Aspartame, Rumsfeld, and Public Health

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:01 pm

OK, a few links here:
http://www.wnho.net/history_of_aspartame.htm
http://www.vaclib.org/news/astimes.htm
Condensed: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/20 ... searle.htm

Summary:
Aspartame is an artificial sweetner (aka nutrasweet, phenylalanine). The vast majority of studies involved with it either have inconclusive or results that indicate that Aspartame is not safe for public consumption. In the 70s the FDA refused to allow it.

# Spring 1971-Neuroscientist Dr. John Olney (whose pioneering work with monosodium glutamate was responsible for having it removed from baby foods) informs Searle that his studies show that aspartic acid (one of the ingredients of aspartame) caused holes in the brains of infant mice. One of Searle's own researchers confirmed Dr. Olney's findings in a similar study.
# February 1973-After spending tens of millions of dollars conducting safety tests, the G.D. Searle Company applies for FDA approval and submits over 100 studies they claim support aspartame's safety.
# March 5, 1973-One of the first FDA scientists to review the aspartame safety data states that "the information provided (by Searle) is inadequate to permit an evaluation of the potential toxicity of aspartame". She says in her report that in order to be certain that aspartame is safe, further clinical tests are needed.
# March 24, 1976-Turner and Olney's petition triggers an FDA investigation of the laboratory practices of aspartame's manufacturer, G.D. Searle. The investigation finds Searle's testing procedures shoddy, full of inaccuracies and "manipulated" test data. The investigators report they "had never seen anything as bad as Searle's testing."
# January 10, 1977-The FDA formally requests the U.S. Attorney's office to begin grand jury proceedings to investigate whether indictments should be filed against Searle for knowingly misrepresenting findings and "concealing material facts and making false statements" in aspartame safety tests. This is the first time in the FDA's history that they request a criminal investigation of a manufacturer.
# January 26, 1977-While the grand jury probe is underway, Sidley & Austin, the law firm representing Searle, begins job negotiations with the U.S. Attorney in charge of the investigation, Samuel Skinner.
# March 8, 1977-G. D. Searle hires prominent Washington insider Donald Rumsfeld as the new CEO to try to turn the beleaguered company around. A former Member of Congress and Secretary of Defense in the Ford Administration, Rumsfeld brings in several of his Washington cronies as top management.
# July 1, 1977-Samuel Skinner leaves the U.S. Attorney's office and takes a job with Searle's law firm. (see Jan. 26th)
# August 1, 1977-The Bressler Report, compiled by FDA investigators and headed by Jerome Bressler, is released. The report finds that 98 of the 196 animals died during one of Searle's studies and weren't autopsied until later dates, in some cases over one year after death. Many other errors and inconsistencies are noted. For example, a rat was reported alive, then dead, then alive, then dead again; a mass, a uterine polyp, and ovarian neoplasms were found in animals but not reported or diagnosed in Searle's reports.
# December 8, 1977-U.S. Attorney Skinner's withdrawal and resignation stalls the Searle grand jury investigation for so long that the statute of limitations on the aspartame charges runs out. The grand jury investigation is dropped.

On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as president of the United States, G.D. Searle resubmitted its petition for FDA approval of aspartame.

# May 19, 1981-Three of six in-house FDA scientists who were responsible for reviewing the brain tumor issues, Dr. Robert Condon, Dr. Satya Dubey, and Dr. Douglas Park, advise against approval of NutraSweet, stating on the record that the Searle tests are unreliable and not adequate to determine the safety of aspartame.

According to former G.D. Searle salesperson Patty Wood-Allott, G.D. Searle President and former (and current) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld circulated a memo among his sales people stating that, if necessary, "he would call in all his markers and that, no matter what, he would see to it that aspartame would be approved that year."
(Gordon, 1987, page 499, U.S. Senate, 1987)
True to his word, aspartame was approved for use in dry products July 15, 1981.

# July 15, 1981-In one of his first official acts, Dr. Arthur Hayes Jr., the new FDA commissioner, overrules the Public Board of Inquiry, ignores the recommendations of his own internal FDA team and approves NutraSweet for dry products. Hayes says that aspartame has been shown to be safe for its' proposed uses and says few compounds have withstood such detailed testing and repeated close scrutiny.
----------

And that really is a summary. There is a crapload of information about this on the internet. If this is all true, it is a disgrace. I would love to hear opposing points of view on this, so please if you have knowledge on this, add something.

birds

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:30 pm

The free market will obviously cure this. Once people start dropping dead because of holes in their brains, people will stop buying the product, and the product will fail. Tests for a product's safety before introduction are the ultimate example of unwarranted socialist do-gooder oppression, that thwarts a quick time-to-market. That is the problem with this country, there isn't enough culling of the ignorant and gullible.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:50 pm

http://www.snopes.com/toxins/aspartame.asp

Either way, if you don't trust it, don't eat it. Simple. There's a reason all foods are labelled with their ingredients and nutritional information. Frankly, this is just another class action lawsuit in search of a honeypot which stems from the *do-gooder* premise that none of us are responsible for what we put in our mouths and we need Big Brother to regulate every aspect of our lives.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Jun 05, 2004 9:51 pm

thanks bash

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 11:31 am

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:54 pm

Aspartame is a pain enhancer IIRC, I prefer to stick to good ole sugar!

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:53 pm

This is one of the reasons I will never drink diet anything. I refuse to put such a strong carcinogen in my gullet.

Wasnt there an alternative sweetner? Saccarin or something? Whats the health report on that one?

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 12:42 am

i'm a diabetic and i eat sugar rather than artificial sweeteners. when i eat artificual sweeteners i notice all these weird health effects, i only understood that the artifical sweeteners were cauing them when i stopped eating them. also artificial sweeteners can have these really weird effects on your blood sugars, no-one's quite sure why this happens, but most diabetics will be able to tell you about it.

so i just use sugar. it's better for you.

i tried to look into "are they dangerous?" but i found so much conflicting and polarised information that i gave up. so until i get answers, i just keep using sugar and i give myself more insulin if i need to.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:30 pm

" tried to look into "are they dangerous?" but i found so much conflicting and polarised information that i gave up"

Yeah, that's where I am at. I find all these articles highly against it, then there are alternatives who just call it a hoax. Personally, I'd prefer to just be leary in general of all non "natural" sources of food intake and generally ignore lots of studies with concern to my nutrition.

When studies came out saying wine was good for you, I laughed and said so is grape juice. I am scared of high fructose corn syrup, bovine growth hormones like rBST, and the like.

I figure I'm believing some sort of conspiracy theory, but then I'm also probably getting some health benefits by being cautious.

As always, it's best to just eat an obviously good diet. Variety, moderate portions, vegetables. That's really all I need to think about

MehYam · Post by **MehYam** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:36 pm

You really can't eat anything. If people are looking for substance fears, there's plenty to be afraid of (starting with the alarming quantities of lead continually being released into the atmosphere).

So Aspartame's been around for almost 25 years? Good, I'll keep drinking it. I already have enough holes in my head, a few more won't make a difference.

Processed sugar vs. Nutrasweet is a matter of picking your poison (literally). One that has known harmful effects vs. another that might. And I, for one, feel like real crap if I've had too much sugar.

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 3:19 pm

I avoid refined sugar whenever possible. However, every once in a while I break down and indulge myself at LaMarr's Donuts (best freaking donuts in the world). Invariably the next morning I feel like I've spent the previous evening out drinking hard. Kai nails it when he says it's a matter of picking your poision. Life is fatal.

roid · Post by **roid** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 3:23 am

sugar isn't that harmful. we know why we feel crap after a sugar binge, it's not that harmful if you have a functional pancreas. (also sugar does NOT cause diabeties)

it's hardly a poison. it's a fuel (the brain in particular, runs on glucose).

MehYam · Post by **MehYam** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:30 pm

Anything's harmful in the right quantity.

All I can say is that I count myself among the group that feels a lot better when they avoid sugar, and its extra calories, altogether.

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:53 am

i could uh... stab away that problem temporarily for you if you wanted

insulin, the other other other white meat.