981 (Brannigan 1983). The only member on
the PBOI who was qualified in the area of brain tumors was Peter Lampert, a
Neuropathologist and the President of the American Association of
Neuropathologists. Dr. Lampert told Dr. Olney that:

"...[he] had been surprised at the large size of the brain tumors in the
Nutrasweet-fed rats. This reinforced his impression that they had been
caused by some tumorigenic agent since spontaneous brain tumors are not only
rare in laboratory rats but when they do occur they are usually not so
large." (Olney 1987)

The Committee also did not consider the testimony of Dr. Adrian Gross (1985,
1987a, 1987b), the FDA Toxicologists and Investigator who looked carefully
at the many of the aspartame pre-approval studies. The Committee simply
accepted studies from laboratories where FDA Investigators showed that many
of the animals died and mysteriously came back to life several times
(Schmidt 1976):

J24HM Found dead 3/21/71 Alive 5/19/71 Dead 5/16/71 Alive 7/14/71 Dead
8/11/71

K18LF Alive 4/22/71 vanished (dead ?) 5/20/71 Alive 6/17/71 vanished (dead
?) 7/15/71

M25CF Found dead 3/6/71 Alive 6/18/71 Dead 7/16/71 Alive 9/10/71 Alive
10/8/71 Dead 11/5/71

H28MF Alive 7/13/71 vanished (dead ?) 8/10/71

H15CF Alive 7/13/71 vanished (dead ?) 8/10/71

G2HM Found dead 3/10/71 Alive 8/9/71

A15MM Found dead 3/13/71 Alive 5/3/71 Dead 6/1/71 Alive 8/23/71 Dead 9/20/71

G16HM Found dead 3/9/71 Alive 8/9/71 Dead 9/7/71

A6HM Found dead 2/25/71 Alive 5/3/71 Dead 6/1/71 Alive 8/23/71 Dead 9/20/71

G23HM Found dead 3/7/71 Alive 8/9/71 Dead 9/7/71

E15MM Found dead 1/21/72 Alive 2/25/72G 8MM Found dead 9/3/71
Alive 11/29/71 Dead 12/27/71

B19HF Alive 6/29/71 vanished (dead ?) 7/27/71 Alive 8/24/71 vanished (dead
?) 9/21/71 Alive 10/19/71 vanished (dead ?) 11/16/71 Alive (?) 2/22/72

B21HF Found dead 2/25/71 Alive 8/24/71 Dead 9/21/71 Alive 10/19/71
Dead 11/16/71 Alive 2/22/72

B14MF Killed 7/30/71 Alive 10/19/71 Dead 11/16/71 Alive (?) 2/22/72

B12HF Found dead 9/2/71 Alive 10/19/71 Dead 11/16/71 Alive (?) 2/22/72

B 4CF Found dead 9/12/71 Alive 10/19/71 Dead 11/16/71 Alive (?) 2/22/72

D30LF Found dead 1/22/72 Alive 2/22/72

B15HF Found dead 1/25/72 Alive 2/22/72

C29LM Found dead 3/29/71 Alive 6/2/71 Dead 6/30/71

C12HM Found dead 8/10/71 Alive 10/20/71 Dead 11/17/71

According to Dr. Adrian Gross (FDA Toxicologist and Investigator):

"They [manufacturer] lied and they didn't submit the real nature of their
observations because had they done that it is more than likely that a great
number of these studies would have been rejected simply for adequacy. What
[the manufacturer] did, they took great pains to camouflage these
shortcomings of the study. As I say filter and just present to the FDA what
they wished the FDA to know and they did other terrible things for instance
animals would develop tumors while they were under study. Well they would
remove these tumors from the animals" [FDA Toxicologist and Task Force
member, Dr. Adrian Gross (Wilson 1985)]

Apparently the Committee is unaware of the chaos in the manufacturer
laboratories for aspartame pre-approval research as detailed in ATIC (1996).

***Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 18:50:41 -0800
Subject: Recent diagnosis of MS

Hi. Thank you for being here. I have used Aspartame since it came out. I
would use at least 10 packs per day! ACHHHH! Well, I started tripping and
falling 2 and 1/2 yrs ago; before that, I was told that I was an early
[30y.old menopause]! Well I called the tripping part "peripheral
Neuropathy". Finally, a brain scan was requested-probable MS. Then 3 wks
ago, I learned that ASPARTAME mimmicks MS! I quit anf PRAYED really hard. A
spinal tap was done , and there are 4 or 5 bands in my CSF. .... Oh, and
ASpartmae DID make me crave sweets, and I did NOT lose any weight!
[continued]
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 13:10:07 -0700
I had been OFF aspartame 3mos and was feeling pretty well; THEN I had a
snowball. The tingling started in my legs and feet, I lost my balance, had a
headache that persisted for 6hrs, couldn't sleep and had the bathroom urges.
Asparatame DID IT!!!!!!!!!! All that money and detoxers have been wasted
because there was aspartame in the syrup! No MORE snowballs!!!!!!!!! If I
don't prepare it, if it doesn't come from a health dood store, AVOID
IT!!!!!!!!!

[continued]
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 11:41:35 -0400
Subject: aspartame case

Hi. ...I have been OFF aspartame for three months! I couldn't FEEL my hands
and toes and would trip and fall!! Now I can feel them!!!! Chewing the
sugarless gum or anyting with aspartame is really bad since it works through
the amalgams and GETS into your BRAIN!!!! Then , the "doctors" will identify
lesions and diagnose MS, when actually they are aspartame lesions. It is a
deadly neurotoxin, and we need to get it OFF the market! EVERYONE has a side
effect. Lord, help us!

[continued]
Subject: GOOD NEWS!!!!NO MS!!!!!!! Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 15:13:55 -0700
Well, I have been detoxing from aspartame since Feb 1998, and TODAY, the #1
MS Dr. in N.O. told me that I presented as NORMAL with NO MS
symptomology!!!!! (ATIC 1998)***

Aspartame and Reproductive Effects

Based on the review of summarized pre-approval study data by a World Health
Organization committee (JECFA 1980) and the earlier review by the Scientific
Committee on Food (SCF 1985), the Scientific Committee on Food stated that:

"...no additional studies were identified which would impact on the
no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) [for aspartame]."

Aside from the chaos that was seen in the manufacturer's pre-approval
studies that led to the criminal investigation of the manufacturer (Merrill
1977), there are several items that the Committee neglected to mention:

1. The manufacturer employee responsible for reviewing most of the
reproduction studies had only one year of prior experience, working on
population dynamics of cotton tail rabbits while employed by Illinois
Wildlife Service. In order to prepare him for this title of 'Senior Research
Assistant in Teratology' (fetal damage) the manufacturer bought him books to
read on the subject and also sent him to a meeting of the Teratology
Society. They claimed that this qualified him to submit 18 of the initial
tests to the FDA, in addition to training an assistant and 2 technicians. He
certainly must have kept them busy because the manufacturer claimed that 329
teratology examinations were conducted in just 2 days. (Stoddard 1995,
Graves 1984)

2. The manufacturer's own consultant, Dr. Gregory Palmer, commented on the
poor quality of the pre-approval reproduction studies (Gross 1985):

"Even following the track you did, it seems to me you have only confounded
the issue by a series of studies most of which have severe design
deficiencies or obvious lack of expertise in animal management. Because of
these twin factors, all the careful and detailed examination of fetuses, all
the writing, summarization and resummarization is of little avail because of
the shaky foundation."

3. The Committee did not mention that Dow-Edwards (1989) demonstrated that
aspartame administration after conception disrupted "odor-associative
learning in newborn guinea pigs. The aspartame dose used was far below the
no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) mentioned in the JECFA (1980)
review. Obviously, this study by itself would impact the NOAEL.

4. As mentioned earlier, The Guardian summarized parts of a confidential
report compiled for the World Health Organization which stated that Expert
Committees have been infiltrated by food industry consultants (Guardian
2003).

5. The Committee did not discuss a fairly large body of research related to
the reproductive adverse effects of formaldehyde exposure (Thrasher 2001),
including a recent paper on low birth weight and formaldehyde exposure in
humans (Maroziene 2002)

6. The Committee made no mention of any reviews or studies related to damage
to offspring from ingestion of excitotoxins obtained from aspartame and
other chemical sources (e.g., monosodium glutamate) (Olney 1988, Olney 1994,
Gao 1994, Fisher 1991, Toth 1987, Frieder 1984). Excitotoxins may be many
time more toxic in humans than in rodents and monkeys due to the potential
spike in plasma levels after administration (Olney 1994). A discussion of
the combined effects of formaldehyde and excitotoxin exposure would have
been relevant.

***Subj: Fwd: Re: Recall of aspertame !!!
Date: 97-10-03 01:44:19 EDT
To: mfriedman@... (head of the fda)

It is an emergency that you find the strength as a man to recall such a
deadly substance as aspertame.. I always thought that I would first get my
message through to FDA to remove sodium benzoate from food and drugs..WE
BLEED SEVERELY WITH THIS PRESERVATIVE...NOT TO MENTION THE HEADACHES THAT MY
SON ALWAYS HAD PRIOR TO A BAD HEMORRHAGE... However; the fact that I haven't
had success in being heard for sodium benzoate, perhaps you will consider
the severe reactions we have had to Nutrasweet...headaches, blurred vision,
dull ache in head days following severe headache and poor focus with
eyesight during the days following...nausea, etc. The MOST IMPORTANT THING I
WANT YOU TO KNOW IS THE TERRIBLE THINGS MY BROTHER HAS BEEN THROUGH SINCE
THE 80'S WITH A DIET COKE ADDICTION...I FIRST COMPLAINED TO FDA IN '85 AND
'86, only to be told there was only information about short-term memory loss
related to aspertame...nothing about addiction, depression..vision
problems..personality changes..or anything else...I was told that FDA would
need at least 10 years to study the effects of aspartame.... Following the
refusal of FDA to listen to my complaints for both my brother and my
family...I knew I had to get someone to listen to me since my brother
displayed such Diet Coke addiction that I feared for his life...I found a
name back then...Dr. Louis Elsas, Prof of Pediatrics at Emory University...I
communicated with him by telephone...he wrote to me...and I felt better once
I had found someone who believed me...I knew he was the doctor so talked
about at that time in the 80's as the one who was warning pregnant women to
avoid aspartame to protect their babies brains and to keep it from babies
after birth at least until the babies were 6 months old...he had seen brain
damage from the substance in babies in these age groups...he told me that at
that time (late 80's) someone in Washington was tracking Nutrasweet
Victims....It was a little encouraging to find someone who didn't think I
was crazy to believe in a Diet Coke addiction... It would be too lengthy to
try to explain all that aspartame DID TO MY BROTHER...but I feel better
knowing how hard I worked to convince my family and his doctor of his
addiction to aspartame...I feel even better now that he is off Nutrasweet
products... especially happy that his psychiatrist is weening him off all
the big time medications he was on for symptoms that had gotten so out of
had with increased use of aspartame...TO WATCH SUCH AN INTELLIGENT COLLEGE
GRADUATE GO DOWN THE TUBES AND LOSE MORE THAN A DECADE OF HIS LIFE IS
PAINFUL...BUT THANK GOD HE IS ONE OF THE FORTUNATE ONES WHO STILL HAS A LIFE
!!! WE FEEL IT WILL TAKE SOMEONE WITH A REAL CONSCIENCE, NOT A NEED FOR
GREED OR PRESTIGE WITH ASPERTAME MAKERS, TO STEP UP TO THE MIKE AND ANNOUNCE
THE RECALL OF THIS DEADLY NEUROTOXIN...
If anyone backing Nutrasweet thinks
the whole public can be changed into believing that aspartame is safe...let
me share with you the answer I got from an ATTORNEY concerning aspertame
safety....We were at a wedding 2 weeks ago...I speak with him often since we
were on a cancer board together years ago...I know of his love for flying,
so I asked him about his knowledge concerning the aspertame "unsafety" at
high elevations...His answer was that Nutrasweet is no longer allowed in his
home...he said once he determined that Nutrasweet made him depressed and
made his wife's moods bad, he banned it from his house quite some time
back....Now maybe you can see that many people are intelligent enough to
make healthy decisions for themselves...BUT WHAT ABOUT OUR KIDS AND OUR
GRANDKIDS... WASHINGTON NEEDS TO WAKE UP AND FEED OUR KIDS BETTER FOODS
(LESS NUGGETS, HOT DOGS, JELLO, CHOC MILK, INSTANT POTATOES, ETC)..THEY NEED
SOME REAL HOMECOOKED AND FRESH FOODS, FREE OF UNNECESSARY ADDITIVES, AND
CERTAINLY ASPERTAME SHOULD BE BANNED FROM ALL FOODS AND DRUGS, FIRST AND
FOREMOST THOSE WE PUT IN FRONT OF OUR KIDS...LET'S GIVE THEIR BRAINS A
CHANCE... PLEASE STAND WITH THE PEOPLE WHO CRY OUT FOR YOUR HELP IN GETTING
THIS DEADLY NEUROTOXIN OFF THE MARKET...RECALL IT PLEASE. (ATIC 1998)***

Aspartame and Behavior, Cognition, Mood

***Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 11:07:52 -0500
Subject: Aspartame

Let me first commend you and your "partners in crime" for the work that you
do in reference to aspartame and it's ill effects on the human body. As a
sufferer of aspartame poisoning, I feel quite strongly that you and your
people may have gone as far as saving my life. At the least, you people are
responsible for improving my quality of life by an exponential amount.

I was diagnosed with type II diabetes a little over 3 years ago. Like a
scared little diabetic, I was concerned for my health enough to make several
changes in my lifestyle, to improve my overall health and to try to keep my
diabetes under control.

I began using Equal in my coffee,(4 cups/day) and I began drinking diet
Pepsi, about 4 per day. I tried to use as many products with aspartame as
possible. During the next 2 years, I lost 55 lbs, much to the delight of
myself, my family, and my doctor. But during these 2 years, my health began
to suffer, and I started experiencing many problems that no one, including
my doctor, associated with aspartame useage. As a matter of fact, everyone,
including myself, thought that most of my problems were my "advancing age"
(46 now). The problems I had were as follows; indigestion (used Rolaids like
candy), headaches, almost every morning,(used Advil almost everyday). severe
mood swings, memory loss (mostly short term), my vision deteriorated,
insomnia, and finally vertigo. When I began the dizziness associated with
vertigo, I again went to the doctor thinking maybe I had a clogged artery to
my brain. My doctor could find absolutely nothing wrong with me. He
scheduled me for a "fasting" blood test the next morning. The next morning I
took a thermos of coffee sweetened with aspartame in the truck, to drink on
the way to work after the blood test. That morning, I felt great...no
dizziness and no indigestion. When I got to work, bam...I had a dizzy spell.
I thought for a minute as to "what did I do from the time I left the lab,
until now?"....it hit me like a ton of bricks....an almost forgotten memory
of the controversy over the approval of aspartame. I searched the Web and
ended up at your sight. The rest is sort of history. I stopped using
aspartame products, and all the symptoms went away, almost immediately,
except...I fear my eyes are permanently damaged, and my short term memory
has improved, but is a long ways from what a man my age should be
experiencing. I am now on a "one man" crusade in work, to educate my fellow
workers and friends to the dangers of aspartame. I have been successful with
4 individuals, who are now on the mend, and who also NEVER associated their
medical problems with their use of aspartame. (ATIC 1998)***

A. "Long-Term" Research

For long-term research, the Committee relied on two aspartame
industry-sponsored studies when they stated:

"A number of longer term studies with double-blind design involving multiple
dosing in healthy individuals also failed to highlight any treatment-related
adverse effects on behavior (Spiers 1998, Leon 1989)"

I suspect that the Committee did not even read the Leon (1989) study because
it is not a study on aspartame and behavior. Both studies will be looked at
in this report, but a few very important preliminary details must be looked
at.

It is important to understand that when the aspartame industry funds
studies, the studies are designed in such a way as to make it virtually
impossible to find adverse effects. One of many methods that are used is
that longer studies will only be conducted only on perfectly healthy
subjects. Subjects who have reported adverse effects from real-world
aspartame products will be placed in very short studies with other major
flaws. For example, Rowan (1995) looked at persons who had experienced
seizures from aspartame, but the study was only one day long, almost all of
the subjects were on anti-seizure medication, and the aspartame was given in
a way as to make it less toxic. Schiffman (1988) looked at persons who
reported headaches from aspartame, but the study was only one day long, the
aspartame was given in a way as to make it less toxic, and design flaws of
the study caused over 75% of the persons on placebo to have adverse effects
in a single day. Karstaedt (1993) tested aspartame on Parkinson's Disease
patients, but the study was only one day long and the subjects were given
aspartame in a way as to make it less toxic. Hertelendy (1993) studied
aspartame in patients with liver disease, but the study only lasted one day.

Sometimes aspartame industry studies on subjects with medical conditions
will be longer than one day. Shaywitz (1994) studied epilepsy patients (but
not patients who had reported seizures from aspartame) for two weeks, but
the subjects were taking anti-seizure medication during the study.

But the longer studies like Leon (1989) and Spiers (1998) will use perfectly
healthy subjects who are the least susceptible to reactions from several
months of aspartame exposure (but still susceptible to long-term aspartame
poisoning from years of use). Even these long studies do not take into
account the fact that a large number of persons reporting serious health
problems from aspartame use are able to ingest it without clinically-obvious
adverse effects for many months or years (Roberts 1988a). Slow poisoning
from the formaldehyde exposure in conjunction with the synergistic effects
of a free-form excitotoxic amino acid would account for the delays in
clinically obvious reactions.

Leon (1989) gave aspartame or placebo to healthy subject for 24 weeks. The
aspartame was given in slow-dissolving capsules that reduce its toxicity (as
discussed earlier). Even with the use of healthy subjects and a reduced
toxicity form of aspartame, there was a > 50% increase in adverse reactions
in the aspartame group. However, the researchers split the reactions into 14
small subcategories. They could then claim that within each tiny
subcategory, there was no "statistically significant" increase in aspartame
reactions. Since Leon (1989) split the reactions into 14 small
subcategories, at least 20 times more subjects should have been enrolled in
the study to have any hope of seeing statistically significant differences
within the tiny subcategories.

Phase 3 drug trials are used in the U.S. to help determine what adverse
effects might be associated with a drug. Enough subjects are enrolled to be
able to extrapolate the results to the general population. Several hundred
to several thousand patients are enrolled in Phase 3 trials (Nibeuhr 2000,
FDA 2001). Patients in clinical trials tend to be more prone to adverse
reactions. The Leon (1989) study used healthy patients, less prone to
adverse effects from substances and therefore that study should have
enrolled even more subjects than typically enrolled in Phase 3 clinical
trials.

Leon (1989) had only 50 subjects take aspartame for 24 weeks and 51 subjects
take placebo for 24 weeks. With the small number of perfectly healthy
subjects and the reactions split into 14 subcategories and a less toxic form
of aspartame used, it was inevitable that the researchers could claim no
"statistically significant" increase in adverse reactions within each
subcategory (even though aspartame caused a > 50% increase in adverse
reactions overall).

***"A 27-y-old female television producer drank 3 cans of
aspartame-containing soft drinks a 1 glass of presweetened iced tea daily
for 2 y[ears]. She suffered pain in both eyes, severe headaches, tingling of
the extremities, heart palpitations, nausea, and marked frequency of
urination. She also had difficulty wearing contact lenses. A CT scan of her
brain and various eye tests proved normal. Her complaints improved shortly
after she stopped using aspartame. The remission had persisted many mo[nths]
when she completed the questionnaire." (Roberts 1988a)***

The Spiers (1998) NutraSweet-funded study is a lesson in how a study can be
designed so that there is virtually no chance of seeing "statistically
significant" numbers of adverse reactions.

1. The aspartame was given for only 20 days to perfectly healthy subjects
who had a history of aspartame use without reported complaints.

It is important to understand that many people can use aspartame for months
or several years without any clinically obvious symptoms appearing. However,
the chronic poisoning from aspartame use eventually catches up with most, if
not all users. Here is a case described by an a person who had ingested
aspartame for approximately 6-8 months before symptoms had begun to appear
(ATIC 1998):

***Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:52:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Aspartame Victim

I would like to tell you about my personal experiences with aspartame and
what I feel that it has done to me.....

In the last two years I have become a *heavy* Diet Pepsi drinker
(approximately 2 two liters a day, plus NutraSweet in my coffe, and many so
called "diet" products once my weight gain began.... and I the more
NutraSweet I consumed the more weight I put on....) hearing things about how
NutraSweet was bad for you, but never really knowing the facts. I don't know
exactly how long after starting to drink that much of the soda my symptoms
started to appear, but I would say that it was about six to eight months.
For a little over a year now I have had to deal with *tremendous* weight
gain. I always had a little bit of extra meat on my body, but I was always
active enough to keep it level. I never changed weight much, but in the last
year I have put on approximately 70 pounds, all in my thighs and hips. (This
may or may not be all from aspartame, obviously, but I don't know....)

In addition to the weight gain, I have had AWFUL mood problems. I have been
diagnosed as manic depressive, and have started to have anxiety attacks. I
don't know how much of my other physical ailments were caused by aspartame,
but before I list them let me say that previous to my drinking the soda all
the time, I didn't have any of the symptoms. I was an average, mostly
healthy 19 year old girl. I have always had very very minor arthritis (since
I was a child) and very light athsma (never "attacks", but it made normal
colds worse)...... the rest of these things, I never had ever had wrong with
me until I started drinking the soda all the time.

anxiety attacks/panic attacks
bloating
breathing difficulties/chronic cough
burning urination
VERY CHRONIC FATIGUE
depression (Very Badly)
EXTREMELY EXCESIVE THIRST AND HUNGER
face flushing
thinning/losing hair e
xtreme loss of sexual feelings (has caused huge problems with my fiancee and
I)
inability to concentrate
insomnia (Severe)
irratibility
itching
joint pains
VERY marked personality changes
memory loss/poor memory/not as good as it used to be
EXTREMELY MESSED UP menstrual cycles
numbless/tingling of extremities
EXTREME WEIGHT GAIN

I am now 21 years old, and I honestly feel like I'm an 85 year old. (No
offense to anyone older, but I think you get what I mean...) I just don't
feel young and full of life the way I used to. I thought these things were
all wrong with me because of my "manic depression" that the doctor said I
had. I thought that all of it was in my head.... I have spent time actively
thinking that I am an awful human being, fat and lazy and worthless. Tracing
these emotions backwards, I realize that they all started after my HEAVY
consumption of Diet Pepsi started. I used to be vibrant, full of confidence
and able to spend a day being physically active with the best of them.

Now I can't do any of those things.

[update] Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998
Subject: Re: My 60 days is over!!

I am just writing to update my personal aspartame story. ;) Sometime a
little over 60 days ago I wrote to you with my horror story about aspartame.
I am the 21 year old who felt as though I were 95. I had a list of symptoms
as long as my arm, and was convinced that my entire life was on a downward
spiral into destruction.

But now!!

60 days later and I swear to God I feel like a new person. My personality
has just changed so much!! I feel like I did years ago, before I started
putting that poison into my body. The panic/anxiety and depression and
nastiness has just faded away. My sleeping patterns have returned to normal.
I eat and drink like a normal person now, without the excessive consumption.
I can move like I used to, without the pains and aches.... Just so many
things about me have returned to how they should be. I'm 21 again and just
so happy I could scream!! (ATIC 1998)***

Under normal conditions, even some healthy subjects would experience
immediate reactions to aspartame within a week after first use of the
product -- probably due to an acute sensitivity to formaldehyde or an
excitotoxic amino acid. Roberts (1988a) looked at 551 cases and reported
that reactions to aspartame appeared anywhere from immediately to over one
(1) year after initial use began. Many of the subjects in the Roberts
(1988a) survey repeatedly tested aspartame and found it to cause adverse
effects. Some of them (120 subjects) eliminated aspartame and then
inadvertently ingested and reacted to a product that they did not know
contained aspartame until after they had adverse effects.

The full publication of Spiers (1998) had no information about previous
aspartame use of the subjects. But we learn from the original publication of
the study in abstract form (Spiers 1993) that the subjects had a "history of
aspartame use without reported complaints". It would be very unlikely,
therefore, to see very many adverse reactions with 20 days of additional
use. These are the types of subjects who, like the case described above,
would be more likely to have chronic health problems develop from aspartame
after many months or years of aspartame use. In the Spiers' own words:

"In summary, we made a conscious effort to preselect individuals who we felt
would be unlikely to experience any effect from chronic aspartame exposure"
(Spiers 1988)
Not only was the study performed on healthy individuals for only 20 days (a
"long" study by aspartame industry standards), but also it was performed on
individuals who had not yet experienced clinically obvious adverse effects
from aspartame use!

2. Most of the aspartame was given in slow-dissolving capsules that reduce
toxicity.

As noted numerous times above, even aspartame industry consultants agree
that providing aspartame in slow-dissolving capsules is not "bioequivalent"
(the same) as real-world aspartame. The biochemical changes from greatly
slowing down absorption are reduced significantly.

3. The combination of the small number of subjects and splitting the
reactions into several categories meant seeing a statistically significant
change was virtually impossible (especially when combined with the
above-mentioned flaws).

Take a look at the most commonly reported adverse effect from aspartame --
headaches and migraines (DHHS 1993). Let us assume for the moment that 8
percent of the subjects in the study would begin experiencing
aspartame-induced headaches after 20 days of aspartame use. As pointed out
above, it would be highly unlikely that even 8 percent of these subjects
would report one particular type of adverse effect due to aspartame after
only 20 days (especially since that had not yet reported clinically obvious
effects from a history of aspartame use). But let us see what would happen
if 8 percent of the study population did report aspartame-induced headaches
from aspartame use within 20 days.

In fact, there was an 8 percent increase in headaches reported in the
aspartame group. However, this increase was not "statistically significant."
When you take a small number of healthy patients and split the reactions
into several categories, it is inevitable that within most, if not all of
the categories, the reactions will be deemed "not statistically
significant." Combining this problem with the short, 20-day study using a
reduced-toxicity administration of aspartame and using subjects who had no
chance of reporting immediate effects from first-time use of aspartame, the
claimed results of no statistically significant effects was inevitable.

***Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997
Subject: Aspartame
I wrote you in August. I got off of aspartame on August 22nd. It just sent
FDA a message, I hope it got to the right place. I couldn't find what I
wanted. It had a comment page that I sent but I think it was for comments
for Internet page. Here is what I sent to them: I am sending you
notification that I think that aspartame is a very dangerous substance. It
is what caused me to have slurred speech, lost most of my reflexes,
dizziness, hives, balance and coordination, my heart would pound hard when I
would be sitting, I had trouble sleeping, nightmares, I had to have help
tying my shoes. I was having a terrible time concentrating. I had to have my
daughter do my bills at work. I was tested for all kinds of things. I was
checked for stroke, heart trouble, Lupis, Multiple Sclerosis. I had a Cat
Scan, and a MRI. I had about $5000 dollars worth of tests, and the Doctors
couldn't figure out what was the cause. I have fibromyalgia, and aspartame
made it much worse. I have been in terrible pain for years. It took me about
70 days to get aspartame out of my system and now I am in less pain than I
have been in for years. All of my symptoms left except one, I am still
having difficulty concentrating. Please consider taking this hazard off the
market. Since I have been free of aspartame, my husband and many other
people have noticed that I am able to do many things that I haven't been
able to do in YEARS! I had drank aspartame in diet drinks evetry since it
came out. I had no idea that aspartame was what was causing most of my
problems until I started doing research on what could cause slurred speech.
I don't want anyone to go through what I have been through. I thank God that
I found out before it was TOO LATE! (ATIC 1998)***

B. ADD/ADHD and Behavior Research: Aspartame and Children

The Committee cited numerous aspartame industry-sponsored studies on
aspartame and behavior, mood, and learning in children (Shaywitz 1994,
Saravis 1990, Wolraich 1994). The first questions the Committee should have
asked are: "What is being seen clinically in relation to food and
behavior/learning issues in children"? What is working in research and in
clinical settings related to food and behavior/learning issues"? Without
knowledge of independent studies and clinical aspects related to food and
behavior, the Committee is susceptible to accepting any aspartame
industry-sponsored study, no matter how irrelevant or poorly designed.

Summarizing the independent research related to food and behavior in
children:

Kaplan (1989) reported a > 50% improvement in behavioral measurement and
some non-behavioral measurements in a 10-week, blinded crossover study in
preschool-age, hyperactive boys. The experimental diet removed monosodium
glutamate (MSG), preservatives, caffeine, substances reported by the family
to cause reactions. The diet was low in simple sugars and eliminated dairy
if the family reported a history of problems with cow's milk.

Boris (1994) conducted a study where reactive foods, dyes, and artificial
colors were removed from the diets of children with ADHD. In addition, a
double-blind, placebo-controlled challenge was conducted. 73% of the
children responded favorably to the diet change.

Carter (1993) designed an elimination diet (removing reactive
foods/substances) for 78 children with hyperactive behavior. 59 children
improved during the trial period. For 19 of the children, it was possible to
disguise certain foods or additives and reliably provoke behavioral problems
in a placebo-controlled, double-blind challenge.

Egger (1985, 1992) found that an elimination diet significantly improved
behavior and reduced or eliminated bed-wetting in hyperactive children.
Artificial colorants and preservatives were the most common provoking
substance, but all of the children reacted to more than just colorants and
preservatives.

Dengate (2002) treated 27 children with a diet that excludes food additives,
natural salicylates, amines and glutamates. Their behavior improved
significantly. The subjects were then tested by introducing one food
additive. A significantly higher percentage of the subjects who took the
additive had worsening behavior as compared to when they were ingesting the
placebo.

Schmidt (1997) tested an "oligoantigenic diet" (a non-allergenic, simple
foods diet) on 49 hyperactive children in a placebo-controlled, double-blind
study. In this experiment, only 24% of the children had significant
behavioral improvement (relative to the control diet conditions), but the
amount of positive changes in behavior was about the same as those who
received Ritilan.

Swanson (1980) gave 20 hyperactive and 20 non-hyperactive children a diet
free of artificial food dyes and other additives for 5 days. Large oral
doses of food dyes and placebo were then given to the children. The
hyperactive children had impaired learning tests compared to the placebo
group.

Conners (1976) conducted a double-blind crossover trial eliminating
artificial flavors, colors, and natural salicylates as recommended by the
Feingold Association. Fifteen hyperactive children were tested. The teachers
noted a highly significant reduction of symptoms on the Feingold diet. Both
parents and teachers reported fewer symptoms on the Feingold diet.

Brenner (1977) tested 59 children diagnosed with hyperactivity and minimal
brain dysfunction syndrome. 32 children stayed on the diet. Of those 32
children, 11 improved markedly. While there was no control group or placebo
in this study, the researchers stated that "startling changes seen in
patients who had been followed for years with other forms of therapy suggest
strongly that this improvement was genuine."

Salzman (1976) tested 15 hyperactive children with the Feingold K-P diet.
"93% responded with improved behavior in areas of overactivity,
distractability, impulsiveness and excitability. Sleep and enuresis problems
were resolved partially or completely."

Rose (1978) tested artificial food colors on two girls who had been on the
Feingold K-P diet for 11 months. There was an significant increase in
hyperactive behaviors with ingestion of artificial food colors as compared
to the placebo.

In a study conducted by the David Hide Asthma and Allergy Research Centre in
the UK, 277 children were given a mixture of artificial food colorings or
placebo (Foodcomm 2002). While the standardized behavioral tests showed no
differences, the parents of the children noticed significant behavioral
differences while the children were in their natural environment.

Well-known Pediatrician and ADD Expert, Dr. Doris Rapp reports that
customized changes to diet, including the removal of various reactions foods
and chemicals improves approximately 80% of her patients (Rapp 2002).

Central Alternative High School in Appleton, Wisconsin reported a large
improvement in behavioral problems after removing vending machines (that
contain junk food, aspartame- and sugar-containing beverages, etc.)
(Appleton 2002).

It is obvious from independent research and clinical experience that it is
the removal multiple offending items (additives, preservatives, colorings,
certain sweeteners, monosodium glutamate, foods that cause allergic or
intolerance reactions, etc.) that successfully and significantly reduces
behavioral problems and even some non-behavioral problems in children.

The aspartame industry designs research on a relatively small number of
children who may have behavioral, learning, and mood reactions to a variety
of additives, foods, sweeteners (including aspartame) and rather than
eliminating all of the offending substances (as seen to work in the
independent research and clinical settings), they just manipulate one
ingredient (aspartame or sugar). For behavioral issues in children, the
manipulation of one ingredient (that the child may or may not have
behavioral reactions to after short-term use) will only prove successful in
a very small percentage of cases. For the aspartame industry, the small
number of children in their tests, the fact that they split adverse effects
into multiple categories and use average values on the behavioral and
cognitive tests makes it nearly impossible to find any "statistically
significant" link between aspartame and behavioral problems.

***Date: 2 Dec 1996 11:20:34 -0600
Subject: Re: How Are you?

Yes, I'm doing much better since I swore off NutraSweet! Most people I know
can't believe I quit drinking diet coke. They've always known me to carry a
can or bottle of it around with me. That was part of my image: long blond
hair, Ray-bans, and a can of Diet Coke.

I have been waking up feeling rested. I'm not as achy. I'm not as tired. I
don't crave sweets anymore. I haven't lost any weight, but that's probably
because I drink a lot of Coke Classic now. I don't NEED a coke first thing
every morning now like I did a Diet coke. I used to get headaches if I
didn't have my Diet Coke within an hour or two after waking up. Now I can go
all day without a coke and not have any problems. I kept telling myself it
was caffeine withdrawals, but if it's not happening now, that can't be the
case. I drink as much caffeine now as before, only now my caffeine is
Nutra-Sweet free!

My son's behavior problems are improving now that he's off NutraSweet and
mostly off artificial colors. He's working better in school, and he's doing
really well at learning to read and to add and subtract. He seems to be
sleeping better now, too. Now when he climbs up onto my lap it's not painful
like it used to be. Uncomfortable, yes, since he's 50-something pounds! But
not painful.
My vision is improving and so is my memory. .... (ATIC 1998)***

Aspartame and Other Effects

***At least half a dozen of my patients have reported back with positive
feedback after discontinuing Aspartame. To give a few examples--

1.) A 60 year old, non-diabetic, obese lady was on Equal (regularly in her
tea & coffee) for the last 1-2 years to loose weight. She had c/o
breathlessness and chronic fatigue. Within 2 weeks of discontinuing Equal,
above symptoms disappeared and in her own words, she feels quite fit now.

2.) A 54 year old diabetic male with cataracts & severe proliferative
diabetic retinopathy was on daily Equal for about a year. He had c/o of
severe fatigue, mood swings with irritability & short temper (according to
his wife). His retinopathy has been worsening fairly rapidly. I just saw him
again 5 days back after he had discontinued Equal for about a month. Except
for his visual problems he feels well. His fatigue has gone & he has become
'calm like before' according to his wife.

3.) A 34 year old lady was on Equal for the last 3-4 years to keep slim. Her
daily consumption was limited to about 2 pills with 2 cups of tea. Since 2
months, as she was preparing for some exams, her consumption of tea had gone
up to 5-6 cups per day with corresponding rise in Equal intake. She is
related to me & I immediately got her off it about 10 days ago. She rang me
up last Sunday to thank me because she felt well. Moreover she noticed that
the hunger she felt in between meals was gone. (Barua 1996) ***

The Committee neglected to report on relief of fibromyalgia symptoms after
elimination of aspartame and other dietary excitotoxins (Smith 2001). They
did not mention an independent study related to aspartame and dizziness in
humans (Gulya 1992). They neglected to mention independent research related
to aspartame and memory loss (Orange 1998, Konen 2000). Brief mention was
made of the study by Dr. Ralph Walton showing a significant increase in
adverse symptoms from aspartame ingestion in patients with depression
(Walton 1993). But like all independent studies it was discounted by the
Committee for 1) having too few subjects (even though there were more
subjects than many of the studies the Committee accepted) and 2) looking at
an overall increase in adverse reaction rate rather than splitting the
reactions into the 26 separate categories that were recorded.

***Case 2

A 37-year-old white woman, the sister of the patient described above, had
multiple medical problems including fibromyalgia syndrome affecting all 18
tender points, allergic rhinitis, irritable bowel syndrome, dysuria, stress
reaction, depressive disorder, temperomandibular joint (TMJ) disorder,
facial pain, carpal tunnel syndrome anxiety, mitral valve prolapse, and
dyslexia. She underwent a total hysterectomy in 1991 and surgery to open her
left nasal passage. This woman was in a basically nonfunctional condition,
much worse than her sister. She reported pains she had experienced since she
was 15 years old. She did not recall a traumatic or emotional event prior to
the onset of the pain.

The pains progressively worsened, especially after the birth of her first
child...., and never completely resolved. She underwent several tender point
injections with bupivacaine, with temporary relief. The patient then began a
corn-free diet and was able to decrease her amitriptyline dose from 100 to
25 mg/d and discontinue sertraline and lorazepam. After several months of
using a diet free of aspartame and MSG, she had no pain in any of the tender
points, no further abdominal or facial pain, no carpal tunnel syndrome, and
no further depression or anxiety; a reevaluation also showed no sign of
dyslexia. The woman also reported improvement in her memory. Symptoms of
fibromyalgia recur when she unknowingly eats foods that contain MSG or
aspartame. At times, she experiences an episode for 24-48 hours, and then
researches if anything in her foods could have caused it. She often calls a
food manufacturer to learn more details about the ingredients. Both the
number of medications and number of office visits were markedly reduced
after elimination of aspartame and MSG. On reevaluation, she had no further
findings consistent with fibromyalgia, allergic rhinitis, irritable bowel
syndrome, dysuria, stress reaction, chronic depressive disorder, TMJ
disorder, or chronic fatigue issues. (Smith 2001)***

The Committee also neglected to report on some of the other symptoms
reported in the medical literature such as panic attacks (Drake 1986),
Lobular Panniculitis (McCauliffe 1991), Granulomatous Panniculitis (Novick
1995), diabetic complications (Roberts 1988b), joint pain (Roberts 1991),
vision loss (Roberts 1988a, Raiford 1987), and many other serious adverse
symptoms reported from aspartame use in documents written by independent
clinicians (Dorway 2003, NM 2003)

***Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 21:10:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Warning Flyer

I suffered from panic/anxiety attacks, insomnia, heart palpitations,
tachycardia, shaking, numbness and tingling in toes and hands and arm,
nausea, dizziness, memory loss, muscle spasms, breathing problems,
depression, slurred speech, and a constant feeling of uneasiness. Somewhere
around December of 1995 I quit drinking diet drinks. Two weeks later I
noticed I was feeling somewhat better. About two months later I was feeling
and doing so much

(Message over 64k, truncated.)