David Burton, Sir Rebel Films, has produced a short-film on his new documentary on the dangers of aspartame.

"This is very important information for anyone who eats food," says Burton, "The style of the film is to show what everyone is saying about aspartame... everyone has a different story. The FDA says its safe. CSPI says there's "no proof", but it could cause cancer. Activists say its toxic. People are sick! So people should not eat it. Even CSPI has 2 different opinions on the subject.

"I think the point of the video is "don't eat artificial sweeteners" and that point is clear."

The aspartame issue is NOT NEW, that's for sure. Studies not funded by the aspartame industry do, indeed, show that aspartame is harmful to your health. Research as early as the 1960s has proven and documented that aspartame causes fetal deformities, that aspartame eats holes in brain tissue, and that aspartame caused the 1960 lab monkeys to all die of seizures. Publicly denying this information is valid proof that the manufacturers of aspartame are playing "games" with consumers, and manipulating the truth about aspartame's toxic effects on human health and a developing fetus is a serious matter. It greatly insults the professionals who have been fighting this crusade for over 20 years because we know such statements of aspartame safety are dangerously incorrect.

Suppressing the truth about aspartame dangers greatly insults those who use it because they are being left to suffer its toxic effects with no medical support to make them better.

People ARE waking up to the fact that aspartame is a root cause of many unresolved health issues that they, and their children, are suffering from. One day, the David Burtons out there will bust through the media blackout that has been manipulating the truth that you deserve to know.

The dangers of aspartame are now becoming widely known, but the risks of using Splenda are not as well documented - yet. Essentially, the sucralose in Splenda does not readily penetrate the blood brain barrier as aspartame does, hence creating neurotoxic havoc at the brain center. But, the research shows sucralose can negatively affect the body in several ways because it IS a chemical substance and NOT natural sugar.

The same patterns with aspartame are repeating with sucralose (Splenda). The individuals who stand to profit the most have immense influence, and the information about Splenda's dangers, just as with aspartame, is being downplayed. Corporate claims of product safety and innocuous research results are identical to those used by The NutraSweet Company. As you learn more information about Splenda and see its advertisements, note the comparisons and repeated patterns between the products, the corporations, and the marketing strategies. Maybe consumers can prevent damage to their health from sucralose sooner than they did with aspartame, which has affected the health and lives of millions of innocent people since it was introduced into the public food supply over twenty years ago. Especially, damage to a fetus or a child.

At least you, the consumer, deserve to be informed about the "other side" of this safety issue so you can make up your own mind whether Splenda Is Safe Or Not.

By Mike Hughlett | Tribune reporter January 10, 2009

Chicago-based Merisant Worldwide Inc., maker of the artificial sweetener Equal, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Friday, hobbled by the global credit crisis and sliding sales.

Merisant, largely owned by private-equity firm Pegasus Capital Advisors, is saddled with $560.7 million in debt, compared with $331.1 million in assets, according to U.S. Bankruptcy Court filings in Delaware. Its biggest creditors are holders of its publicly traded bonds, who are owed $362 million.

Merisant was scheduled to make $78.3 million in debt payments in the 12 months ending Sept. 30, according to a November filing with federal securities regulators. Some of those payments are due this month.

"It is fair to say the current turmoil in the credit markets made bank financing unavailable to Merisant to refinance its near-term maturities and interest payments," the company said in a statement to the Tribune.

Paul Block, Merisant's chief executive, said in a separate statement that "this is a financial restructuring of our balance sheet, not an operational restructuring of our business. We've already taken aggressive steps to cut costs."

No job cuts are expected because of the bankruptcy, he said. Merisant employs about 425 worldwide, including almost 70 in Chicago and 120 at a plant in Manteno, Ill., north of Kankakee.

Merisant has its roots in G.D. Searle & Co., the Skokie-based firm that invented the artificial sweetener aspartame in 1965. Monsanto bought Searle in 1985 and then in 2000 sold its aspartame-related businesses to separate buyers, with the tabletop sweetener operation christened Merisant.

Back then, Equal was the leading tabletop sweetener, with 37 percent of the market. Splenda, an artificial sweetener made by Johnson & Johnson has since come to dominate.

In 2008, Splenda grabbed 60 percent of the market, and Equal had only 11 percent, third after Sweet & Low.

The upshot: Merisant's revenues sank 18 percent from 2003 through 2007, when they totaled $290 million. For 2008's first nine months, sales were off another 6 percent from a year earlier.

Merisant is betting on future growth through PureVia, a zero-calorie natural sweetener derived from the leaves of the stevia shrub. Tabletop sweeteners under the PureVia brand are rolling out in stores nationwide.

Merisant also has partnered with PepsiCo , which plans on new beverages sweetened with PureVia. Block said the bankruptcy restructuring will free up more cash to support the expansion of PureVia.

mhughlett@tribune.com

Source: FoodNavigatorUSA.com

Related topics: Natural sweeteners, Financial & Industry, Cereals and bakery preparations, Chocolate and confectionery ingredients, Dairy-based ingredients, Health and nutritional ingredients, Sweeteners (intense, bulk, polyols)

A flurry of activity has followed the FDA no objection letters for the stevia-derived sweetener, Reb A, to be used in food and beverages as two companies announce self-affirmed GRAS.

Blue California said it has completed its GRAS (generally recognized as safe) self-affirmation for its Reb A 97 percent sweetener Good&Sweet.

And GLG Life Tech Corporation also announced that it has completed the necessary steps to declare self-affirmed GRAS for its Rebpure product which contains 97 percent pure Reb A stevia extract.

Their announcements came within hours of news that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said it had no objection to rebiana, (Reb A) at 95 percent purity or above, having GRAS status. Self affirmed GRAS does not require a response from the FDA.

The no objection was in response to notifications from Merisant Company and Cargill, which submitted evidence to show that the natural, zero calorie sweetener is safe for use in the food supply.

Blue California said it began the GRAS self-affirmation process in February and completed it on December 15.

Cecilia McCollum, Blue California's executive vice president, said: "GRAS self affirmation by an Expert Panel is a legal process (if all the FDA requirements are met) in order to determine if a product is safe to use as a food ingredient.

"We have not decided yet if we are going to file a submission with the FDA or not.

"The stevia market in general and the Reb A market in particular is big enough to accommodate many suppliers of this ingredient.

"Our Good&sweet ingredient is no less than 97 percent and we produce a 99 percent purity as well."

She added that the company sources the stevia leaf, produces stevia extract, then isolates and purifies the sweet compound Reb A.

Meanwhile GLG said that a notification would be filed with the FDA, following its GRAS self-affirmation.

The company said that key to its self-affirmation was that the molecular structure of Rebpure has been "proven to match the molecular structure of rebiana", which the FDA decision related to.

During the process, GLG said it worked closely with ChromaDex, which develops analytical standards for ingredients, to perform a characterization study on GLG's Rebpure.

Cargill recently entered into an agreement with ChromaDex to ensure quality and consistency of individual sweet components of stevia.

Exploring the stevia market

Another company, Sunwin International Neutraceuticals, which produces stevia in China, also entered the ring. Its stevia brand OnlySweet is already sold as a nutritional supplement in US.

Sunwin spokesman, Jeff Reynolds, said: "We are confident that our high grade stevia extracts meet the FDA standards, and we are taking the steps to affirm this.

"The US food and beverage industry represents a vast new market for Sunwin and we intend to rapidly explore opportunities for expansion into this area."

Meanwhile the Malaysian company PureCircle, said its Reb A was central to Merisant and Cargill's submissions to the FDA.

Peter Milsted, PureCircle sales and marketing director, told FoodNavigator: "It is essential for the development of this industry that all Reb A manufacturers have to comply with the FDAs' requirements. The only thing of importance is that manufacturers who claim to be able to manufacture to FDA specifications, actually can."

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.

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."

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.

Read more of this article.

Read more about formaldehyde.

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.

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.

Continue reading

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.

The FDA Web site includes contact information for non-emergency food-related complaints, non-emergency reactions to medical products, and vaccinations. Click on the link provided on the FDA Web site to find the office with which to file your complaint.

For more information, please visit www.FDA.org for further information.

Dr. Janet Starr Hull

___________________________________________

Aspartame safe for consumption, food regulator concludes
By Ahmed ElAmin

05/05/2006 - The EU's food safety regulator today said aspartame is safe for consumption, contradicting a scientific study by the Ramazzini Foundation that claimed the artificial sweetener caused cancer.

The regulatory rejection of the study means food and beverage makers will not have to reformulate their products and find a substitute.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said it has evaluated the Ramazzini long-term study on the carcinogenicity of aspartame and concluded that "there is no need to further review the safety of aspartame nor to revise the previously established Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI)".

The current ADI for aspartame is 40 mg/kg body weight. Current average intakes of aspartame in Europe, including levels up to 10 mg/kg body weight per day, are well below the ADI, EFSA noted.

Read more of this article.

Dr. Janet Starr Hull

_______________________________

EUROPEAN RAMAZZINI FOUNDATION STANDS BEHIND ASPARTAME STUDY RESULTS, ANNOUNCES ONGOING RESEARCH ON ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS
05 May 2006
Response to EFSA's AFC panel decision

The European Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences "B. Ramazzini", the sole sponsor of a long-term carcinogenesis study demonstrating that aspartame is a multipotential carcinogenic agent in rodents, responded today to the opinion announced by the European Food Safety Authority's Panel on Food Additives, Flavorings, Processing Aids and Materials (AFC).

Scientific Director of the European Ramazzini Foundation and primary author of the aspartame study, Dr. Morando Soffritti, M.D., underlined the importance of EFSA's interest in the European Ramazzini Foundation's aspartame study saying, "as the Director of an independent, non-profit institution, I consider it an important recognition to have our data carefully considered by EFSA." Prior long-term carcinogenesis studies on aspartame (4 total) were conducted over 20 years ago by the producers of the artificial sweetener using a small number of animals per sex per group. The results of these studies provided the basis for the current opinion regarding the non-carcinogenicity of aspartame.

In responding to the AFC panel comments, Soffritti noted that "what the panel considers shortcomings of the study are instead distinctive and positive characteristics of our research protocol, research which has provided the scientific basis for changes in international regulations numerous times over the last 30 years." For instance, the European Ramazzini Foundation conducts what are known as lifespan mega-experiments, meaning that large groups of rodents are allowed to live out their natural lifespan and are examined for histopathological changes upon spontaneous death. This model is in contrast with most laboratories where rodents are sacrificed at 110 weeks of age (representing about 2/3 of the lifespan). The Ramazzini study design closely mirrors the human condition in which persons may be exposed to agents in the industrial and general environments from embryonic life until natural death. "Since 80% of cancer is diagnosed in humans over the age of 55, it is of paramount importance to observe how an agent affects laboratory animals in the last third of their lives", notes Soffritti. He added that "occurrence of chronic pulmonary inflammation is common in the natural dying process. Moreover, inflammation was observed in both animals who were treated with aspartame as well as in the control group."

With regard to a pathology review, it was not deemed appropriate or necessary to subject a small subset of the 34,000 slides to external review, especially given the statistical power of an experiment of this size. Slides of previous carcinogenesis studies on aspartame were not reviewed by the AFC panel, an action that Dr. Soffritti believes should have been obligatory in light of the European Ramazzini Foundation's results, at the very least those involving haemopoietic and lymphoid organs and tissues. At the highest dose level tested in the Ramazzini study, 25% of female rats bore lymphomas-leukemias compared with 8.7% in the controls.

Read more of this article.