http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1189
Michael F. Jacobson of CSPI now and in 1985 re aspartame toxicity, letter to
FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford; California OEHHA aspartame critique
2004.03.12; Center for Consumer Freedom denounces CSPI: Murray 2004.07.27

Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall@... 505-501-2298
1943 Otowi Road Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages
group with 186 members, 1,189 posts in a public, searchable archive

http://cspinet.org/new/200507272.html
Center for Science in the Public Interest CSPI Newsroom
For Immediate Release: July 27, 2005

Aspartame: New Study Renews Cancer Concern, Says CSPI:
Consumers & Manufacturers Should Switch to Sucralose Pending Thorough
Government Safety Tests

The Food and Drug Administration should immediately review the safety of
the artificial sweetener aspartame, and possibly ban it, in light of a new
study published in the European Journal of Oncology. The study, conducted
in Italy, found statistically significant increases in lymphomas and
leukemias among female rats given aspartame. The smallest amount of
aspartame (20 milligrams per kilogram of body weight) that caused a
significant increase in cancer incidence is in the ballpark of what many
people consume. The study also found equivocal results regarding brain
tumors.

At a minimum, the government should conduct new animal studies of aspartame
and encourage consumers and manufacturers that use artificial sweeteners to
switch to sucralose, which CSPI considers to be the safest of the several
artificial sweeteners on the market.

Aspartame, also sold as Equal and NutraSweet, is used in Diet Coke, Diet
Pepsi, and thousands of other foods and is consumed by 200 million people
in the United States and around the world, according to the industry's
Calorie Control Council.

"The FDA immediately should ask the government's National Toxicology
Program to conduct new animal studies to assess the cancer risk from
aspartame. As a precautionary measure, in the several years it would take
to design and conduct such studies, the FDA should consider ordering
aspartame off the market," said CSPI executive director Michael F.
Jacobson. "Despite several shortcomings in the new study, one notable plus
is that it was designed and conducted independently. Virtually all of the
previous research was sponsored by the makers of aspartame."

(In 1996, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that the FDA repeatedly
stopped the National Toxicology Program from conducting lifetime animal
tests of aspartame.)

The authors of the Italian study call for "urgent re-examination of
permissible exposure levels of [aspartame] in both food and beverages,
especially to protect children."

CSPI has long urged that aspartame be better tested, but has not maintained
that the artificial sweetener is harmful, except to some people in whom it
causes headaches. The California Environmental Protection Agency has also
called for further studies on aspartame.

For more information, contact:

Center for Science in the Public Interest
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20009
phone 202.332.9110 fax 202.265.4954
****************************************************************

http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/aspartame_letter.pdf
CSPI letter from Michael F Jacobson, Ph.D re aspartame carcinogenicity to
FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford 2005.07.27

CSPI Center for Science in the Public Interest
Publisher of Nutrition Action Healthletter

July 27, 2005

Commissioner Lester Crawford U.S. Food and Drug Administration
5600 Fishers Lane - Room 14-71 Rockville, MD 20857

Dear Commissioner Crawford:

A new study has found that the artificial sweetener aspartame caused
statistically significant increases in lymphomas/leukemias in female rats. [1]

The lowest level (20 mg/kg body weight) of aspartame that caused an increase
was in the ballpark of what many people consume from foods and table-top
sweeteners.

A lower level (4 mg/kg) caused a 62 percent increase, but that was not
statistically significant.

In males, a dose of 5,000 mg/kg appeared to cause an increase (from 20.7
percent in the controls to 29 percent in the test group) in the incidence of
lymphomas/leukemias, but that increase was not statistically significant.

The authors suggest that the methanol metabolite of aspartame might be
responsible for the tumors, because in an earlier study methanol caused
lymphomas and leukemias in female rats. [2]

The incidence of Non­Hodgkin's lymphomas, according to the National Cancer
Institute, has almost doubled over the past 30 years, though increases began
prior to the approval and use of aspartame.

The new study by the Cancer Research Centre, European Ramazzini Foundation
of Oncology and Environmental Sciences, in Bologna, Italy, cannot be
considered definitive,
because of the low rate of lymphomas/leukemias in the female controls,
the shallow dose-response curve, and
the lack of confirmation by other independent researchers.

On the other hand, the study was unusually sensitive because it involved
large numbers of animals (l00 or 150 animals per sex per dosage level).

Moreover, the study's sensitivity was reduced because aspartame was not
administered until the rats were eight weeks old;
if the rats had been exposed to aspartame in utero and during their first
eight weeks of life, a time of possibly increased sensitivity to

1 Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Esposti DD, et al. Aspartame induces lymphomas
and leukaemias in rats. Eur J Oncol. 2005; 10(2).

2 Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Cevolani D, et al. Results of long-term
experimental studies on the carcinogenicity of methyl alcohol and ethyl
alcohol in rats. Ann NY Acad Sci.2002; 982: 46­-69.

Tel: (202) 332-9110 Fax: (202) 265-4954
Home Page: www.cspinet.org E-mail: cspi@...
Suite 300 1875 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009-5728
Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D. Executive Director IH.D.6

Page 2 ­

carcinogens, higher tumor rates might have occurred.

Another strength of this study is that it was designed and conducted
independently, without oversight or sponsorship of aspartame manufacturers.

Virtually all of the previous research was sponsored by the makers of
aspartame.

Aspartame has been controversial since its original approval a
quarter-century ago.

An FDA advisory committee had originally concluded that aspartame caused
brain tumors, but the FDA staff reexamined the histopathology and persuaded
the committee that there was no increase in brain tumors.

The new study found brain tumors in 12 out of 1,500 (0.8 percent) treated
animals and 0 out of 300 controls.
While a dose-response relationship was not observed and
the incidence of tumors in the laboratory's historical controls was 1.2 percent,
the occurrence of brain tumors only in the test groups of the new study,
combined with the debatable occurrence of tumors in company-sponsored tests
in the 1970s,
indicates the need to reevaluate whether aspartame can cause brain tumors
and to conduct further animal studies.

The authors of the new aspartame study stated:

Since the results of carcinogenicity bioassays in rodents, mainly rats and mice,
have been shown to be a consistent predictor of human cancer risk,
the first results of our study
call for urgent re-examination of permissible exposure levels of [
aspartame] in both food and beverages, especially to protect children.
(emphasis added)

We agree.

Considering that aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal) is used in thousands of foods
and consumed by 200 million people in the United States and around the
world, we urge the FDA make it a top priority to:

*Review the new study immediately and consider employing the precautionary
Delaney amendment to remove aspartame from the food supply.
We urge that that review be conducted by scientists outside
of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition,
which has a long history of defending aspartame's safety.

*Advise consumers-- especially those who drink diet sodas made with
aspartame--to switch to sucralose, which appears to us to be the safest
artificial sweetener (CSPI has concerns about the safety of saccharin and
acesulfame-K).

*Urge food manufacturers to replace aspartame with sucralose.

*Ask the government's National Toxicology Program
to conduct animal studies of aspartame to extend the new study;
such studies should use large numbers of animals, both rats and mice,
in utero exposure, and other parameters that would provide confidence in the
results. (In the past, according to an article in the Nov. 22, 1996,

- Page 3 ­

Minneapolis Star Tribune, the FDA stopped the NTP on numerous occasions from
studying aspartame.)

California's Environmental Protection Agency states that all the previous
studies have been "inadequate for judging carcinogenicity" and has
recommended that new studies of this widely used and controversial food
additive be conducted. [3]

We look forward to swift action by the FDA.

Sincerely, Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D., Executive Director

3 http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/docs_state/cmrbatch4fina145.html#get
(accessed July 27, 2005).
***************************************************************

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/docs_state/crnrbatch4final45.html#get

[ California ] OEHHA
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Proposition 65 - Prioritization Notices

Availability of Final Data Summaries and Priorities for Chemicals With
Respect to Their Evaluation by the OEHHA Science Advisory Board's Carcinogen
Identification Committee [03/12/04]

Cynthia Oshita coshita@... Subject: batch 4 priorities
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
P.O. Box 4010 Sacramento, California 95812-4010
FAX: (916) 323-8803 Telephone: (916) 445-6900

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/docs_state/pdf/bat4final45sums.pdf

FINAL PRIORITIZED CANDIDATE CHEMICALS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR
CARCINOGENICITY EVALUATION:
FOURTY FIVE BATCH #4 CHEMICALS
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
California Environmental Protection Agency March 2004

On October 17, 2003, OEHHA announced the release of draft priority
assignments and draft data summaries for 47 of 50 chemicals ("Batch 4")
selected for prioritization with respect to their potential to cause cancer.
Final priority assignments and data summaries for 45 of the 47
chemicals for which draft priorities had been assigned are presented here.

BATCH #4 PRIORITIZED CHEMICALS FINAL MARCH 2004 page 35

CARCINOGENICITY DATA SUMMARY: ASPARTAME

Preliminary evaluation of carcinogenicity and exposure data

Aspartame [Equal®; NutraSweet®; L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine methyl ester; CAS
No. 22839-47-0] did not reach a level of carcinogenicity concern sufficient
to be placed on the candidate list.

There is, however, some carcinogenicity concern over observations of brain
tumors in aspartame-treated rats.

Reliable animal studies have not been conducted despite the widespread human
exposure to this artificial sweetener.

Epidemiologic data provide inadequate information on which to judge
carcinogenicity.
One small epidemiologic study found no evidence of an effect of aspartame
consumption on brain tumor risk in children.

Aspartame has been suggested as an explanation for increased rates of human
brain cancer.

Further epidemiologic and toxicologic studies are needed on the
carcinogenicity of this chemical.

No large epidemiological studies of carcinogenicity have been conducted.

Olney et al. (1996), performing a descriptive analysis of national cancer
data, suggested the possibility that aspartame might be associated with
increased incidence of brain tumors in the U.S.

A small study (Gurney et al., 1997) of aspartame consumption in children and
brain tumor risk found no evidence that cases (n=56) were more likely to
consume foods containing aspartame than controls (n=90).

There have been multiple carcinogenicity studies of aspartame in animals,
each of which is inadequate for judging carcinogenicity.

[ The 2005 Remazzini study used doses of 0, 0.004, 0.020, 0.100, 0.500,
2.500, and 5.000 grams per kilogram body weight = g/kg ]

Searle Laboratories has conducted two sets of studies in rats.

In the first set, referred to as Study E-33/34, female and male Charles
River CD Sprague-Dawley albino rats were fed 0, 1, 2, 4, or 8 g/kg aspartame
daily for 104 weeks.

In female rats, one 4 g/kg dose animal was observed with brain tumor
(ependymoma) and three high dose females were (2 meningioma, 1 glioma)
(Searle Laboratories, 1973).

The brain tumor incidences in the Searle Laboratories (1973) report (number
of tumors/number of animals examined) in the 0, 1, 2, 4, and 8 g/kg females
were 0/59, 0/4, 0/4,1/4, 3/39, respectively, a statistically significant
increase with increasing dose (p = 0.0206, Fisher Exact trend test; p =
0.0167, Cochran-Armitage trend test).

In male rats, one brain tumor, a meningioma, was observed in the high dose
group.

The incidences were: 0/58, 0/4, 0/3, 0/1, 1/40 (Searle Laboratories, 1973).
Searle Laboratories (1973) reported that these findings were not
statistically significant (although Fisher Exact trend test for females
indicates otherwise).

The FDA Commissioner (1981) noted "variations in tumor count among the
several persons or groups who viewed the slides."

The FDA's Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) reported the following brain tumors
incidences (number of tumors/"total number of animals at risk"):
females, 0/59, 2/40, 0/40, 1/40, 2/38;
males, 1/59, 2/40, 0/40, 1/40, 2/38.

These data, as reported by the PBOI, do not reflect the limited numbers of
animals examined for brain histopathology in the low-, mid-, and
midhigh-dose
groups of both sexes,
nor do these data reflect a significant increase in brain tumors with
increasing dose in females.
The PBOI expressed concern over the early occurrence of brain tumors in some
animals (FDA Commissioner, 1981).

There was disagreement among examining pathologists as to the positive
finding in the male control group, with one of three finding no tumor (FDA
Commissioner, 1981).

The PBOI also considered historical background incidence of brain tumors in
interpreting the study findings, and concluded that the available data did
not rule out the possibility that aspartame might induce brain tumors (FDA
Commissioner, 1981).

In the second set of Searle Laboratory studies, referred to as study E-70,
aspartame was fed to female Charles River Sprague-Dawley rat dams during
pregnancy and lactation and to their offspring after weaning for 104 weeks.

Daily dose levels were 0, 2, and 4 g/kg.

Five of 160 aspartame-fed rats and four of 120 controls were reported with brain
tumors.

Hyperplastic liver nodules were increased in treated females.

An FDA review panel concluded that Searle Laboratories did not employ a feed
analysis program to monitor their incorporation of test compound into feed.

FDA's PBOI (Nauta et al., 1980) considered this a deficient study (FDA
Commissioner, 1981).

Ishii (1981) fed groups of SCL Wistar rats 0, 1, 2 or 4 g/kg aspartame,
or 4 gm/kg aspartame + diketopiperazine (DKP) (3:1)
for 104 weeks and evaluated brain tumorigenicity.

Interim sacrifice included 10 animals/sex/group at
26 weeks and 16 animals/sex/group at 52 weeks.

No brain tumors were observed in the interim sacrifice animals.

Total number of animals in the main groups was 60 sex/group; the number
surviving to 104 weeks was reduced in some groups to as few as 16 (1 g/kg
males),
and in all groups was less than 30 in males and lower in males than females.

Among females, one control had an "atypical astrocytoma"; two brain tumors
were found at 2 g/kg (1 astrocytoma, 1 ependymoma) and one at 4 g/kg
(oligodendroglioma).

In males, one treated at 1 mg/kg was found with oligodendroglioma and one at
4 g/kg with astrocytoma.

Studies in mice fed aspartame in diet found no indication of increased tumor
incidence (FDA Commissioner, 1981).

Details of study results have not been published.

BATCH #4 PRIORITIZED CHEMICALS FINAL MARCH 2004 page 36

The National Toxicology Program (NTP, 2003a) has conducted non-standard
bioassays in both sexes of genetically altered (p53 haploinsufficent) mice.

Animals in groups of 15 were fed aspartame for nine months at feed
concentrations ranging from 3,125 to 50,000 ppm.

There was no evidence of treated-related carcinogenicity.

This provides limited information on the potential for aspartame to induce
cancer in humans; group sizes were small and the use of the genetically
altered mouse is a new model.

Thus, there is uncertainty as to whether the study possessed sufficient
sensitivity to detect a carcinogenic effect (NTP, 2003b).

Aspartame breaks down spontaneously to diketopiperazine (DKP), which
normally comprises less than 2% of the final aspartame product (FDA
Commissioner, 1981).
DKP was tested for brain tumorigenic activity in Sprague-Dawley rats fed DKP
for 115 weeks (FDA Commissioner, 1981), in a study referred to as E-77/78,
at doses of 0, 0.75, 1.5, and 3.0 g/kg.

No increased incidence of brain tumors compared to untreated rats was
observed.

An FDA inspection team investigated the laboratory carrying out this study
and found irregularities that included evidence of improper feed mixing (the
chow was ground to a fine powder, but the DKP was present in large chunks),
which may have allowed the rats to avoid eating the DKP (Bressler, 1977).

The team also noted methodological quality control issues that could impact
on the study findings.

The promoting potential of aspartame on urinary bladder carcinogenesis,
initiated with N-butyl-N-(4-hydroxybutyl) nitrosamine (BBN), was studied in
male F344 rats who received 0.01% BBN in drinking water for four weeks
followed by 5% aspartame in the diet for 32 weeks (total aspartame intake,
400 gm/kg).

The incidences of bladder lesions were not increased in the 28 rats
surviving to the end of the experiment, 36 weeks (Hagiwara et al., 1984).

Aspartame was not mutagenic in TA 100 and TA 98 Salmonella tester strains
(Shephard et al., 1993).

Aspartame, nitrosated in vitro (to simulate the nitrosation that occurs in
the stomach), was mutagenic towards TA100, TA104, and TA98 without metabolic
activation, but not toward TA102 (Shephard et al., 1993).

Aspartame was not clastogenic, in vivo, in mice (Durnev et al., 1995).

Jeffrey and Williams (2000) reported that aspartame in vitro did not induce
DNA synthesis in rat hepatocytes.

Mukhopadhyay et al. (2000) report in vivo co-exposure of aspartame and
acesulfame potassium was negative for the induction of chromosome
aberrations in male Swiss mice bone marrow cells.

Aspartame adducts were found in nucleic acids and proteins from
aspartame-fed rats, and the authors concluded aspartame-derived formaldehyde
was responsible for adduct formation (Trocho et al., 1998).

There is a HIGH level of concern over the extent of exposure to aspartame.

Aspartame is a low-calorie sweetener, first approved in 1981, currently
consumed by more than 100 million people around the world (Calorie Control
Council, 2002).
In the U.S., aspartame is available for use in more than 1500 products,
including table-top sweeteners, carbonated beverages, baked goods, chewable
multi-vitamins, hot and cold breakfast cereals, chewing gum, puddings and
fillings, candies, cough drops, pharmaceuticals, and many other products
(Calorie Control Council, 2002).

The "acceptable daily intake" of aspartame, established by FDA, is 50 mg/kg;
a food intake survey conducted by U.S. Department of Agriculture found some
people in the U.S. consumed more than 16 mg/kg/day (Butchko et al., 1994).

References

Bressler J (1977). FDA field inspection report pertaining to E-77-78,
Diketopiperazine 2-year rat feeding study.
Submitted to FDA Bureau of Foods, August 1977.

Butchko HH, Tschanz C, Kotsonis FN (1994). Postmarketing surveillance of
food additives. Reg Tox Pharm 20: 105-118.
[ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/911
RTP ties to industry criticized by CSPI: Murray: 2002.12.09 rmforall ]

Calorie Control Council (2002). Low-Calorie Sweeteners: Aspartame. Available
at: www.caloriecontrol.org/aspartame.html.

Durnev AD, Oreshchenko AV, Kulakova AV, Berensten NF, Seredenin SB (1995).
Clastogenic activity of dietary sugar substitutes.
Voprosy Meditscinskoi Icimii 41(4): 31-33.

FDA Commissioner (1981). Aspartame: Commissioner's Final Decision.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Food and
Drug Administration. Docket No. 75F-0355. 46 Fed Reg 38285: 471-523.

Gurney JG, Pogoda JM, Holly EA, Hecht SS, Preston-Martin S (1997). Aspartame
consumption in relation to childhood brain tumor risk: results from a
case-control study. Brief communication.
J Natl Cancer Inst 89(14): 1072-1074.

Hagiwara A, Fukushima S, Kitaori M, Shibata M, Ito N (1984). Effects of
three sweeteners on rat urinary bladder carcinogenesis initiated by
N-butyl-N-(4-hydroxybutyl)-nitrosamine. Gann 74(9): 763-768.

Ishii H (1981). Incidence of brain tumors in rats fed aspartame.
Toxicology Lett 7: 433-437.

Jeffrey AM, Williams GM (2000). Lack of DNA-damaging activity of five
non-nutritive sweeteners in the rat hepatocyte/DNA repair assay.
Food Chem Toxicol 38(4): 335-8.

Mukhopadhyay M, Mukherjee A, Chakrabarti J (2000). In vivo cytogenetic
studies on blends of aspartame and acesulfame-K.
Food Chem Toxicol 38(1): 75-7.

Nauta W, Lampert P, Young V (1980). Aspartame: decision of the public board
of inquiry. FDA Docket No. 75F-0355. Federal Register 45:69558.

National Toxicology Program (NTP, 2003a). DRAFT NTP Technical Report on the
Toxicity Studies of Aspartame (CAS No. 22839-47-0) in FVB/N-TgN(v-Ha-ras)Led
(Tg.AC) Hemizygous Mice and Carcinogenicity Studies of
Aspartame in B6.129-Trp53tn1Brd (N5) Haplosufficient Mice (Feed Studies).
NTP, NTP GMM 1, NIH Publication

No. 03-4459. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service, National Institute of Health.
National Toxicology Program (NTP, 2003b). Actions on Draft Technical Reports
by the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors, Technical Reports Review
Subcommittee, May 22, 2003. Available at: http://ntpserver.
niehs.nih.gov/Meetings/2003/May2003Actions.html.

Olney JW, Farber NB, Spitznagel E, Robins, LN (1996). Increasing brain tumor
rates: is there a link to aspartame?
J Neuropath Experimental Neurol 56(1): 1115-23.

Searle Laboratories (1973). SC-188862: Two Year Toxicity Study in the Rat.
P-T 838H71, Final report. Entry E-34. Submitted to Searle Laboratories by
Hazleton Laboratories, Inc. dated January 12, 1973. Obtained from FDA's
Hearing Clerk's office, as "Study E33/34 in Master File 134 on Aspartame".

Shepard SE, Wakabayashi K, Nagao M (1993). Mutagenic activity of peptides
and the artificial sweetener aspartame after nitrosation.
Food Chem Toxicol 31(5): 323-329.

Trocho C, Pardo R, Rafecas I, Virgili J, Remesar X, Fernandex-Lopez JA,
Alemany M (1998). Formaldehyde derived from dietary aspartame binds to
tissue components in vivo. Life Sci 63(5): 337-349.
[ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/925
aspartame puts formaldehyde adducts into tissues, Part 1/2
full text, Trocho & Alemany 1998.06.26: Murray 2002.12.22 rmforall ]

BATCH #4 PRIORITIZED CHEMICALS FINAL MARCH 2004 page 37
****************************************************************


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1186
aspartame induces lymphomas and leukaemias in rats, full plain text,
M Soffritti, F Belpoggi, DD Esposti, L Lambertini: Ramazzini Foundation study
2005.07.14: main results agree with their previous methanol and formaldehyde
studies: Murray 2005.07.26

http://www.ramazzini.it/fondazione/docs/AspartameGEO2005.pdf full study text

" In rodents and humans,
APM is metabolised in the gastrointestinal tract
into three constituents:
aspartic acid, phenylalanine and methanol 3. "

" These experiments demonstrate that the increase in
lymphomas and leukaemias,
observed in the APM study,
could be related to methanol, a metabolite of APM,
which is metabolised to formaldehyde and then to formic acid,
both in humans and rats 3. "

" Yellowing of the coat was observed in animals exposed to APM, mainly at the
highest concentrations.

This change was previously observed in our laboratory in rats exposed
to formaldehyde administered with drinking water 9. "


1. The total number of rats was 1800. 1500 were given aspartame.

2. 44 [ 14.7% ] of the 300 control rats, given no aspartame, developed lymphomas
and leukemias (hemolymphoreticular neoplasias ), and none had malignant brain
tumors.

Of 1500 rats given aspartame, 294 [ 19.6% ] had lymphomas and leukemias
(hemolymphoreticular neoplasias), and 12 [ 0.8% ] had malignant brain tumors.

In their previous methanol study, reported Dec 2002, of 200 + 100 = 300
control rats, given no methanol, there were 41+ 15 = 56 [ 18.7% ]
lymphomas and leukemias (hemolymphoreticular neoplasias), while of 600 +
100 = 700 rats given methanol, there were 187 + 15 = 202 with the same
cancers [ 28.9 % ]. They added 100 rats given 15 ppm methanol to their
Table 3 summarizing the formaldehyde data in their formaldehyde study, in
which their 200 control rats had 15 of these cancers.

In their previous formaldehyde study, reported Dec 2002, 200 control rats,
given no formaldehyde, had 15 [ 7.5 %] lymphomas and leukemias
(hemolymphoreticular neoplasias), while of the 600 rats given formaldehyde,
121 [ 20.3 % ] had these cancers.

Probably, other factors, such as viruses, bacteria, molds, or toxic
chemicals in the air, water, and food, also facilitate these cancers.


http://www.ramazzini.it/eng/fondazione/eventidettagli.asp?id=210

News and events
Istituto Ramazzini Collegium Ramazzini
NEWS AND EVENTS 14 July 2005 Press Release

Results of study on the carcinogenicity of the artificial sweetener
aspartame

CRC/ERF

Results of study on the carcinogenicity of the artificial sweetener
aspartame

Summary.

A long-term study to evaluate the potential carcinogenic effects of aspartame,
an artificial sweetener used in more than 6,000 food and pharmaceutical
products has recently been completed in the experimental laboratories of its
Cancer Research Center of the European Foundation of Oncology and
Environmental Sciences "B. Ramazzini" in Bologna, Italy.

The first results of the experiment were reported to the Ministry of Health
and to the Superior Institute of Health of the Italian government in April 2005.

In mid-June, these findings were then communicated to
the European Food Safety Authority,
the Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center of Columbia University,
the National Cancer Institute of the US government,
and the National Toxicology Program of the US National Institutes of Health.

First results demonstrate that aspartame,
when administered to rats for the entire life span,
induces an increase of lymphomas and leukaemias in female rats.

The study is currently being published in the European Journal of Oncology
(available at:
http://www.ramazzini.it/fondazione/docs/AspartameGEO2005.pdf ) and final
results will be presented
at the 3rd international scientific conference of the Collegium Ramazzini,
"Framing the Future in Light of the Past: Living in a Chemical World",
to be held in Bologna, Italy from September 18-21, 2005,
the proceedings of which will be published in
the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

Communication.

Aspartame is an artificial sweetener consumed by hundreds of millions of
people worldwide.

It is used in over 6,000 diet products including soft drinks, chewing gum,
candy, desserts, yogurt as well as in pharmaceuticals, in particular, syrups
and antibiotics for children.

The average daily intake of aspartame is calculated to be about 2-3 mg/Kg of
body weight, a figure which increases for children and women of childbearing
age.

Current daily intake allowed by regulatory bodies is 50 mg/Kg of body weight
in the US and
40 mg/Kg of body weight in the European Union.

Prior to the commercialization of aspartame in the 1970s,
the manufacturers of the compound conducted various experimental studies on
rats and mice to test its carcinogenicity.

When taken together, the results of these studies were considered negative
with regard to the carcinogenicity of aspartame.

Doubts were however raised by some in the scientific community about the
conduct of the experiments and
the fact that some cases of malignant brain tumors were found among animals
treated with aspartame
while none were found among the control group.

Given the limitations of these studies and
the ever growing use of aspartame throughout the years,
the European Ramazzini Foundation decided in the late 1990s
to plan and perform an experiment that would,
based on the total number of animals used,
the number of dose levels studied,
and the conduct of the experiment according to Good Laboratory Practices,
provide an adequate evaluation of the potential carcinogenic effects of
aspartame.

The CRC/ERF study was conducted on 1800 rats (900 males, 900 females)
of the colony used for over 30 years by the Foundation.

In order to simulate daily human intake,
aspartame was added to the standard rat diet in quantities of
5000, 2500, 100, 500, 20, 4, and 0 mg/Kg of body weight.
[ This asserts that humans are twenty times more vulnerable to aspartame
(methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid) toxicity than rats. ]

Treatment of the animals began at 8 weeks of age and
continued until spontaneous death.

A complete necropsy and histopathological evaluation of tissues and organs
was then performed on each deceased animal,
for a total of over 30,000 slides examined by microscope.

The first results of the experiment show:

1) a dose-related statistically significant increase of lymphomas and
leukemias in female rats.
This statistically significant increase was also observed at a dose level of
20 mg/Kg of body weight,
a dose inferior to the accepted daily intake permitted by current
regulations (50-40 mg/Kg of body weight);

2) that the addition of aspartame to the diet induces
a dose-related reduction in food consumption,
without however causing a difference in body weight
between treated and untreated animals.

The above results demonstrate
for the first time
that aspartame is a carcinogenic agent,
capable of inducing lymphomas and leukaemias in female rats,
including when administered at dose levels very close
to the acceptable daily intake for humans.

In addition, the data demonstrate that the integration of aspartame into the
diet did not affect the body weight of treated animals
compared with untreated animals.

As recognized by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of
the World Health Organization,
results of long-term bioassays conducted on rodents (rats and mice)
are highly predictive of carcinogenic risk for humans.

In light of this fact,
the results of the CRC/ERF study on aspartame call
for urgent reconsideration of regulations
governing its use as an artificial sweetener
in order to better protect public health,
in particular that of children.

Websites

European Foundation for Oncology and Environmental Sciences "B. Ramazzini"
www.ramazzini.it/fondazione/eng

3rd international scientific conference of the Collegium Ramazzini
www.ramazzini.it/living2005

Contact Kathryn Knowles Director of Resource Development
European Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences "B. Ramazzini"
development@... +39 0516640460

Home | About us | Research and Activities | Publications | News and Events
Support the Foundation | Partners | Contact Us | Credits | Versione Italiana

FONDAZIONE "B. RAMAZZINI" - Via Guerrazzi, 18 - 40125 Bologna - tel. 051
237286 - fax 051 2911679 - fondazione@...

CENTRO DI RICERCA SUL CANCRO - Castello di Bentivoglio, Via Saliceto,
3-40010 Bentivoglio (BO) - tel. 051.66.40.460 - fax 051 6640223
crcfr@...
***************************************************************

aspartame critique 1985 Michael F Jacobson, Center for Science In the Public
Interest

Watch Neil Cavuto weekdays at 4 p.m. ET on "Your World with Cavuto" on Fox
News TV, and send your comments to cavuto@... -- He interviewed
Michael F Jacobson briefly about Sunday, July 24 2005.

We thank Barbara Metzler, Mission Possible New Jersey, for scanning in a
report written by Michael Jacobson of CSPI in l985. Jacobson's email is
mjacobson@... cspi@...

Subject: From 1985 -- CSPI
FROM:
The Complete Eater's Digest and Nutrition Scoreboard
By Michael F. Jacobson Anchor Press/Doubleday Garden City, NY 1985

Aspartame --
Sensitive individuals; Pregnant women: Avoid
Others: ?

The history of artificial sweeteners is a grim one:

* dulcin; banned in 1950, because it caused liver cancer;

* cyclamate: banned in 1970, because it appeared to promote cancer
and mutations;

* saccharin: ban proposed in 1977, because it increased the risk of
bladder cancer.

Despite this depressing record, people still clamor for an artificial
sweetener. Overweight people think that the calories saved by not
eating sugar will be reflected in slimmer waistlines. Diabetics who
need to avoid refined sugar want to satisfy their sweet tooth. And
anyone concerned about tooth decay can protect their teeth by
avoiding sugar. Because of this huge ~market for a sugar substitute,
manufacturers have been- identifying and testing a wide range of
super sweet chemicals, both synthetic and natural.

The latest artificial sweetener to move into the spotlight is
aspartame, which is marketed under the names Equal and NutraSweet and
is about 180 times sweeter than sugar. Thus, a tiny amount can
replace a very large quantity of sugar. Aspartame has one tenth the
number of calories as an amount of sugar with equal sweetening power.

Like saccharin and many other chemicals, aspartame's sweetness was
discovered serendipitously, in this case by a Searle drug company
scientist in 1965. Aspartame is synthesized from two amino acids that
occur naturally in food, phenylalanine and aspartic acid, and
methanol (wood alcohol). Aspartame itself does not occur in nature.

FDA first approved aspartame on July 24, 1981, for use as a tabletop
sweetener (the little packets) and in breakfast cereals, powdered
beverage mixes, and other dry packaged foods. Two years later, FDA
approved the use of aspartame in soft drinks, by far the biggest and
most lucrative market ' for the additive. Aspartame cannot be used in
foods that are baked or otherwise heated, because it loses its
sweetness as it gradually breaks down to form diketopiperazinc (DKP)
or to form the amino acids of which it is composed. However, it can
be added shortly before such foods are finished cooking. Packages of
the artificial sweetener bear notices advising, "Not to be used in
cooking or baking."

At first glance aspartame, which is advertised as "the good stuff,"
might appear as harmless as any other source of amino acids­, such as
meat, eggs, or beans, ­but aspartame has been the focus of a vigorous
controversy going back to 1973, when Searle first petitioned FDA to
permit its use. A basic difference between aspartame and food sources
of amino acids is that when we eat meat or beans the protein is
digested slowly, the amino acids are released gradually, and small
amounts of a wide variety of amino acids are present. But when we eat
aspartame, our body is exposed to a quick burst of just two amino acids

One undisputed problem relates to the phenylalanine portion of the
sweetener. One out of 20,000 babies has the genetic disease called
phenylketonuria (PKU) and cannot metabolize this amino acid.
Phenylalanine rises to toxic levels and causes mental retardation.
All newborn babies are tested for PKU, and sufferers are put on a
special diet without phenylalanine. These babies also have to be
protected from aspartame. FDA requires that all packaged foods
containing aspartame bear a notice saying: "PHENYLKETONURICS:
CONTAINS PHENYLALANINE". Foods served at restaurants and cafeterias
are not covered by this requirement.

A more subtle question concerns people who do not have PKU
themselves, but unknowingly carry the genetic trait (about 1 percent
of the population). A woman who carried the PKU gene could give birth
to a baby with the disease.

Some scientists warn that if such women consumed large quantities of
aspartame or other sources of phenylalanine during pregnancy; their
babies might be born mentally retarded. FDA scientists, however
disagree. According to then FDA Commissioner Arthur Hayes, aspartame
appears to present no greater hazard than common protein-rich foods
considered essential for proper nutrition." This contention is hotly
disputed, though, especially in light of the proliferation of
aspartame-containing foods. In July 1984, the American Academy of
Pediatrics' Committee on Genetics and Environmental Hazards expressed
concern about aspartame consumption among young children and pregnant
women. The committee concluded, "insufficient information is
available to indicate whether high, but nonabuse level, intake by
certain individuals is likely to cause harm."

The controversy over aspartame's safety is much broader than the PKU
issue. The debate was initially sparked in 1974 by Washington
attorney James S. Turner and Dr. John Olney, a Washington University
scientist. Olney had previously shown that MSG (monosodium glutamate,
a common flavor enhancer), might cause brain damage in babies.
Olney's statistics helped force MSG out of baby foods. Aspartame
contains aspartic acid, which is chemically quite similar to
glutamate. Olney charged that aspartame, along with glutamate and
aspartic acid from traditional foods, could gang up to cause brain
lesions. He didn't have proof of this, but he and Turner felt that
the evidence was sufficiently suggestive that aspartame could not be
considered proven safe.

Before FDA ruled on Olney and Turner's charge, the agency itself
became suspicious of the quality of Searle's animal experiments on
many different chemicals. As writer Judith Randal related in a major
story about aspartame in the Washington Post, an FDA task force
reported that, "Searle made a number of deliberate decisions which
seemingly were calculated to minimize the chances of discovering
toxicity and, or, to allay FDA concern." FDA found major flaws in
many of Searle's studies, including some on aspartame. Then FDA
Commissionaire Alexander Schmidt refused to approve the sweetener
and later told Randal that, "Searle has been running a cruddy operation."

In addition to doctoring records, a Searle official sought to
increase aspartame's chances of approval by inculcating in FDA
officials a "subconscious spirit of participation" in the Searle
studies. In January 1977, FDA General Counsel Richard Merrill wrote,
"The FDA must receive the truth, not psychological warfare." That
statement was part of a thirty-three page letter to the Justice
Department, in which Merrill requested a grand jury investigation
into Searle's alleged violations of the law. The Justice Department
denied the request, and, as grand jury rules dictate, never provided
a public explanation. |

With a grand jury ruled out, the next step in the aspartame saga was
a review of fifteen out of eighty of Searle's studies. This review,
conducted by a consulting firm called Universities Associated for
Research and Education in Pathology (UAREP), was supposed to answer
all the questions, but it was so narrowly focused that it proved of
little value. It reviewed the pathology, but not the design,
supervision, and conduct of the studies.

Turner blasted the UAREP review and persuaded FDA to appoint a
precedent-setting public board of inquiry to examine the whole range
of complaints about aspartame. The board of three scientists --
chosen jointly by FDA, Turner, and Searle -- was established in 1979.
Ultimately, to the dismay of Turner and others, this committee, too,
focused only on a limited number of issues, including Olney's charge
about brain damage and another charge that aspartame caused brain
tumors in laboratory animals. The board concluded in September 1980,
that aspartame did not increase the risk of mental retardation or
noncancerous brain lesions. Olney held his ground, however, arguing
that the industry-sponsored studies were deficient and urging that
new, independent tests be conducted. FDA sided with the board.

The cancer question arose from a feeding study in which aspartame was
fed to rats. Ordinarily, brain tumors occur very rarely in laboratory
rats. The board said that '`aspartame, at least when administered in
the huge quantities employed in these studies, may contribute to the
development of brain tumors," and urged that the tumor tests be
repeated. Because of the possibility that aspartame caused brain
tumors, the board said that aspartame should not be allowed in our
food supply until further tests confirmed or refuted the study
linking the sweetener to brain tumors.

FDA rejected the board of inquiry's conclusion concerning brain
tumors, saying that the apparent increase in brain tumors was a
statistical fluke. FDA said that the number of tumors occurring in
the control (untreated) rats was uncharacteristically low and
presented National Cancer Institute evidence in support of this
notion. (Comparing the incidence of tumors in test animals to
"historical" controls, rather than to the control animals used in the
current study, is a potentially mischievous practice that can be very
misleading if not done carefully and interpreted cautiously.) Also, a
new rat study, completed after the board's review, was conducted by
Ajinomoto, a Japanese marketer of aspartame. FDA said that this study
did not show any evidence of harm. However, the new study was done on
a different strain of rat and could not confirm or disprove the previous
study.

In June 1985, a former high-ranking FDA toxicologist, Dr. Adrian
Gross, charged that the research, "has established beyond any
reasonable doubt that aspartame is capable of inducing brain tumors
in experimental animals." Yet another controversy centers on DKP, the
breakdown product of aspartame.

One study indicated that DKP did not cause cancer. However, there was
evidence that the DKP was not mixed in well with the rest of the
rats' food. Thus, the rats may have eaten much less of the chemical
than was intended. FDA's own scientists criticized the study sharply,
but later FDA said that this was one loose end that would just have
to be left dangling. FDA could have demanded that this and other
dubious studies be repeated. Attorney Turner pointed out that Searle
and FDA could have saved themselves a lot of grief and the public a
lot of worry -- if they had only repeated the flawed studies years ago.

And so it was that after eight years of debate, FDA approved
aspartame, first for use in dry foods, then soft drinks. Days before
FDA was going to approve aspartame for soft drinks, Richard Wurtman,
a respected neuroendocrinologist at MIT, wrote a letter of objection.
He acknowledged: that small amounts of aspartame were safe -- ­he even
said he used the sweetener himself­, but expressed concern about large
amounts. He was particularly concerned that allowing aspartame in
soft drinks would lead to excessive consumption by children. Wurtman
told FDA that studies he had just completed raised the possibility
that aspartame would alter levels of brain chemicals
(neurotransmitters) and cause behavioral changes. His studies on rats
suggested that aspartame could reduce levels of serotonin in the
brain, especially when the artificial sweetener was consumed with
carbohydrate-containing foods, such as potato chips or a cupcake. The
FDA acknowledged a theoretical possibility of a problem, but said
that without more evidence, it could not accept Wurtman's argument.

Food sciences professor Woodrow Monte, of Arizona State University,
raised another objection. He pointed out that as aspartame is
metabolized, methanol a poorly tested, toxic chemical, is released.
Monte said that methanol might cause visual and nervous system
problems. FDA rejected this contention, too, saying the amounts of
methanol were trivial, and then gave aspartame its stamp of approval.

Several months after FDA approved aspartame in soft drinks, news
media ran major stories about possible dangers of the additive, and
hundreds of consumers wrote to Wurtman, FDA,
Monte, and others. These consumers complained of such symptoms as
dizziness, headaches, epileptic-like seizures, and menstruation
problems. One Yale physician told me that after drinking a can of
Diet Coke her "head felt like it was coming unscrewed." She had never
experienced that sensation prior to drinking Diet Coke, and it never
recurred, once she stopped drinking Diet Coke.

FDA and Searle continued to defend aspartame's safety, but FDA asked
the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to evaluate the consumer
complaints. It was quite possible that even though the problems being
reported had not been detected in any of the past studies, a small
fraction of consumers was indeed experiencing serious problems. CDC's
inquiry was doomed to be inconclusive, because CDC used
questionnaires rather than clinical experiments to investigate the
complaints. It would have been so easy to invite individuals who
believed they were sensitive to volunteer for a controlled
experiment. The individuals would be given either small amounts of
aspartame or a placebo and then monitored for several hours. Such a
study could have determined once and for all whether aspartame caused
these immediate reactions. CDC concluded that:

"Although it may be that certain individuals have an unusual
sensitivity to the product, these data do not provide evidence for
the existence of serious, widespread, adverse health consequences
attendant to the use of aspartame."

FDA said that it supported the COC findings and believed that,
"clinical studies may be useful" in resolving concerns about
aspartame. Searle has undertaken such studies.

In early 1984, Turner and the Community Nutrition Institute (CNI), a
nonprofit citizens' group, filed a law suit against FDA, hoping to
force the agency to hold a comprehensive, public hearing that would
at long last examine all the still-disputed issues. As of July 1985,
the case was still wending its way through the courts.

As summer 1984 approached, the aspartame controversy heated up when
Common Cause published an expose that found "such serious
deficiencies in the Food and Drug Administration's process of
approving aspartame that we are calling on Congress to begin its own
investigation of this approval process immediately."

Aspartame's critics predicted that heavy soft drink consumption
during the hot summer months would lead to an enormous number of new
consumer complaints. However, those complaints never materialized.
The relative silence provided some reassurance that aspartame was not
causing many any­ adverse reactions. In Canada, where aspartame had
been used since 1981, the Common Cause report acknowledged that few
people had ever complained to health officials.

The aspartame controversy continued into 1985. Dr. Keith Connors, of
Children's Hospital in Washington, D.C., has been investigating the
behavioral effects of venous sweeteners. In February 1985, the New
York Times reported that Dr. Connors, "has studied two young children
who suffer extreme agitation following doses of aspartame equivalent
to the amount found in a six-ounce serving of Kool-Aid sweetened with
NutraSweet. One of the children becomes so agitated he has to be
restrained." The article also quoted a Searle executive who
acknowledged that, "a few people may be allergic or sensitive to it."

Aspartame poses difficult questions for government policy makers.
Clearly, not all of the questions have been answered, and even FDA
acknowledges that aspartame introduces some small risks. Ideally,
more tests would have been conducted to replace the many flawed and
disputed tests before the chemical was approved. As FDA Commissioner
Hayes told Science magazine, "In the best of all possible worlds
Searle would have conducted additional tests of its own. I wish they
had, sure. On the other hand, I didn't feel there was justification
for saying, okay, let's wait a few years." In the absence of
commercial pressures, FDA probably would have demanded such tests.
But such pressures do exist, and now millions of consumers are
participating, unwillingly, in a giant new experiment.

The reason for Searle's desire to speed aspartame to market and keep
it there is obvious, when you examine recent sales records: and future
sales prospects. Sales of aspartame, according to The Wall Street
Journal, would total $600 million in 1984 -- half of Searle's total
sales­ and $1 billion in 1985. The market for tabletop sweeteners
doubled since aspartame was introduced. A beverage industrial trade
journal predicted that in l990 diet sodas would account for half of
all soda sales, twice the current level. Searle's future is rosy,
indeed, unless a judge forces its golden goose off the market or a
scientist proves conclusively that the chemical is indeed dangerous.

Until further studies are conducted aspartame should be considered of
questionable safety for most people, and risky to certain individuals.
If you believe you have experienced a problem after
consuming the sweetener, you should simply avoid it. If you have not
noticed any problem, modest amounts -- up to a few servings a day­ should
not pose a significant risk. But, just to be on the safe side
until the uncertainties are resolved, no one should be consuming five
or ten aspartame packets or aspartame-sweetened sodas a day. Pregnant
women and infants should avoid aspartame. Safety aside, aspartame
probably isn't much of a weight-loss aid. Most people who save a few
calories by drinking a diet beverage will probably make up those
calories by eating a few more bites of some other foods.
****************************************************************

http://www.cspinet.org/liquidcandy/index.html
http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/liquid_candy_final_w_new_supplement.pdf
Liquid Candy: How soft drinks are harming America's health. 46 pages 718 KB

http://www.cspinet.org/

Center for Science in the Public Interest
1875 Connecticut Ave. N.W. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 332-9110 FAX: (202) 265-4954 cspi@...

Board of Directors, as of October 2004

Ms. Anne Bancroft [ ? actress, 1931-2005 ]
Santa Monica, CA

Mr. William Corr
Arlington, VA Executive vice president, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
400 Eye Street, Suite 1200, Washington DC 20005 202.296.5469
info@... http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/
" Tobacco's Toll: 415,782 kids have become regular smokers in 2005.
133,050 will die prematurely from their addiction. "

Mr. Tom Gegax http://www.tomgegax.com/index.asp
Minneapolis, MN Gegax Management Systems
612-920-5114 Toll Free 877-Tom-Gegax (866-4342) Fax 612-823-4050
PO Box 16323 Minneapolis, MN 55416 support@...
Founder & CEO, Tires Plus Stores; Motivational speaker; Author, Winning In
The Game Of Life
Organization: EarthSave International Position: Board Member
EarthSave began in 1988 as a pet project of John Robbins, one-time heir to
the Baskin-Robbins ice cream fortune-- his book: Diet for a New America

Mr. Mark A. Ingram (Treasurer)
Arlington, VA

Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D. (Secretary) mjacobson@...
Washington, D.C.

Ms. Kathleen O'Reilly (President)
Washington, D.C.

Dr. Sushma Palmer
Washington, D.C. http://www.ceche.org/
Center for Communications, Health and the Environment
4437 Reservoir Road, NW, Washington, DC 20007 .
(202) 965-5990 Fax: (202) 965-5996 CECHE@...

Dr. James Sullivan
Annapolis, MD

Ms. Deborah Szekely
San Diego, CA http://www.wic.org/bio/dszekely.htm [ now 83 ]
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/site/pp.asp?c=euLTJbMUKvH&b=504681
***************************************************************

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/13

Profile: Center for Science in the Public Interest

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is the undisputed
leader among America's "food police." CSPI was founded in 1971 by current
executive director Michael Jacobson, and two of his co-workers at Ralph
Nader's Center for the Study of Responsive Law. Since then, CSPI's joyless
eating club has issued hundreds of high-profile-and highly
questionable-reports condemning soft drinks, fat substitutes, irradiated
meat, biotech food crops, French fries, and just about anything that tastes
good.

CSPI fancies itself a "watchdog" group but behaves more like an attack dog,
savaging restaurants, disparaging adults' food choices, and discouraging
even moderate alcohol consumption. It famously dubbed fettuccine alfredo a
"heart attack on a plate." Its nutrition nags encourage the public to "just
say no" to fried mozzarella as though it were an illegal drug.

With a long history of writing letters to restaurants threatening legal
action over purported mislabeling of "low fat" menu items, it surprised no
one when CSPI graduated to lawsuit threats over the absence of nutritional
labeling. In July of 2003, Jacobson teamed with legal shark John Banzhaf to
formally warn six U.S. ice cream retailers that lawsuits may result from
their refusal to immediately "list the calorie (and, ideally, saturated fat)
content of each item" on menu boards.

CSPI's self-anointed "experts" also encourage "a whole lot of lawsuits"
against fast-food restaurants (the group says it is "looking at tobacco as a
model"), mostly because they see legal action as leverage to enact all the
restrictions on food they have long supported. These include, but are by no
means limited to:

extra taxes on foods with fat, sugar, and sodium (the so-called "Twinkie
tax");
government-mandated "warning" labels on high-fat, high-calorie menu items;
mandatory nutrition information on restaurant menus, menu-boards, meat
packages, hamburger wrappers, food commercials, ice cream stores, movie
theatres, bakeries, hot dog stands, etc., etc.
requirements that broadcasters give free "equal time" to
government-supported advertisements of "healthy" foods;
restrictions on baby food packaging requiring that tapioca be labeled as
"chemically modified food starch";
labels warning parents that soft drinks may be replacing low-fat milk, fruit
juice, and other drinks in their children's diets;
labels warning of contamination from fresh, unpasteurized juices;
a government-sponsored "Must-Not-See-TV Week" campaign; and
stricter regulations on genetically enhanced foods, which are already the
most regulated food products in the U.S.

To accomplish these goals, CSPI sends a flurry of petitions and letters to
the FDA, the Department of Agriculture, the FTC, the Department of Health
and Human Services, and any other government agency that has a role to play
in regulating food.

Each of these actions is accompanied by a breathless press release that
seeks to scare ordinary consumers about the food they eat.

So Many Targets, So Little Time

CSPI complains about so many foods and beverages that it's hard to think of
anything that has escaped their wrath. Even so, the group has a special
animus towards a few common foods. CSPI co-founder Michael Jacobson
considers caffeine such a blight on civilization that he complains about
people socializing over coffee. Unsurprisingly, he suggests that Americans
patronize a "carrot juice house" instead. CSPI's in-house food policies are
so strict that Jacobson once reportedly intended to get rid of the office
coffee machine-until one-third of his 60 employees threatened to quit.

CSPI also has a bias against meat and dairy. Jacobson, himself a vegetarian,
wrote in an issue of CSPI's Nutrition Action Healthletter that proper
nutrition "means eating a more plant-based diet . It means getting your fats
from plants (vegetable oils and nuts) and fish, not animals (meats, milk
cheese, and ice cream)." In keeping with his personal vegetarianism,
Jacobson quietly sits on the advisory board of the "Great American Meatout,"
an annual event operated by the animal rights zealots at the Farm Animal
Reform Movement (FARM). Alcohol, even when consumed in moderation, is
perhaps CSPI's most hated product. The group's Healthletter has asserted
that "the last thing the world needs is more drinkers, even moderate ones."
CSPI wants hefty increases in beer taxes, increased restrictions on
adult-beverage marketing, and even poster-sized warning labels placed in
restaurants. George Hacker, who leads CSPI's anti-alcohol effort, has
accused winemakers of "hawking America's costliest and most devastating
drug."

CSPI also opposes wineries' plans to promote the well-documented health
benefits of moderate wine consumption. As the Washington Times observed,
"Jacobson argues that people can't be trusted to make wise and healthful
decisions on their own. He says that's why CSPI is fighting the industry's
bid to include information about the health benefits of wine on the label of
bottles."

The thousands of readily available and relatively inexpensive food offerings
we enjoy today are for CSPI something to lament. "People tend to eat most
healthily during hard times," Jacobson has argued. "Heart disease plummeted
in Holland and Denmark during the most severe food shortages of World War
II. Records of English manors in the 1600s reveal that the peasantry feasted
on perhaps a pound of bread, a spud, and a couple of carrots per day." And
that, to Jacobson is "basically a wonderfully healthy diet." Yum.

At least you can get your fill of spuds and carrots, right? Wrong. Not only
does Jacobson argue that you should avoid most foods you currently enjoy,
but he insists that you should limit your consumption to
just-above-starvation levels. "With animals," notes Jacobson, "hundreds of
studies show that if you give them 80 to 60 percent of their normal
calories, they live much longer."

"If children have healthy foods available, they'll eat healthy foods. If
they have unhealthy foods available, they'll eat those . Animals will do the
same thing when put in a cage."

So says Kelly Brownell, a long-time member of the Center for Science in the
Public Interest's scientific advisory board, who has co-authored numerous
articles with CSPI co-founder Michael Jacobson. CSPI believes that the
American people act like animals who have to be poked and prodded-- or
scared, taxed, and restricted-- into eating a healthy diet. It's no surprise
that
CSPI's public-policy arm selected the motto "Because it takes more than
willpower."

Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard
School of Public Health, argues that CSPI's "obsession" with a low-fat diet
reflects "a paternalistic idea that the public is not smart enough to
distinguish between types of fat." Food critic Robert Shoffner puts it more
directly when he describes CSPI's approach this way: "People are children
and have to be protected by Big Brother or Big Nanny from the awful
free-market predators ... That's what drives these people-- a desire for
control of other people's lives."

In addition to the desire to control people's lives, CSPI is motivated by at
least three distinct goals: making you afraid of your food, taking the
pleasure out of eating, and (of course) making money.

CSPI wants to scare you about your food

Whenever an activist-inspired food scare is afoot, CSPI takes to the
airwaves, exaggerating the risks and calling for a complete overhaul of
America's food safety systems. When Great Britain was slaughtering its
cattle at the height of the mad cow disease scare, CSPI trumpeted the
grossly misleading claim that the animals are "better protected from 'Mad
Cow Disease' than people."

CSPI's everyday language about normal foods like sandwiches and milk is also
intended to scare you about your food. Here's Jacob Sullum in Reason
magazine describing CSPI's "bottom line" on many foods:
The low-down on pizza with extra cheese: "Never order an extra-cheese
pizza." Likewise fried mozzarella sticks ("Just say no"), buffalo wings
("Order something else"), crispy orange beef (ditto), beef and cheese nachos
("Order just about anything else"), a gyro ("There's no way to make this a
healthful choice"), a mushroom cheeseburger ("Forget about this one!"), a
fried whole onion ("a bomb"), a milk shake ("Skip it"), the Cheesecake
Factory's carrot cake ("the worst dessert on the menu"), and cheese fries
with ranch dressing ("worse than anything we've ever analyzed").
Appearing on Good Morning America to promote a report condemning ice cream,
Jacobson told viewers never to indulge. "Just know that you're going to kill
yourself," he said.

Is there anything CSPI would allow us to eat? At least fruits and
vegetables, right? "Naturally, you should eat lots of them, because they're
good for you," Sullum writes in the voice of CSPI. "Just keep in mind that
they may be killing you." CSPI can't help itself from warning about the risk
of cancer from all those pesticides on fruits and vegetables-- even though
they quietly acknowledge that those risks are probably nonexistent.
Regardless of the facts, CSPI's message is: "Be afraid. Be very afraid."
CSPI wants to take the pleasure out of eating

If CSPI can't scare you away from eating your favorite foods, at least it
can strip all the pleasure out of the experience. "Michael Jacobson has a
mission in life," writes Matt Marshall of the Chicago Sun Times: "To take
the joy out of America's favorite munchies, from burgers to pasta to
popcorn." A recent editorial in the Columbus Dispatch reiterates the point,
calling CSPI "the nation's mirthless nanny about food and drink."
CSPI's nightmare, of course, is Halloween. The group advises that instead of
giving children treats, "you could always hand out low-fat granola bars-and
toothbrushes."

"Every time you reach for candy," CSPI laments, "you've missed an
opportunity to eat fruits, vegetables, or other foods that might reduce your
risk of cancer, heart disease, stroke, and obesity." The message: Make sure
that when you're chewing on that doughnut, you think to yourself: "I'm a bad
person for eating this. I'm slowly killing myself."

Each issue of CSPI's Nutrition Action Healthletter, which the group claims
has 800,000 subscribers, includes a section called "food porn," designed to
scare people away from eating targeted items. The number of products that
CSPI cautions against is staggering, and includes milk, fruit juice, and
lettuce. No food, in other words, is guilt free. And some are so bad that
CSPI advises readers to call the company to complain.

CSPI is driven by a "suspicion of pleasure without pain, of enjoyment
unencumbered by fear," argues Sullum. "That suspicion," he concludes, "is
the thread that runs through CSPI's uneasiness about artificial sweeteners
and caffeine, its dire warnings about fat and salt, its campaign against the
fat substitute olestra, its hysteria about acrylamide in French fries, its
discomfort with food irradiation, its condemnation of the imitation-meat
product Quorn, and its opposition to alcohol consumption as a way of
preventing heart disease." (For the lowdown on many of these fears, see
CSPI's "Blackeye.")

CSPI wants to make money

CSPI gets over 70 percent of its income from subscriptions to its monthly
Nutrition Action Healthletter. Accordingly, much of what it promotes as
"science" is often geared more toward selling subscriptions than providing
wise counsel. And CSPI has learned that you don't sell subscriptions with a
calm, reasoned approach to nutrition.

In fact, the much calmer and much more reasonable Tufts University Nutrition
Navigator has written that much of Healthletter's advice "falls outside the
realm of generally accepted nutrition guidelines and recommendations."
CSPI's newsletter "makes sweeping damnations of brand-name foods," notes
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette food writer Nancy Anderson. It is "opinionated,
readable, and not to be taken seriously."

The Center for Science in the Public Interest has an entire program
dedicated to what it calls "Integrity in Science" (in reality, a platform
for bashing science it doesn't like). But CSPI itself regularly perverts
science for the sake of a scary press release. The group practices a kind of
cooked-to-order "science" that twists evidence to support its radical agenda.

"Like some evangelical Jack Spratt, [CSPI co-founder] Michael F. Jacobson
seems to have made it his mission in life to warn society of the dangers of
eating-and becoming-fat," writes the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "The success of
this apparently well-intentioned crusade may be giving rise to other, less
obvious dangers to our collective health-those of desensitization,
oversimplification and omission." And sometimes, we might add, exaggeration
and misrepresentation that abandon reality altogether.

Liquid candy?

In 1998 CSPI issued a report titled "Liquid Candy," which claimed that some
teenagers get up to 25 percent of their calories from soda. Just one week
later, following massive media attention, CSPI admitted that it had
overstated its figures by a whopping 100 percent. In fact, American boys
drink less than half the amount of soft drinks initially claimed by CSPI's
flawed report.

While CSPI quietly made the correction (after the media fracas died down),
it still heavily promotes its "liquid candy" report, using it as the basis
of its efforts to ban soda from schools and slap extra taxes on all things
fizzy and sweet.

Assault on Salt

According to CSPI, salt is a "silent killer" that takes the lives of 150,000
Americans a year. That number comes from a four-page commentary written by a
member of CSPI's own advisory board-hardly an unbiased source. And this
commentary provides no explanation for how the death total was calculated.
Many rigorous scientific investigations have found little or no link between
salt and mortality. A meta-study published in the prestigious British
Medical Journal summarized the findings of a number of studies on the
subject and found: "It is unclear what effects a low sodium diet has on
cardiovascular events and mortality." Another study published in the
American Heart Association journal Hypertension concluded:
[F]ew data link sodium intake to health outcomes, and that which is
available is inconsistent. Without knowledge of the sum of the multiple
effects of reduced sodium diet, no single universal prescription for sodium
intake can be scientifically justified.
[ http://www.hyp.ac.uk/cash/index.htm Consensus Action on Salt and Health ]

Hypocritical Transition

In September 2004, CSPI executive director Michael Jacobson published an
op-ed in The San Francisco Chronicle renewing his call to outlaw trans fats
from the American diet. He wrote: "It's time to dump partially hydrogenated
vegetable oil, the quintessential symbol of modern food technology, into the
garbage disposal of history."

While he insists that trans fats are responsible for as many as 30,000
deaths a year (a highly questionable figure), Jacobson fails to mention that
he is largely responsible for their heavier concentration in the American
diet. In fact, CSPI was originally one of trans fats' most vocal proponents.
According to trans fat opponent Dr. Mary Enig, a Ph.D. nutritionist who has
edited both the Journal of the American College of Nutrition and Clinical
Nutrition, the blame for trans fat falls largely on Jacobson and CSPI. She
wrote in the fall of 2003:

"It is impossible to measure the hazards and grief that [CSPI Director of
Nutrition Bonnie] Leibman and Jacobson-- the leaders of the major nutrition
"activist" consumer organization-- have inflicted on many millions of an
unknowing public."

The story dates to the mid-1980s, when CSPI launched an all-out assault on
fast food restaurants that used beef fat and palm oil to cook their French
fries. Jacobson led protests in front of restaurants and organized a massive
postcard campaign aimed at their corporate headquarters. By the early '90s,
most chains had replaced CSPI's hated beef fat and tropical oils with the
only viable alternative: partially hydrogenated oil, which contained trans
fats. Jacobson claimed victory.

Along the path to this "success," CSPI busied itself exonerating
hydrogenated oils from a number of studies linking them to increased levels
of blood cholesterol. In 1988 CSPI wrote in its Nutrition Action
Healthletter: "All told, the charges against trans fat just don't stand up.
And by extension, hydrogenated oils seem relatively innocent." And in a
second article a year later, CSPI's Leibman wrote, "The Bottom Line ...
Trans, shmans."

Acrylamide

A CSPI lab technician once described a "Michael Jacobson sandwich" as " a
piece of lettuce between pieces of bread." But Jacobson is now on a vendetta
against bread, thanks to a little known chemical called acrylamide, which is
present in many foods, but is found at its highest concentrations in
starches cooked at high temperatures.

In June of 2003, CSPI held a press conference to announce that it had
formally petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, asking that
agency to force food manufacturers to limit the amount of acrylamide in
their products.

This petition is the mother of all black eyes.

Global public health bodies have reached no consensus on acrylamide's
potential human health effects. That didn't stop Michael Jacobson from
declaring "acrylamide probably causes on the order of a thousand new cases
of cancer per year in the United States, perhaps as many as several
thousand." CSPI's petition to the FDA is even more specific (and cavalier),
claiming that "dietary acrylamide causes an estimated 8,900 cancers per
year" among Americans.

But the fine print of CSPI's petition makes several remarkable admissions.
First, CSPI used data from 1994-96 to estimate the average Americans' intake
of acrylamide, even though less doom-and-gloom-oriented data from 1998 were
available.

Second, CSPI admits it "adjusted" the government nutrition data so it could
claim that Americans eat 37 micrograms of Acrylamide each day-- 27 percent
more than the 1994-96 data indicate, and 42 percent more than the 1998
numbers show.

Third, CSPI underestimated the average American's weight by more than 7
percent, artificially increasing the effect of acrylamide on the "average"
American body. This is particularly amusing, considering that CSPI has gone
out of its way in recent years to claim that America is in the throes of an
"obesity epidemic."

Fourth, CSPI concedes that "using more recent EPA methods for projecting
cancer-risk findings may result in estimates several-fold less." How CSPI
justifies using an outdated and retired EPA risk-assessment model is never
explained.

And fifth, CSPI claimed "an epidemiological study" has "provided the first
evidence that acrylamide might cause (pancreatic) cancer in humans"
[parentheses in the original]. But CSPI admits in a footnote that the
authors of its cited 1999 study "did not find an association between
acrylamide and cancer."

In 2002, despite its heavy reliance on junk science (or perhaps because of
it), CSPI was more than willing to provide ammunition to a group of
California lawyers who sued food companies over acrylamide in their
products. The lawyers' petition, which was initially filed weeks before CSPI
issued its list of foods containing "disturbingly high levels" of
acrylamide, included a list of targeted foods identical to CSPI's. CSPI has
yet to explain how a bunch of California trial lawyers knew exactly which
products it was testing, nearly a month before the rest of us.

Olestra

"Someone [might] wake up in the middle of the night with severe pain and try
to run to the bathroom and break her neck." That's how the fat substitute
Olestra might kill someone, according to Michael Jacobson. CSPI's war on fat
is matched only by its war on this fat substitute. Its animus towards
Olestra is so great that it is perfectly willing to bend reality to attack it.

CSPI crowed loudly in 1999 when Rosie O'Donnell declined to endorse
Frito-Lay's products containing the fat substitute Olestra. When it turned
out that Rosie merely had a scheduling conflict, and that food safety issues
had nothing to do with the decision, Michael Jacobson refused to remove his
version of the "truth" from CSPI's website. "Let's say it's not true," he
told the Dallas Observer. "In one way, the Web is history and one could
argue that organizations should leave a public record of everything they've
done and said." The respected Tufts University Nutrition Navigator wrote in
1998: "We take issue with [CSPI's] sensational and alarmist tone. 'The Facts
About Olestra,' with its blacklist of brand names, 'anal leakage' humor, and
numerous CSPI press releases seemed to be more of a vendetta than an
objective presentation of the facts. And if you are to avoid as many
processed foods and additives as they advise, what else is left to eat?"
Considering CSPI's years-long jihad against fatty foods, it may seem
incongruous that the group attacks a perfectly safe fat substitute. If you
want Americans to slim down, isn't a fat substitute a good thing? Not if you
accept grant money from foundations specifically to attack Olestra. CSPI did
just that in 1998 and 1999-to the tune of at least $65,000.

Additives

In 1999, CSPI released a report that blamed Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder (ADHD) and other childhood behavioral problems on food additives,
particularly food coloring. It also suggested that Ritalin may cause cancer
and should no longer be proscribed. Instead, CSPI said, hyperactive children
should simply change their diets. Thankfully, this bit of junk science was
immediately refuted by real experts. A spokesman for the National Institute
of Mental Health, which studies hyperactivity among children, called CSPI's
proposal "a very troublesome and harmful suggestion" and "very
irresponsible."

Unfortunately, CSPI doesn't seem to care if it suffers from a science
"deficit." After all, even if additives don't cause hyperactivity, CSPI
still disapproves of their use. The group argues that "because colorings are
used almost solely in foods of low nutritional value (candy, soda pop,
gelatin desserts, etc.), you should simply avoid all artificially colored
foods." This is typical CSPI strategy: Cook up a bogus report about some
previously unknown food danger, and when cornered about the scientific
validity, insist-even if the report is hopelessly flawed-- that you
shouldn't eat the food anyway.

Integrity in Science

CSPI's "Integrity in Science" project is ostensibly concerned with the
potential conflict of interest that researchers might have when their
funding comes from industry. But many of CSPI's own campaigns-- including
those heavily reliant on junk science-- are equally susceptible to conflict of
interest charges. In addition to its $65,000 incentive to bash the fat
substitute Olestra, CSPI accepted over $100,000 from the Park Foundation to
work on its food additives project. And in 2001, the reliably anti-alcohol
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation gave CSPI's campaign against social drinkers
$749,999.

[ Authors not identified...]
Copyright © 2005 Center for Consumer Freedom. All rights reserved.
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/
****************************************************************

Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall@... 505-501-2298
1943 Otowi Road Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages
group with 186 members, 1,188 posts in a public, searchable archive

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1186
aspartame induces lymphomas and leukaemias in rats, free full plain text, M
Soffritti, F Belpoggi, DD Esposti, L Lambertini, 2005 April, 2005.07.14:
main results agree with their previous methanol and formaldehyde studies,
Murray 2005.07.19

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1185
Ramazzini Institute (Italy) lifetime study with 1800 rats shows aspartame at
human use levels causes cancer (methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid), M
Soffritti and F Belpoggi: Felicity Lawrence, The Guardian (UK): Murray
2005.07.15

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1182
Joining together: short review: research on aspartame (methanol,
formaldehyde, formic acid) toxicity: Murray 2005.07.08 rmforall

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1071
research on aspartame (methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid) toxicity: Murray
2004.04.29 rmforall

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1143
methanol (formaldehyde, formic acid) disposition: Bouchard M et al, full
plain text, 2001: substantial sources are degradation of fruit pectins,
liquors, aspartame, smoke: Murray 2005.04.02 rmforall

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1045
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/scf2002-response.htm
Mark Gold exhaustively critiques European Commission Scientific
Committee on Food re aspartame ( 2002.12.04 ): 59 pages, 230 references

http://www.HolisticMed.com/aspartame mgold@...
Aspartame Toxicity Information Center Mark D. Gold
12 East Side Drive #2-18 Concord, NH 03301 603-225-2100
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/abuse/methanol.html
"Scientific Abuse in Aspartame Research"

Gold points out that industry methanol assays were too insensitive to
properly measure blood methanol levels. ]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1183
UK Co-op chain bans MSG and 21 food dyes; health food desire in UK, Asia,
France: Feed Me Better school lunch campaign, Jamie Oliver: Caroline Walker
Trust: Lindsay Partos, Novis NutraIngredients.com: Murray 2005.07.13

http://www.eatright.org/Nutritive(1).pdf
J Am Diet Assoc. 2004 Feb; 104(2): 255-75.
Position of the American Dietetic Association: use of nutritive and
nonnutritive sweeteners. American Dietetic Association.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1068
critique of aspartame review by American Dietetic Association Feb 2004,
Valerie B. Duffy & Madeleine J. Sigman-Grant: Murray 2004.04.03 rmforall

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1070
critique of aspartame review, French Food Safety Agency AFSSA 2002.05.07
aspartamgb.pdf (18 pages, in English), Martin Hirsch:
Murray 2004.04.13

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1184
corporate corruption of health sciences, International Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Health, entire issue, 2005 Oct-Dec: Gary N
Greenburg, OEM-L: aspartame (methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid) toxicity,
Murray 2005.07.14

"Survey of aspartame studies: correlation of outcome and funding sources,"
1998, unpublished: http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html
Walton found 166 separate published studies in the peer reviewed medical
literature, which had relevance for questions of human safety.
The 74 studies funded by industry all (100%) attested to aspartame's
safety, whereas of the 92 non-industry funded studies, 84 (91%)
identified a problem. Six of the seven non-industry funded studies
that were favorable to aspartame safety were from the FDA, which
has a public record that shows a strong pro-industry bias.
Ralph G. Walton, MD, Prof. of Clinical Psychology, Northeastern Ohio
Universities, College of Medicine, Dept. of Psychiatry, Youngstown,
OH 44501, Chairman, The Center for Behavioral Medicine,
Northside Medical Center, 500 Gypsy Lane, P.O. Box 240 Youngstown,
OH 44501 330-740-3621 rwalton193@...
http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/Psychiatry/walton.htm

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/857
www.dorway.com: original documents and long reviews of flaws in
aspartame toxicity research: Murray 2002.07.31 rmforall

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/858
Samuels: Strong: Roberts: Gold: flaws in double-blind studies re
aspartame and MSG toxicity: Murray 2002.08.01 rmforall

http://www.truthinlabeling.org/ Truth in Labeling Campaign [MSG]
Adrienne Samuels, PhD The toxicity/safety of processed
free glutamic acid (MSG): a study in suppression of information.
Accountability in Research 1999; 6: 259-310. 52-page review
P.O. Box 2532 Darien, Illinois 60561
858-481-9333 adandjack@...

http://www.dorway.com/upipart1.txt
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/262
aspartame expose 96K Oct 1987 Part 1/3: Gregory Gordon, UPI reporter:
Murray 2000.07.10 rmforall

http://www.dorway.com/enclosur.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/53
aspartame history Part 1/4 1964-1976: Gold: Murray 1999.11.06 rmforall

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/928
revolving door, Monsanto, FDA, EPA: NGIN: Murray 2002.12.23 rmforall


Fully 11% of aspartame is methanol-- 1,120 mg aspartame in 2 L diet soda,
almost six 12-oz cans, gives 123 mg methanol (wood alcohol). If 30% of
the methanol is turned into formaldehyde, the amount of formaldehyde is 18
times the USA EPA limit for daily formaldehyde in drinking water, 2 mg in 2
L water.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/835
ATSDR: EPA limit 1 ppm formaldehyde in drinking water July 1999:
Murray 2002.05.30 rmforall

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1108
faults in 1999 July EPA 468-page formaldehyde profile:
Elzbieta Skrzydlewska PhD, Assc. Prof., Medical U. of Bialystok, Poland,
abstracts -- ethanol, methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid, acetaldehyde,
lipid peroxidation, green tea, aging: Murray 2004.08.08 2005.07.11

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1140
EPA Preliminary Remedial Goals, PRGs, 2003 Oct, air and tap water --
methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid -- not mentioned is methanol from
aspartame, dark wines and liquors: Murray 2004.11.20 rmforall

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1141
Nurses Health Study can quickly reveal the extent of aspartame (methanol,
formaldehyde, formic acid) toxicity: Murray 2004.11.21 rmforall

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1131
genotoxicity of aspartame in human lymphocytes 2004.07.29 full plain text,
Rencuzogullari E et al, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey 2004 Aug: Murray
2004.11.06 rmforall

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1088
Murray, full plain text & critique:
chronic aspartame in rats affects memory, brain cholinergic receptors, and
brain chemistry, Christian B, McConnaughey M et al, 2004 May:
2004.06.05 rmforall

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1067
eyelid contact dermatitis by formaldehyde from aspartame, AM Hill & DV
Belsito, Nov 2003: Murray 2004.03.30 rmforall

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1188
mercury in vaccines causes autism and many neurological disorders, DA Grier,
MR Grier 2005, full plain text: Murray 2005.07.26
****************************************************************