ASPARTAME IN WONDERLAND

Another independent research into the dangers of the sweetener aspartame has brought again negative results. The Italian Ramazzini Institute has conducted a long-term scientific research in which it demonstrated a link between leukaemia and aspartame, even at doses much lower than the ADI (Acceptable Daily Intake). Why is it that previous research had never shown that? The Ramazzini research had let their rats die a natural death before they conducted autopsies looking for tumours. That hadn't been done before.

Why is it that almost all independent research show negative results while all industrial sponsored research is peachy keen?

In the summer of 2004, the Dutch critical magazine the Skepter decided to permanently put a stop against the aspartame witch-hunt and concluded that aspartame was of all sweeteners far out the safest. The Dutch critical monthly Kleintje Muurkrant and I came to opposite conclusions. Marie Prins, the writer of the article in Skepter even called me 'a fanatical opponent of aspartame', without mentioning anything from my article. It always strikes me how little the pro aspartame activists read and study. If one has such a positive attitude towards aspartame, the writer surely must be consuming it generously. The American neuropsychologist Paul Spiers showed in 1988 that aspartame caused depressed intelligence and damaged memory. It also became immediately clear that Marie Prins had never read my second article Light Urban Legend (September 2003). If she had, some of her statements would have been presented less convincing. But why is it that two critical papers came to opposite conclusions?

I asked Rob Nanninga, Editor-in-Chief of the Skepter, at the time for an explanation. He told me that they work according the criterion: The majority of the established experts is always right. When I pointed him at the fact that Mark Gold had elaborately described fraud of the European Scientific Committee on Food that quotes evidence from two industry-sponsored studies that aspartame doesn't cause epileptic seizures, he came with the following explanation: 'Hopefully you don't blame me for not reading the report by Mark D. Gold, director of the "Aspartame Toxicity Information Center" at holisticmed.com. Holisticmed doesn't look like a reliable source.' According to Rob, Mark Gold is not a scientist and therefore the case is closed. I did read his report and the studies in question and I've read the official report of the European Scientific Committee on Food and I could simply conclude that indeed 'almost 100 percent of the patients had taken anti-seizure medication during the examination'. Is it strange to conclude that something like that influences the results of epilepsy? I'm no scientist either, but if I was one and I was a member of that Committee, I surely would have reported that. Unless the members haven't read it or didn't want to read it.

And who were the members again? At least half of the members of the Committee have been involved with the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), an industry group founded in 1978 by Coca-Cola, Heinz Foundation, general Foods, Kraft Foods (of which Philip Morris is the owner) and Proctor & Gamble. Also the manufacturers of aspartame – Monsanto and Ajinomoto have branches in various parts of the world that have separate memberships in the ILSI. Holland Sweetener Company, another company that sells aspartame, is also a member of ILSI. Rob also completely ignores this and comes with the résumé of the Chairman of ILSI, the Dutch Ada Knaap, and can't find anything suspicious in there. But if you look further than someone's résumé, then Ada Knaap has attended several workshops by ILSI. ILSI's own newsletters show that (http://europe.ilsi.org/file/ILSIEurope-Newsletter47.pdf). Striking that the Committee refused or was negative on most independent studies while no negative word was being said about the industry- sponsored research.

Marie Prins also states that the reason why it had taken so long to approve aspartame was because everything was so carefully examined while aspartame is such a natural substance. In 1981 FDA Commissioner Hayes suddenly approved aspartame in 1981, despite a majority of objections. Shortly after that Hayes got a well-paid job at the PR firm of G.D. Searle (the company that brought aspartame on the market). And aspartame is far from natural. It's a combination of genetically manipulated substances and the Pentagon once listed aspartame as a potential biochemical weapon. It was no other than Ian Fotheringham who developed for Monsanto's Nutrasweet microbial strains for the manufacture of L-phenylalanine and the sweetener aspartame. He even mentions that in his résumé.

Monsanto, the company that had bought G.D. Searle and sold aspartame within the Nutrasweet Company, has been several times caught and convicted for bribing a governmental agent. I've already written about that in my article The Sweet Lie. On www.gmwatch.com you'll find more bribery scandals regarding Monsanto. Why would a multi-national operate like that? Because there's a lot of money involved. No conspiracy, but money is the motive why aspartame came on the market and is still allowed to be sold. We're talking about billions of dollars.

Also journalists and scientists get generously rewarded for writing pro-industry articles. That's also been proven. It's called: Manipulating the public opinion. Every large company is involved with that. Just look how many Internet sites there are that try to pretend to be a very positive and scientific source stating that aspartame is absolutely safe. As an industry, you can always hope that some journalist is going to quote from those.

If we compare the aspartame industry with the tobacco industry, then the latter never came with negative results either while all independent research did (even back in 1927 the first independent studies started to show negative results). It lasted many decades before the tobacco industry fell on its knees and confessed they had manipulated and silenced the negative results for years. An internal document by the marketing division of one of the tobacco corporations states: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy" (Myers et al, 1981). That's why that industry spends two billion to create such controversy. And which enormous financial interests do all those independent researchers have to defend?

Also the aspartame industry works according similar tactics: casting doubt. And spending an enormous amount of money on that, hiring the very best lawyers when somewhere a trial has started and spending a lot of money on lobby groups who have to influence the political decision makers. But also letting people make anti- aspartame statements who are clearly not by their right mind. Because then you're casting doubt and you can always quote such examples to show the consumer that it really is all nonsense.

And it works when you tell people aspartame is really not healthy. They often shrug saying: 'Ah, everything is bad.' No, not everything is bad. When you pour ketchup in the tank of someone's car, he's not going to say either: Ah, everything is bad. Unfortunately many people are much more careful what they throw in the tank of their car, than their own stomach. And you don't have to be a scientist for that.

© 2006 Dennis Rodie

The original Dutch version of this article appeared in Kleintje Muurkrant nr. 410, January 27, 2006