The following timeline is an excerpt from my book. It succinctly outlines the history of how this toxin came into the American food supply, and it might help to understand why and how such a known toxin is still on the market today....
1965: Jim Schlatter, a chemist at G.D. Searle & Company was working on a project to discover new treatments for gastric ulcers. He accidentally and unknowingly spilled some of the heated chemical on his hand. Later he licked his finger as he reached for a piece of paper, and noticed the sweet taste. He and a friend decided to test some in coffee and both agreed the chemical had a sweet taste. The result: aspartame. The manufacturer merely changed the FDA paperwork from drug to food additive, but did not change the substance itself.
1969: G.D. Searle applied for the first patent on aspartame. Saccharin and cyclamate were alleged to cause bladder cancer in rats.
March 1973: G.D. Searle submitted its first petition to the FDA for aspartame use in foods.
1974: FDA approved aspartame use in carbonated beverages and in dry products.
December 1975: FDA task force concluded that some of Searle's studies were questionable and rescinded aspartame approval.
April 1976: FDA Commissioner Schmidt wrote Senator Ted Kennedy, informing him of G.D. Searle's "questionable integrity of the basic safety data submitted (by Searle) for aspartame safety."
January 1977: FDA Chief Counsel Richard Merrill submitted a thirty-three-page letter to U.S. attorney Samuel Skinner recommending a grand jury investigation into G.D. Searle "for concealing material facts and making false statements in reports of animal studies to establish the safety of aspartame." Two specific studies of concern were cited. No action was taken, and the statute of limitations for prosecution expired.
July 1977: Samuel Skinner left the U.S. attorney's office to represent G.D. Searle's law firm, Sidley and Austin.
October 1980: FDA appointed Public Board of Inquiry submitted a written recommendation that NutraSweet not be approved pending further brain tumor testing.
May 1981: Three of six FDA scientists formally advised against aspartame approval.
July 1981: FDA Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr. solely approved NutraSweet (aspartame) for dry products.
July 1983: FDA Acting-Commissioner Mark Novitch, M.D. approved aspartame in carbonated beverages and carbonated beverage syrup bases.
October 1983: The NutraSweet Company filed two patent extensions for an extension of five years, ten months and seventeen days (each).
November 1984: Center for Disease Control (CDC) published the first list of consumer complaints related to aspartame use.
July 1986: The NutraSweet Company filed thirty patent extensions for an extension of five years, ten months and seventeen days (each).
November 1987: "NutraSweet: Health and Safety Concerns" hearing was held by the U.S. Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Senator Howard Metzenbaum, chairman.
September 1992: FDA released a list of ninety-two complaint categories filed against NutraSweet, totaling over 8,000 complaints filed. (See Appendix XI of Sweet Poison: How The World's Most Popular Artificial Sweetener Is Killing Us--My Story, by Dr. Janet Starr Hull for the complete list.)
December 1992: G.D. Searle's patent extensions on aspartame expired, allowing other companies to produce aspartame.
1992 - 1997: A gap in public information, and a media black-out begins.
1997- 2008: "Sweet Poison: How The World's Most Popular Artificial Sweetener Is Killing Us--My Story" is published, the first book documenting the truth and history of aspartame.
2004-2007: European studies are performed proving aspartame dangers to human health - Healthy Newsletter, Feb 2006 (click the links for the PDFs)
2007: A second Italian aspartame study with results of leukemia and lymphoma is repeated by Morando Soffritti, Fiorella Belpoggi, Eva Tibaldi, Davide Degli Esposti, and Michelina Lauriola at the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences, Bologna, Italy - Bella Italia: The Soffritti Aspartame Study (full text in PDF)
Sept. 2008: The aspartame media blackout breaks down, and the dangers of aspartame are becoming more accessible as mainstream news.
Oct. 2008: Readers return all products with aspartame to their grocer to request a full refund.
A review of 500 studies conducted over a quarter century has turned up no credible evidence that the widely used artificial sweetener aspartame is unsafe, industry-funded research released on Tuesday showed.
A panel of American, British and Dutch experts rejected the notion that aspartame causes cancer, seizures, neurological damage or learning problems, or contributes to obesity. The panel did conclude that some people might be prone to headaches after consuming it.
The group did not conduct original research but assessed existing studies on the safety of aspartame, first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1981. It is widely used in diet soft drinks and sold in packets for use in coffee, tea or on food.
The panel found consumption of it increasing, but said it was safe even among the heaviest users, whether adults or children.
"Controlled and thorough scientific studies confirm aspartame's safety and find no credible link between consumption of aspartame at levels found in the human diet and conditions related to the nervous system and behavior, nor any other symptom or illness," the researchers said in a paper published in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology.
"There is no credible evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic," they added.
Since its approval, some people have argued that aspartame can cause a variety of illnesses, and various Web sites such as www.sweetpoison.com denounce the sweetener.
Read the entire article here.
Dr. Hull's Comment
I will never accept the news of aspartame safety. I think it is a "business" decision to discredit/discount the research results that aspartame DOES cause cancer, major nerve disorders, birth defects, and brain imbalances. Think about it - can you imagine the chaos that will occur when the truth of aspartame dangers is accredited. The FDA has known about the dangers, the corporations have known about the dangers, and the medical community (if it is really worth anything) has known about the dangers. The legal systems around the world aren't prepared for the number of lawsuits that will FLOOD the court systems if this truth is given life. The news reports have just released that acetaminophen found in Tylenol® has caused more deaths than any other substance in American drug history. But they dare to defend aspartame?? This CYA madness will stop one day and the truth about aspartame will become public knowledge - it has to. Never give up hope that the truth about the dangers of aspartame are real. One day, this will be common knowledge, but the "system" will take a major hit when it does.
]]>Be very leery of the media and research groups, and the various government
agencies that have sold out in the past by telling you aspartame was safe.
The heat must be on them now; now they decide to come clean and deliver the
truth that aspartame has been proven to harm human health. Listen the most
to, and support those who have maintained aspartame dangers from the
beginning; illustrating their true integrity and sincere concern for human
health. These are the groups, organizations, and individuals to pay
attention to and trust. CSPI let us down in the past and publicly put forth
information that was not true. Why are they now deciding to come clean?
Read the entire New Aspartame Safety Review 'Perfectly Predictable' article.
]]>Coca-Cola and food ingredient giant Cargill have teamed up to market a
new calorie-free natural sweetener they hope will shake up the global
market currently dominated by Tate & Lyle's sucralose and Splenda and
US company NutraSweet.
The sweetener, tentatively named rebiana, will be based on the Stevia
plant native to Paraguay but increasingly used as a health food in the
Far East and Hollywood, The Wall Street Journal reports today.
Coca-Cola has filed 24 patents applications in the past week around
extracting the tastiest parts of the Stevia plant and is seeking
exclusive rights to develop and market rebiana for use in drinks,
while Cargill, one of the world's largest agribusiness and trading
companies, owned by the founding Cargill and MacMillan families, will
market it for use in food such as yoghurt, cereals, ice cream and
sweets.
It has spent the past three years developing Stevia plantations in
China, Paraguay and Argentina.
However, the two companies acknowledge that they face regulatory
troubles since Stevia has been banned in the US and EU after a 1985
medical study linked the plant to liver problems.
They aim to market it first in countries where Stevia is not banned,
such as Japan and South America, and Cargill seeks to help regulatory
approval in the US by sponsoring more scientific studies.
Coca-Cola has been attempting to develop its own sweetener from the
Stevia plant for the past 10 years.
The beverages giant has resisted using Tate & Lyle's sucralose
sweetener in its diet fizzy drinks, it is thought because it believes
it leaves an aftertaste.
Instead it mainly used NutraSweet, made by the Chicago company of the
same name.
Tate & Lyle last week blamed a failure to penetrate the vast US
carbonated diet drinks market for disappointing sales of Splenda, its
artificial sweetener, which make up 20 per cent of group profits.
Iain Ferguson, the chief executive, admitted that US sales of Splenda,
had been "less than we had hoped for" during the year to March 30.
"We have not yet cracked any of the major lines there," he said and
warned that profits growth from the product would be only modest in
the current year.
Cargill is the second-largest privately held business in the United
States after Koch Industries.
In 2006, Cargill's sales of $75.2 billion would have ranked it 18th on
the Fortune 500 list.
It handles a quarter of all US grain exports, ships more than 6
million tonnes of sugar a year, and is a world leader in cocoa and
chocolate.
Through Degussa, it also has leading positions in ingredients, such as
salt, flour, malt, sweeteners, starches.
©Copyright 2007 Times Newspapers Ltd
Read the full story here.
COCA-COLA NORTH AMERICA ANNOUNCES
PLANS TO LAUNCH DIET COKE PLUS™
"Great Taste Has Its Benefits"
ATLANTA, March 22, 2007 - Coca-Cola North America today announced it will launch Diet Coke Plus™, a sparkling, calorie-free beverage with vitamins and minerals. In addition to providing great, refreshing taste, Diet Coke Plus is a good source of vitamins B3, B6, and B12, and the minerals zinc and magnesium. Diet Coke Plus will be available throughout the U.S. in April in retail stores where other Diet Coke products are sold.
"Consumers, including Diet Coke drinkers, are increasingly looking for more beverage options, and we wanted to offer them the convenience of a calorie-free beverage that is a good source of several essential vitamins and minerals, and one that delivers on the great taste that they have come to expect from us," said Katie Bayne, senior vice president, Coca-Cola Brands, Coca-Cola North America.
Each eight-ounce serving of Diet Coke Plus provides a good source of Niacin (vitamin B3), vitamins B6 and B12, zinc and magnesium (15% Daily Value [DV] for Niacin, B6 and B12, 10% DV for zinc and magnesium). Diet Coke Plus is the newest member of the Diet Coke family, which includes the flagship Diet Coke, Caffeine Free Diet Coke, Diet Coke with Lime, Diet Cherry Coke, and Diet Coke Sweetened with Splenda. Diet Coke lovers need not worry about their favorite sparkling beverage disappearing. "The millions of current Diet Coke devotees across America shouldn't be concerned - America's #1 diet sparkling beverage is staying just as it is," said Bayne.
Dr. Hull's Comments:
Vitamins mixed with chemical toxins...it's hard to make a logical comment on something so ridiculous. To start with, the vitamins added to this chemical drink are not natural, but manufactured replicas of real vitamins from foods. Mixed with the carbonation and the toxic acidic levels in a diet cola, any vitamins and minerals are quickly destroyed in the bottle. Then, the same toxins that make up aspartame, two manufactured amino acids connected by methanol, still make this diet cola just as nasty as it was before. Nothing's changed.
Knowing that the truth about aspartame's health dangers is becoming more widely known these days, I have to assume the makers of this diet cola have now added "vitamins" hoping to steer people away from the truth that aspartame does, indeed, make people sick.
Sorry, folks, this new "vitamin" diet cola is another diet product with misleading marketing.
]]>A second study conducted by the European Ramazzini Foundation (ERF) confirms the carcinogenicity of aspartame. The results of this study will be presented April 23, 2007 at the Mount Sinai Medical School of New York, where ERF Scientific Director Morando Soffritti will receive the third Irving J. Selikoff Award. [vedi testo completo per l'italiano]
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. In 2005, the European Ramazzini Foundation published important experimental data demonstrating the carcinogenicity of aspartame. These data demonstrated for the first time that aspartame is a carcinogenic agent, inducing various types of malignant tumors in rats, even at dose levels currently considered acceptable for humans.
As soon as carcinogenic effects were perceived during this first study, the ERF began a second long term experiment, administering aspartame at low doses in feed to rats beginning during fetal life.
In a world exclusive, Italian news station TG2 announced on April 13th that the European Ramazzini Foundation will present the results of this second study at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine at the end of April when Scientific Director Dr. Morando Soffritti will receive the third Irving J. Selikoff Award.
Ramazzini Foundation Portal on Research
We will publish the new study when it becomes available.
]]>Rebecca Smithers, consumer affairs correspondent
The Guardian, May 8, 2007
Pressure is growing on supermarkets and retailers to ban artificial colours and flavourings from food and drink consumed by children, with most leading retailers reviewing their policies in the face of mounting consumer concern.
Sainsbury's will next month become the first major supermarket chain to ban artificial colours and flavourings from its own-label soft drinks.
The chain says the ban - in force from June 1 - is the result of "overwhelming" demand from parents concerned about E number additives and artificial flavours and their possible links with hyperactivity and behaviour problems among children, as well as allergies and breathing problems.
Other supermarkets and retailers are likely to follow, amid growing public concern about the health risks of artificial ingredients. Britain's biggest supermarket, Tesco, and Marks & Spencer are both moving to phase them out where they are still being used.
In the biggest single move of its kind Sainsbury's ban will apply to its entire range of more than 120 own-brand drinks - soft and fizzy drinks, squash and cordials, as well as mixers for use with alcohol, such as tonic water.
Sainsbury's is replacing aspartame with sucralose, a low-calorie sweetener made from sugar. It is also removing the widely used artificial colouring sulphite ammonia caramel (E150d) from its cola drinks, replacing it with barley malt extract. Sainsbury's said the chemicals will generally be replaced by natural colours and fruit and vegetable extracts, while flavourings will be from named fruits and other natural sources.
Marks & Spencer said none of its soft drinks contain aspartame - it uses sucralose in diet soft drinks - or artificial flavouring, while all its soft drinks except colas contain natural colours. It is working to remove the one remaining artificial colour from its colas. It said it had banned more than half the additives permitted by the EU, particularly those associated with concerns about food intolerance and children's diets including monosodium glutamate (MSG), cyclamates and tartrazine. Its children's range of ready meals do not contain added preservatives, artificial colours, flavourings or sweeteners, and the permitted additives used in the range had been agreed with the Hyperactive Children's Support Group (HCSG).
Tesco said in a statement: "We have a couple of fruit-flavoured fizzy drinks which contain artificial additives that will be removed by the summer. We use natural, fruit-based sweeteners in all of our drinks that are labelled for children or are in our 'kids' range.
"We have had an 'additives hit-list' for more than 20 years and in particular target colours and additives highlighted by the HCSG ... we are conducting a review regarding 'nature identical' additives in our drinks."
The founder of the HCSG, Sally Bunday, said Sainsbury's move was "fantastic news ... This is an important public health issue which manufacturers can no longer brush under the carpet. We hope that this announcement from Sainsbury's will lead other soft drink manufacturers and supermarkets to follow suit."
The HCSG is putting together a research project scrutinising the policies of supermarkets on artificial colours and flavourings, which will be published later this month.
Lizzy Vann, of the Organix range of babyfoods, said: "We would like to see more supermarkets and manufacturers launching an outright ban on additives in children's food ... The fact is that small children are being subjected to all sorts of ingredients that we just don't know enough about - they are being unfairly experimented on and their body mass also means that ... they are absorbing relatively large quantities."
Get those diet drinks out of the schools and out of your homes, and watch your children blossom into healthy and happy "coachable" beings.
To your health!
Dr. Janet Starr Hull
___________________________________________________
An Unsweet Deal
Johnny J Burnham
The Bristol Press
Sept. 22, 2006
BRISTOL, Connecticut -- The Board of Education has decided to join the growing list of districts willing to give up some of its autonomy in exchange for financial incentives and participate in the state Department of Education's healthy food and beverage program.
The state will now reimburse the district 10 cents per meal served in its public schools. Bristol stands to gain an estimated $90,000 with nearly 900,000 meals served during the school year.
"We will no longer be able to sell anything to our students that is not approved by the state as being a healthy food or beverage," said Superintendent of Schools Michael J. Wasta.
The district had to move quickly, Wasta said, when it learned that the state needed a response by October or it would not provide reimbursement for the meals served from the start of the school year until the date it received official notification of the district's plan to participate. This would cost Bristol approximately $9,000 a month.
Although the district will gain financially, school fund-raising efforts may take a hit.
Whether it be a bake sale or the middle school cheesecake sale, students, may not participate in the selling or handling of any high-sugared, non-approved food that has any connection with the school or its programs.
Under Public Act No. 06-63, the only beverages permitted are "milk that may be flavored but contain no artificial sweeteners and no more than four grams of sugar per ounce; nondairy milks such as soy or rice milk, which may be flavored but contain no artificial sweeteners, no more than four grams of sugar per ounce, no more than 35 per cent of calories from fat per portion and no more than ten per cent of calories from saturated fat per portion; one hundred per cent fruit juice, vegetable juice or combination of such juices, containing no added sugars, sweeteners or artificial sweeteners; beverages that contain only water and fruit or vegetable juice and have no added sugars, sweeteners or artificial sweeteners; and water, which may be flavored but contain no added sugars, sweeteners, artificial sweeteners or caffeine."
All districts, whether taking advantage of the state's meal reimbursement plan or not, must abide by this new beverage law.
However, schools are still authorized to sell banned items at an event occurring after the end of the regular school day or on the weekend as long as the food or drink is not sold from a vending machine or school store.
According to the superintendent, soda and snack concessions are still permitted at Muzzy Field during sporting events.
Although the board voted in favor of participating, one commissioner, Christopher C. Wilson, said joining was a mistake.
"I certainly support the healthy lifestyle but [the state] is taking all autonomy away from the local school boards," he said. "We would only lose $90,000 if we turned this down but we would have the freedom to serve the students what we deem appropriate."
Wasta added that to his knowledge only three districts have declined to participate.
William Smyth, assistant to the superintendent for business, said that those that have chosen not to participate are small districts that do not serve a lot of meals and therefore reimbursement is minimal.
Johnny Burnham covers Bristol health, education, school and children's issues. Contact him at jburnham@bristolpress.com or 584-0504 ext. 250.
©The Bristol Press 2006
]]>September 6, 2006
Confronting the criticism of health and environmental groups, three major nail polish manufacturers - including one on Long Island - say they've either removed or have begun the process of removing a trio of substances that have been deemed harmful.
The chemicals formaldehyde, toluene and dibutyl phthalate, or DBP, have been linked to cancer and birth defects. All were banned earlier this year in cosmetics by European Union regulators but have not been targeted for removal in this country by the Food and Drug Administration.
Manufacturers, all with markets abroad, said yesterday they have begun removing the compounds voluntarily under pressure from health and environmental advocacy organizations.
Executives at Del Laboratories in Uniondale, manufacturer of Sally Hansen brand nail polish, say their products are being reformulated to eliminate all three substances. The Sally Hansen brand is sold worldwide and is the No. 1 nail polish brand sold in drugstores.
"As a concerned manufacturer of products, we proactively respond to concerns and trends," said Bruce MacKay, Del Laboratories' vice president of scientific affairs, who insisted the products are safe.
Ann Nugent, a Del Laboratories spokeswoman, said the reformulated nail enamels should appear on store shelves early next year. Orly International Inc. and OPI Products, top salon brands with headquarters in Southern California, say they, too, will eliminate the compounds. Orly began the process last year and OPI started this year.
The companies had come under fire for several years from the Breast Cancer Fund, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and Women's Voices of the Earth, among a host of other advocacy groups.
"These are products that enter into the body in a way that is not dissimilar to the way that drugs do," said Jeanne Rizzo, a registered nurse and executive director of the San Francisco-based Breast Cancer Fund, a health advocacy organization that supports studies on the causes of breast cancer.
She said that DBP is an endocrine disrupter, associated with underdeveloped genitals in newborn males. Rizzo added that the compound belongs to a broad class of toxins that have been linked to accelerated puberty in girls, a factor that may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Toluene has been linked to nervous system disorders, and formaldehyde is a suspected carcinogen.
The FDA doesn't require the rigorous scrutiny of cosmetics that is reserved for pharmaceuticals.
Rizzo said harmful substances have been allowed in nail polish because the expert panel advising the agency on cosmetics is made up of officials from the cosmetics industry.
FDA spokeswoman Veronica Castro said the agency could not respond to issues involving compounds in nail polish yesterday because the expert in the Cosmetics and Colors division was absent.
Arthur Levin, director of the Center for Medical Consumers, a health advocacy group in Manhattan, said the FDA is "understaffed and overworked," and cannot maintain appropriate vigilance over cosmetics.
Poison in the polish
Though the Food and Drug Administration does not require that cosmetics be rigorously tested for safety, three substances used in nail polish and treatment products have long been linked to cancer and birth defects.
]]>In my book Splenda® Is It Safe Or Not?, I have written in detail how and why diet chemical sweeteners and "prosthetic" foods cause weight gain, and have sited the laboratory research substantiating this fact. If mainstream "scientists" can't figure out how and why fake sweeteners stimulate weight gain, which leaves the proof to the consumer. So, put on your lab coat, ditch the diet fizz, and figure this issue out for yourselves if you have to. Then you can teach the corporate researchers the basic facts of weight gain from diet sweeteners.
To your health!
Dr. Janet Hull
_____________________________________________________
Excess Soda Could Raise Esophageal Cancer Risk
Dear Mayo Clinic: Is there any connection between esophageal cancer and diet soda?
Answer: The quick answer is no: there's no direct connection between esophageal cancer and diet or regular soda. But the quick answer doesn't tell the whole story.
There are interconnections between soda, obesity, gastroesophagel reflux disease, or GERD, and esophageal cancer that may indicate it's best to go easy on soda.
The incidence of esophageal cancer continues to increase, and so far, researchers can't pinpoint a single reason for the increase.
Here are some of the known risk factors:
GERD: Frequent or constant heartburn is the most common symptom of gastroesophageal reflux disease.
While heartburn seems like just a nuisance, about 5 percent of people with GERD will develop Barrett's esophagus, a condition that occurs when acid reflux stimulates changes in the lining of the lower esophagus. Patients with Barrett's esophagus have a 30- to 125-fold increased risk of developing esophageal cancer.
And GERD is also associated with obesity.
Obesity: While soda alone doesn't cause obesity, it can contribute to weight gain. A 12-ounce regular soda contains about 10 teaspoons of sugar. Diet soda, though calorie free, could contribute to weight gain, too.
A study presented at last year's annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association found that for people who drank two or more cans of diet soda a day, the risk of becoming overweight or obese was 57.1 percent, compared with 47.2 percent for those who drank more than two cans of regular soda a day.
The study, done by researchers at Texas Health Science Center,tracked 622 people for about seven years.
It's not clear why diet soda consumption was associated with a higher risk of weight gain. The researchers speculated that diet soda drinkers fared worse because they opted for diet soda in an effort to lose weight. But drinking diet soda - without other changes - isn't enough to shed pounds. Or, it was theorized that perhaps the artificial sweeteners in diet soda somehow stimulate appetite.
It is clear that maintaining a healthy body weight reduces your risk of many chronic illnesses, including some cancers. Although the interplay between soda, obesity and GERD hasn't been directly linked to esophageal cancer, there are enough connections to raise caution and watch what you drink.
- Claude Deschamps, M.D., Thoracic Surgery; and Jennifer Nelson, R.D., Clinical Dietetics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
Read more of this article.
You can email Oprah your Splenda story by filling out the Oprah.com online form. You can also email Bob Greene at Get With the Program.
Let's get the word out to these two very influential celebrities.
We have posted on our website the September 30, 1980 FDA's Board of Inquiry decision questioning the safety of aspartame. The document is long and technical, but after page 41 the reading gets very, VERY interesting. The report documents hundreds of cancerous tumors in the laboratory animals caused from aspartame, and their final decision was NOT to approval aspartame for public use. The document states:
'On the basis of the conclusion concerning Issue Number 2*, the Board concludes that approval of aspartame for use in foods should be withheld at least until the question concerning its possible oncogenic potential has been resolved by further experiments. The Board has not been presented with proof of a reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive under its intended conditions of use.
..."the possibility of an oncogenic effect...gross imbalance in the amino acid composition of the tissue fluids."
I also document on SweetPoison.com, JanetHull.com, and in my books, the numerous research studies showing aspartame causes holes in the brain, malignant tumors, and fetal deformities - research beginning in the late 1960s. The latest studies show lab results of lymphoma and leukemia, memory loss and nerve damage. These complete research studies are available on our websites and in the Healthy Newsletter.
Come on FDA employees - if you want to stay in the game, DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
To Your Health!
Dr. Janet Starr Hull
_______________________________________________
Artificial Sweeteners: No Calories ... Sweet!
Artificial sweeteners can help consumers cut down on calories and control weight, help to manage chronic conditions such as diabetes, and potentially prevent cavities, according to the American Dietetic Association (ADA).
To date, five artificial sweeteners are approved by the Food and Drug Administration: aspartame, saccharin, acesulfame-K, neotame, and sucralose. The agency regulates artificial sweeteners as food additives, which must be approved as safe before they can be marketed.
"The FDA evaluates a sweetener's composition and properties, how much of the substance is likely to be consumed, and various types of safety studies," says Laura Tarantino, Ph.D., director of the Office of Food Additive Safety in the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
For each of the approved sweeteners, the typical amount used by U.S. consumers is well within designated "acceptable daily intake levels (ADI)," or levels that can be consumed safely every day over a lifetime. Here's a detailed look at each of the sweeteners.
Aspartame
Aspartame is 200 times sweeter than sugar. It has a caloric value similar to sugar (4 kcal/g), but the amounts used are small enough to consider aspartame essentially free of calories. Brand names include NutraSweet and Equal. Aspartame was first approved by the FDA in 1981 as a tabletop sweetener, and for use in gum, breakfast cereal, and other dry products. The use of aspartame was expanded to sodas in 1983, and then to use as a general-purpose sweetener in all foods and drinks in 1996.
Before approval, the FDA reviewed numerous studies showing that aspartame did not cause cancer or other adverse effects in laboratory animals. "This included three studies in which rats were fed aspartame in proportions more than 100 times higher than humans would likely consume," Tarantino says.
In the mid-1990s, a researcher raised concerns that a rise in brain cancer incidence in the United States was linked to aspartame use. According to FDA experts, there is no scientific evidence supporting a link between aspartame and any type of cancer. The National Toxicology Program, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, also conducted aspartame studies in mice and found no cancer link.
In 2005, the European Ramazzini Foundation (ERF) published new findings of a long-term feeding study on aspartame in rats. ERF scientists concluded that aspartame causes leukemia and lymphoma and that current uses of aspartame should be reevaluated. After reviewing the study data, however, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) released a statement in May 2006 that said the ERF's conclusion was not supported by the data. After learning of the ERF study results, the FDA requested the study data and received a portion of the data in February 2006. The FDA will announce its conclusions after completing its review.
"At this time, our position that aspartame is safe is based on the large body of information previously reviewed," Tarantino says. "Our conclusions are based on a detailed review of more than 100 toxicological and clinical studies on safety."
When ingested, aspartame is converted in the body to methanol and two amino acids--aspartic acid and phenylalanine. Tarantino says, "These substances are produced in much greater amounts in other common foods."
Because of the phenylalanine component, aspartame does carry a risk for people with the rare genetic disorder phenylketonuria. People who have this disorder should avoid or restrict aspartame use because of their body's difficulty in metabolizing phenylalanine. Its use can cause phenylalanine to build up in the blood at higher levels than normal. The aspartame regulation requires that a statement be placed on the label of all products containing aspartame specifically to alert phenylketonurics of the presence of phenylalanine.
]]>The conclusions and summaries of this report begin on page 41. The FDA Review Board denied approval of aspartame September 30, 1980 based on a 50% rate of brain tumors from aspartame fed to the laboratory animals- rats, guinea pigs, monkeys and dogs. Large tumors appeared in the brains and in the nervous systems of the lab animals, and numerous deaths were recorded among mice under two years of age. According to the FDA Board of Inquiry, the number of recorded tumors from aspartame was in the hundreds. Aspartame surprisingly was "approved", nonetheless in 1981, despite the Board's recommendation to withdraw approval for aspartame.
After reading the FDA Petition, we ask you to revisit the April, 1995 list of 92 symptoms associated with aspartame use based on complaints submitted to the FDA.
The FDA puts a different spin on the topic these days. Please visit the FDA Web site FAQ section for their current position on aspartame. In order to find the FDA comments on aspartame safety, click on "Food Additives/Color Additives" on the menu at the left side of the page. After doing so, scroll down the list of Frequently Asked Questions and click on "Is aspartame safe?" The answer will appear in the right hand side of the FDA Web page.