If a product is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and composed of natural ingredients, would you assume it is safe to consume?

If the same product is an artificial sweetener, would you assume it helps control your weight?

Millions of people use aspartame, the artificial sweetener known as NutraSweet™, with these assumptions in mind.

Aspartame can be found in thousands of products such as:

However, aspartame's tainted history of approval and potentially toxic ingredients cast serious doubt on the safety of this sugar substitute. Furthermore, aspartame may actually increase your appetite (Farber 52).

While the FDA approval may signal the green light for safe consumption, 85 percent of all complaints registered with the FDA are for adverse reactions to aspartame, including five reported deaths. A closer look at the unscientific studies, suspicious approval methods, and its harmful ingredients, reveal the hidden dangers of this artificial sweetener. In reality, aspartame poses a public health threat.

Ailments Resulting From Aspartame

A few of the many disorders associated with aspartame include the following:

• Birth Defects

A study funded by Monsanto to study possible birth defects caused by consuming aspartame was cut off after preliminary data showed damaging information about aspartame. Additionally, in the book, While Waiting: A Prenatal Guidebook, it is stated that aspartame is suspected of causing brain damage in sensitive individuals. A fetus may be at risk for these effects. Some researchers have suggested that high doses of aspartame may be associated with problems ranging from dizziness and subtle brain changes to mental retardation.

• Cancer (Brain Cancer)

In 1981, an FDA statistician stated that the brain tumor data on aspartame was so "worrisome" that he could not recommend approval of NutraSweet.(14)

In a two-year study conducted by the manufacturer of aspartame, twelve of 320 rats fed a normal diet and aspartame developed brain tumors while none of the control rats developed tumors, and five of the twelve tumors were in rats given a low dose of aspartame.(15)

The approval of aspartame was a violation of the Delaney Amendment, which was supposed to prevent cancer-causing substances such as methanol (formaldehye) and DKP from entering our food supply. A late FDA toxicologist testified before the U.S. Congress that aspartame was capable of producing brain tumors. This made it illegal for the FDA to set an allowable daily intake at any level. He stated in his testimony that Searle's studies were "to a large extent unreliable" and that "at least one of those studies has established beyond any reasonable doubt that aspartame is capable of inducing brain tumors in experimental animals ... " He concluded his testimony by asking, "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? ... And if the FDA itself elects to violate the law, who is left to protect the health of the public?"(16)

In the mid-1970s it was discovered that the manufacturer of aspartame falsified studies in several ways. One of the techniques used was to cut tumors out of test animals and put them back in the study. Another technique used to falsify the studies was to list animals that had actually died as surviving the study. Thus, the data on brain tumors was likely worse than discussed above. In addition, a former employee of the manufacturer of aspartame told the FDA on July 13, 1977 that the particles of DKP were so large that the rats could discriminate between the DKP and their normal diet.(12)

• Diabetes

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) is actually recommending this chemical poison to persons with diabetes, but according to research conducted by a diabetes specialist, aspartame: 1) Leads to the precipitation of clinical diabetes. 2) Causes poorer diabetic control in diabetics on insulin or oral drugs. 3) Leads to the aggravation of diabetic complications such as retinopathy, cataracts, neuropathy and gastroparesis. 4) Causes convulsions.

In a statement concerning the use of products containing aspartame by persons with diabetes and hypoglycemia, the researchers says:

"Unfortunately, many patients in my practice, and others seen in consultation, developed serious metabolic, neurologic and other complications that could be specifically attributed to using aspartame products. This was evidenced by the loss of diabetic control, the intensification of hypoglycemia, the occurrence of presumed 'insulin reactions' (including convulsions) that proved to be aspartame reactions, and the precipitation, aggravation or simulation of diabetic complications (especially impaired vision and neuropathy) while using these products ... Dramatic improvement of such features after avoiding aspartame, and the prompt predictable recurrence of these problems when the patient resumed aspartame products, knowingly or inadvertently."

Another researcher stated that excitotoxins such as those found in aspartame can precipitate diabetes in persons who are genetically susceptible to the disease.(5)

• Emotional Disorders

In a double blind study of the effects of aspartame on persons with mood disorders, findings showed a large increase in serious symptoms for persons taking aspartame. Since some of the symptoms were so serious, the Institutional Review Board had to stop the study. Three of the participants had said that they had been "poisoned" by aspartame. Researchers concluded that "individuals with mood disorders are particularly sensitive to this artificial sweetener; its use in this population should be discouraged."(18) One researcher stated about aspartame, "I know it causes seizures. I'm convinced also that it definitely causes behavioral changes. I'm very angry that this substance is on the market. I personally question the reliability and validity of any studies funded by the NutraSweet Company."(19)

Additionally, there are numerous reported cases of low brain serotonin levels, depression and other emotional disorders that have been linked to aspartame and often are relieved by stopping the intake of aspartame.

• Epilepsy/Seizures

With the large and growing number of seizures caused by aspartame, it is sad to see that the Epilepsy Foundation is promoting the "safety" of aspartame. At Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 80 people who had suffered seizures after ingesting aspartame were surveyed. Community Nutrition Institute concluded the following about the survey:

"These 80 cases meet the FDA's own definition of an imminent hazard to the public health, which requires the FDA to expeditiously remove a product from the market."

Both the Air Force's magazine, Flying Safety, and the Navy's magazine, Navy Physiology, published articles warning about the many dangers of aspartame including the cumulative delirious effects of methanol and the greater likelihood of birth defects. The articles note that the ingestion of aspartame can make pilots more susceptible to seizures and vertigo. Twenty articles sounding warnings about ingesting aspartame while flying have also appeared in the National Business Aircraft Association Digest (NBAA Digest 1993), Aviation Medical Bulletin (1988), The Aviation Consumer (1988), Canadian General Aviation News (1990), Pacific Flyer (1988), General Aviation News (1989), Aviation Safety Digest (1989), and Plane & Pilot (1990) and a paper warning about aspartame was presented at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Aerospace Medical Association (Gaffney 1986).

A hotline was even set up for pilots suffering from acute reactions to aspartame ingestion. Over 600 pilots have reported symptoms including some who have reported suffering grand mal seizures in the cockpit due to aspartame.(21)

Why don't we hear about these things?

The reason many people do not hear about serious reactions to aspartame is twofold: 1) Lack of awareness by the general population. Aspartame-caused diseases are not reported in the newspapers like plane crashes. This is because these incidents occur one at a time in thousands of different locations across the United States. 2) Most people do not associate their symptoms with the long-term use of aspartame. For the people who have killed a significant percentage of their brain cells and thereby caused a chronic illness, there is no way that they would normally associate such an illness with aspartame consumption.

How aspartame was approved is a lesson in how chemical and pharmaceutical companies can manipulate government agencies such as the FDA, "bribe" organizations such as the American Dietetic Association, and flood the scientific community with flawed and fraudulent industry-sponsored studies funded by the makers of aspartame.

Erik Millstone, a researcher at the Science Policy Research Unit of Sussex University has compiled thousands of pages of evidence, some of which have been obtained using the freedom of information act 23, showing: 1. Laboratory tests were faked and dangers were concealed. 2. Tumors were removed from animals and animals that had died were "restored to life" in laboratory records. 3. False and misleading statements were made to the FDA. 4. The two US Attorneys given the task of bringing fraud charges against the aspartame manufacturer took positions with the manufacturer's law firm, letting the statute of limitations run out. 5. The Commissioner of the FDA overruled the objections of the FDA's own scientific board of inquiry. Shortly after that decision, he took a position with Burson-Marsteller, the firm in charge of public relations for G.D. Searle.

A Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) was conducted in 1980. There were three scientists who reviewed the objections of Olney and Turner to the approval of aspartame. They voted unanimously against aspartame's approval. The FDA Commissioner, Dr Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr. then created a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the PBOI findings. After it became clear that the Commission would uphold the PBOI's decision by a vote of 3 to 2, another person was added to the Commission, creating a deadlocked vote. This allowed the FDA Commissioner to break the deadlock and approve aspartame for dry goods in 1981. Dr Jacqueline Verrett, the Senior Scientist in an FDA Bureau of Foods review team created in August 1977 to review the Bressler Report (a report that detailed G.D. Searle's abuses during the pre-approval testing) said: "It was pretty obvious that somewhere along the line, the bureau officials were working up to a whitewash." In 1987, Verrett testified before the US Senate stating that the experiments conducted by Searle were a "disaster." She stated that her team was instructed not to comment on or be concerned with the overall validity of the studies. She stated that questions about birth defects have not been answered. She continued her testimony by discussing the fact that DKP has been shown to increase uterine polyps and change blood cholesterol and that increasing the temperature of the product leads to an increase in production of DKP.(13)

Revolving Doors

The FDA and the manufacturers of aspartame have had a revolving door of employment for many years. In addition to the FDA Commissioner and two US Attorneys leaving to take positions with companies connected with G.D. Searle, four other FDA officials connected with the approval of aspartame took positions connected with the NutraSweet industry between 1979 and 1982 including the Deputy FDA Commissioner, the Special Assistant to the FDA Commissioner, the Associate Director of the Bureau of Foods and Toxicology and the Attorney involved with the Public Board of Inquiry.(24)

It is important to realize that this type of revolving-door activity has been going on for decades. The Townsend Letter for Doctors (11/92) reported on a study revealing that 37 of 49 top FDA officials who left the FDA took positions with companies they had regulated. They also reported that over 150 FDA officials owned stock in drug companies they were assigned to manage. Many organizations and universities receive large sums of money from companies connected to the NutraSweet Association, a group of companies promoting the use of aspartame. In January 1993, the American Dietetic Association received a US$75,000 grant from the NutraSweet Company. The American Dietetic Association has stated that the NutraSweet Company writes their "Facts" sheets.(25)

What is the FDA doing to protect the consumer from the dangers of aspartame?

Less than nothing.

In 1992, the FDA approved aspartame for use in malt beverages, breakfast cereals, and refrigerated puddings and fillings. In 1993 the FDA approved aspartame for use in hard and soft candies, non-alcoholic favored beverages, tea beverages, fruit juices and concentrates, baked goods and baking mixes, and frostings, toppings and fillings for baked goods.

In 1991, the FDA banned the importation of stevia. The powder of this leaf has been used for hundreds of years as an alternative sweetener. It is used widely in Japan with no adverse effects. Scientists involved in reviewing stevia have declared it to be safe for human consumption--something that has been well known in many parts of the world where it is not banned. Some people believe that stevia was banned to keep the product from taking hold in the United States and cutting into sales of aspartame.(26)

What is the U.S. Congress doing to protect the consumer from the dangers of aspartame?

Nothing.

What is the U.S. Administration (President) doing to protect the consumer from the dangers of aspartame?

Nothing.

Aspartame consumption is not only a problem in the United States--it is being sold in over 70 countries throughout the world.

By DR. MERCOLA

Aspartame is, by far, the most dangerous substance on the market that is added to foods.

Aspartame was approved for dry goods in 1981 and for carbonated beverages in 1983. It was originally approved for dry goods on July 26, 1974, but objections filed by neuroscience researcher Dr John W. Olney and Consumer attorney James Turner in August 1974 as well as investigations of G.D. Searle's research practices caused the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to put approval of aspartame on hold (December 5, 1974). In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle and made Searle Pharmaceuticals and The NutraSweet Company separate subsidiaries.

Aspartame accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA. Many of these reactions are very serious including seizures and death. A few of the 90 different documented symptoms listed in the report as being caused by aspartame include: Headaches/migraines, dizziness, seizures, nausea, numbness, muscle spasms, weight gain, rashes, depression, fatigue, irritability, tachycardia, insomnia, vision problems, hearing loss, heart palpitations, breathing difficulties, anxiety attacks, slurred speech, loss of taste, tinnitus, vertigo, memory loss, and joint pain.

According to researchers and physicians studying the adverse effects of aspartame, the following chronic illnesses can be triggered or worsened by ingesting of aspartame: Brain tumors, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, chronic fatigue syndrome, parkinson's disease, alzheimer's, mental retardation, lymphoma, birth defects, fibromyalgia, and diabetes.

Aspartame is made up of three chemicals: aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol. The book "Prescription for Nutritional Healing," by James and Phyllis Balch, lists aspartame under the category of "chemical poison." As you shall see, that is exactly what it is.

What Is Aspartame Made Of?

Aspartic Acid (40 percent of Aspartame)

Dr. Russell L. Blaylock, a professor of neurosurgery at the Medical University of Mississippi, recently published a book thoroughly detailing the damage that is caused by the ingestion of excessive aspartic acid from aspartame. Blaylock makes use of almost 500 scientific references to show how excess free excitatory amino acids such as aspartic acid and glutamic acid (about 99 percent of monosodium glutamate (MSG) is glutamic acid) in our food supply are causing serious chronic neurological disorders and a myriad of other acute symptoms.

How Aspartate (and Glutamate) Cause Damage

The blood brain barrier (BBB), which normally protects the brain from excess glutamate and aspartate as well as toxins, 1) is not fully developed during childhood, 2) does not fully protect all areas of the brain, 3) is damaged by numerous chronic and acute conditions, and 4) allows seepage of excess glutamate and aspartate into the brain even when intact.

The excess glutamate and aspartate slowly begin to destroy neurons. The large majority (75 percent or more) of neural cells in a particular area of the brain are killed before any clinical symptoms of a chronic illness are noticed. A few of the many chronic illnesses that have been shown to be contributed to by long-term exposure to excitatory amino acid damage include:

• Multiple sclerosis (MS)
• ALS
• Memory loss
• Hormonal problems
• Hearing loss
• Epilepsy
• Alzheimer's disease
• Parkinson's disease
• Hypoglycemia
• AIDS
• Dementia
• Brain lesions
• Neuroendocrine disorders

The risk to infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly and persons with certain chronic health problems from excitotoxins are great. Even the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), which usually understates problems and mimics the FDA party-line, recently stated in a review that:

"It is prudent to avoid the use of dietary supplements of L-glutamic acid by pregnant women, infants, and children. The existence of evidence of potential endocrine responses, i.e., elevated cortisol and prolactin, and differential responses between males and females, would also suggest a neuroendocrine link and that supplemental L-glutamic acid should be avoided by women of childbearing age and individuals with affective disorders."

Aspartic acid from aspartame has the same deleterious effects on the body as glutamic acid.

The exact mechanism of acute reactions to excess free glutamate and aspartate is currently being debated. As reported to the FDA, those reactions include:

• Pre-Approval Research
  Pre-approval research showed that sucralose caused shrunken thymus glands (up to 40% shrinkage) and enlarged liver and kidneys. The manufacturer put forth two arguments in an attempt to claim that sucralose is not toxic:
  
  
  1. The dose of sucralose in the experiments was high. However, for chemicals that do not have generations of safe use, the dosage tested must be adjusted for variations in potential toxicity within the human population and between humans and rodents. In order to this, toxicologists estimate a variation of effects in the human population of 10 times. In other words, one person may not have effects until a dose of 10 mg per kg of body weight (10 mg/kg) is reached, while another person may have chronic toxicity effects at 1 mg per kg of body weight (1 mg/kg). In addition, it is well known that many chemicals are much more toxic in humans than in rodents (or even monkeys). For example, the chemicals that the sweetener aspartame breaks down into vary from 5 to 50 times more toxic in humans than in rodents. Therefore, toxicologists estimate a further 10 times the dose for differences between human and rodent toxicity for a total of 100 times (10 * 10).
     
     In order to estimate a potential safe dose in humans, one must divide the lowest dose in given to rodents that was seen to have any negative effects on their thymus glands, liver or kidneys by 100. That dose is then known as the maximum Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) for lifetime use. Keep in mind that the TDI is just an estimate. Some chemicals are much more than 10 times more toxic in humans than in rodents (or will cause cancer in humans in low-dose, long-term exposure and do not cause cancer in rodents at all). A person ingesting the TDI for some chemical may find that it causes cancer or immune system or neurological problems after many years or decades of use. So, if the manufacturer claims that the dose was equivalent to 50 diet sodas, then the TDI would be one half (1/2) of a diet soda, and even that dose may or may not be safe.
     
  2. The manufacturer claimed that the sucralose was unpleasant for the rodents to eat in large doses. They said that starvation caused the shruken thymus glands. From the New Scientist (23 Nov 1991, pg 13):
     
     
     [Toxicologist Judith] Bellin reviewed studies on rats starved under experimental conditions, and concluded that their growth rate could be reduced by as much as a third without the thymus losing a significant amount of weight (less than 7 percent). The changes were much more marked in rats fed on sucralose. While the animals' growth rate was reduced by between 7 and 20 percent, their thymuses shrank by as much as 40 percent.
• Recent Research
  A possible problem with caecal enlargement and renal mineralization has been seen in post approval animal research.
  
• Sucralose Breaks Down
  Despite the manufacturer's mis-statements, sucralose does break down into small amounts of 1,6-dichlorofructose, a chemical that has not been adequately tested in humans.
  
• Independent, Long-Term Human Research
  None. Manufacturer's "100's of studies" (some of which show hazards) were clearly inadequate and do not demonstrate safety in long-term use.
  
• Chlorinated Pesticides
  The manufacturer claims that the chlorine added to sucralose is similar to the chlorine atom in the salt (NaCl) molecule. That is not the case. Sucralose may be more like ingesting tiny amounts of chlorinated pesticides, but we will never know without long-term, independent human research.
  
• Conclusion
  While it is unlikely that sucralose is as toxic as the poisoning people are experiencing from Monsanto's aspartame, it is clear from the hazards seen in pre-approval research and from its chemical structure that years or decades of use may contribute to serious chronic immunological or neurological disorders.
  
• Addendum (October 2, 2000)
  Occasionally, persons emailing ask questions about sucralose research. What follows is a copy of a response one such question. The answer starts by summarizing the aspartame (NutraSweet) issue and then addresses the sucralose issue.
  
  
  •  
    1. Pre-approval test indicated potential toxicity of sucralose.
    2. There are no *independent* controlled human studies on sucralose (similar to 15 years ago for aspartame).
    3. There are no long-term (12-24 months) human studies of sucralose's effects.
    4. There is no monitoring of health effects. It took government agencies decades to agree that there were countless thousands of deaths from tobacco. Why? Simply because there had been no monitoring or epidemiological studies. Without such monitoring and studies, huge effects can easily go unnoticed.
    • Recent European research showing that ingesting aspartame leads to the accumulation of formaldehyde in the brain, other organs and tissues (Formaldehyde has been shown to damage the nervous system, immune system, and cause irreversible genetic damage in humans.)
    • An extremely large number of toxicity reactions reported to the FDA and other organizations
    • A recent report showing that nearly 100% of independent research has found problems with aspartame.
  Let me start by saying that, as you may know, there is a quickly growing body of evidence demonstrating the toxicity of aspartame. This includes:
  
  
  Why is this relevant to the sucralose question? Similar to the aspartame situation 15 years ago:
  
  
  So, without even addressing the pre-approval research showing potential toxicity, it is clear that sucralose has a) no long history (e.g., decades) of safe use, b) no independent monitoring of health effects, c) no long-term human studies, and d) no independent human studies. I would hope that the Precautionary Principle, now commonly used in Europe, would be a guiding force for people who are interested in health. Otherwise, we might as well just use any poorly tested, artificial (lab-created) chemical that has shown potential for long-term toxicity.
  
  As far as the pre-approval research related to sucralose.... As you probably know, pre-approval research is rarely published. It is only available from the FDA by filing a Freedom of Information Act request. However, you can see a very short summary regarding sucralose and shrunken thymus glands in the "New Scientist" (23 November 1991, page 13).

Reported Aspartame Toxicity Effects

-------- Q. What are the reported reactions to aspartame ingestion? How often are such effects seen? Answer ------

What are the reported reactions to aspartame ingestion? We will limit our discussion in this FAQ to reported toxicity Reactions to aspartame ingestion. Controlled studies showing Problems with aspartame ingestion will be discussed in another FAQ. Toxicity reactions to aspartame can be divided into three Types: 1. Acute toxicity reactions occuring within 48 hours of ingestion of An aspartame-containing product. 2. Chronic toxicity effects occuring anywhere from several days of Use to appearing a number of years (I.e., 1-20+ years) after the Beginning of aspartame use. 3. Potential toxicity effects that would be nearly impossible for The user to recognize the link to aspartame. In an epidemiological survey which appeared in the Journal of Applied Nutrition (Roberts 1988), 551 persons who have Reported toxicity effects from aspartame ingestion were Surveyed. The adverse effects found cover a subset of reported Acute and chronic toxicity effects from aspartame. What follows is a listing of the adverse health effects Which were found.

------------------- # of People (%) Eye - Decreased vision and/or other eye problems 140 (25%) (blurring, "bright flashes," tunnel vision) - Pain (or or both eyes) 51 (9%) - Decreased tears, trouble with contact lens, 46 (8%) Or both - Blindness (one or both eyes) 14 (3%) Ear - Tinnitus ("ringing," "buzzing") 73 (13%) - Severe intolerance for noise 47 (9%) - Marked impairment of hearing 25 (5%) Neurologic - Headaches 249 (45%) - Dizziness, unsteadiness, or both 217 (39%) - Confusion, memory loss, or both 157 (29%) - Severe drowsiness and sleepiness 93 (17%) - Paresthesias ("pins and needles," "tingling") 82 (15%) Or numbness of the limbs - Convulsions (grand mal epileptic attacks) 80 (15%) - Petit mal attacks and "absences" 18 (3%) - Severe slurring of speech 64 (12%) - Severe tremors 51 (9%) - Severe "hyperactivity" and "restless legs" 43 (8%) - Atypical facial pain 38 (7%) Psychologic-Psychiatric - Severe depression 139 (25%) - "Extreme irritability" 125 (23%) - "Severe anixiety attacks" 105 (19%) - "Marked personality changes" 88 (16%) - Recent "severe insomnia" 76 (14%) - "Severe aggravation of phobias" 41 (7%) Chest - Palpitations, tachycardia (rapid heart action), 88 (16%) Of both - "Shortness of breath" 54 (10%) - Atypical chest pain 44 (8%) - Recent hypertension (high blood pressure) 34 (6%) Gastrointestinal - Nausea 79 (14%) - Diarrhea 70 (13%) Associated gross blood in the stools (12) - Abdominal pain 70 (13%) - Pain on swallowing 28 (5%) Skin and Allergies - Severe itching without a rash 44 (8%) - Severe lip and mouth reactions 29 (5%) - Urticaria (hives) 25 (5%) - Other eruptions 48 (9%) - Aggravation of respiratory allergies 10 (2%) Endocrine and Metabolic - Problems with diabetes: loss of control; 60 (11%) Precipitation of clinical diabetes; Aggravation or simulation of diabetic Complications - Menstrual changes 45 (6%) Severe reduction or cessation of periods (22) - Paradoxic weight gain 34 (5%) - Marked weight loss 26 (6%) - Marked thinning or loss of the hair 32 (6%) - Aggravated hypoglycemia (low blood sugar 25 (5%) Attacks) Other - Frequency of voiding (day and night), burning 69 (13%) On urination (dysuria), or both - Excessive thirst 65 (12%) - Severe joint pains 58 (11%) - "Bloat" 57 (10%) - Fluid retention and leg swelling 20 (4%) - Increased susceptibility to infection 7 (1%) -------------------

There are other clinical reports in the scientific literature of Aspartame-caused toxicity reactions including Blumenthal (1997), Drake (1986), Johns (1986), Lipton (1989), McCauliffe (1991), Novick (1985), Watts (1991), Walton (1986, 1988), and Wurtman (1985).

Many pilots appear to be particularly susceptible to the effects of 
aspartame ingestion.  They have reported numerous serious toxicity 
effects including grand mal seizures in the cockpit (Stoddard 1995).  
Nearly 1,000 cases of pilot reactions have been reported to the 
Aspartame Consumer Safety Network Pilot Hotline (Stoddard 1995).
This susceptibility may be related to ingesting methanol at altitude 
as suggested in a letter from Dr. Phil Moskal, Professor of
Microbiology, Biochemistry, and Pathology, Chairman of the Department
of Pathology, Director of Public Health Laboratories (Moskal 1990),
or it may simply be that some pilots tend to ingest large quantities 
of aspartame during a flight.  Whatever the case, numerous warnings 
about aspartame dangers have appeared in piloting journals including 
The Aviation Consumer (1988), Aviation Medical Bulliten (1988), 
Pacific Flyer (1988), CAA General Aviation (1989), Aviation Safety 
Digest (1989), General Aviation News (1989), Plane & Pilot (1990), 
Canadian General Aviation News (1990), National Business Aircraft
Association Digest (NBAA Digest 1993), International Council of 
Air Shows (ICAS 1995), and the Pacific Flyer (1995).  Both the U.S. 
Air Force's magazine "Flying Safety" and the U.S. Navy's magazine,
"Navy Physiology" published articles warning about the many dangers
of aspartame including the cumlative deliterious effects of methanol
and the greater likelihood of birth defects. The articles note that
the ingestion of aspartame may make pilots more susceptible to
seizures and vertigo (US Air Force 1992).

Countless other toxicity effects have been reported to the FDA (DHHS
1995), other independent organizations (Mission Possible 1996, 
Stoddard 1995), and independent scientists (e.g., 80 cases of
seizures were reported to Dr. Richard Wurtman, Food (1986)).
Samples of some aspartame toxicity reactions reported on the
Internet can be found on the Aspartame (NutraSweet) Toxicity Info
Center web page:

         http://www.tiac.net/users/mgold/aspartame/

Frequently, aspartame toxicity is misdiagnosed as a specific disease. 
This has yet to be reported in the scientific literature, yet it has 
been reported countless times to independent organizations and 
scientists (Mission Possible 1994, Stoddard 1995).  In other cases, 
it has been reported that chronic aspartame ingestion has triggered 
or worsened certain chronic illnesses.  Nearly 100% of the time, the 
patient and physician assume that these worsening conditions are 
simply a normal progression of the illness.  Sometimes that may be 
the case, but many times it is chronic aspartame poisoning.

According to researchers and physicians studying the adverse
effects of aspartame, the following list contains a selection
of chronic illnesses which may be caused or worsened by the chronic, 
long-term ingestion of aspartame. (Mission Possible 1994, Stoddard
1995)*:

     Brain tumors               Multiple sclerosis
     Epilepsy                   Chronic faigue syndrome
     Parkinson's Disease        Alzheimer's
     Mental retardation         Lymphoma
     Birth defects              Fibromyalgia
     Diabetes                   Arthritis (including Rheumatoid)
     Chemical Sensitivities     Attention Deficit Disorder

     *Note: In some cases such as MS, the severe symptoms
            mimic the illness or exacerbate the illness,
            but do not cause the disease.  

Also, please note that this is an incomplete list.  Clearly,
ingestion of a very slow poison (as discussed in other FAQs) is not
beneficial to anyone who has a chronic illness.

Finally, potential toxicity effects from aspartame including brain 
cancer (as seen in pre-approval research) and effects on fetal brain 
and nervous system development will be discussed in other FAQs.

==> How often are such effects seen?

Until recently approximately 90% of aspartame sales were in the 
United States (Monsanto 1994).  Other countries are now being inundated
with aspartame, but it will be some time until they begin to feel the 
full effects of aspartame toxicity on the general population.  Since the
U.S. has some history of significant use, we will limit the discussion
to the frequency of effects in the U.S.

There have been well over 7,000 aspartame toxicity reactions officially 
received by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration between 1982 (after 
aspartame was first approved) until 1995 (DHHS 1993, DHHS 1995).
From this figure, we can estimate the number of actual toxicity 
reactions observed.

FDA officials believe that as little as 1% of the serious
adverse drug reactions are reported to the FDA (Kessler
1993).  Using a reported rate of 1%, we would estimate that there 
have been 700,000 recognized aspartame toxicity reactions in the U.S. 
since 1982.  However, there are a number of significant adjustments
that must be made before we can accept this estimate.

1.  Most physicians are aware of the Adverse Reaction
    Monitoring System (ARMS) and are encouraged by the FDA
    to report serious adverse drug reactions (Kessler 1993).
    Physicians are not encouraged by the FDA to report aspartame
    toxicity reactions to the FDA (Food 1995).  The lay
    public is generally unaware of ARMS and much less likely to
    report adverse reactions to the FDA.  Therefore, this would
    lower the estimated reporting rate below 1%.  Let us make a
    small adjustment and estimate a 0.88% reporting rate.

2.  It was pointed out by James Turner, Esq. in a letter to the then 
    FDA Commissioner Frank Young that no program to monitor aspartame 
    toxicity reactions was created until February 1984, two years after 
    aspartame approval began (Turner 1984).  This would probably add at
    least 1,200 reported reactions (probably much more), so that we 
    should use 8,200 toxicity reaction reports.  In addition, a 
    Freedom of Information act request determined that the regional 
    FDA offices had been told that only "serious" complaints should 
    be forwarded to the FDA headquarters (Turner 1984).  "Serious" 
    complaints were complaints where the illness was severe enough
    to require the attention of a physician.  Since this happened 
    between 1984 (when the monitoring system began) and 1985, we can 
    estimate an additional 300 toxicity reactions would have been
    reported for a total of 8,500.

3.  In 1987, it was brought out at U.S. Congressional Hearings that
    the FDA had been transferring aspartame toxicity reaction calls
    to the AIDS Hotline (Turner 1987).  In addition, it was reported 
    by James Turner, Esq. of Community Nutrition Institute (CNI) that 
    there were numerous cases of people calling the FDA to report 
    toxicity reaction and they were told that there was no connection 
    between aspartame and adverse reactions and no other information was 
    taken by the FDA.  While this may not effect the reporting rate 
    after the start of 1988, it would significantly effect the reporting 
    rate before that time.  Let us make another small adjustment and 
    estimate a 0.78% reporting rate.

4.  Perhaps the biggest reduction in the reporting rate comes from 
    the fact that Commissioner Kessler's estimated 1% reporting rate 
    for adverse drug reactions involves only "serious" adverse
    reactions.  The rate for reporting *all* drug reactions (if such 
    reporting were done) would almost certainly be no more than 0.5%.  
    Therefore, if we cut our current estimated reporting rate of 
    0.78% in half, the estimated reporting rate for *all* toxicity
    reactions to aspartame (including serious or mild) would be no
    more than 0.39%.

During the first couple of years that aspartame was on the market, 
there was publicity that would likely have increased the reporting 
rate.  However, since the FDA did not have a monitoring system in 
place until February 1984, the estimated increased number of reports 
will not be that much.  I will reduce the number of reports by 1,000 
to 7,500 to take this into account.

                     ****************
We now have approximately 7,500 reports at an estimated reporting 
rate of 0.39%.  This totals approximately 1.9 million *recognized* 
aspartame toxicity reactions in the U.S. between 1982 and 1995.
These reactions run anywhere from mild to very serious illnesses.
                     ****************

It is very important to understand, however, that 1.9 million 
represents only those toxicity reactions that have been discovered by
users and/or healthcare practitioners.  Quite often, I encounter case 
histories were people suffered for long time and did not make the 
connection.  For example:

   "I have suffered from Migraines for years. As soon as I gave up
    Nutrasweet my migraines disappeared. All those Cat Scans, 
    MRI's......for nothing."

   "Since I last wrote my brother has been off nutrisweet since
    then.  My brothers lupus type of symptoms completely went 
    away. My brother has been a physician for over 10 years
    .. his doctor (a specialist) who has been treating him has
    seen the significant difference and wants to write a research
    paper on this .. my brothers physician has now started 
    prescribing getting off nutrisweet for his other patients."

Therefore, I believe that in addition to the estimated 1.9 million 
people in the U.S. who have recognized aspartame toxicity reactions 
in themselves (from serious to mild), there are many times that 
number who are suffering from some of the symptoms mentioned above 
and that they do not recognize that chronic aspartame use is the 
cause or at least a contribuatory factor.  I would estimate that *at 
least* 7.6 million others are suffering from some symptoms related to 
aspartame use (many mild symptoms, but many serious ones as well) and 
do not recognize the connection.

In addition to the estimated 1.9 million recognized reactions and 7.6 
million unrecognized reactions in the U.S., it is very important to 
note that aspartame has been used in significant amounts in the U.S.
for a relatively short time.  A U.S. Department of Agriculture 
report noted that it wasn't until approximately 1987 that aspartame 
was used in significant amounts in the U.S. (USDA 1988).  Therefore,
aspartame had been used for only nine (9) years in signficant amounts 
through 1995.  When one considers that the damage from aspartame is 
often silent and cumulative (much like chain-smoking cigarettes), one 
can see that a couple of generations of aspartame use might be 
disasterous!

The FDA and NutraSweet have claimed that the number of reported
adverse reactions have declined substantially since the mid-
1980s (Pauli 1995, Butchko 1994).  In addition, the FDA recently 
claimed that the number of reported toxicity reactions for 1995 was 
only 11 (WSJ 1996)!  It is important to realize that during the 
mid-1970s the FDA was investigating wrong-doings of the aspartame 
manufacturer and stated the facts exactly as they found them:

     "[The manufacturer] lied and they didn't submit the
      real nature of their observations because had they 
      done that it is more than likely that a great number
      of these studies would have been rejected simply
      for adequacy. What Searle did, they took great
      pains to camouflage these shortcomings of the
      study. As I say filter and just present to the
      FDA what they wished the FDA to know and they did
      other terrible things for instance animals would
      develop tumors while they were under study. Well
      they would remove these tumors from the animals."
      [FDA Toxicologist and Task Force member, Dr. Andrian
      Gross (Wilson 1985)]

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, a number of key government and 
FDA officials left their jobs to work with companies related to the 
aspartame industry (GAO 1986).  This included key FDA officials such 
as the head of the FDA Bureau of Foods becoming a Vice President of 
the National Drink Association and the FDA Commissioner becoming a 
high-paid consultant for the manufacturer's PR firm, Burston 
Marsteller (Gordon 1987).  After this period of time, there was no
scientific evidence and no amount of serious toxicity reports that 
could get the FDA to seriously consider funding independent, 
properly-conducted (e.g., chronic exposure) research.  That
appearance of the FDA being under the total control of the
manufacturer, Monsanto, continues to this day.

I include these comments about the FDA to demonstrate why no 
independent scientist familiar with the aspartame issue takes 
statements from the FDA such as "11 reported reactions in 1995" 
seriously.  There are many people, including myself who have received 
that many toxicity reaction reports in a single day during 1995.
The reality is that independent organizations have noted that 
aspartame toxicity reaction reports given to them have *increased* 
every year since the late 1980s (Stoddard 1995).  It is also
important to note that in mid-1995, the FDA admited that it had
stopped recording aspartame toxicity reactions (Food 1995).  That
may have something to do with why the numbers that the FDA reported
to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ 1996) were so small!


                     References Cited

Aviation Consumer 1988. "SafeGuard," June 15, 1988.

Aviation Medical Bulletin 1988. "Pilots and Aspartame,"
  October 1988.

Aviation Safety Digest 1989. "Aspartame -- not for the
  dieting pilot?" Aviation Safety Digest, ASD 142, Spring
  1989 (Australia - 062/5841111).

Blumenthal, H.J., D.A. Vance, 1997, "Chewing Gum Headaches," 
  Headache, Volume 37, Number 10, pages 665-666.

Butchko, Harriett H., Frank N. Kotsonis 1994. "Postmarketing
  Surveillance in the Food Industry: The Aspartame Case
  Study," in Nutritional Toxicology, edited by Frank N.
  Kotsonis, Maureen Macky and Jerry Hjelle, Raven Press,
  Ltd., New York, c1994.

CAA General Aviation (1989). Safety Information Leaflet,
  April 1989, Great Britain.

Canadian General Aviation News 1990. "Fit to fly" Canadian
  General Aviation News, March 1990, page 28.

DHHS 1993. "Adverse Reactions Associated With Aspartame
  Consumption," Department of Health & Human Services
  Memorandum, April 1, 1993, Reprinted in preface of
  "Bittersweet Aspartame: A Diet Delusion" by Barbara
  Alexander Mullarkey, NutriVoice, P.O. Box 946, Oak 
  Park, Illinois 60303, (708) 848-0116.

DHHS 1995. Department of Health and Human Services. "Report
  on All Adverse Reactions in the Adverse Reaction
  Monitoring System." (April 20, 1995).

Drake, M.E., 1986. "Panic Attacks and Excessive Aspartame Ingestion" 
  (Letter), Lancet, September 13, 1986, page 631.

Food 1986. Food Chemical News, July 28, 1986, page 44.

Food 1995. "Aspartame Adverse Reaction Reports Down in 1994
  From 1985 Peak: FDA," Food Chemical News, June 12, 1995,
  page 27.

GAO 1986. "Six Former HHS Employees' Involvement in
  Aspartame's Approval," United States General Accounting
  Office, GAO/HRD-86-109BR, July 1986.

General Aviation News 1989. "NutraSweet...too good to be
  true?" by Megan Hicks, General Aviation News, July 31,
  1989.

Gordon, Gregory, 1987. "NutraSweet: Questions Swirl," UPI
  Investigative Report, 10/12/87. Reprinted in US Senate
  U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 
  November 3, 1987 regarding "NutraSweet Health and Safety 
  Concerns." Document # Y 4.L 11/4:S.HR6.100, page 499.

ICAS 1995. "Aspartame Side Effects: Fact or Fiction?"
  International Council of Air Shows, February 1995.

Johns, Donald R., 1986. "Migraine Provoked By Aspartame," (Letter),
   New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 314, August 14, 1986,
   page 456.

Kessler, David A. 1993, "Introducing MEDWatch: A New
  Approach to Reporting Medication and Device Adverse
  Effects and Product Problems" Journal of the American
  Medical Association 269:2765-68.

Lipton, Richard B., et al., 1989. "Aspartame as a Dietary Trigger of 
  Headache," Headache, Volume 29, pages 90-92.

McCauliffe, D.P., K. Poitras, 1991. "Aspartame-Induced Lobular 
  Panniculitis," Journal of the American Academy of Dermitology, Volume 
  24, page 298-300.

Mission Possible 1994. Compiled by researchers, physicians,
  and artificial sweetner experts for Mission Possible, a
  group dedicated to warning consumers about aspartame.
  Available from Mission Possible, 9270 River Club Pkwy,
  Duluth, Georgia 30155, 770-242-2599, betty@pd.org.

Mission Possible 1996. Conversations between Betty Martini of
  Mission Possible and Mark D. Gold.

Monsanto 1994. "Monsanto Annual Report," 1994.

Moskal, Phil, 1990. Letter from Dr. Phil Moskal to George
  Leighton, June 19, 1990, Reprinted in "The Deadly Deception" 
  Compiled by the Aspartame Consumer Safety Network for volumes
  of available published information, ACSN, P.O. Box 780634,
  Dallas, Texas 75378, (800) 969-6050.

NBAA Digest 1993. "Operationally Speaking" by G. Dennis
  Wright, Vice President of Operations. NBAA Digest, Volume
  6, Number 6, June 1993. Available from National Business
  Aircraft Association, Inc., 1200 Eighteenth St., NW,
  Suite 200, Washington, DC 20036-2506, (202) 783-9000.

Novick, Nelson Lee, 1995. "Aspartame-Induced Granulomatous 
  Panniculitis," Annals of Internal Medicine, Volume 102, Number 2, 
  pages 206-207.

Pacific Flyer 1988. "This Could Save Your Life" Pacific
  Flyer Aviation News, November 1988, 3355 Mission Ave.,
  Oceanside, CA 92054.

Pacific Flyer 1995. "ICAS Issues Warning To Its Members About Diet 
  Drinks," March 1995.

Pauli, George, 1995. FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied
  Nutrition (CFSAN). Radio broadcast: "Aspartame," The
  Derek McGinty Show, WAMU Radio (88.5 FM), Brandywine
  Building, The American University, Washington, DC 20016-
  8082, (202) 885-1200, August 29, 1995.

Plane & Pilot 1990. "Getting High" Plane & Pilot, January
  1990, page 36-37.

Roberts, H.J., 1988. "Reactions Attributed to Aspartame-
  Containing Products: 551 Cases," Journal of Applied
  Nutrition, Volume 40, page 85-94.

Stoddard, Mary Nash, 1995. Conversations between Mary Nash
  Stoddard of the Aspartame Consumer Safety Network and
  Mark D. Gold.

Turner, James, Leonard, Rodney, 1984. Letter from Rodney E. Leonard 
  and James S. Turner of Community Nutrition Institute to Dr. Fank E. 
  Young, FDA Commissioner, September 13, 1984.  Reprinted in 
  "Aspartame Safety Act," Congressional Record, Volume 131, No. 106,
  August 1, 1985, page S10841.

Turner, James, 1987. Testimony of James Turner, Esq.,
  Community Nutrition Institute before the U.S. Senate
  Committee on Labor and Human Resources, November 3, 1987
  regarding "NutraSweet Health and Safety Concerns."
  Document # Y 4.L 11/4:S.HR6.100, page 316.

US Air Force 1992. "Aspartame Alert." Flying Safety 48(5):
  20-21 (May 1992).

USDA 1988. "1988 United States Department of Agriculture
  Situation and Outlook Report; Sugar and Sweeteners."
  Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 51.

WSJ 1996.  "Aspartame Critic Seeks More Research On Possibility of 
  Links to Brain Tumors," The Wall Street Journal, November 8, 1996.

Walton, Ralph G., 1986. "Seizure and Mania After High Intake
  of Aspartame," Psychosomatics, Volume 27, page 218-220.

Walton, Ralph G., 1988. "The Possible Role of Aspartame in
  Seizure Induction,"  Presented at "Dietary Phenylalanine
  and Brain Function." Proceedings of the First
  International Meeting on Dietary Phenylalanine and Brain
  Function, Washington, D.C., May 8-10, 1987. Center for
  Brain Sciences and Metabolism Charitable Trust, P.O. Box
  64, Kendall Square, Cambridge, MA 02142. Reprinted in
  "Dietary Phenyalalnine and Brain Function," c1988,
  Birkhauser, Boston, MA USA, page 159-162.

Watts, Richard S., 1991. "Aspartame, Headaches and Beta Blockers" 
  (Letter to the Editor), Headache, March, 1991, Page 181-182.

Wilson, Steve, 1985. "Sweet Suspicions," Television
  broadcast and interviews regarding aspartame. Transcript
  in Congressional Record, Volume 131, No. 106, August 1,
  1985, page S10826-S10827.

Wurtman, Richard J., 1985. "Aspartame: Possible Effect on
  Seizure Susceptibility" (Letter), The Lancet, Volume 2, page 1060.