Aspartame Being Re-Branded As AminoSweet: The Next Chapter In Aspartame’s Dangerous History —

[donnay]

Aspartame Being Re-Branded As AminoSweet: The Next Chapter In Aspartame’s Dangerous History —

Aspartame Being Re-Branded As AminoSweet: The Next Chapter In Aspartame’s Dangerous History — Don’t Be Deceived

by Christina Sarich

There’s been much talk about the dangers of Aspartame for quite some time now. It is a dangerous artificial sweetener found in many of the foods we consume every day, including soft drinks, chewing gum, breakfast cereals, and jams. Now, it’s important to know that aspartame may be disguised as a new name in your favorite foods – aminosweet.

Used as a sugar substitute and often marketed as Nutrasweet and Equal, aspartame is an excitotoxin that destroys the brain and body. Its use has been a controversial subject since the 1980s when the CEO of Searle, Donald Rumsfeld, pushed for it’s approval to be sold on the market. Now, its name is being changed, with FDA approval, to try to dupe millions into purchasing and consuming this toxin once again.

Aspartame, even renamed Amino Sweet, is not safe. This substance is made using genetically modified bacteria in the US, but according to a Monsanto source, the UK market does not have to eat genetically modified bacteria excrement. Many ‘low-calorie’ foods contain GMO aspartame, however, even overseas. Aspartame may cause blindness, cancer, and brain tumors.

Just as a reminder of who is pushing this excrement – quite literally – on the consumers of the United states, it was Mr. Rumsfeld who went on to become George W. Bush’s secretary of Defense, and crony-Capitalist agenda-pusher. This one substance has continually been shown to cause harm to human health, so why is the FDA renaming it instead of banning it completely from the food supply? There is considerable evidence that artificial sweeteners cause cancer, including aspartame specifically – so why not name it something more appropriate at least? ‘Sickeningly Sweet’ might be more appropriate.

Even saccharin eventually had to be made with a label, mandated by Congress, that says, “Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin, which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals”. The FDA’s own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross told Congress that without a shadow of a doubt, aspartame can cause brain tumors and brain cancer and that it violated the Delaney Amendment. Aside from cancers and tumors, top researchers have linked aspartame with the following symptoms and diseases:

Headaches
Memory loss
Seizures
Vision Loss
Coma
ADD
Lupus
Fibromyalgia
Muscular Dystrophy
Alzheimer’s
Chrnoic Fatigue
Diabetes
Depression


Continued...

 

[Suzanimal]

I went to a Christmas party and someone made a chocolate pie from a box that had that crap in it. I can taste it, it leaves a chemical aftertaste that even chocolate and copious amounts of Franzia couldn't wash out. I overheard someone saying it was "healthier".

 

[twoggle]

Wanted to add that there was an independent study in Europe that showed that aspartame ingestion led to the accumulation of formaldehyde (bound to protein/DNA) as "adducts" in the organs and tissues throughout the body. Aspartame is a useful poison for self-embalming.

 

[Suzanimal]

Wanted to add that there was an independent study in Europe that showed that aspartame ingestion led to the accumulation of formaldehyde (bound to protein/DNA) as "adducts" in the organs and tissues throughout the body. Aspartame is a useful poison for self-embalming.

Do you get an embalming discount at a participating funeral home if you eat a certain amount?

 

[Natural Citizen]

The first time that I ever consumed this stuff was by accident. It was in something that I ate after we moved up north from the south. It gave me the worst headache that I've ever had in my life. After that I never touched anything with it in it again.

Interestingly, I never ate anything processed until I moved up north. I think that the aftermath of my first experience with this stuff led me to consciously avoid processed food. Which I never had to do growing up. We basically ate a natural diet. We grew everything vegetable wise. Meat was hunted or fished. Water was from the spring out of the blue ridge mountains right there at the foot of the hill.

 

[Weston White]

Personally, I find that WoodSpiritsExcitoColiElCrappo holds a much more pleasant ring.

 

[Working Poor]

I went to a Christmas party and someone made a chocolate pie from a box that had that crap in it. I can taste it, it leaves a chemical aftertaste that even chocolate and copious amounts of Franzia couldn't wash out. I overheard someone saying it was "healthier".

As most of you already know I am highly allergic to it so much so that even going to the grocery store or restaurants is dangerous for me because I react to it even if it gets on my skin.

IMO it almost seems like they are trying to kill and maim people. To me it is so,so scary. The last time I mistakenly contacted it I was in bed for 3 days. My h wanted to take me to the hospital but I saw no reason to go be charged $3,000 over 2 cents worth of aspartame and I know what to do but was surprised that it took 3 days to work which usually it only takes a few minutes.

I almost go bonkers when I see people in wheel chairs and on oxygen drinking diet sodas. I want to go slap it out of their hands.

Thanks Donnay for helping to raise awareness.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Wanted to add that there was an independent study in Europe that showed that aspartame ingestion led to the accumulation of formaldehyde (bound to protein/DNA) as "adducts" in the organs and tissues throughout the body. Aspartame is a useful poison for self-embalming.

Formaldehyde is both produced and used by the body to produce needed proteins and what it doesn't need, it easily gets rid of. It doesn't build up unless you have a serious health issue. Breathing in large amounts can be harmful to the lungs though.

https://whatdoesthesciencesay.wordpress.com/2010/06/13/aspartame-and-formaldehyde/

While it is true that aspartame does break down into methanol then formaldehyde, it actually happens much more in fruit juices (about 2x in a banana, or 6x in an 8oz glass of tomato juice2).

To break it down:
Formaldehyde build-up has not in fact been detected even when 200mg/kg is given to humans (which is a huge amount)
Even when large does of direct methanol (which is what breaks down into formaldehyde) were given to monkeys, it did not produce formaldehyde build-up
There are other explanations for the labelled-carbon staying in the body, aside from formaldehyde build-up which will also occur with other substances (such as fruit pectin).

 

[twoggle]

Formaldehyde is both produced and used by the body to produce needed proteins and what it doesn't need, it easily gets rid of. It doesn't build up unless you have a serious health issue. Breathing in large amounts can be harmful to the lungs though.
[/url]

Nope. Formaldehyde binds to proteins and DNA and forms adducts. Yes, some of it is eliminated via conversion to formate. But if you've paid attention to the science for the last 15 years, then you'd know it can and does accumulate. Here is a link to an EPA doc about formaldehyde adducts:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.highlight/abstract/2338

Here are some studies related to smoking and accumulation of formaldehyde adducts:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=formaldehyde+adducts+smoking

"While it is true that aspartame does break down into methanol then formaldehyde, it actually happens much more in fruit juices (about 2x in a banana, or 6x in an 8oz glass of tomato juice2)."

This is simply rehashed Monsanto PR from the 1980's. In 1984, Dr. Woodrow Monte published a review of aspartame and methanol/formaldehyde discussing the fact that fruit naturally contains protective factors (chemicals) that prevent the conversion of methanol into formaldehyde once absorbed. Since then the debate has turned to protective factors and synergistic effects. That site you're quoting is at least 30 years out of date. One such protective factor in fruit is ethanol (but there are others). In fact, there are some fruits like tomatoes and black currents that contain so much methanol, a person ingesting these regularly would absorb more methanol that someone exposed to a significantly methanol-contaminated work environment. They would be poisoned if it weren't for the protective factors. The same is true with commercially produced alcoholic beverages -- they have large amounts of methanol, but the ethanol in these beverages blocks the methanol conversion to formaldehyde.

The fact remains that we only have one independent study looking at aspartame and formaldehyde adduct buildup and researchers found significant levels of formaldehyde adduct accumulation throughout the body of the animals at doses well below what is supposedly "safe." Rather than Monsanto conducting their own bias studies as a response, they just tried to make up other possibilities, but as one of the researchers responded:

"The "alternative" point expressed by Tephly, suggesting that aspartame methanol-label goes all the way into formic acid and the C1 pathway was thoroughly refuted by us, using experimental data. There was no labelled methionine nor thymine in protein and DNA respectively in the rat protein we recovered from rats treated with aspartame. This means--unequivocally-- that the label present in DNA and protein adducts was NOT incorporated into amino acids or nucleic acid bases. The only explanation for our data was that the label was in the form of formaldehyde adducts."

"Formaldehyde build-up has not in fact been detected even when 200mg/kg is given to humans (which is a huge amount)"

Who wrote this statement?! There aren't any tests to directly measure formaldehyde build up in living humans (at least at the time the statement was written)! They can and have measured it in sacrificed animals that ingested aspartame.

"Even when large does of direct methanol (which is what breaks down into formaldehyde) were given to monkeys, it did not produce formaldehyde build-up"

Yes, the manufacturer did conduct this one study in the early 1970's when they conducted their pre-approval studies. Only someone completely unfamiliar with the subject (whomever wrote that web page) would cite the manufacturer pre-approval studies. What they probably don't know is that their pre-approval studies were so bad and deceptive that 3 congressional hearings were held and the Good Laboratory Practices rules were put in place. The manufacturer case was referred to the justice department for criminal prosecution. Here are just a few highlights from the manufacturer's conduct start with an aspartame and monkey study (since the web page referred to that type of study):

"Instead of performing autopsies on rhesus monkeys that suffered seizures after being fed aspartame, the company had financed a new monkey seizure study with a different methodology that showed no problems."

"They [G.D. Searle] 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]

"It is significant to note that the Searle employee responsible for reviewing most of the reproduction studies had only one year of prior experience, working on population dynamics of cotton tail rabbits while employed by Illinois Wildlife Service. In order to prepare him for this title of 'Senior Research Assistant in Teratology' (fetal damage) Searle bought him books to read on the subject and also sent him to a meeting of the Teratology Society. This qualified him to submit 18 of the initial tests to the FDA, in addition to training an assistant and 2 technicians. He certainly must have kept them busy because Searle claimed that 329 teratology examinations were conducted in just 2 days. He estimated that he himself examined about 30 fetuses a day, but officials for the Center for Food and Applied Nutrition could never determine how that was possible."

"In the Aspartame 46 weeks hamster study, blood samples reported in the submission to FDA as 26 week values (for certain specified animals) were found by our investigators as being, in fact, values for different animals which were bled at the 38th week. Many of the animals for which these values were reported
(to the FDA) were dead at the 38th week."

Just a few of the many animals in the manufacturer pre-approval studies that had ressurrections:
J24HM Found dead 3/21/71
Alive 5/19/71
Dead 5/16/71
Alive 7/14/71
Dead 8/11/71

K18LF Alive 4/22/71
vanished (dead ?) 5/20/71
Alive 6/17/71
vanished (dead ?) 7/15/71

M25CF Found dead 3/6/71
Alive 6/18/71
Dead 7/16/71
Alive 9/10/71
Alive 10/8/71
Dead 11/5/71

These are the types of studies that Monsanto and their researchers cited for decades as evidence of "safety." Unfortunately, there appears to be some websites that still rely on this information. I think science can be useful, but not if destroyed by Monsanto.

 

[thoughtomator]

well there you have it - aspartame is not only TOTALLY SAFE, it can resurrect your hamster

 

[TheCount]

From November:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Renamed-%93Aminosweet%94&highlight=aminosweet

Aminosweet is just a brand name owned by Ajinomoto for aspertame, the substance hasn't been renamed. Aminosweet has been marketed since 2009.

 

[donnay]

Hey Count, you're wrong. http://www.aspartame.info/faqs/faqs.aspx

Aspartame or any other name is a POISON. It is in nearly everything...even things that do not say "Sugar Free." Check out, for example, Juicy Fruit gum ingredients. Aspartame is chemically addicting and does major damage to your body.

First Experimental Demonstration of the Multipotential Carcinogenic Effects of Aspartame Administered in the Feed to Sprague-Dawley Rats
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/

 

[twoggle]

Hey Count, you're wrong. http://www.aspartame.info/faqs/faqs.aspx
First Experimental Demonstration of the Multipotential Carcinogenic Effects of Aspartame Administered in the Feed to Sprague-Dawley Rats
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/

Donnay, thanks for that link.

I wanted to add that some people who are unfamiliar with the issue rely on statements from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to claim that aspartame is somehow "safe." What many don't know is that the EFSA was caught plagiarizing most of their latest work related to aspartame and effects on humans from a review funded by the manufacturer of aspartame. Here is a sampling of their plagiarism:

http://efsagate.orgfree.com/EFSA-Draft-Plagiarism2.htm

Notice how the long sentences that are strung together are, in some cases, exactly the same, and in some cases, nearly the same. Also, notice how occasionally the words order was changed (but not always) -- that indicates not just in inadvertent copy and paste, but a copy and then an intent to hide the plagiarism. The EFSA admitted to plagiairsing 60 lines in the human effects section, but that actually plagiarized much more. All of what they wrote/copied is made up nonsense, but at least we found out where they get their information. In two cases in the past, the EFSA was caught by TestBiotech plagiarising industry documents related to GMOs.

There have been reports demonstrating the EFSA board members' conflicts of interest such as: http://corporateeurope.org/news/efsa-conflicts-interest-board and http://www.testbiotech.org/en/node/429.

So, when I hear the "EFSA says .... ," I'm thinking where did their teams of plagiarists get their information.

Addendum:
----------
TestBiotech: 2 other examples of EFSA plagiarising industry documents:

1. See Section 2.3 of http://www.testbiotech.de/sites/default/files/EFSA_Playing_Field_of_ILSI.pdf
2. See Section 4 of http://www.testbiotech.de/sites/default/files/Testbiotech_comment_on_EFSA_%20Guidance_ERA.pdf

Admitting to Plagiarism (but lying about how many lines it was and pretending that plagiarising much of the aspartame and human health section was not a "critical part of the risk assessment."
See section 2.4 of http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/search/doc/523e.pdf

 

[TheCount]

Hey Count, you're wrong. http://www.aspartame.info/faqs/faqs.aspx

What am I wrong about? Aminosweet is not a brand name for a particular manufacturer's production of aspartame?

 

[Working Poor]

Aspartame or any other name is a POISON. It is in nearly everything...even things that do not say "Sugar Free." Check out, for example, Juicy Fruit gum ingredients. Aspartame is chemically addicting and does major damage to your body.

First Experimental Demonstration of the Multipotential Carcinogenic Effects of Aspartame Administered in the Feed to Sprague-Dawley Rats
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/

I remember when it was required for there to be a symbol on the label for any thing that had aspartame in it. Now it doesn't even have to be added to the ingredients list. Instead they put an * and say there maybe other ingredients not listed. I always take that to mean it has aspartame.

 

[donnay]

I remember when it was required for there to be a symbol on the label for any thing that had aspartame in it. Now it doesn't even have to be added to the ingredients list. Instead they put an * and say there maybe other ingredients not listed. I always take that to mean it has aspartame.

Yes definitely. The deceptive practices are the norm. One of the reason I have been shopping local and staying away from grocery stores and all their processed foods.

 

[twoggle]

Just wanted to add a couple of things to my earlier post on EFSA and their plagiarism and conflict of interest, partly so I have the links somewhere in a post. (See post above.)

I started to peruse the EFSA Nutrition Panel members at https://ess.efsa.europa.eu/doi/doiweb/wg/638178 . They all have Declarations of Interest (Doi) documents available. So I picked one at random, Daniel Tome', for example. If you click and read his Declaration of Interests, you'll see things like a participation in an ILSI (industry) conference, but nothing about Ajinomoto (currently the main manufacturer of aspartame). However, just a quick look online and I found a study funded by Ajinomoto where he was an author: ajpgi.physiology.org/content/300/1/G137-0.full.pdf (see page 8 of 9 for Grant info), a conference where he presentation was funded by Ajinomoto: http://icn2013.com/pages/scientific_program/pdf/sponsoredsymposiaprogramme or page 15 of Ajinomoto's own web page: http://www.ajinomotoinnovation.com/Docs/Events/EB_brochure_A5version20140401_3.pdf and many other connections.

I wonder if they all leave off information from their Declarations of Interests.