Archives >	Printer Format E-mail Information
July 7, 2006

And Now, Toxic iPods

By Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H.

Earlier this year, legislation was proposed in California to "protect the public health" by banning iPods unless they are redesigned to be free of "harmful toxins." Assemblywoman Lori Saldana would make iPods illegal in the state unless the manufacturers completely redesign them to remove any traces of lead, cadmium, chromium, mercury, and other chemicals. Californians Against Waste, which endorses this anti-iPod legislation, argued that "the brew of toxic substances (in iPods) can damage nervous, kidney, and reproductive systems, while some of the metals contain carcinogens."

I recall a very prescient cartoon years ago showing a naked cartoon character gazing into his empty closet, casting his arms into the air in frustration and exclaiming: "Oh my, now they've banned everything!"

The sad truth is that we are heading very much in that direction. The sadder truth is that American consumers are either unaware or unperturbed (or both) by the accelerating number of claims about technology making us sick -- claims that are almost all scientifically unfounded. For example, currently accused of causing a spectrum of ailments, from cancer to neurological damage to learning disabilities, are: the sugar substitute aspartame, acrylamide in fried carbohydrate-rich foods like French fries, preservatives in life-saving vaccines, Teflon on frying pans, chemicals in cosmetics, fire-retardants, wood-preserving preparations, farmed salmon and other seafood, and genetically-modified and irradiated food.

Those alleging health threats propose interventions including outright bans or warning labels on these products -- even if there is no evidence whatsoever that a public health risk exists. In almost all the cases, either the claims are based on high-dose laboratory animal tests of limited relevance to humans or -- in cases where a chemical (like lead) can be a hazard to humans if the exposure is high enough -- the actual exposure in question is too low to have health consequences.

The myriad claims (and related regulatory initiatives and threatened litigation) about "toxins" and "carcinogens" in food, air, water and consumer products produce absolutely no outrage among consumers -- although maybe the California war against iPods will prove to be the exception. The last (and only) expression of consumer outrage against such scaremongering that I recall was in March of 1977 when the Food and Drug Administration announced its intent to ban what was then our only artificial sweetener, saccharin. Consumers flooded Congress with letters of complaint, and the FDA-proposed ban was overruled.

But would there be a similar consumer protest if aspartame or Teflon or life-saving fire retardant preparations were banned? Probably not, and here's why: First, consumers can rationalize that we can do without something like NutraSweet--because we have alternatives like Splenda and saccharin. Second, instead of defending the safety of their products, manufacturers are increasingly, albeit quietly, reformulating any product under attack, launching it as a new and "safer" version -- and passing all the associated costs on to us. That way, the corporation can boast of "social responsibility," although what they are doing is simply "protecting" us from a health risk that does not exist and having all of us foot the bill for their efforts. This creates no health benefits and encourages activists to pursue their fear campaigns against even more products.

I have the opportunity in my position in public health education to speak frequently with representatives of different corporations -- makers of food, pharmaceuticals, energy, consumer products, cosmetics -- to discuss their public health concerns. What I find is that each of these corporate representatives is concerned about the attack on his or her corporation and developing strategies to counter the scary health story of the moment.

But it is time for corporations that are under assault by junk science to come together and understand their common problem. Cosmetics, sugar substitutes, Teflon -- and now iPod -- manufacturers may at first blush appear to have nothing in common, but they are all victims of a handful of radical environmentals who distort science to promote their own anti-technology, anti-business agenda. By working together to understand the strategies and tactics of their critics, businesses would be in a far superior position to create an effective defense, one that would benefit all American consumers.

Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., MPH, is president of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).

See also: our previous article asking what would happen if San Francisco banned wifi for "health" reasons.

Rich Murray (July 9, 2006)

Local media plays a major role in alerting the public about healthy and safe diet. It is unprecedented for major mainstream media, The York Times on February 12, to present a full-page article with 2 color photos that, instead of parroting industry PR spin, gives plenty of alarming facts about aspartame. The European Food Science Agency did decide in May to reject the Ramazzini findings, citing very high levels of infections in the rats -- however, EFSA, as usual, ignored many recent mainstream research findings, trying to cast the issue of aspartame toxicity as a settled issue, instead of raising an alarm for immediate public warnings and comprehensive research by independent teams, not funded by vested interests. Here is the first official agency anywhere in the world to reject aspartame: Connecticut bans artificial sweeteners in schools, Nancy Barnes, New Milford Times: Murray 2006.05.25 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1341 ******************************************************* http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1345 EFSA, European Food Safety Authority says Ramazzini aspartame cancer study is flawed, while Soffritti is half way through second huge study, Felicity Lawrence, www.guardian.co.uk: Murray 2006.05.15 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1339 Obfuscation of the iatrogenic autism epidemic re mercury in kid vaccines, Kenneth P. Stoller, Pediatrics 2006.05.06; aspartame toxicity 2005.11.10: Comet assay can test genotoxicity, EFSA admits ignorance re methanol residues, Murray 2006.05.10 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1335 Morando Soffritti of Ramazzini Foundation rebuts EFSA AFC critique, www.laleva.org: Murray 2006.05.05 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1334 European Food Safety Authority discounts Ramazzini study re many cancers in 1800 rats fed lifetime doses of aspartame: Calorie Control Council press release: Murray 2006.05.05 http://www.efsa.eu.int/press_room/press_release/1472_en.html http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/afc/afc_opinions/1471_en.html http://www.efsa.eu.int/press_room/media_events/catindex_en.html http://www.flyonthewall.com/FlyBroadcast/efsa.eu.int/AspartamePressConference/ http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/afc/afc_opinions/1471/afc_op_ej356_aspartame_en1.pdf http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1338 Aspartame: The healthy option? Richard A. Lovett, The New Scientist 2006.05.04: Murray 2006.05.08 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/957 safety of aspartame Part 1/2 12.4.2: EC HCPD-G SCF: Murray 2003.01.12 rmforall EU Scientific Committee on Food, a whitewash http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1045 http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/scf2002-response.htm Mark Gold exhaustively critiques European Commission Scientific Committee on Food re aspartame ( 2002.12.04 ): 59 pages, 230 references http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1340 aspartame groups and books: updated research review of 2004.07.16: Murray 2006.05.11 NIH NLM ToxNet HSDB Hazardous Substances Data Bank inadequate re aspartame (methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid): Murray 2006.07.07 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1349 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1353 carcinogenic effect of inhaled formaldehyde, Federal Institute of Risk Assessment, Germany -- same safe level as for Canada: Murray 2006.06.02 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1352 Home sickness -- indoor air often worse, as our homes seal in pollutants [one is formaldehyde, also from the 11% methanol part of aspartame], Megan Gillis, WinnipegSun.com: Murray 2006.06.01 "Of course, everyone chooses, as a natural priority, to actively find, quickly share, and positively act upon the facts about healthy and safe food, drink, and environment." Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall@comcast.net 505-501-2298 1943 Otowi Road Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages group with 73 members, 1,355 posts in a public, searchable archive http://RMForAll.blogspot.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1143 methanol (formaldehyde, formic acid) disposition: Bouchard M et al, full plain text, 2001: substantial sources are degradation of fruit pectins, liquors, aspartame, smoke: Murray 2005.04.02 ******************************************************* http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1302 The Lowdown on Sweet? (Ramazzini Foundation, M Soffritti proof that aspartame causes cancers), Melanie Warner, The New York Times: sucralose: Prof. DL Katz: Murray 2006.02.12 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/business/yourmoney/12sweet.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Article 2 of 26 in Business Business Section 3, page 1 and 7 = one full newspaper page of text The Lowdown on Sweet? By MELANIE WARNER Published: February 12, 2006 WHEN Dr. Morando Soffritti, a cancer researcher in Bologna, Italy, saw the results of his team's seven-year study on aspartame, he knew he was about to be injected into a bitter controversy over this sweetener, one of the most contentiously debated substances ever added to foods and beverages. Pigi Cipelli for The New York Times Dr. Morando Soffritti, who led tests of aspartame on 1,900 rats, calls it a possible carcinogen. [ photo ] Pigi Cipelli for The New York Times A study conducted at an Italian cancer research center, above, has rekindled the debate on aspartame. [ photo ] [ See also: Aspartame is sold under the brand names Nutra-Sweet and Equal and is found in such popular products as Diet Coke, Diet Pepsi, Diet Snapple and Sugar Free Kool-Aid. Hundreds of millions of people consume it worldwide. And Dr. Soffritti's study concluded that aspartame may cause the dreaded "c" word: cancer. The research found that the sweetener was associated with unusually high rates of lymphomas, leukemias and other cancers in rats that had been given doses of it starting at what would be equivalent to four to five 20-ounce bottles of diet soda a day for a 150-pound person. The study, which involved 1,900 laboratory rats and cost $1 million, was conducted at the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences, a nonprofit organization that studies cancer-causing substances; Dr. Soffritti is its scientific director. The findings, first released last July, prompted a flurry of criticism from the Calorie Control Council, a trade group for makers of artificial sweeteners that has spent the last 25 years trying to quell fears about aspartame. It said Dr. Soffritti's study flew in the face of four earlier cancer studies that aspartame's creator, G. D. Searle & Company, had underwritten and used to persuade the Food and Drug Administration to approve it for human consumption. "Aspartame has been safely consumed for more than a quarter of a century and is one of the most thoroughly studied food additives," read one news release from the council. At the same time, Dr. Soffritti's findings have energized a vociferous group of researchers, health advocates and others who say they are convinced that aspartame is a toxin associated with a variety of health troubles, including headaches, dizziness, blindness and seizures. DR. SOFFRITTI, who oversees 180 scientists and researchers in 30 countries who collaborate on toxin research, says that since last July, he has been contacted by some of these critics, including a member of Parliament in Britain and a number of conspiracy theorists, some of whom say they have suffered from "aspartame poisoning" and filled Web pages with cloak-and-dagger speculation about why the F.D.A. approved aspartame for sale a quarter-century ago. No regulatory agency has yet acted on Dr. Soffritti's findings, although Roger Williams, a member of Parliament, called for a ban on aspartame in Britain last December. Last month, the European Food Safety Authority, an advisory body for the European Commission, began to review 900 pages of data from Dr. Soffritti; the goal is to finish by May. A commission spokesman, Philip Tod, said it was too early to know what the next steps would be if the scientists reviewing the data concurred with Dr. Soffritti's findings. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration says it has also taken note of the study, which is available online ( http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2005/8711/abstract.html ) and is scheduled to be published next month in a medical journal financed by the National Institutes of Health. F.D.A. officials say that they, too, intend to conduct a thorough review. But both the F.D.A. and the European Commission have cautioned that there is no need for people to avoid aspartame. "We don't see any concerns at this stage," said George H. Pauli, associate director for science policy in the F.D.A.'s Office of Food Additive Safety. "We've gone through a humongous amount of data on aspartame over the years." Putting restrictions on aspartame would come at a significant cost. Food companies and consumers around the world bought about $570 million worth of it last year. New regulatory action on aspartame would also jeopardize the billions of dollars worth of products sold with it. Already, in the United States, many companies are opting to use sucralose, or Splenda, in their new low-calorie products, in part because it is less controversial. [ Dr. Soffritti's journal article on his findings is at nytimes.com/business ] Lance Collins, chief executive of Fuze Beverage in Englewood Cliffs, N.J., said that safety concerns about aspartame were a "major contributing factor" in his decision to use sucralose in his tea and juice drinks. Sucralose, however, is made by under a patent by just one company, Tate & Lyle of London, and is in desperately short supply. Dr. Soffritti, who has spent 28 years doing research on potential carcinogens, said he was trying to steer clear of the growing political maelstrom. But he added that he was concerned about the large numbers of people who use aspartame, particularly children and pregnant women. "If something is a carcinogen in animals," he said, "then it should not be added to food, especially if there are so many people that are going to be consuming it." Lyn Nabors, executive vice president of the Calorie Control Council, said Dr. Soffritti's study was not valid because the rats used in it had been allowed to live longer than the two-year standard established by the United States government's National Toxicology Program. "It's difficult to determine if the cancers you find are due to something else," Ms. Nabors said. "Just as in humans, the rat's body slows down later in life, and the aging process causes all kinds of things." But John R. Bucher, deputy director of environmental toxicology at the National Toxicology Program, the government's agency for research on toxic chemicals, called the design of the Ramazzini study "impressive" and "thorough," and said that he did not think the fact that rats were allowed to live until their natural deaths had skewed the results. Dr. Jose Russo, director of the breast cancer and environmental research center at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, says that lifetime studies are "ideal" but that they are not done often, partly because they are more expensive than limited-time tests. Dr. Russo, however, criticized the Ramazzini study for not allowing outside pathologists to analyze all of the tissue samples where cancerous tumors were found. "People need to see every tumor," he said. Dr. Bucher of the National Toxicology Program said pathologists at the program, with which Ramazzini collaborates, looked at 70 tumor slides. But with the study producing over 9,000 tumor-containing slides, James Swenberg, professor of environmental science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says that this falls short of standard practice. While Dr. Soffritti's methods have drawn some criticism, the Ramazzini cancer lab, which is financed by private bank foundations, governments and 17,000 individual members, has earned considerable credibility since it was founded in 1971 for its pioneering research on chemicals. It was the first research body to do studies showing that vinyl chloride and the gasoline additive methyl tertiary-butyl ether, or M.T.B.E., are carcinogenic, research that eventually encouraged the United States to strictly regulate vinyl chloride and that led 21 states to ban M.T.B.E. Dr. Soffritti said he was inspired to look at aspartame because of what he calls "inadequacies" in the cancer studies done by Searle in the 1970's. He said that those studies did not involve large-enough numbers of rats and did not allow them to live long enough to develop cancer. The Ramazzini study was conducted with 1,900 rats, as opposed to the 280 to 688 rodents used in Searle's studies, and the rats lived for up to three years instead of being sacrificed after two, which is the human equivalent of age 53. "Cancer is a disease of the third part of life," Dr. Soffritti said. "You have 75 percent of cancer diagnoses for people who are 55 years old or older. So if you truncate the experiments at 110 weeks and the rats are supposed to survive until 150 to 160 weeks, it means you avoid the development of cancer at the time when cancer would be starting to arise." Others have also challenged Searle's studies. Documents from the F.D.A. and records from the Federal Register indicate that, in the years before the F.D.A. approved aspartame, the agency had serious concerns about the accuracy and credibility of Searle's aspartame studies. From 1977 to 1985 - during much of the approval process - Searle was headed by Donald H. Rumsfeld, who is now the secretary of defense; Searle was acquired by Monsanto in 1985. Monsanto later spun Searle's assets out into two companies: Merisant, which owns the brands Equal and Canderel, and NutraSweet, which is owned by J. W. Childs Equity Partners, an investment firm in Boston. A 1976 report from an F.D.A. task force, for example, found that Searle's studies on aspartame and several of the company's pharmaceutical drugs were "poorly conceived, carelessly executed, or inaccurately analyzed or reported." It cited what it called a lack of training by the scientists analyzing tissue samples, a "substantial" loss of information because of tissue decomposition and inadequate monitoring of feeding doses. In response to the report, the F.D.A. asked the Justice Department to open a grand jury investigation into whether two of Searle's aspartame studies had been falsified or were incomplete. In a 33-page letter in 1977, Richard A. Merrill, the F.D.A.'s chief counsel at the time, recommended to Samuel K. Skinner, then the United States attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, that a grand jury investigate the company, which was based in the Chicago suburb of Skokie, for "concealing material facts and making false statements in reports of animal studies conducted to establish the safety of the drug Aldactone and the food additive aspartame." A grand jury was never convened, however. Shortly after the letter was sent, Mr. Skinner left the Justice Department to join Sidley & Austin, a law firm that represented Searle. After 12 years at that firm, now Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood, Mr. Skinner was appointed to be President George H. W. Bush's transportation secretary; later he became his chief of staff. In 1978, a year and half after Mr. Skinner left the United States attorney's office in Chicago, his deputy, William F. Conlon, also left to work at Sidley & Austin. Mr. Skinner, now a lawyer at Greenberg Traurig LLP, said that as soon as he began looking for a new job and interviewing with Sidley & Austin, he recused himself from the Searle investigation. Mr. Conlon, who is still at Sidley & Austin, did not return phone calls. Over the next few years, Searle's petition for aspartame approval led to much disagreement within the F.D.A. The commissioner at the time, Alexander M. Schmidt, convened a three-member public board of inquiry, which concluded that one of Searle's studies on rats showed an increase in brain tumors from aspartame. The board members - all of them scientists at universities - voted to withhold approval of aspartame until more studies were done. But yet another F.D.A. review, this one of Searle's tumor tissue slides - paid for by Searle and conducted by an academic group that is now defunct - concluded that Searle's studies had demonstrated that aspartame was safe. In 1981, a new F.D.A. commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes, concurred with this assessment and granted approval to aspartame shortly after President Ronald Reagan appointed him to run the agency. And in a move that fueled the conspiracy theories, Mr. Hayes left the F.D.A. a little more than a year after approving aspartame and took a job as a consultant to Burson-Marsteller, which at the time was Searle's public relations agency. Mr. Hayes did not return calls seeking comment. Ms. Nabors of the Calorie Control Council said that suggestions or innuendoes that Searle was trying to influence government officials with lucrative job offers were baseless. Artificial sweeteners are unfairly targeted for suspicion, she said, citing the government's decision to ban the sweetener cyclamate in 1969 after studies showed that it caused cancer in animals. "Cyclamate was banned, saccharin was required to have a warning label for a while, and there's all these conspiracy theories on aspartame," she said. She added that there were more than 100 published scientific studies showing no adverse effects from aspartame, and said that in 2002, the European Commission reviewed many of these studies and reaffirmed the sweetener's safety. The bulk of the studies investigated neurological effects; none were animal cancer studies, which are lengthy and expensive. In any case, critics say that most of these studies were financed either directly or indirectly by manufacturers of aspartame, and that the results of aspartame studies tend to depend on who paid for them. In an analysis of 166 articles published in medical journals from 1980 to 1985, Dr. Ralph G. Walton, a professor of psychiatry at Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine found that all 74 studies that were financed by the industry attested to sweetener's safety. Of the 92 independently funded articles, 84 identified adverse health effects. "Whenever you have studies that were not funded by the industry, some sort of problem is identified," said Dr. Walton, adding that he has not looked at studies performed since 1985. "It's far too much for it to be a coincidence." Dr. Walton, who, like some other psychiatrists, has studied aspartame from a neurological perspective, said he had also seen problems from the sweetener firsthand. At Safe Harbor Behavioral Health, a mental health facility in Erie, Pa., where he is clinical director, Dr. Walton said he had observed that for many people with mood disorders, such as depression or bipolar disorder, aspartame exacerbates the condition. "For people with panic disorders, for instance, we've seen that when we eliminate aspartame, it's much easier to control their illness," he said. "The number of panic attacks goes down." Dr. Walton and others say that this is probably attributable to aspartame's phenyalanine component. (Aspartame is made up of two amino acids, phenyalanine and aspartic acid.) He said that an excess of phenyalanine could upset the body's balance of neurotransmitters, causing a range of neurological symptoms. Defenders of aspartame often point out that phenyalanine is naturally present in many protein-intensive foods. But Dr. William M. Pardridge, a professor of endocrinology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, says that when it comes from food, phenyalanine is absorbed into the brain more slowly. "If your blood phenyalanine level was increased five times, in my view there would be a safety concern," Dr. Pardridge said. "The question is whether aspartame use could ever increase levels that much, and the answer is yes. We've known that for 20 years." Dr. Soffritti said he had not studied the effects of phenyalanine. He theorized that the tumors in his study were related to the methanol, or wood alcohol, that is produced as the body metabolizes aspartame. When the body breaks down methanol, the result is formaldehyde, a known carcinogen. "I know that when I treat animals with methanol, you end up with lymphomas and leukemias," he said. BUT Dr. Kenneth E. McMartin, a methanol expert and professor of pharmacology, toxicology and neuroscience at the Louisiana State University Medical Center, said he believed that it was unlikely that someone could consume enough aspartame to let harmful levels of formaldehyde build up in the body. Dr. Soffritti said he thought that more research and open debate were needed on whether aspartame was a carcinogen. "It is very important to have scientists who are independent and not funded by industry looking at this," he said. Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nutrition advocacy group, said he did not think that Dr. Soffritti's study could be considered definitive, but that it should prompt an "urgent re-examination. "For a chemical that is used by hundreds of millions of people around the world, it should be absolutely safe," Mr. Jacobson said. "There shouldn't be a cloud of doubt." ******************************************************* http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html LETTERS TO THE EDITOR E-mail to letters@nytimes.com. OP-ED/EDITORIAL For information on Op-Ed submissions, call (212) 556-1831 or send article to oped@nytimes.com To write to the editorial page editor, send to editorial@nytimes.com. NEWS DEPARTMENT To send comments and suggestions (about news coverage only) or to report errors that call for correction, e-mail nytnews@nytimes.com or leave a message at 1-888-NYT-NEWS. The Editors executive-editor@nytimes.com managing-editor@nytimes.com The Newsroom news-tips@nytimes.com ; the-arts@nytimes.com ; bizday@nytimes.com ; foreign@nytimes.com ; metro@nytimes.com ; national@nytimes.com ; sports@nytimes.com ; washington@nytimes.com ; PUBLIC EDITOR To reach Byron Calame, who represents the readers, e-mail public@nytimes.com or call (212) 556-7652. TO WRITE THE PUBLISHER OR PRESIDENT Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman & Publisher: publisher@nytimes.com Scott H. Heekin-Canedy, President, General Manager president@nytimes.com ******************************************************* http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1303 David L. Katz MD comments briefly with Diane Sawyer on ABC Good Morning America re Ramazzini aspartame cancer study: excellent opus at Yale U: mainstream research on aspartame (methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid) toxicity: Murray 2006.02.14 [ See also: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1304 to David L. Katz MD, Yale U: M. Soffritti (Ramazzini team) did not mention that humans are about 10X more vulnerable to aspartame than are rats -- same results with methanol and formaldehyde in 2002 -- also human ADI levels must be reduced hugely: Katz: Murray 2006.02.15 ] http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health/story?id=1611955&page=1 Artificial Sweeteners: Are They Safe? Animals in Study Ingested Huge Amounts of the Chemical Aspartame, the artificial sweetener in Equal, is used in many products around the world. (AP Photo) Aspartame Health Scare Feb. 13, 2006 - The debate over the safety of artificial sweeteners intensified over the weekend, when an article in The New York Times said Aspartame, the most popular sugar replacement in America, might cause cancer in rats. Aspartame, which was invented in 1965, is found in more than 6,000 products, and most people know it by its trade names, NutraSweet and Equal. It is estimated that 200 million people consume Aspartame so if it is unsafe, the effects could be far-reaching. Dr. David L. Katz, ABC News' medical contributor, said that people should not jump to conclusions based on the rat study. [ david.katz@yale.edu; katzdl@pol.net ] "If it caused any significant harm, we would know about it," he said. "If there was any potential for harm, it's a very low level because of how widespread the use is and because it's been around long enough." Katz, a Yale professor and the author of the "Flavor Point Diet," said that the latest study, which comes from Italy, demonstrated a "statistically significant increase in lymphomas and leukemias over three years." The Italian researcher studied the effects of about five sodas a day worth of Aspartame on each of the 1,900 rats - that is the equivalent of 100 ounces of soda for a 150-pound person every day. The Italian doctor also increased the time the rats ingested the chemical. Katz said: "This is an animal study. There's [nothing] to indicate this is the same threat in humans." Katz said that rats had short life spans and were naturally more susceptible to cancer. He also pointed out that even healthy foods like broccoli, spinach and beans contained some potentially carcinogenic compounds. Considering that the average American drinks 837 sodas each year, equivalent to 46 gallons -- and 27 percent of that is diet soda, sweetened with artificial sweetener -- the new study has alarmed many people. There are alternatives to Aspartame like saccharin (Sweet'N Low) and sucralose (Splenda), which Katz said were not the same chemically, but served the same purpose. "We seem to have the notion in our society that science is something to be suspicious of and the natural stuff is safe," Katz said. "But we know peanuts are dangerous to some people, and we never discuss banning peanuts." Katz said there were bigger reasons to be wary of artificial sweeteners. "I think artificial sweeteners are harmful and, not because of the cancer risk, but because as a class they are 300 times more sweet than sugar," he said. "You may not get calories from diet soda, but because you drink it, you develop a sweet tooth and have these cravings." If people are worried about getting cancer, Katz said, they should keep their weight down and avoid tobacco. Katz said that the major conclusion he drew from the Italian rat study was that rats and humans were both more likely to develop cancer toward the end of their lives. "More cancer was seen in this study, and the study's author, Dr. Morando Soffriti, was saying if you're studying cancer, it makes more sense to look at the stage of life when the cancer is likely to crop up." ******************************************************* "Both PepsiCo and Coca-Cola have opted to use the sweetener for new colas. This month, for example, Pepsi is introducing PepsiOne with Splenda and Coke will make a new version of Diet Coke sweetened with Splenda that will be in stores in several months." http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/04/splenda_the_art.html Splenda, the Artificial Sweetener, Adds a Brown Sugar Blend By MELANIE WARNER Published: April 4, 2005 Splenda, the popular artificial sweetener, is going brown. The manufacturer of Splenda, the brand name given to the chemical sweetener sucralose, is releasing a version that can be used as a replacement for brown sugar. It will be called Splenda Brown Sugar Blend. "People can use it for baking their favorite recipe or sprinkle it on top of cereal the same way they would use brown sugar," said John Leahy, marketing director for Splenda at McNeil Nutritionals, the division of Johnson & Johnson that sells and markets the sweetener. Made from a blend of regular brown sugar and sucralose that has been colored brown, Splenda's brown sugar will give consumers a 50 percent reduction in calories because a smaller amount will be needed for baking and other purposes. For instance, if a recipe calls for one cup of brown sugar, Mr. Leahy said, only a half-cup of Splenda brown sugar will be necessary. Splenda brown sugar will come in one-pound and two-pound bags when sales start in September. The popularity of Splenda took its manufacturers by surprise last year. In November, Tate & Lyle, the British ingredients company that makes sucralose, told its customers that its supply of sweetener would have to be rationed because of high demand. McNeil markets Splenda in the United States under a contract with Tate & Lyle. Over the last year and a half, nearly every major food company has incorporated sucralose into one or more of its products. Both PepsiCo and Coca-Cola have opted to use the sweetener for new colas. This month, for example, Pepsi is introducing PepsiOne with Splenda and Coke will make a new version of Diet Coke sweetened with Splenda that will be in stores in several months. Splenda brown sugar is likely to add to the legal debate brewing over Splenda's marketing campaign. The Sugar Association, which represents the sugar industry; Merisant, the maker of the aspartame-based artificial sweetener NutraSweet; and a lawyer in San Diego have filed lawsuits against McNeil contending that Splenda's marketing misleads consumers. "The average consumer assumes that Splenda is related to sugar," said Howard M. Rubinstein, the San Diego lawyer. "They're exploiting the fear some people have around other artificial sweeteners like NutraSweet and presenting this as a more natural alternative." Mr. Leahy said that its marketing for the new brown sugar product would "remain consistent with Splenda's existing brand communication." Neither the Sugar Association, based in Washington, nor Merisant, which is based in Chicago, would comment. If Splenda brown sugar catches on with consumers, it is likely to accelerate the decline of old-fashioned sugar. Sales of both white and brown sugar in the United States have been declining for years. Sales have dropped 10 percent since 1999, Mintel International, a research firm based in Chicago, has reported. ******************************************************* February 12, 2006 Any unsuspected source of methanol, which the body always quickly and largely turns into formaldehyde and then formic acid, must be monitored, especially for high responsibility occupations, often with night shifts, such as pilots and nuclear reactor operators. In particular, the next review gives many recent mainstream peer-reviewed studies that show formaldehyde, always inevitably derived in the body from any methanol source, including aspartame, causes endothelial injury, ie, diabetic neuropathy -- among the most serious and complex complications of diabetes. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1263 many studies on endothelial injury (diabetic neuropathy) by adducts of formaldehyde derived from methylamine from many of the same sources as also supply methanol (formaldehyde), including aspartame: PH Yu et al: DJ Conklin et al: Murray 2005.12.04 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1237 ubiquitous potent uncontrolled co-factors in nutrition research are formaldehyde from wood and tobacco smoke and many sources, including from methanol in dark wines and liquors, in pectins in fruits and vegetables, and in aspartame: Murray 2006.01.13 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/925 aspartame puts formaldehyde adducts into tissues, Part 1/2 full text Trocho & Alemany 1998.06.26 Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona : Murray 2002.12.22 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1250 aspartame causes cancer in rats at levels approved for humans, Morando Soffritti et al, Ramazzini Foundation, Italy & National Toxicology Program of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 2005.11.17 Env. Health Pers. 35 pages: Murray http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1271 combining aspartame and quinoline yellow, or MSG and brilliant blue, harms nerve cells, eminent C. Vyvyan Howard et al, 2005 education.guardian.co.uk, Felicity Lawrence: Murray 2005.12.21 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1279 all three aspartame metabolites harm human erythrocyte [red blood cell] membrane enzyme activity, KH Schulpis et al, two studies in 2005, Athens, Greece, 2005.12.14: 2004 research review, RL Blaylock: Murray 2006.01.14 As a medical layman, I suggest that evidence mandates immediate exploration of the role of these ubiquitious, potent formaldehyde sources as co-factors in epidemiology, research, diagnosis, and treatment in a wide variety of disorders. Folic acid, from fruits and vegetables, plays a role by powerfully protecting against methanol (formaldehyde) toxicity. Many common drugs, such as aspirin, interfere with folic acid, as do some mutations in relevant enzymes. The majority of aspartame reactors are female. In mutual service, Rich Murray ******************************************************* "Of course, everyone chooses, as a natural priority, to actively find, quickly share, and act upon the facts about healthy and safe food, drink, and environment." Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall@comcast.net 505-501-2298 1943 Otowi Road Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages group with 151 members, 1,302 posts in a public, searchable archive http://RMForAll.blogspot.com http://AspartameNM.blogspot.com Dark wines and liquors, as well as aspartame, provide similar levels of methanol, above 100 mg daily, for long-term heavy users, 2 L daily, about 6 cans. Methanol is inevitably largely turned into formaldehyde, and thence largely into formic acid. It is the major cause of the dreaded symptoms of "next morning" hangover. Fully 11% of aspartame is methanol -- 1,120 mg aspartame in 2 L diet soda, almost six 12-oz cans, gives 123 mg methanol (wood alcohol). If 30% of the methanol is turned into formaldehyde, the amount of formaldehyde, 37 mg, is 18.5 times the USA EPA limit for daily formaldehyde in drinking water, 2.0 mg in 2 L average daily drinking water. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1108 faults in 1999 July EPA 468-page formaldehyde profile: Elzbieta Skrzydlewska PhD, Assc. Prof., Medical U. of Bialystok, Poland, abstracts -- ethanol, methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid, acetaldehyde, lipid peroxidation, green tea, aging: Murray 2004.08.08 2005.07.11 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/835 ATSDR: EPA limit 1 ppm formaldehyde in drinking water July 1999: Murray 2002.05.30 rmforall Aspartame is made of phenylalanine (50% by weight) and aspartic acid (39%), both ordinary amino acids, bound loosely together by methanol (wood alcohol, 11%). The readily released methanol from aspartame is within hours turned by the liver into formaldehyde and then formic acid, both potent, cumulative toxins. ******************************************************* http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1303 David L. Katz MD comments briefly with Diane Sawyer on ABC Good Morning America re Ramazzini aspartame cancer study: excellent opus at Yale U: mainstream research on aspartame (methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid) toxicity: Murray 2006.02.14 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1304 to David L. Katz MD, Yale U: M. Soffritti (Ramazzini team) did not mention that humans are about 10X more vulnerable to aspartame than are rats -- same results with methanol and formaldehyde in 2002 -- also human ADI levels must be reduced hugely: Katz: Murray 2006.02.15 ] *******************************************************

Alan (July 10, 2006)

Just what is the safe level of consumption of iPods? Personally, I like the Zen Micro. Maybe because the iPod is associated with Apple, more consumers tend to eat them. The poor misguided politician trying to save residents of California seems to be following the rules of RoHS. This is the primarily European, but spreading World wide, effort to ban "toxic" lead and other materials from electronics. Please note the deafening silence from consumer electronics manufacturers. Why? Whiskers. Tin Whislers, to be exact. See: http://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/ These microscopic threads of metal cause electronics to die prematurely. From spacecraft to nuclear reactors to pacemakers to iPods (and even Zen Micros), electronic circuitry in these items can die an early death. Far earlier a death than any human will die by having an iPod around. They happen when lead is removed from solder. But hey, why complain? If an iPod dies, the consumer will buy another (no regular warranty will last long enough to cover a tin whisker event, typically several years). Not only is there the possibility of selling more, the consumer electronics companies can claim to be "green." Someone is more likely to die because of failed electonics in a car or reactor than anyone exposed to an iPod.

Dave (July 14, 2006)

Typically I find that mainstream news stories are shifting attention away from aspartame's real danger. Many times the articles show studies that aspartame does not cause cancer. This might be a diversion tactic. Aspartame probably doesn't cause cancer, but it probably does cause other health problems. When I was a kid, I thought cancer was the only illness that toxic substances cause. Similarly, many news stories and discussions showing strong evidence that aspartame doesn't cause cancer, such leads people to believe that aspartame is safe. It might be the "truth" that aspartame doesn't cause cancer, but it is not the "whole truth" about aspartame's toxic effects on the body. Another excellent, scientific-based article including a personal (non-scientific) report of a bad aspartame reaction at http://www.ChampHealth.com/aspartametoxicity.html Best wishes, Dave

TO VIEW AND MAKE COMMENTS ON THE ARTICLES ABOVE (OR OTHERS), "SIGN IN" AT THE RIGHT MARGIN.

AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH  |  1995 BROADWAY, 2ND FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10023-5860
TELEPHONE: (212) 362-7044  |  FAX: (212) 362-4919  |  E-MAIL: GEN. ORGANIZATION MAILBOX: acsh (at) acsh.org; IND. STAFFER: [last name or last name followed by first initial]@acsh.org 

Copyright © 1997-2004 American Council on Science and Health  |  Privacy Policy  |  All Rights Reserved.

Founded in 1978, ACSH is a consumer advocacy organization directed and advised by over 350 physicians, scientists and policy advisors. ACSH promotes the use of sound, peer-reviewed science in the formation of a full  spectrum of  public health policies, including those related to food, pharmaceuticals, environmental chemicals, lifestyle factors, consumer products and terrorism preparedness and response.