Fresh fears raised about aspartame


Felicity Lawrence, "Fresh fears raised about aspartame", Guardian, July 15, 2005,
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/s...1528885,00.html

The European Food Safety Authority is reviewing "as a matter of high priority" the results of a large new study into aspartame, the artificial sweetener consumed by millions of people worldwide and used in more than 6,000 food and drink products.

Researchers at the Ramazzini Institute for cancer research in Italy say their study shows that aspartame causes lymphomas and leukaemia in female laboratory animals "at doses very close to the acceptable daily intake for humans". The authors of the study also say that while rats fed aspartame ate less food, there was no difference in body weight between treated and untreated animals.

One of the largest manufacturers of aspartame, the Japanese multinational Ajinomoto said the allegations made by the Italian study were "not consistent with the extensive body of scientific research which already exists on aspartame".

It questioned the methods used and the record of the institute. It pointed to four previous studies into the carcinogenicity of aspartame that had found no relationship between aspartame and any form of cancer. It added that aspartame broke down in the body into the building blocks of protein that occur widely in the rest of food.

It also helped people reduce their calorie intake. This contribution to cutting obesity helped to prevent cancer, a spokesman said.

The Ramazzini Institute has sent its first results to the European Food Safety Authority. EFSA confirmed yesterday that it would be asking its expert scientific panel on food additives to review the results "as a matter of high priority, in the context of the previous extensive safety data available on aspartame".

EFSA added that until that review had taken place it did not have a basis for recommending that consumers change their diet in respect of aspartame.

Although it had been presented with an outline of the findings by the institute in June, it is still waiting for the full pathology reports from the researchers. The review will also take into account all the other studies and data available.

"This will probably take several months," an EFSA statement said.

The institute said the full data would be published in six weeks' time. Aspartame is widely used to sweeten chewing gum, soft drinks, yoghurts and desserts and other low-calorie foods, and medicines including syrups and antibiotics for children.

Aspartame has been authorised for use in foods for a long time in many countries but has "a controversial history", according to EFSA. Since its approval, the safety of aspartame and its breakdown products has been widely discussed in the press and among scientists. "Up to now aspartame has been considered safe, based on the studies available."

The new study was conducted on 1,800 rats during their full lifespan. Six different dose levels were tested against a control group. The institute said the study, which is to appear in its own publication, the European Journal of Oncology, had been peer-reviewed by seven international experts "in anticipation of controversy".

Ajinomoto said it welcomed the decision by EFSA to review the claim made by the Ramazzini Institute objectively.

http://www.healthsentinel.com/news....print_list_item

How long has this stuff been around? Like 30 years?

I think its been on the market for about 20-25 years, give or take, and was invented about 35-40 years ago. By comparison SACCHARINE (invented shortly after the War of Northern Agression or "Civil War" for the Yankees) had been on the market (The FDA didn't exist back then) for 100 years give or take before the cancer claims popped up. But, in SACCHARINE's case, the dose used was well beyond what anyone could ever be expected to consume.


SPLENDA and ACESULFAME POTASSIUM were both invented about the same time as Aspartame, but weren't approved IN THE U.S. until about 1996-2000. SPLENDA at least had been in use overseas for years before it was approved in the U.S. No studies (only the paranoid rantings of some websites that can't seem to understand that there's a difference between Chloride as part of a Molecule - e.g. Salt or SPLENDA - and Chlorine Gas or Chlorox) have shown any evidence that either SPLENDA or ACE-K have any negative side effects.

ASPARTAME OTOH was linked to side effects (even during safety testing, before it was approved) before it even hit the market and the complaints (mostly relating to it causing migraine headaches) began flowing into the FDA almost immediately. The tests on SACCHARINE were quickly shown to only be relevant when a person consumed a dose so high, it would be totally unreasonable to think a person would consume that much. ASPARTAME OTOH was shown to cause migraines in some people even at very low doses, and this test now shows it can cause even greater problems at doses only slightly above normal.

As for claims that Aspartame breaks down into Protein, that is only partly true. ASPARTAME is Aspartic Acid and Phenylalinine (2 Amino Acids, the building blocks of Protein) joined together by Methanol (Wood Alcohol, a highly toxic poison known to cause headaches in small doses and blindness and even death in higher doses). Though, thre is presumably not enough Methanol to blind or kill a person consuing a normal amount of Diet Soda, the amount is sufficient to cause Migraine Headaches in some folks.

There is also the link to Cancer, which even though it is at doses higher than one would normally consume, it [the dose] is not nearly as high [above normal doses] as it was for SACCHARINE or CYCLAMATE, both of which were banned as a result, the former being allowed back on the market after a short while with warning labels [a requirement that was recently removed] and the latter being still banned in the U.S. If they are going to say that the risk [from Aspartame] is not high enough to warrant action, then we would also have to agree that SACCHARINE and CYCLAMATE are perfectly safe, if that same standard were applied.