| SCIENCE / HEALTH - LOOKING GLASS NEWS |
|
ASPARTAME - The Shocking Story of the World's Bestselling Sweetener |
|
|
by Pat Thomas THE ECOLOGIST Entered into the database on Sunday, October 23rd, 2005 @ 00:00:04 MST |
|
Aspartame is the most controversial food additive in history. The most recent
evidence, linking it to leukaemia and lymphoma, has added substantial fuel to
the ongoing protests of doctors, scientists and consumer groups who allege that
this artificial sweetener should never have been released onto the market and
that allowing it to remain in the food chain is killing us by degrees. Once upon a time, aspartame was listed by the Pentagon as a biochemical warfare
agent. Today it's an integral part of the modern diet. Sold commercially under
names like NutraSweet and Canderel, aspartame can be found in more than 5,000
foods, including fizzy drinks, chewing gum, table-top sweeteners, diet and diabetic
foods, breakfast cereals, jams, sweets, vitamins, prescription and over-the-counter
drugs. This means that there is a good chance that you and your family are among
the two thirds of the adult population and 40 per cent of children who regularly
ingest this artificial sweetener. Because it contains no calories, aspartame is considered a boon to health-conscious
individuals everywhere; and most of us, if we think about it at all, think it
is safe. But independent scientists say aspartame can produce a range of disturbing
adverse effects in humans, including headaches, memory loss, mood swings, seizures,
multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's-like symptoms, tumours and even death. Concerns over aspartame's toxicity meant that for eight years, the US Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) denied it approval, effectively keeping it off the world
market. This caution was based on compelling evidence, brought to light by numerous
eminent scientists, litigators and consumer groups, that aspartame contributed
to serious central nervous system damage and had been shown to cause cancer
in animals. Eventually, however, political muscle, won out over scientific rigour,
and aspartame was approved for use in 1981 (see timeline for details). The FDA's about-turn opened the floodgates for aspartame's swift approval by
more than 70 regulatory authorities around the world. But, as the remarkable
history of the sweetener shows, the clean bill of health given to it by government
regulators - whose raison d'être should be to protect the public from
harm - is simply not worth the paper it is printed on. DECEMBER 1965 SPRING 1967 AUTUMN 1967 SPRING 1971 FEBRUARY 1973 12 SEPTEMBER 1973 26 JULY 1974 AUGUST 1974 JULY 1975 5 DECEMBER 1975 24 MARCH 1976 JULY 1976 10 JANUARY 1977 26 JANUARY 1977 8 MARCH 1977 1 JULY 1977 1 AUGUST 1977 28 SEPTEMBER 1977 8 DECEMBER 1977 1978 The journal Medical World News reports that the methanol content of aspartame
is 1,000 times greater than most foods under FDA control. In high concentrations
methanol, or wood alcohol, is a lethal poison. 1 JUNE 1979 1979 In spite of the uncertainties over aspartame's safety in the US, aspartame
becomes available, primarily in pharmaceutical products, in France. It is sold
under the brand name Canderel and manufactured by the food corporation Merisant. 30 SEPTEMBER 1980 1980 Canderel is now marketed throughout much of Europe (but not in the UK) as a
low-calorie sweetener. JANUARY 1981 20 JANUARY 1981 21 JANUARY 1981 MARCH 1981 19 MAY 1981 15 JULY 1981 22 OCTOBER 1981 1982 The aspartame-based sweetener Equal, manufactured by Merisant, is launched
in the US. 15 OCTOBER 1982 1983 Searle attorney Robert Shapiro gives aspartame its commercial name, NutraSweet.
The name is trademarked the following year. Shapiro later becomes president
of Searle. He eventually becomes president and then chairman and CEO of Monsanto,
which will buy Searle in 1985. 8 JULY 1983 8 AUGUST 1983 SEPTEMBER 1983 AUTUMN 1983 17 FEBRUARY 1984 MARCH 1984 30 MAY 1984 JULY 1984 2 NOVEMBER 1984 1 OCTOBER 1985 21 APRIL 1986 16 OCTOBER 1986 21 NOVEMBER 1986 28 NOVEMBER 1986 DECEMBER 1986 1987 An FDA report on adverse reactions associated with aspartame states the majority
of the complaints about aspartame - now numbering 3,133 - refer to neurological
effects. 2 JANUARY 1987 12 OCTOBER 1987 3 NOVEMBER 1987 Numerous medical and scientific experts testify as to the toxicity of aspartame.
Among them is Dr Verrett, who reveals that, while compiling its 1977 report,
her team was instructed not to comment on or be concerned with the overall validity
of the studies. She states that questions about birth defects have not been
answered. She also states that increasing the temperature of the product leads
to an increase in production of DKP, a substance shown to increase uterine polyps
and change blood cholesterol levels. Verrett comments: 'It was pretty obvious
that somewhere along the line, the bureau officials were working up to a whitewash.' 1989 The FDA has received more than 4,000 complaints from consumers about adverse
reactions to the sweetener. 14 OCTOBER 1989 20 JULY 1990 1991 The US National Institutes of Health publishes Adverse Effects of Aspartame:
January '86 through December '90, a bibliography of 167 studies documenting
adverse effects associated with aspartame. 1992 NutraSweet signs agreements with Coca-Cola and Pepsi stipulating that it is
their preferred supplier of aspartame. 30 JANUARY 1992 14 DECEMBER 1992 19 APRIL 1993 28 FEBRUARY 1994 APRIL 1995 12 JUNE 1995 27 JUNE 1996 NOVEMBER 1996 DECEMBER 1996 10 FEBRUARY 1998 13 MAY 1998 OCTOBER 1998 8 FEBRUARY 1999 20 JUNE 1999 MAY 2000 10 DECEMBER 2001 9 JULY 2002 10 DECEMBER 2002 The report's conclusion amounts to a single sentence: 'The committee concluded
that.there is no evidence to suggest that there is a need to revise the outcome
of the earlier risk assessment or the [acceptance daily intake] previously established
for aspartame.' As with the FDA, there are concerns about the neutrality of some of the committee's
members and their links with the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI),
an industry group that funds, among other things, research into aspartame. ILSI
members include Monsanto, Coca-Cola and Pepsi. 19 FEBRUARY 2003 MAY 2004 SEPTEMBER 2004 JULY 2005 Page 47 ASPARTAME REACTIONS: A HIDDEN EPIDEMIC When aspartame was approved for use, Dr HJ Roberts, director of the Palm Beach
Institute for Medical Research, had no reason to doubt the FDA's decision. 'But
my attitude changed,' he says, 'after repeatedly encountering serious reactions
in my patients that seemed justifiably linked to aspartame.' Twenty years on,
Roberts has coined the phrase 'aspartame disease' to describe the wide range
of adverse effects he has seen among aspartame-guzzling patients. He estimates: 'Hundreds of thousands of consumers, more likely millions, currently
suffer major reactions to products containing aspartame. Today, every physician
probably encounters aspartame disease in everyday practice, especially among
patients with illnesses that are undiagnosed or difficult to treat.' As a guide for other doctors, Roberts, a recognised expert in difficult diagnoses,
has published a lengthy series of case studies, Aspartame Disease: an ignored
epidemic (Sunshine Sentinel Press), in which he meticulously details his treatment
of 1,200 aspartame-sensitive individuals, or 'reactors', encountered in his
own practice. Following accepted medical procedure for detecting sensitivities
to foods, Roberts had his patients remove aspartame from their diets. With nearly
two thirds of reactors, symptoms began to improve within days of removing aspartame,
and improvements were maintained as long as aspartame was kept out of their
diet. Roberts' case studies parallel much of what was revealed in the FDA's report
on adverse reactions to aspartame - that toxicity often reveals itself through
central nervous system disorders and compromised immunity. His casework shows
that aspartame toxicity can mimic the symptoms of and/or worsen several diseases
that fall into these broad categories (see sidebar, below). Case studies, especially a large series like this, address some of the issues
surrounding real-world use in a way that laboratory studies never can; and the
conclusions that can be drawn from such observations aren't just startling,
they are also potentially highly significant. In fact, Roberts believes that
one of the major problems with aspartame research has been the continued over-emphasis
on laboratory studies. This has meant that the input of concerned independent
physicians and other interested persons, especially consumers, is 'reflexively
discounted as "anecdotal"'. Many of the diseases listed by Roberts fall into the category of medicine's
'mystery diseases' - conditions with no clear etiology and few effective cures.
And while no one is suggesting that aspartame is the single cause of such diseases,
Roberts' research suggests that some people diagnosed with, for example, multiple
sclerosis, Parkinson's or chronic fatigue syndrome may end up on a regimen of
potentially harmful drugs that could have been avoided if they simply stopped
ingesting aspartame-laced products. Sidebar Conditions Mimicked By Aspartame Toxicity § Multiple sclerosis Pages 48-49 ASPARTAME'S TOXIC CONTENTS Aspartame is made up of three chemicals: the amino acids aspartic acid and
phenylalanine, and methanol. The chemical bond that holds these constituents
together is fairly weak. As a result, aspartame readily breaks down into its
component parts in a variety of circumstances: in liquids; during prolonged
storage; when exposed to heat in excess of 86° Fahrenheit (30° Centigrade);
and when ingested. These constituents further break down into other toxic by-products,
namely formaldehyde, formic acid and aspartylphenylalanine diketopiperazine
(DKP). Manufacturers argue that the instability of aspartame is irrelevant since its
constituents are all found naturally in food. This is only partially true and
ignores the fact that in food amino acids like aspartic acid and phenylalanine
are bound to proteins, which means that during digestion and metabolism they
are released slowly into the body. In aspartame, these amino acids are in an
unbound or 'free' form that releases greater amounts of these chemicals into
the system much more quickly. Similarly, the methanol present in natural foods
like fruits, for example, is bound to pectin and also has a co-factor, ethanol,
to mediate some of its effects. No such chemical 'back-stops' exist in aspartame. According to neuroscientist Russell Blaylock, the effect of aspartame's breakdown
components on brain function is central to its known adverse effects. Like monosodium
glutamate (MSG) and L-cysteine, an amino acid found in hydrolysed vegetable
protein, aspartame is what is known as an 'excitotoxin' - a chemical transmitter
that allows brain cells to communicate. Blaylock has written a book about them,
Excitotoxins: the taste that kills, and says: 'Even a minute over-concentration
of these chemicals causes the brain cells to become so over-excited that they
very quickly burn themselves out and die.' While aspartame manufacturers say aspartame cannot penetrate the blood-brain
barrier - the tightly-walled membrane that keeps toxins from reaching the brain,
Blaylock counters that a number of factors make the blood-brain barrier more
porous, including exposure to pesticides, hypoglycaemia, all immune diseases
(such as lupus and diabetes), Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, strokes (including
silent strokes) and a whole range of medical drugs. Under these conditions,
ingesting aspartame-laced foods may cause a spike in the level of excitotoxins
that directly reach the brain, thus increasing the likelihood of adverse effects.
Each of aspartame's main constituents is a known neurotoxin capable of producing
a unique array of adverse effects. PHENYLALANINE But according to Dr HJ Roberts, sensitivity to aspartame is not limited to
PKU sufferers. PKU carriers - people who inherited the gene for the disorder
but do not themselves have the condition (around 2 per cent of the general population)
- are also more prone to adverse effects. In Roberts' data there is also a high
incidence of aspartame reactions among the close relatives of patients who cannot
tolerate aspartame. Furthermore, there is evidence that ingesting aspartame,
especially along with carbohydrates, can lead to excess levels of phenylalanine
in the brain even among those not affected by PKU. Although phenylalanine is sometimes used as a treatment for depression, excessive
amounts in the brain can cause levels of the mood regulator serotonin to decrease,
making depression more serious or likely. Build-up of phenylalanine in the brain
can also worsen schizophrenia or make individuals more susceptible to seizures.
Moreover, decrease in serotonin levels can result in carbohydrate craving. This
could explain aspartame's lack of effectiveness as a diet aid. DKP ASPARTIC ACID Humans are five times more sensitive to the effects of aspartic acid (as well
as glutamic acid, found in MSG) than rodents, and 20 times more sensitive than
monkeys, because we concentrate these excitatory amino acids in our blood at
much higher levels and for a longer period of time. Aspartic acid has a cumulative
harmful effect on the endocrine and reproductive systems. Several animal experiments
have shown that excitotoxins can penetrate the placental barrier and reach the
foetus. In addition, as levels of aspartic acid rise in the body so do levels of the
key neurotransmitter norepinephrine (also known as noradrenaline), a 'stress
hormone' that affects parts of the human brain where attention and impulsivity
are controlled. Excessive norepinephrine is associated with symptoms such as
anxiety, agitation and mania. METHANOL The most well known problems from methanol poisoning are vision disorders,
including misty or blurry vision, retinal damage and blindness. Other symptoms
include headaches, Tinnitus, dizziness, nausea, gastrointestinal disturbances,
weakness, vertigo, chills, memory lapses, numbness and shooting pains in the
extremities behavioural disturbances, and neuritis. The EPA tightly controls methanol exposure, allowing only very minute levels
to be present in foods or in environmental exposures. But Blaylock says: 'The
level allowed in NutraSweet is seven times the amount that the EPA will allow
anyone else to use.' FORMALDEHYDE FORMIC ACID Comment, page 49 ASPARTAME: TIME FOR ACTION The story of aspartame is the story of the triumph of corporate might over
scientific rigour. It shines a spotlight on the archaic and unbalanced procedure
for approving food additives. We ingest food additives daily, yet their approval does not require the same
scientific thoroughness as drug approval; and, unlike drugs, there is no requirement
for surveillance of adverse effects that crop up once the additive is in use. Approval does not involve looking at what people are already eating and whether
the proposed substance will interact with other additives. Nor does it take
into account whether the additive exacerbates damage caused by other aspects
of the modern lifestyle (for instance, the neurological damage caused by pesticide
ingestion or exposure). Nor does it look for subtle chronic effects (for instance,
the gradual build-up of methanol in the body with regular aspartame ingestion). There are other problems. Most studies into aspartame are animal studies, which
are notoriously difficult to relate to humans. So why bother performing them
in the first place? The answer is, manufacturers and regulators use animal research
as a double-edged sword. If an animal study reveals no evidence of harm, the
manufacturer can use it to support its case. If it reveals harm, however, the
manufacturer is free to flip-flop into the argument that the results of animal
studies are inconclusive in relation to humans. Faced with inconclusive evidence
regulators will always err on the side of the manufacturer, who has after all
demonstrated proper bureaucratic procedure by funding and submitting its animal
tests for consideration. The approval process for any substance that humans put in their mouths on a
daily basis should be based on solid human data and on the precautionary principle
when such data is not available. But, as it stands, the regulation of food additives
in the US, the UK and elsewhere leaves the burden of proof of harm on average
people, despite the fact that most of us are either too detached or too timid
to complain or simply don't have the energy to take on multinational corporations. The history of aspartame is all the more remarkable because of the number of
motivated people who have refused to accept the mantra 'if it's approved by
the government it must be safe'. Nearly every piece of independent research
shows the outrage of these people, who have had to withstand threats of litigation
and being vilified in the media as 'hysterics', is justified. After 30 years of aspartame's commercial success, it would be easy to conclude
it is too late to act. And yet earlier this year hundreds of products were swept
off supermarket shelves on the chance that they might have contained minuscule
amounts of a potentially carcinogenic dye, Sudan 1. No studies existed to show
that Sudan 1 could cause cancer in humans. The likelihood of any one person's
exposure to Sudan 1 being high enough to produce a tumour was minute. Nevertheless,
on the basis of the precautionary principle, action was taken. Aspartame is not a life-saving drug. It is not even a very effective diet aid,
as shown by widespread obesity in the West. Until the many concerns about it
have been examined in 'corporate-neutral', large-scale, long-term, randomised,
double-blind, placebo-controlled human trials (the gold standard of scientific
proof) it should be taken out of our food. Pages 50-51 SUCRALOSE: LIFE AFTER ASPARTAME Aspartame should never have reached the marketplace. But even if the authorities
were to remove it from sale tomorrow, how much faith should consumers place
in the other artificial sweeteners on the market? PAT THOMAS REPORTS There is not a single artificial sweetener on the market that can claim, beyond
all reasonable doubt, to be safe for humans to consume. Saccharin, cyclamate
and acesulfame-K have all been show to cause cancer in animals. Even the family
of relatively benign sweeteners known as polyols, such as sorbitol and mannitol,
can cause gastric upset if eaten in quantity. NutraSweet believes that its new
aspartame-based sweetener, Neotame, is 'revolutionary'; but, seemingly, it is
only amore stable version of aspartame. This leaves the market wide open for
sucralose. Sucralose, sold commercially as Splenda, was discovered in 1976 by researchers
working for British sugar refiner Tate & Lyle. Four years later, Tate &
Lyle joined forces with Johnson & Johnson to develop and commercialise sucralose
under the auspices of a new company, McNeil Specialty Products (now called McNeil
Nutritionals). Sucralose has been approved by more than 60 regulatory bodies
throughout the world, and is now in more than 3,000 products worldwide. In the
US, Coca-Cola has developed a new diet drink sweetened with Splenda, and other
major soft drink manufacturers are expected to follow suit. Splenda has had to rethink its slogan "made from sugar, so it tastes like
sugar" in the wake of a heated US legal challenge and a recent ruling by
the New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority that said it confused and misled
consumers. While it is true that sugar, or sucrose, is one of the starting materials
for sucralose, its chemical structure is significantly different from that of
sucrose. In a complex chemical process, the sucrose is processed with, among other things,
phosgene (a chemical-warfare agent used during WWI, now a common intermediary
in the production of plastics, pesticides and dyes), and three atoms of chlorine
are selectively substituted for three hydroxyl (hydrogen and oxygen) groups
naturally attached to the sugar molecule. This process produces 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside
(also known as trichlorogalactosucrose or sucralose), a new chemical substance
which Tate & Lyle calls a 'water-soluble chlorocarbohydrate'. Accepting Tate & Lyle's classification of sucralose as a chlorocarbohydrate
at face value raises reasonable concerns about its suitability as a food additive.
Chlorinated carbohydrates belong to a class of chemicals known as chlorocarbons.
This class of chemicals includes a number of notorious human and environmental
poisons, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); aliphatic chlorinated carbohydrates;
aromatic chlorinated carbohydrates such as DDT; organochlorine pesticides such
as aldrin and dieldrin; and aromatic chlorinated ethers such as polychlorinated
dioxins (PCDD) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF). Most of the synthetic chlorinated compounds that we ingest, such as the pesticide
residues in our food and water, bio-accumulate slowly in the body; and many
cause developmental problems in the womb or are carcinogenic. How do we know
that sucralose is any different? Tate & Lyle insists that sucralose passes through the body virtually intact,
and that the tight molecular bond between the chlorine atoms and the sugar molecule
results in a very stable and versatile product that is not metabolised in the
body for calories. This doesn't mean, however, that sucralose is not metabolised
in the body at all, and critics like HJ Roberts argue that, during storage and
in the body, sucralose breaks down into among other things 1,6 dichlorofructose,
a chlorinated compound that has not been adequately tested in humans. Tate & Lyle maintains that sucralose and its breakdown products have been
extensively tested and proven safe for human consumption. The company notes
that in seeking approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), McNeil
Specialty Products submitted more than 110 studies that attested to the safety
of sucralose. BUT CAN CONSUMERS TRUST THIS RESEARCH DATA? The vast majority of studies submitted to the FDA were unpublished animal and
laboratory studies performed by Tate & Lyle itself, and therefore liable
to charges of potentially unacceptable bias. Only five involved human subjects,
and these were short-term, often single-dose, studies that clearly could not
adequately reflect the expected real-world usage of sucralose. After questions
were raised by the FDA about the safety of sucralose for diabetics, and prior
to approval, a further five human studies were eventually submitted. On 1 April
1998 the FDA approved sucralose for limited uses; one year later it approved
it as a general-purpose sweetener. Some questions about sucralose's safety, arising from the data submitted to
the FDA, remain unanswered. These studies included unsettling findings about
animals, which, when exposed to high doses of sucralose, experienced: §
Shrunken thymus and spleen; § Enlarged liver and kidneys; and § Reduced growth rate in adults and newborns. In the FDA's 'final-rule' report, several of the studies submitted by McNeil
were found to have 'inconclusive' results or were 'insufficient' to draw firm
conclusions from them. These included: § A test that examined the clastogenic activity (ability to break chromosomes
apart) of sucralose, and a test that looked for chromosomal aberrations in human
lymphocytes exposed to sucralose'; § A series of three animal genotoxicity studies; and § Laboratory studies using lymphoma tissue from mice which showed that
sucralose was weakly mutagenic' (capable of causing cellular mutations). Clastogenic, genotoxic and mutagenic substances are all potential risk factors
in the development of cancer. In addition to these, three studies that looked at very specific 'anti-fertility'
effects of sucralose and its breakdown products, especially with regard to sperm
production were also deemed insufficient; this is particularly worrying, since
other 'chlorosugars', such as 6-chloroglucose, are currently being studied as
anti-spermatogenic drugs. Furthermore, the administration observed that McNeil had failed to explain
satisfactorily a reduction in body weight seen in animals fed sucralose and
that 'additional study data were needed to resolve this issue'. Ironically for
a product that 'tastes like sugar', McNeil argued that weight loss was due to
the 'reduced palatability of sucralose-containing diets'. FDA reviewers also
found that at mid to high doses there was a trend towards 'decreasing white
blood cell and lymphocyte counts with increasing dose levels of sucralose'.
This was dismissed as having no 'statistical significance' by the FDA; in healthy
animals and humans this may be so, but what happens when already immune-compromised
individuals ingest sucralose? Tate & Lyle says that any lingering concerns about sucralose are unfounded
and that only a small amount, 15-20 per cent, of sucralose is absorbed and broken
down in the human gut. The rest passes through the body unmetabolised and is
excreted in urine and faeces. This in itself provokes important questions. § What happens to sucralose that is flushed down the toilet? Does it remain
stable or react with other substances (for instance, the chlorine used in water-treatment
plants, or microbial life) to form new compounds? § Is sucralose or any resulting chemical compound it may form safe for
the environment? Is it harmful to aquatic life or wild animals? § Will sucralose begin to appear in our water supply, in the way that
certain drugs have, silently increasing our exposure to it? And would that increased
exposure be safe? PUBLISH AND BE SUED It's a tactic that worked well for Monsanto, which certainly used legal pressure
against anyone who criticised NutraSweet. Recently, the publisher of the local
newspaper the Brighton Argus considered it prudent to publish an apology composed
by Tate & Lyle (or their lawyers) or face a legal action for defamation
and loss of sales after printing an article suggesting that sucralose was harmful
to humans. Tate & Lyle's first high-profile victim, however, was mercola.com - one
of the world's most visited internet health sites. Run by Dr Joseph Mercola,
the site has been a vocal critic of sucralose for years. Instead of carrying
freely available information on sucralose that might stimulate spirited public
debate, it now carries the following message: 'Attorneys acting on behalf of the manufacturers of sucralose, Tate & Lyle
Plc, based in London, England, have requested that the information contained
on this page not be made available to internet users in England.' At this point, concerned consumers should be asking themselves several questions.
Does the story of sucralose sound familiar? If sucralose is safe beyond any
reasonable doubt, why is there such a fervent need to suppress any criticism
of it? Finally, whom do such tactics really serve? Do they serve the consumer
and the principles of choice, information, safety and redress? Or do they serve
the corporate machine and its need to keep generating profits without taking
responsibility for the human cost of doing so? |
|