Mark D. Gold: aspartame history 1979-1999
Aspartame Toxicity Information Center
www.HolisticMed.com/aspartame "Scientific Abuse in Aspartame Research"
at http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/abuse/methanol.html
mgold@... 35 Inman St., Cambridge, MA 02139 617-497-7843

1979

In March of 1979, the FDA somehow concluded that G.D. Searle's
aspartame studies could be accepted. They decide to convene the Public
Board of Inquiry (PBOI) which was agreed to by Dr. John Olney and
Attorney James Turner more than four years earlier (Federal Register
1979).

In April of 1979, the FDA outlined the specific questions which were
to be addressed by the PBOI. The FDA limited the scope of the PBOI to
(Federal Register 1981):

a. Whether the ingestion of aspartame either alone or together
with glutamate poses a risk of contributing to mental
retardation, brain damage, or undesireable effects on
neuroendocrine regulatory systems.

b. Whether the ingestion of aspartame may induce brain neoplasms
(tumors) in the rat.

c. Based on answer to the above questions.

(i) Should aspartame be allowed for use in foods, or, instead

should approval of aspartame be withdrawn?

(ii) If aspartame is allowed for use in foods, i.e., if its
approval is not withdrawn, what conditions of use and labeling
and label statements should be required, if any?

Dr. John Olney, G.D. Searle, and the FDA's Bureau of Foods were
allowed to nominate scientists for the 3-person PBOI panel (Farber
1989, page 34, Federal Register 1981, page 38286).

It is important to note that the scope of the review was very limited
in light of all of the various adverse reactions reported to the FDA.
The PBOI also disallowed any discussion of the validity of the
pre-approval experiments because it accepted the word of certain FDA
officials that these experiments had been "validated." Finally, the
PBOI was told not to consider aspartame in beverages, only in dry
goods.

In June of 1979, the acting FDA Commissioner, Sherwin Gardner selected
the 3-person Public Board of Inquiry. The panelists were Peter J.
Lampert, M.D., Professor and Chairman, Department of Pathology,
University of California (San Diego), Vernon R. Young, Ph.D.,
University of Nutritional Biochemistry, M.I.T., and Walle Nauta,
M.D., Ph.D., Institute Professor, Department of Psychology and Brain
Science, M.I.T.

Dr. John Olney strongly objected to the Commissioner's selection of
one of the panelists, Dr. Vernon Young, on grounds of conflict of
interest and lack of qualifications (Olney 1987, page 3). Dr. Young
had written nonaspartame- related articles in collaboration with G.D.
Searle scientists (Brannigan 1983, page 196). In addition, Dr. Olney
stated that the question of aspartic acid's neurotoxicity should be
looked at by a neuropathologist and that Dr. Young was unqualified
since his field was Nutrition and Metabolism. Dr. Olney's objections
were overruled by acting FDA Commissioner Sherwin Gardner and the
panelists who he objected to was assigned to study the issue of
aspartic acid toxicity.

One of the PBOI members, Dr. Walle Nauta stated (Graves 1984, page
S5498 of Congressional Record 1985a):

"It was a shocking story we were told [about Searle's animal
testing] but, there was no way we could go after it. We had
absolutely no way of knowing who was right. We had to take the
FDA's word."

Dr. Nauta stated that he would have "definitely" considered other
tests and factors if he had known that aspartame was planned for use
in soft drinks (Graves 1984, page S5503 of Congressional Record
1985a).

1980

The Public Board Of Inquiry voted unanimously to reject the use of
aspartame until additional studies on aspartame's potential to cause
brain tumors could be done. The PBOI was particularly concerned about
experiment E33/34 where 320 rats received aspartame and a much higher
percentage of animals in the aspartame group developed tumors than in
the control group (Brannigan 1983, page 196). In addition, the PBOI
was concerned about experiment E70 where 80 rats received aspartame.
Both the aspartame group and the control group had an unusually high
number of tumors, leading one to suspect that both groups were
actually given aspartame (Federal Register 1981).

The PBOI did not believe that aspartic acid presented a neurotoxic
hazard. Yet, Dr. Olney pointed out that (Olney 1987, page 3):

"[Dr. Young had a] lack of qualification" and that he "based his
decision on a consideration of [aspartic acid] alone without
regard to the real issue, i.e., is it safe to add [aspartic acid]
to the large amounts of [glutamic acid/MSG] that are already
adultering the food supply?"

In addition, the "conservative" safety plasma level of aspartic acid
used by Dr. Young was the level at which half the animals developed
brain damage (Brannigan 1983, page 197). These errors by Dr. Young
throw the question of safety of aspartic acid as part of aspartame
into doubt. We will address this issue in more detail in a later
section.

1981

On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan takes office as U.S.
President, G.D. Searle reapplied for the approval of aspartame. G.D.
Searle submits several new studies along with their application. It
was believed that Reagan would certainly replace Jere Goyan, the FDA
Comissioner. G.D. Searle president, Donald Rumsfeld's connections to
the Republican party were also thought to play a part in Searle's
decision to reapply for aspartame's approval on the day after Ronald
Reagan was inaugurated (Gordon 1987, page 499 of US Senate 1987).

According to a former G.D. Searle salesperson, Patty Wood- Allott,
G.D. Searle president, Donald Rumsfeld told his salesforce that, if
necessary, "he would call in all his markers and that no matter what,
he would see to it that aspartame would be approved that year."
(Gordon 1987, page 499 of US Senate 1987)

In March of 1981, a 5-member panel of scientists was established by
the FDA Commissioner Jere Goyan to review the issues raised by the
PBOI.
(Gordon 1987, page 498 of US Senate 1987; Mullarkey 1994b, page 8).

In April 1981, Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr. was appointed FDA Commissioner
by Ronald Reagan (Graves 1984, page S5502 of Congressional Record
1985a).

On May 18, 1981, three of the scientists in the 5-member panel sent a
letter to the panel lawyer, Joseph Levitt discussing their concerns
about aspartame. Those three scientists were Satva Dubey (FDA Chief of
Statistical Evaluation Branch), Douglas Park (Staff Science Advisor),
and Robert Condon (Veterinary Medicine). Dubey thought that the brain
tumor data was so "worrisome" in one study that he could not recommend
approval of aspartame (Gordon 1987, page 495 of US Senate 1987). In
another study, Dubey said that key data appeared to have been altered
(Gordon 1987, page 499 of US Senate 1987).

In his UPI Investigation, Gregory Gordon went on to describe the
unusual events that followed (Gordon 1987, page 499 of US Senate
1987):

"[Douglas] Park said that [panel lawyer Joseph] Levitt hurried
the panel to decide the issue. 'They wanted to have the results
yesterday,' he said. 'We really didn't have the time to do the
in- depth review we wanted to do.'

"Park said Levitt met frequently with Hayes and 'was obviously
getting the pressure to get a resolution and a decision made.'

"With three of five scientists on the commissioner's team
opposing approval, it was decided to bring in a toxicologist for
his opinion on isolated issues [Barry N. Rosloff]. Goyan said if
the decision were his, he never would have enlarged the team.
While the panel did not vote, it ended up split 3-3.

"Levitt, who normally would have been expected to draft an
options paper spelling out scientific evidence on key issues,
took an unusual tack. He circulated an approval recommendation
and only backed off when Dubey, Park, and Condon objected, team
members said. Levitt said he was not directed to draft the
approval memo, but did so as a 'tactical' step to break the
team's weeks-long impasse by forcing each scientist to state his
views. 'It worked, didn't it?' said Levitt, who later was
promoted to a post as an executive assistant to the FDA
Commissioner."

On July 18, 1981 aspartame was approved for use dry foods by FDA
Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr. overruling the Public Board of
Inquiry and ignoring the law, Section 409(c)(3) of the Food Drug and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348), which says that a food additive should
not be approved if tests are inconclusive (Federal Register 1981,
Farber 1989, page 38). In an article in Common Cause Magazine,
Florence Graves states that two FDA officials said that Arthur Hull
Hayes, Jr. wanted to push aspartame approval through in order to
signal reforms of the Reagan Administration. The "reasoning" behind
the FDA Commissioner's decision will be discussed in a later section
(Graves 1984, page S5497 of Congressional Record 1985a).

1982

On October 15, 1982, G.D. Searle petitioned the FDA for approval to
use aspartame in soft drinks and children's vitamins (Gordon 1987,
page 499 of US Senate 1987; Farber 1989, page 38)

On October 1, 1982 an amendment was attached to the Orphan Drug Act
(an act which encourages the development of drugs for rare diseases)
which modified the U.S. Patent law (Congressional Record 1982). The
amendment extended the patent on only one product -- aspartame -- by 5
years, 10 months and 17 days (Gordon 1987, page 504 of US Senate
1987). The amendment did not mention aspartame or G.D. Searle by name
and there was no debate or discussion on the amendment.

The amendment was proposed by Senator Howell Heflin, brought up for a
vote by Senator Robert Byrd, and pushed through by Representative
Henry Waxman and Orrin Hatch. G.D. Searle asked Senator Heflin to
sponsor the amendment. Heflin received $9,000 in campaign donations
shortly after this amendment was approved from G.D. Searle company
executives and their wives. Senator Byrd had received a $1,000
campaign contribution from the CEO of G.D. Searle before the amendment
was proposed. Representative Waxman received a $1,500 campaign
contribution from the soft drink political action committee including
$500 before the amendment was proposed. Senator Hatch received $2,500
from the soft drink political action committee prior to his reelection
and $1,000 each from Daniel Searle, Wesley Dixon (Daniel Searle's
brother-in-law), and William Searle (Gordon 1987, page 506 of US
Senate 1987). Senator Hatch repeatedly blocked hearings looking into
the safety of aspartame (Gordon 1987, page 506 of US Senate 1987).

It could be argued that the amendment to extend G.D. Searle's patent
of aspartame rectified the lost marketing time caused by the FDA
investigations. However, it was G.D. Searle's horrendous pre-approval
studies which led to the FDA investigations and the delays. Had they
performed the studies with any competance, aspartame could have been
approved quickly like any other FDA-approved food additive.

(Actually, had the studies been done right, it is likely that
aspartame would never been approved due to serious adverse reactions.)
In addition, the amendment was applicable to one product and cannot be
used similarly for other products.

Between 1979 and 1982, four FDA officials who took part in the
aspartame approval process went through the FDA revolving door and
took jobs in industries that are closely linked with the NutraSweet
issue (Gordon 1987, page 498 of US Senate 1987):

1. Mike Taylor was an FDA lawyer who represented the FDA Bureau of
Foods at the PBOI and was part of the team that prevented the quality
and validity of G.D. Searle's studies from being considered (Gordon
1987, page 498 of US Senate 1987).

2. Sherwin Gardner was the Deputy FDA Commissioner in 1979. In July,
1974, he had signed the initial approval for aspartame's use in dry
foods. (This initial approval was later block by objections from James
Turner, Esq. and Dr. John Olney.)

In December, 1979, Sherwin Gardner became a Vice President of
Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inc. (GAO 1986). While Mr. Garden
claims that he did not discuss aspartame is his 4 meetings with the
FDA within a year of leaving that agency or his 20 meetings with
the FDA between 1980 and 1986, the organization he worked for does
deal directly with aspartame products. It is unlikely that he would
have been rewarded with the job had he called for another delay in
approval and proposed that safety tests be conducted independantly
in order to protect the public.

3. Stuart Pape was the Health and Human Services (HHS) Chief Counsel
for Foods from October 1976 to March 1979. He served as special
assistant to the FDA Commissioner from March 1979 to December 1979. He
participated in meetings and discussions on aspartame as well as
representing the FDA at the PBOI.

In December 1979, Mr. Pape was given a job by the law firm of
Patton, Boggs, and Blow. This law firm provided counsel to the
National Soft Drink Association (NSDA). Mr. Pape and Howard R.
Roberts of the NSDA (who formerly fought for approval of aspartame
at the FDA) met with the FDA twice in 1983 where aspartame was
discussed. In 1983, the NSDA inexplicably withdrew their objection
to aspartame in diet beverage (GAO 1986).

4. Albert Kolbye was the Associate Director of the FDA Bureau of Foods
for toxicology.

1983

Acting FDA Commissioner, Mark Novitch approved aspartame for use in
carbonated beverages and carbonated beverage syrup bases (Federal
Register 1983). FDA Commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes was out of town
the day that the approval was signed, but he worked closely with Mark
Novitch on this issue (Gordon 1987, page 499 of US Senate 1987).
Ignoring the FDA's own safety standards, the more than doubled the
Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of aspartame from 20 mg/kg to 50 mg/kg
(Metzenbaum 1985).

Shortly after the FDA approval for aspartame in carbonated beverages,
FDA Commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes left the FDA under charges of
improprieties, took a a position as the Dean of New York Medical
Collage and was hired as an a consultant ($1,000 per day) with G.D.
Searle's public relations firm, Burston Marsteller (Gordon 1987, page
499 of US Senate 1987).

On July 8, 1983, Dr. Woodrow Monte, Director of the Science and
Nutrition Laboratory at Arizona State University filed a petition
objecting to the approval of aspartame based on possible serious
adverse effects from the chronic intake of aspartame. Dr. Monte was
especially concerned about the chronic intake of methanol (Federal
Register 1984). Dr. Monte also filed a petition with the Arizona
Department of Health Services to ban aspartame.

On July 8, 1983, James Turner, Esq. filed a peition with the FDA on
behalf of himself and Community Nutrition Institute objecting to the
approval of aspartame (Federal Register 1984).

Dr. Woodrow Monte, at the suggestion of his lawyer, invested $2,000
in G.D. Searle stock options in order to raise money for his costly
legal battles against aspartame. He ended up losing $1,224. His
purchasing of the "put options" caused some controversy. Dr. Monte was
later accused of conflict-of- interest by G.D. Searle. Dr. Monte's
lawyer had told him that he "didn't think there was anything wrong"
with purchasing the options. A move that Dr. Monte later called a
mistake. (Gordon 1987, page 508 of US Senate 1987)

On November 23, 1983, the FDA denied a request to put the approval on
hold "because public interest did not require it." (Federal Register
1984).

1984

On February 17, 1984, the FDA denied Dr. Woodrow Monte and James
Turner the opportunity to hold a safety hearing on questions raised
in their petition (Federal Register 1984).

G.D. Searle sent a number lobbyists to the State of Arizona including
Andrew Herwitz, Arizona Governor Babbitt's former Chief of Staff,
Charles Pine, a prominent Arizona lobbyist, Roger Thies, a G.D.
Searle lawyer, and David West, a G.D. Searle official (Gordon 1987,
page 507 of US Senate 1987; Stoddard 1995a, page 17).

The State of Arizona DHS completed studies showing that aspartame in
carbonated beverages can break down into free methanol (among other
things) in 99 deg F temperatures. The amount of methanol which broke
down concerned the DHS enough that a ban of aspartame was discussed
(Gordon 1987, page 507 of US Senate 1987).

Between August 23, 1984 and September 21, 1984, G.D. Searle officials
contributed to the campaign of Arizona House Majority Leader Burton
Barr. The Committee to Reelect Barr then gave campaign contributions
to a number of state representatives (Don Aldridge, Karen Miills, Jan
Breuer) who all eventually voted of the side of G.D. Searle (Gordon
1987, page 507 of US Senate 1987).

Dr. Woodrow Monte's petition for a hearing regarding banning aspartame
in Arizona was rejected (Gordon 1987, page 507 of US Senate 1987).

6,900,000 pounds of aspartame were consumed in the U.S. in 1984 (USDA
1988).

1985

Dr. Richard Wurtman of MIT is quoted as saying that Dr. Gerald Gaull,
a G.D. Searle Vice President, came to his laboratory and threatened
to veto his funding from the International Life Sciences Institute
(ILSI) after Wurtman quit his job as a G.D. Searle consultant and
became a NutraSweet opponent (Gordon 1987, page 503 of US Senate
1987).

Dr. Woodrow Monte filed for reconsideration of his petition for a
hearing in Arizona. He was granted a hearing scheduled for April 1985
(Gordon 1987, page 507 of US Senate 1987).

In April 1985, in an unusual and secret maneuver, the Arizona
legislature removed the text in a Toxic Waste Bill and used it to
pass a bill which banned the regulation of FDA-approved food additives
(Gordon 1987, page 508 of US Senate 1987). This bill scuttled the
hearing that Dr. Monte had been promised.

On May 7, 1985, the U.S. Senate heard testimony relating to an
amendment put forth by Senator Howard Metzenbaum requiring the
quantity of aspartame to be labelled (Congressional Record 1985a). It
is nearly impossible for a person to determine what quantity of
aspartame they are ingesting unless it is labelled. Senator Orin
Hatch of Utah led the fight (along with G.D. Searle) against the
labelling ammendment. The ammendment was defeated. Those voting
against the amendment included:

Abdnor, Armstrong, Baucus, Bentsen, Biden, Bingaman, Boren, Boschwitz,
Bradley, Bumpers, Cochran, Cohen, D'Amato, Danforth, DeConcini,
Denton, Dixon, Dole, Domenici, Durenberger, Evans, Ford, Garn,
Goldwater, Gore, Gorton, Gramm, Gassley, Hatch, Hawkins, Hecht,
Heflin, Heinz, Helms, Hollings, Humphrey, Inouye, Kassebaum, Kasten,
Laxalt, Leahy, Levin, Lugar, Mattingly, McClure, McConnell, Mitchell,
Murkowski, Nickles, Nunn, Packwood, Pressler, Pryor, Quayle, Riegle,
Roth, Rudman, Sasser, Simpson, Stafford, Stevens, Symms, Thurmond,
Tribe, Wallop, Warner, Wilson, Zorinsky.

Those voting for the amendment included:
>
Burdick, Byrd, Chafee, Chiles, Cranston, Dodd, Eagleton, Glenn,
Harkin, Hart, Hatfield, Johnston, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Long,
Mathias, Matsunaga, Melcher, Metzenbaum, Moynihan, Pell, Proxmire,
Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Simon, Spector.

On August 1, 1985, Senator Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio introduced a bill
entitled "Aspartame Safety Act of 1985" which required quantity
labelling of aspartame on food items and mandated that there be a
moratorium on new uses of aspartame until independent tests could be
conducted under the auspices of the National Institutes of Health
(Metzenbaum 1985). Testimony was submitted for the record. The bill
was submitted to a Senate committee where it died.

After suffering a $28 million dollar loss in the previous year,
selling off 30 subsidaries, and having a suit filed by 780 women
claiming that G.D. Searle's intrauterine device caused them pelvic
inflammatory disease, G.D. Searle sold out to the chemical company,
Monsanto (Gordon 1987, page 509 of US Senate 1987). Monsanto then
created the NutraSweet Company as a subsiderary separate from G.D.
Searle.

14,400,000 pounds of aspartame were consumed in the U.S. in 1985
(USDA 1988)

1986

Community Nutrition Institute (CNI) filed suit against the FDA in
District Court claiming that the FDA did not follow proper procedure
in approving aspartame for beverages and that they should have held a
public hearing before giving final approval (Farber 1989, page 39).
After the District Court dismissed their suit and the D.C. Circuit
Court of Appeals denied their request for a hearing stating that they
failed to "raise any material issues of fact that require the FDA to
grant a hearing," CNI stated:

...where the holding of a public hearing is no longer a
responsible part of the food additive process, the F.D.A. and the
appeals court have increased the likelihood that unsafe food
additives will reach the market.

In July 1986, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) published the
results of an investigation of five former government employees
involved in the aspartame approval process who took jobs linked to
the aspartame industry (GAO 1986). While these former employees'
actions were not illegal, it is a good example of how the U.S.
Government and especially the FDA "revolving door" helps certain
powerful companies have near complete control over governmental
actions. Government employees will give industry whatever it wants
(and the public be damned). Then many of these employees will be
rewarded with high-paying industry jobs. Some of those people will
then end up back in government in order to do more favors for their
industry friends -- even if it means destroying people's lives and
health. The inner- city gangs are not the only place where morally
corrupt individuals operate with near impunity.

15,700,000 pounds of aspartame were consumed in the U.S. in 1986
(USDA 1988).

1987

The United Press reported on October 12, 1987 that more than 10
federal officials involved in the NutraSweet decision took jobs in
the private sector linked to the aspartame industry (Gordon 1987, page
495 of US Senate 1987).

On November 3, 1987 a hearing was held in a U.S. Senate Committee to
address the issue of aspartame safety and labelling (US Senate 1987).
Senator Orin Hatch successfully block any labelling requirements.

In June 1987, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) published the
results of an investigation which looked into whether the FDA
followed its required approval process (GAO 1987). The report
concluded:

"Because FDA followed its required approval process in approving
aspartame and monitors adverse reactions and ongoing aspartame
research, GAO is making no recommendations."

It is important to note that the author of the report specifically
stated on the first page:

"We did not evaluate the scientific issues raised concerning the
studies used for aspartame's approval or FDA's resolution of
these issues, nor did we determine aspartame's safety. We do not
have such scientific expertise."

The GAO seemed only interested in whether the FDA took the legally
appropriate steps, not whether or not the FDA's decisions were based
on the facts or made any sense.

They were not interested in the fact that CFSAN's evaluation of the
Bressler report was a "whitewash" in the words of the head scientist
of the CFSAN team.

They were not interested in the severe reactions suffered by many
of the animals in the preapproval studies.

They were not interested in the countless, major flaws in the
preapproval studies as described earlier.

They were not interested in the fact that the FDA Commissioner, who
later consulted for the G.D. Searle Public Relations firm (at $1,000
per day), over-ruled the Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) experts and
over-ruled his own chosen scientific experts to approve aspartame.

They were not interested that the FDA decided to allow G.D. Searle
to pay UAREP $500,000 to "validate" 15 of their studies.

They were only interested in whether the legally required steps were
taken. Even with the limited scope of the GAO investigation, they made
numerous factual errors in their report, some of which are detailed in
the letter from fromer FDA Investigator and Toxicologist Dr. Andrian
Gross presented before the U.S. Senate in 1987 (Gross 1987b, page 11).

Dr. Gross concludes:

"Although in their report the GAO expresses the view that the FDA
'followed its required process in approving aspartame (for
marketing)' I would sharply disagree with such evaluation.
Although the FDA may have gone through the motions or it may have
given the appearance of such a process being in place here, the
people of this country expect and require a great deal more from
that agency charged with protecting their public health:- in
addition to mere facade or window- dressing on the part of the
FDA, they require a thorough and scientifically based evaluation
by the Agency on the safety of the products it regulates.
"Unfortunately this has clearly not been the case here. And
without this kind of assurance, any such 'process' or dance
represents no more than a farce and a mockery of what is truly
required."

An estimated 17,100,000 pounds of aspartame were consumed in the U.S.
in 1987 (USDA 1988). NutraSweet stopped providing consumption data to
the USDA after 1987. It is much easier for NutraSweet scientists to
create inaccurate aspartame consumption figures when the total number
of pounds sold is not publically available, or is inaccurate when it
is given out publicly.

1988

In August 1988, aspartame was approved for use in Brazil (Monsanto
1990). Thanks to a massive advertising campaign, at the end of 1990,
150 products were sweetened exclusively by aspartame.

1990

In May 1990, Nutrasweet opened a production facility in Sao Jose dos
Campos, Brazil (Monsanto 1990). There was no diet foods in Brazil in
the 1980s. Unfortunately, part of NutraSweet's efforts "to build a
diet segment from zero" in Brazil will likely lead to many people in
Brazil obsessing about the weight and appearance which in turn often
leads to eating disorders and other psychological problems. At the
same time, NutraSweet is beginning to dose the population with their
slow poison.

1991

NutraSweet joined with its long-time partner, Ajinomoto Co. Inc. of
Japan to begin building an aspartame manufacturing plant in
Gravelines, France (Monsanto 1991).

The NutraSweet Company began a project to develop a new artificial
sweetener, called "Sweetener 2000" which is said to be approximately
10,000 times sweeter than sugar. The chemical composition of this
sweetener was not detailed in Monsanto's Annual Report. NutraSweet's
plan is to get this new sweetener to the market by the end of the
decade (Monsanto 1991).

1992

NutraSweet signed agreements with the Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc.
"stipulating The NutraSweet Company as their preferred supplier of
aspartame (Monsanto 1992).

NutraSweet stated that one of their options for increases sales in
the carbonated soft drink market is to prepare "higher-concentration
formulations that use more aspartame" (Monsanto 1992).

The FDA approved the NutraSweet Company's application to market
aspartame in bulk form. NutraSweet markets the product under the name
"NutraSweet Spoonful" (Monsanto 1992).

The patent for aspartame expired on December 14, 1992 opening up the
market to other companies such as Holland Sweetener Company (Monsanto
1992).

1993

In mid-1993, NutraSweet and long-time partner, Ajinomoto Co. of Japan
began producing aspartame from the new production facility in
Gravelines, France (Monsanto 1993).

NutraSweet began a joint venture with Nestle Mexico to bring aspartame
to Mexico (Monsanto 1993).

NutraSweet began to explore other aspartame marketing opportunities in
Mexico (Monsanto 1993).

1994

NutraSweet introduced tabletop aspartame products to Mexico, Hungary,
Uganda, Ecuador, Romania, Uruguay, and Paraguay (Monsanto 1994).

Aspartame's net sales outside of the U.S. accounts for 10 percent of
all net sales (Monsanto 1994).

NutraSweet announced plans to market aspartame tabletop sweeteners in
1995 throughout Southeast Asia. They plan to introduce aspartame to
India and to test market an aspartame tabletop sweetener in China
during 1995 (Monsanto 1994).

1995

In a June 12, 1995 article which appeared in Food Chemical News,
Thomas Wilcox, the FDA epidemiology branch chief was quoted as saying,
"FDA has no further plans to continue to collect adverse reaction
reports or monitor research periodically done on aspartame." (Food
1995)

Monsanto/NutraSweet is beginning to test market Equal in Shanghi,
China. It is part of a plan to push their poison on 60 million
Chinese in the coastal cities (Millman 1995).

1996

On 27 June, 1996, Dr. Kessler, without public notice, removed all
restrictions on aspartame and authorized its use in all products,
including heated and baked goods. This was done, knowing full well
that aspartame breaks down into formaldehyde above 86 degrees F.

With this major decision favorable to Monsanto, Searle, NutraSweet and
all the rest who foist this poison on the world population, Dr.
Kessler departed the FDA making noises about how victorous he was at
slamming the tobacco industry. Subterfuge to the very end!

Monsanto/NutraSweet is beginning to test market Equal in Shanghai,
China. It is part of a plan to push their poison on 60 million Chinese
in the coastal cities (Millman 1995).

Distinguished Neuroscientist research, Dr. John W. Olney, publishes
research showing that aspartame may be a brain tumor agent. He shows
that aspartame caused brain cancer in preapproval research, that a
breakdown product of aspartame has caused mutations in vitro, and that
from 4 to 13 years after approval there was a significant increase in
the conversion of less deadly brain tumors to much more deadly brain
tumors (same types as seen in preapproval research) in susceptible
populations (Olney 1996). Monsanto and the FDA respond with
irrelevant statements regarding the overall brain tumor rate
(NutraSweet 1996).

[Note: Politically/Financially motivated decisions that completely
ignore public health (as seen throughout this document) are fairly
common in the U.S. when it comes to food, drugs, and chemical
"safety."]
[Addition by Rich Murray rmforall@... :

Here is research in 1998 by C. Trocho et al, using a very low level of
aspartame ingestion, 10 mg/kg, for rats, which have a much greater
tolerance for aspartame than humans. So, the corresponding level for
humans would be about 1 or 2 mg/kg. (Many headache studies in humans
used doses of about 30 mg/kg daily.) This proves that aspartame causes
binding of methanol's product, formaldehyde, a potent, cumulative toxin,
into tissues.

The full report: http://www.PRESIDIOTEX.COM/barcelona/index.html

Life Sci 1998;63(5):337-49 From PubMed

Formaldehyde derived from dietary aspartame binds to tissue components
in vivo. Trocho C, Pardo R, Rafecas I, Virgili J, Remesar X,
Fernandez-Lopez JA, Alemany M, Departament de Bioquimica i Biologia
Molecular, Facultat de Biologia, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.

Sra. Carme Trocho, Sra. Rosario Pardo, Dra. Immaculada Rafecas,
Sr. Jordi Virgili, X. Remesar, Dr. Jose Antonio Fernandez-Lopez,
Dr. Marią Alemany Fac. Biologia Tel.: (93)4021521, FAX: (93)4021559
alemany@... bioq@...