European Trials Reaffirm Truth: Aspartame Is Safe, Does Not Cause Side Effects

angelatc

Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
50,703
If only there was a cure for hypochondria.

Yet another "gold standard" double bind test fails to produce a single person who actually has any side effects to ingesting aspartame.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-sweetener-SAFE-effects-trials-discover.html

There was also a control group of another 50 others who have eaten aspartame in food and fizzy drink over many years without any ill-effects.

However, the investigation found no evidence of harm in either those who reported past sensitivity to aspartame or the control group.


Significantly, this was a so-called double-blind trial where neither the trial participants or the researchers knew which of the bars was being eaten.


Yesterday, the Food Standards Agency announced that as a result of the British research, the Committee on Toxicity(CoT) had decided there is no need

And this is from the whiny Europeans, too.
 
Flashback:

EFSA BOSS: "WE WERE PRESSURED BY INDUSTRY TO HIJACK SCIENCE"

Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum.
Mission Possible World Health International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
Telephone: 770-242-2599
E-Mail: [email protected]



Posted: 22 September 2011


This is the candid confession of Dr. Herman Koeter, head of the European Food Safety Authority, after resigning from the corrupted agency. His conscience got the best of him.

PICTURE THIS: A powerful multinational gang of criminals has been operating for years completely protected from prosecution by any enforcement agency. Finally the count of murders and maimings has raised a public outcry that can't be ignored, so a special government tribunal is charged to investigate the atrocities.

The tribunal is given voluminous evidence with a multitude of victim's testimonies that defy contradiction and confirm the guilt of the gang. 20 "experts" are to weigh the evidence, well qualified to understand the technical nature of the matter at hand. Things are looking up, soon the carnage will end and EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, shall announce to the world that aspartame is a deadly neurotoxin, unsafe for humans in any form.

But eleven of the "experts" have connections with the aspartame industry, are enriched by it. Somehow the evidence is "lost", So EFSA declares this chemical poison is safe as rain. safe for babies, safe for children, safe for pregnant mothers, safe for diabetics, safe for everybody!

On 6/11/2011 the watchdog organization, Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) named the eleven industry flacks in the aspartame whitewash. The report begins: "New research by CEO has identified conflict of interest among the scientific experts advising EFSA on the safety of food additives, including the controversial sweetener aspartame. Not only were EFSA's own rules on conflicts of interest breached in some cases, but that these rules fail to protect the public from potentially industry-biased opinions on food safety." Think of it this way: the Godfather is on trial, and half the jury is in the Corleone Family. "Not to worry" proclaimed EFSA's top dog, Dr. Koeter, as reported by in the UK Guardian by Felicity Lawrence 6-15-06:

?It was an unusual opening gambit for the director of the European food safety authority, but Dr Herman Koéter wanted to tackle the persistent controversy that has swirled around the artificial sweetener aspartame head on. His expert scientists were gathered at a press conference in Rome ten days ago to give their latest opinion on whether the sweetener causes cancer. Aspartame is eaten every day by millions of people around the world in over 6,000 well-known brands of food, drink and medicine. Any review of its safety has enormous political and economic implications.

"The latest episode in the drama began a few months ago when Italy's independent Ramazzini Foundation published a new and exceptionally large study, which said that aspartame caused several types of cancer in rats at doses very close to the current acceptable daily intake for humans. Dr Koéter commissioned an urgent reassessment of aspartame. It was the first big test for the recently formed authority, which has already lost its first director and 10% of its staff. Over 1,000 people were waiting for the webcast of its judgment on the Italian research.

"But first, Dr Koeter said, he wanted to clear up misunderstandings about "conflicts of interest" among his advisory panel overseeing the review. MEPs complained last month that the scientist who chairs the advisory panel, Dr Susan Barlow, works for the International Life Sciences Institute, a body funded by sweetener manufacturers and major aspartame users such as Coca Cola, PepsiCo and Nestlé, and Monsanto. The European commission was also told by MEPs of other "conflicts of interest". One scientist involved in the review had declared a research grant from Ajinomoto, the leading Japanese manufacturer of aspartame, they said. Other panel members listed links with food processors such as Nestlé in their declarations of interest.

"'But to say that these scientists therefore have a conflict of interest was a misunderstanding.' Dr Koeter explained to the Rome conference. The panel had been "fully impartial". Finally Koeter got sick of the cover-ups and just couldn't take it anymore. He left EFSA and let the truth be known as is revealed in these several recent posts."

EFSA's defense of its independence reveals another conflict of interest, 18 June 2011

1. Former EFSA top official criticizes EFSA's management

2. Response to CEO report on EFSA conflicts of interest, from Steve Pagani of the EFSA

NOTE: Recently we announced a new report from Corporate Europe Observatory about yet more conflicts of interest at the EU's GM food/pesticide/food safety regulatory body, EFSA, this time within the ANS Panel, which gives scientific opinions on food additives. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13249

Our attention has been drawn to an interview of 2008, in which former ex-EFSA top official Herman Koeter strongly criticized EFSA's management after he left office (item 1), warning that it compromised EFSA's independence. In response to the latest CEO report, EFSA defended its independence in an email to GMWatch (item 2): "It is worth noting that EFSA has been benchmarked against 10 other peer organizations by an external consultancy who found EFSA to have one of the most advanced and robust systems in place towards ensuring independence of scientific expertise and advice."

"What is the unnamed "external consultancy" that came up with this ringing endorsement of EFSA's independence? A company called Milieu Ltd: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/mb110317/docs/mb110317-ax8b.pdf

"Who are they? According to their website, Milieu is "a consultancy focusing on international and European law and policy. Our lawyers, economists & technical experts work closely with our public sector clients to help develop more effective policies and regulatory structures in the areas of environmental protection, climate change and sustainable development, worker health and safety, consumer protection, fundamental rights, development of civil society and related fields." http://www.milieu.be

"Milieu's senior technical associate is one Dr Iona Pratt, "a consultant toxicologist and chemical safety specialist" with "wide experience in the area of chemicals regulation in Europe as well as internationally". http://www.milieu.be/iona_pratt.html But this is not Pratt's only job. Amazingly, she is also vice-chair of the EFSA's ANS Panel on food additives. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/ans/ansmembers.htm

"More specifically, she is one of four members of this expert panel named in the CEO report as having failed to declare an active collaboration with the food industry-funded think tank and lobby group, the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI Europe). http://www.corporateeurope.org/system/files/files/resource/EFSA_ANS_panel.pdf While Pratt is not listed as an author of the Milieu report that praised EFSA's independence, in the light of this further conflict of interest, it can hardly be called an objective endorsement. We find it interesting that even EFSA's defense of its independence turns out to reveal yet more evidence of conflicts of interest." 3. Former EFSA top official criticizes EFSA's management Vroege Vogels (Netherlands) 10/21/08 [English translation of excerpt from Dutch original] "Koeter warned that the independence and quality of the agency is at risk. He sees a lot of politically motivated requests from the European Commission, including a request to review the position on genetically modified organisms. Koeter believes that many requests for a rapid assessment of food additives could jeopardize the quality of the judgments. An internal survey shows that the staff is very dissatisfied. Koeter said fewer and fewer scientists are willing to work for EFSA. While in 2003, 235 people responded to a vacancy, now it's only 70. Internally, scientists are afraid to have a diverging opinion, fearing for their contract. An internal survey in January [2008] showed that less than one third of the staff called the working atmosphere 'good'. More than half believed the environment was degrading. Koeter finds it incomprehensible that EFSA head Catherine Geslain ignores all this".

Aspartame is in thousands of foods and drinks. There are big advantages to producers: It's much cheaper than sugar. It retards spoilage, since the chemical formula is not food for bacteria. It's addictive, induces compulsive consumption, sales skyrocket! It's also easy to mix into a product since so little is required. These benefits come to the thousands of food processors using it.

Nevertheless aspartame sales are in the toilet. Holland Sweetener, The largest European, producer, closed their doors 12/2006 Chicago's Merisant went into temporary bankruptcy in 2009 due to midget sales.

Ajinomoto, Japanese producer, gave aspartame an alias in 2010: AminoSweet The aspartame industry will fight like tigers to hide the truth.. They flood the Internet with hundreds of sites pushing their poison. Don't bet your life on their lies! Splenda sales have a large share of the market. It's toxic too: Trichlorinated sugar!

When you put the whole issue together you understand why aspartame has not been banned in the UK. Aspartame was approved in England through a business deal with Paul Turner of the agency there. http://www.mpwhi.com/how_aspartame_got_approved_in_england.htm Parliament had a big blow out and the story was in the Guardian. Unfortunately they did not rescind the order. When aspartame was reviewed in 2002 I flew to Brussels with Felicity Mawson, Mission Possible UK, and gave damning information on aspartame and turning over stacks of records to the EU. It was obvious they were not interested because the decision had already been made. The damning information was deleted from the review. I had shown them records explaining how industry did studies so they would not use those flawed. They ended up using those very studies and deleted the ones they needed. However, OLAF, European Anti-Fraud agency found that indeed there was no committee making the decision, simply one person. No more European Commission on Food, and the agency, EFSA, European Food Safety Authority was born. They have done no better rebutting independent scientific peered research because they were pressured by industry as Dr. Koeter confessed.

Aspartame was approved through the political chancery of Don Rumsfeld in the US, no science. The FDA attempted to have the original manufacturer, G. D. Searle indicted for fraud, and revoked the petition for approval, without success. In the UK there weren't even any studies done. Now EFSA is up at bat again, this time after 11 of their team have been exposed with links to industry.

When will someone consider the health and welfare of consumers? What does it take to remove a deadly addictive, excitoneurotoxic, carcinogenic and genetically engineered drug that damages the mitochondria and interacts with drugs and vaccine? Aspartame Disease is now a global plague triggering epidemics of obesity, diabetes, MS, lupus, cancer, seizures, blindness, psychiatric problems, birth defects, sudden cardiac death and neurodegenerative diseases, for starters. Further, the free methyl alcohol is 35 times too high in the UK and 44 times too high in the US, with consumers dying of methanol poisoning. Charles Fleming was one of them, and his wife Diane, who passed 3 lie detector tests, was sentenced to 30 years in prison where she still remains after 9 years of efforts to free her. Bankruptcy in 2009 due to midget sales.

Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum.
Founder, Mission Possible World Health International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
770-242-2599
E-Mail: [email protected]
http://www.wpwhi.com
http://www.wnho.net
http://www.dorway.com

For all the embedded links click the link: http://www.mpwhi.com/pressured_to_hijack_science.htm

More info: http://www.laleva.org/eng/2013/03/question_to_efsa_how_can_aspartame_be_considered_safe.html
 
If only there was a cure for hypochondria.
Yet another "gold standard" double bind test fails to produce a single person who actually has any side effects to ingesting aspartame.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-sweetener-SAFE-effects-trials-discover.html
.

Are you calling a one day study of aspartame ingestion (a small amount at that) a "Gold Standard"? There are actually published,
independent, double-blind studies that are much longer that demonstrate adverse effects from aspartame ingestion. Notice how
the person writing the news article puts the word, "safe" in all caps. What kind of journalist actually does that??? Actually, that
was probably an Editor decision.
 
Are you calling a one day study of aspartame ingestion (a small amount at that) a "Gold Standard"?

No, I am simply pointing out that this study reaffirms what the overwhelming entire body of studies from across the globe spanning the course of decades has proved again and again and again. I was calling the method they used, a double blind study, the gold standard. Since you aren't really informed, it means neither the researchers nor the subjects know which group is the study group and which group is the control group. It is the purest way to conduct trials, and for that reason the method is called, "the gold standard."

In order for a position to stand, other researchers have to be able to replicate both the study and the results.
 
Last edited:
The controversial sweetener aspartame has effectively been cleared as safe to eat by Government experts...

Well. Whew. If Government "experts" say so then everything must be a-okay. Heh. You crack me up, woman. I'm probably not going to follow the model of your Government "experts", though.
 
Last edited:
What kind of term is that anyhow? Government experts. Scwewy.
silly.gif
 
If only there was a cure for hypochondria.

Yet another "gold standard" double bind test fails to produce a single person who actually has any side effects to ingesting aspartame.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-sweetener-SAFE-effects-trials-discover.html



And this is from the whiny Europeans, too.

Angela, did you actually read this article before posting it? It seems that you did not.

An EU funded project published in 2010 found pregnant women who down cans of fizzy drink containing artificial sweeteners appear to be at greater risk of having a premature baby

It is rare for a mother to be to give birth early - before 37 weeks - assuming all aspects of the pregnancy have been normal. The research found this low risk was increased by 38per cent if the woman was drinking an average of one can of diet drink a day.

The statistics, gathered by academics in Denmark, showed that a woman who routinely drank at least four cans a day could increase the risk by as much as 78per cent. This meant that if the risk of a premature birth was normally one in a 100, it increased to 1.78 in 100.

The professor also highlighted work by the independent Ramazzini Foundation in Italy, which has published research suggesting aspartame caused several types of cancer in rats at doses very close to the current acceptable daily intake for humans.


Two fatal flaws in your "logic."

1) The study you are basing your conclusions on says nothing about pregnancy. Is thylidomide safe for general human use? Maybe. Okay for pregnant women? No.

2) There is no mention of the duration of the study. People can smoke for years without developing cancer. How long were people fed aspartame cereal bars? Weeks? Months? Certainly not years.

So, in conclusion, your "scientific" conclusion is unscientific because the study you are quoting doesn't apparently address the actual health concerns people are raising with respect to aspartame.

Side note. As you continue in your "pro science" jihad, you are becoming less and less credible. This is just the latest example. You're merely throwing up articles that you think support your position without thinking them through critically. There's a scientific study that says X therefore not only X but Y and Z must be true. Are you ready to start buying carbon credits yet? After all there are "science" studies that say you should.
 
No, I am simply pointing out that this study reaffirms what the overwhelming entire body of studies from across the globe spanning the course of decades has proved again and again and again. I was calling the method they used, a double blind study, the gold standard. Since you aren't really informed, it means neither the researchers nor the subjects know which group is the study group and which group is the control group. It is the purest way to conduct trials, and for that reason the method is called, "the gold standard."
In order for a position to stand, other researchers have to be able to replicate both the study and the results.

Well, at least you know you were posting a link to a news article about a one-day unpublished study. The claim was that aspartame was somehow "safe" after the results of this one-day study came in. What you may not be aware of is that in his "Volunteers Needed" letter, Dr. Atkin (the lead researcher) claimed that aspartame was "safe" and you can see that in articles online by just searching for Atkin, aspartame and "safe." That type of action certainly doesn't encourage people who have reacted badly and feel it is dangerous to come in and be a subject in such a study. That is probably why they had trouble getting volunteers.

Well you and I would agree that if you printed out all of the Monsanto/industry studies claiming aspartame is safe and all of the independent studies finding it causes problems, the Monsanto/industry side would weigh somewhat more on a scale. They are prolific, I'll give you that. But when I read beyond the abstracts, I found all sorts of deceptive practices. So, since this study is on aspartame and headaches, do you want to actually discuss the published research specifically geared towards aspartame and headaches?
 
Last edited:
Thanks Angela I feel very reassured that whenever I accidentally consume aspartame and start having seizures and symptoms of a heart attack that I am merely being a hypochondriac/
 
Thanks Angela I feel very reassured that whenever I accidentally consume aspartame and start having seizures and symptoms of a heart attack that I am merely being a hypochondriac/
When you are dead and laying in your coffin at the funeral, she will come picket your funeral saying you were stupid, ignorant, and that you thought yourself to death in a desperate attempt to make other people stupid too.
 
When you are dead and laying in your coffin at the funeral, she will come picket your funeral saying you were stupid, ignorant, and that you thought yourself to death in a desperate attempt to make other people stupid too.

Wouldn't that be nice.
 
No, I am simply pointing out that this study reaffirms what the overwhelming entire body of studies from across the globe spanning the course of decades has proved again and again and again. I was calling the method they used, a double blind study, the gold standard. Since you aren't really informed, it means neither the researchers nor the subjects know which group is the study group and which group is the control group. It is the purest way to conduct trials, and for that reason the method is called, "the gold standard."

In order for a position to stand, other researchers have to be able to replicate both the study and the results.

Except the only thing the study "proves" is that you can find a group of people in a double blind study that don't get headaches from aspartame. That neither proves aspartame is "safe" nor does it prove that nobody ever has a side effect to aspartame. I could do a "double blind" study to recruiting people to see if peanuts are "safe." Anybody with a known peanut allergy would not join the study. And, for the overwhelming majority of people, peanuts have no side effects. You would declare that scientific proof that peanuts don't harm anybody. Or maybe you would only do that if they were genetically modified peanuts? :rolleyes:

Also I could do a one day study on tobacco use and declare it to be "safe" because nobody reported any side effects. Really, you don't see the problem with your "logic?"
 
Back
Top