Sweet Misery - A Poisoned World

[Rajiv]

Excellent documentary showing how dangerous artificial sweetner Aspartame is. From its history, to its effects this video is enough to shock anyone into really looking at there food labels next time they shop. Aspartame is a toxic food that came into the world as an investment By Donald Rumsfeld, while ignoring the deadly effects the tests showed. Take a good look at this video, it could save lives

89 min

From MY ASPARTAME EXPERIMENT

A FEMALE RAT DEVELOPED A MAMMARY TUMOR SO LARGE SHE OFTEN USED IT AS A PILLOW

BY

VICTORIA INNESS-BROWN, M.A.

Introduction by author Carol Guilford

“In any such study of even a few hundred test animals, it takes no more than a dozen or so of them to exhibit a particular lesion… to associate with the test agent, i.e., aspartame or its related chemicals.”

Dr. Adrian Gross, FDA toxicologist in a letter to Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Oct. 30, 1986.

When Victoria Inness-Brown contacted me about “explosive information” concerning aspartame (Equal,NutraSweet) the controversial, artificial, chemical sweetener, I didn’t know what to expect. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence of aspartame’s danger to human health (tires have been recalled for less) it remains in 6,000 food, drink and medicinal products.

Who could imagine a private citizen would do an aspartame experiment with 108 rats for 2 years and 8 months?

The late Dr. Adrian Gross explained that rodent experiments are the means to find out what a particular substance will do to human beings.

Look at Victoria’s pictures of her animals that ingested the equivalent amount of aspartame (in human terms) of less than one diet coke a day, until their spontaneous death. Importantly, the control groups, those fed no aspartame were free from visible effects. (1)

The artificial sweetener, Aspartame, was approved by the FDA, in 1981. By the 1990’s, the FDA had a list of 92 symptoms reported to them by 10,000 consumers, a list revealed to the public under the Freedom of Information Act. (2)

Personally, I have read thousands of cases from aspartame victims, many who post on Yahoo’s Aspartame Victim Support Group list, but Victoria’s photographs, the first ever to be released from any study, give meaning to the hypothesis, “A picture is worth a thousand words.”

Following is Victoria’s gutsy account of why she did her experiment, the protocol she used to conduct it and the remarkable pictures of the rats. Victoria says--

I WANTED VISUAL PROOF

I did my aspartame experiment because my family was addicted to diet soda. After researching the effects of aspartame, I strongly believed the artificial sweetener might one day lead to their illness and even early death.

Most influential in my research on the aspartame molecule was The Bressler Report. (3) Dr. Jerome Bressler, M.D., led an FDA task force to attempt to validate the authenticity of a study done by G.D. Searle, the pharmaceutical company that held the patent to the “sweetener.”

Dr. Bressler’s team did the Searle audit between April 25, 1977 and August 4, 1977 of study PT #988S73, a 115 Week Oral Tumorigenicity Study in the Rat. The rat study was supposedly done by Searle to examine the adverse effects of the crystalline form of aspartame’s breakdown from phenylalanine, 50% of the chemical’s composition to SC-19192, diketopiperazine (DKP).

Bressler’s force found irregularities in Searle’s experiment-- missing raw data, errors and discrepancies in available data, exclusions of animals, and animals that had masses removed and were then returned to the study.

It is clear Searle misrepresented the carcinogenicity of DKP and hid incriminating data from the FDA.

One unreported tissue mass in Searle’s study measured 5.0 X 4.5 X 2.5 cm. Equivalent to 2 in. X 1.75 in. X 1.0 in. —a significant sized tumor that should be visible to the naked eye, hard to miss.

I was convinced I would see tumors and possibly other harmful effects to convince my family and friends to avoid aspartame.

Continued

Also important to read

HISTORY OF ASPARTAME

From there --

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 adulterating 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 Commissioner.

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 sales force 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)

Robert Dormer, a lawyer for the NutraSweet Co., said there was nothing special about the Jan. 21 date or the papers filed that day.

But with Reagan's election, it was virtually assured that a republican-appointed commissioner would replace Goyan and decide the appeal- and Searle had strong GOP connections with Rumsfeld at the helm.

Goyan had set up a five-member "commissioner's team" of scientists with no prior involvement in the issue to review the board's ruling.

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.

Jere Goyan told me in 2005 that Aspartame was not going to be approved, and would never have been approved by him. He also said that there was tremendous political pressure being put on the FDA to approve Aspartame.

[Rajiv]

Re: Sweet Misery - A Poisoned World

And now on to Splenda (TM)

Four four minute videos for you

Scientific Basis for Splenda Toxicity

How Splenda Was Discovered

One of the Biggest Lies About Artificial Sweeteners

Is Splenda Really As Safe As They Say It Is?

Sucralose Toxicity

The Potential Dangers of Sucralose

There's a new artificial sweetener on the block and it is already in a wide range of products, some even sold in health food stores and manufactured by nutritionally-oriented companies.

• But is it proven safe?
• Does it provide any benefit to the public?
• Does it help with weight loss?
• Are there any long term human studies?
• Has it been shown to be safe for the environment?
  

The answer to all of these questions is unfortunately a resounding NO.

The artificial sweetener sucralose, which is sold under the name SplendaT, is one of the up-and-coming "next generation" of high-intensity sugar substitutes. It is non-caloric and about 600 times sweeter than sucrose (white table sugar), although it can vary from 320 to 1,000 times sweeter, depending on the food application. The white crystalline powder tastes like a lot like sugar, but is more intense in its sweetness.

How it is Manufactured

Sucralose is produced by chlorinating sugar (sucrose). This involves chemically changing the structure of the sugar molecules by substituting three chlorine atoms for three hydroxyl groups.