Aspartame Is Dangerous For Everyone

[Guest guest]

Aspartame Is Dangerous For Everyone JoAnn Guest Aug 20, 2005 15:09 PDT

 

 

--

 

" I know that the average consumer has a devil-may-care

something-is-gonna-kill-me attitude... but they don't

realize that before THIS stuff kills they are going to

have a miserable declining existence with LOTS of pain

and other problems (not to mention cancer, tumors, and

maybe even alzheimer or similar things) before death

solves the problem. "

- An Aspartame Victim

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/damage.txt

 

Long-Term Damage

----------------

It appears to cause slow, silent damage in those unfortunate enough

to not have immediate reactions and a reason to avoid it. It may take

one year, five years, 10 years, or 40 years, but it seems to cause

some reversible and some irreversible changes in health over long-term

use.

 

Brain Cancer

------------

Aspartame caused large brain tumors in life-long animal experiments

at a dose that could be considered within the " Acceptable Daily

Intake " limit after adjusting for differences in metabolism of

aspartame's breakdown products between humans and rodents.

 

Not long after the FDA Commissioner went to work as a consultant

for the PR firm of the aspartame manufacturer, FDA Investigator

and Toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross stated the following:

 

In view of all these indications that the cancer-

causing potential of aspartame is a matter that

had been established way beyond any reasonable

doubt, one can ask: What is the reason for the

apparent refusal by the FDA to invoke for this

food additive the so-called Delaney Amendment to

the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act? Is it not clear

beyond any shadow of a doubt that aspartame had

caused brain tumors or brain cancer in animals,

and is this not sufficient to satisfy the

provisions of that particular section of the law?

 

Given that this is so (and I cannot see any kind

of tenable argument opposing the view that

aspartame causes cancer) how would the FDA justify

its position that it views a certain amount of

aspartame (50 mg/mg body-weight) as constituting

an ADI (Allowable Daily Intake) or " safe " level of

it? Is that position in effect not equivalent to

setting a " tolerance " for this food additive and

thus a violation of that law? And if the FDA

itself elects to violate the law, who is left to

protect the health of the public?

 

 

Uterine Polyps

--------------

Pre-approval experiments showed that an aspartame breakdown product

caused uterine polyps in experimental animals.

 

Not long after the FDA Commissioner went to work as a consultant for

the PR firm of the aspartame manufacturer, FDA Investigator, Dr.

Jacqueline Verrett stated the following:

 

" This (DKP) is the famous study with the uterine

polyps, and it is also the study in which there

were changes in serum cholesterol, significant

changes over the dose range.

 

" Now, we still are not sure exactly how much of

DKP each group of animals or any individual animal

got; they may not have gotten what would be

calculated on the basis of daily consumption had

the diet been homogeneous.

 

" The fact is, in spite of that, there were

significant increases--and I think everybody

agrees with that--of uterine polyps and also

changes in blood cholesterol.

 

" When that was then taken into consideration, they

said, oh, well, obviously, they must have gotten

the diet, because we have these changes. But then

they disregarded the changes as being significant-

-you know, uterine polyps were not pre-

carcinogenic. Well, I can rustle up 15 million

women by this afternoon who will disagree with

that. "

 

 

Other Hazards

-------------

The following is a selection of other hazards from long-term use of

aspartame. Once these effects are seen clinically, the internal

damage has often been done. Removing aspartame from the diet may

clear up some of the symptoms but the damage from the breakdown

products such as methanol may be permanent.

 

Seizures and convulsions, arthritic and joint pain, chronic fatigue,

depression, memory loss, vision damage and loss, tingling in the

extremities, slurring of speech, irritability, severe anxiety

attacks, menstrual problems, blood sugar control problems, symptoms

similar to multiple sclerosis, worsening of fibromyalgia, parkinson's

tremors, etc., etc.

 

 

Internet PR

-----------

It appears that the PR firms for the chemical company " selling "

aspartame (i.e., slowing poisoning people), Monsanto Chemical Company

are desparate to rescue their junky product despite the growing

evidence of its dangers. On the Internet, there are many nonsensical

and scientifically indefensible posts by persons who are only

interested in confusing the issue and creating havoc.

 

For example, one person recently claimed that orange juice releases

400 times more methanol than aspartame upon ingestion. The

scientific facts are that aspartame has much more methanol than

orange juice. (Many store-bought orange juices have 10-30 times less

methanol.) In addition, the methanol from aspartame is converted to

the extremely toxic formaldehyde and formic acid in the body, while

protective factors in the orange juice may prevent this conversion to

formaldehyde and formic acid. An avid aspartame consumer will be

getting the equivalent amount of methanol as a person working

part-time and inhaling methanol fumes in a methanol-laden chemical

plant. Other aspartame breakdown products may potentiate the

methanol/formaldehyde toxicity.

 

Another standard PR technique is the following:

 

1. Hire people to join Internet groups and become a " regular "

poster. At least one report of recruitment has been published

recently. Such a recruited individual can have almost any email

address from a company name to a university email address.

 

2. When honest, legitimate concerns about a toxic product are

posted, respond with a large number of angry, " knee-jerk "

responses attempting to paint the persons posting as " radicals "

when they are simply one of many, many concerned citizens.

These large numbers of postings will flood the group(s) and get

the legitimate participants angry.

 

3. There may be many postings about people who have had " no

problems " with the toxic product even though, in the case of

aspartame it has been on the market and used in significant amounts

for such a short period of time. There may be postings trying

to claim that their freedoms are being taken away even though

by allowing the sale such a toxic product when there are many

healthier alternatives, the FDA is clearly violating their own

safety statutes. Most of these posts are probably legitimate,

but there is not way to know for certain.

 

4. Some people and possibly some PR persons will post

demanding that the " concerned citizens " (although they will not

use that term) stop posting to the group. The reality almost

always is that there were relatively few posts by concerned

citizens and endless " knee-jerk " posts.

 

5. Finally, please be aware that posts from the International Food

Information Council (IFIC), the PR organization for junk food

companies (in the guise of an independent " nutrition " organization)

and the American Dietetic Association (which received $75,000 from

Monsanto and an offer to help write their " fact " sheets) often put

inaccurate PR on the Internet.

 

This is simply a modification for the Internet of very common unethical

PR techniques that are sometimes applied by companies trying to

rescue the image of a toxic product like aspartame. A new, extremely

well-researched and well-documented book about these techniques (and

a " must-read " ) is:

 

Toxic Sludge is Good For You! (Lies, Damn Lies and the

Public Relations Industry)

by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton

Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine (USA), c1995

ISBN 1-56751-061-2 or ISBN 1-56751-060-4 (pbk.)

 

This book will help you understand what tricks to expect from

Monsanto as scientists and the general population recognizes the

dangers of aspartame. It is a real eye-opener and I highly

recommend it.

 

 

Alternatives

------------

Please do not switch from one dangerous artificial sweetener

(aspartame) to another (e.g., acesulfame-k). I have a resource

list of " healthier " sweeteners and sources on my web page. Please

use these more natural, time-tested sweeteners to promote long-term

health as opposed to destroying it.

_________________

 

JoAnn Guest

mrsjo-

www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets

 

 

 

 

AIM Barleygreen

" Wisdom of the Past, Food of the Future "

 

http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets.html