From: Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum., Bettym19@mindspring.com
Date: Sat, May 10, 2008 12:23 pm
Subject: UK: Food Standards Cover-up of Aspartame Toxicity
Dear Ms. Griffin Sackey:
You say you have read the letters and addressed the issues in earlier correspondence. You simply ignored the evidence. Example: I asked why your web site has only industry propaganda instead of facts. It is the same "aspartame is safe" misinformation used by the manufacturer, professional organizations funded by the manufacturer to defend them and front groups to mislead the public. I sent you the rebuttal with medical references so you would change this deception. Here is again: http://www.dorway.com/offasprt.html So please explain to me why you still have misinformation on your web site after reading these medical references. If you can't accept these references and accurate facts tell me why. Food Standards was created to be independent from industry, not to be their mouthpiece. Yet independent research uncontrolled/funded by aspartame manufacturers prove it's deadly. Where are those studies on your web site? There has been at least 18 in the last 2 years.
There have been 3 studies in Greece. http://www.wnho.net/new_greek_aspartame_studies.htm
New studies implicate aspartame with neurological problems, learning and memory. Dr. H. J. Roberts said: "The demonstration that large concentrations of aspartame can influence acetylcholine metabolism in any model is important, especially relative to brain function. It has profound implications concerning the evolution of Alzheimer's disease, as discussed in my text on this subject." Memory loss is #9 on the FDA list of 92 symptoms. Roberts' book "Defense Against Alzheimer's Disease" http://www.sunsentpress.com explains that aspartame is escalating Alzheimer's.
Where on your web site is a warning that the formaldehyde converted from the methyl ester in aspartame embalms living tissue and damages DNA as demonstrated by the Trocho Study. Rather than warning UK citizens, you publish a fictional rebuttal by a known aspartame flack. FSA is supposed to protect the people of the UK not prisoner's profits. Reference the data on aspartame pre-embalming in Dr. H. J. Roberts 1,000 page medical text: "Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic" www.mpwhi.com/formaldehyde_from_aspartame.pdf
If you show independent studies, because they are particularly damning and well known, it's so you can have an industry rebuttal to try and allay concern. Industry will rebut any independent study because they are trying to defend this poison. So instead of accepting legitimate prestigious research like the three year Ramazzini Study confirming FDA's records that aspartame is a multipotential carcinogen and the Trocho Study, FSA accepts the flacks misinformation to dissolve the truth. Since you've been sent the facts and haven't even attempted to rebut them are you saying FSA can't tell fact from fiction? If you really intend to protect people in the UK we expect you to post studies by independent researchers.
Every new study showing aspartame toxicity is smothered by the ghouls that make and sell it. They claim aspartame is "the most tested additive in history." In one test on seven infant monkeys five had grand mal seizures and one died. When will you publish that one? Food Standards' Dame Deirde Hutton, CBE addressed the British Soft Drink Association with these remarks:
"I personally don't see sweeteners as the panacea for calorie balance not for any safety reasons, despite the Ramazzini study popping up again briefly last week. Aspartame is one of the most tested food additives there is. We have an Acceptable Daily Intake set and that's the end of story unless or until any new, reliable evidence emerges."
Who is Deirdre Hutton who defends industry? Examine: http://www.food.gov.uk/aboutus/ourboard/boardmem/damedeirdrehutton
Said she: "we have an Acceptable Daily Intake set and that's the end of story unless or until any new, reliable evidence emerges", Hutton did no homework. Aspartame was approved in England through a deal with Paul Turner and no studies were done in the UK. There was a blowout in Parliament and the story was in the Guardian. So Food Standards relies on the FDA. Are you FDA's rubber stamp?
On August 1, l985 the FDA's own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross, told Congress of Searle's studies "has established beyond ANY REASONABLE DOUBT that aspartame is capable of inducing brain tumors in experimental animals and that this predisposition of it is of extremely high significance. ... In view of these indications that the cancer causing potential of aspartame is a matter that had been established WAY BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT, one can ask: What is the reason for the apparent refusal by the FDA to invoke for this food additive the so-called Delaney Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act?"
The Delaney Amendment makes it illegal to allow any residues of carcinogenic chemicals in food. In his concluding testimony Gross asked, "Given the cancer causing potential of aspartame how would the FDA justify its position that it views a certain amount of aspartame as constituting an allowable daily intake or 'safe' level of it? Is that position in effect not equivalent to setting a 'tolerance' for this food additive and thus a violation of that law? And if the FDA itself elects to violate the law, who is left to protect the health of the public?" Record SID835:131 (August 1, l985)
FDA outlawed an allowable dose of any additive causing cancer, and declared aspartame a carcinogen and violating the Delaney Amendment. Get facts before you defend a chemical poison. Dame Deirdre Hutton's remarks about the most tested additive in history but didn't disclose that the studies were invalidated, and Dr. Adrian Gross explained that deliberate misconduct and lies invalidated all their experiments for these reasons:
So FDA revoked the petition for approval. Read their decision. You owe it to the citizens of the UK to not poison them! http://www.mpwhi.com/fda_petition1.doc
You assert: "Following reviews from independent experts at European level and those who advise the UK Government, no evidence has come to light which warrants the prohibition of aspartame from foods." I repeatedly informed you about those "experts" and took the government and medical evidence to the European Union, but they ignored it.
Here is the "Independent Analysis of the "Opinion of the European Commission, Scientific Committee on Food: Update on the Safety of Aspartame / E951" http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/scf2002.html I sent this before. Please read it this time.
An investigation by OLAF revealed that only one person made the decision. All this data is in the above report. Your "European experts" decision was invalidated and their report is meaningless. No real research was considered. This is why they ignored the damning research I brought to Brussels. They just needed one flack to defend aspartame manufacturers so were not concerned with the scientific evidence. They didn't expect OLAF to expose their intent. So now we have the European Food Safety Authority. Since you haven't addressed this issue either, here again is my open letter to the EFSA: http://www.wnho.net/letter_to_efsa.htm Links to Ajinomoto were described in the UK press and Dr. Koeter of the EFSA confessed they were battling attempts by industry to hijack science. The aspartame manufacturers are known for their power and influence in getting governments to defend them.
Dr. Koeter's confession was in Navigator: http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=70720-efsa-health-claims-antibiotics
Notice they mention the Ramazzini Study which was peer reviewed by 7 world experts, showing aspartame a multipotential carcinogen. Subsequently a new study by Dr. Soffritti of Ramazzini has shown only a small amount of aspartame will cause cancer, and if a pregnant woman uses it and the baby survives the child can grow up to develop cancer. Dame Hutton is also a member of EFSA.
You ignore these issues,, that these organizations have been exposed. You say, "The UK would need to prove that it was harmful to human health. However, the FSA is of the view that the scientific evidence shows that the consumption of aspartame is safe for humans." The FSA knows that aspartame is toxic. You've had complaints for years, and often I get copies of them.
The modus operandi of the aspartame industry has been to prevent independent studies and even threaten researchers. Read how Dr. Richard Wurtman of MIT was threatened in the United Press International investigation. http://www.wnho.net/upi_1987_aspartame1.htm
If a study gets out that is damning on aspartame like the Trocho Study they try to assassinate the character of the researcher. In Barcelona I spoke with this scientist, and Dr. Alemany said immediately research funds were reduced as well. Interestingly, governments get upset when they find clothing from China has formaldehyde. There is even an on-going investigation in the US about the formaldehyde in Katrina trailers. Yet governments look away when they find a product on the marketing is pre-embalming humans with formaldehyde. The aspartame manufacturers can buy lots of power and influence because they have a cash cow, an addictive excitoneurotoxic carcinogenic drug. They might as well have cocaine on the market because aspartame is said to be just as addictive and we have an Aspartame Information List, which is also support to help these victims get through withdrawal. The free methyl alcohol is classified as a narcotic and causes chronic methanol poisoning. This affects the dopamine system of the brain and causes addiction. Here is Dr. Roberts paper on it: http://www.dorway.com/tldaddic.html Essence Center in North Carolina takes aspartame addicts who have trouble kicking the habit.
The Ramazzini Study on 1,800 rats was impeccable, and the EFSA had no valid rebuttal, so they made up a stupid excuse and got caught. They said the dying rats had respiratory disease. Of course, respiratory disease is part of the dying process! They were laughed at when Dr. Soffritti answered their excuse.
Dr. Ralph Walton's presentation on 60 Minutes showed that 92% of all independent, peer reviewed studies reveal aspartame problems, but 100% of industry funded studies say it's safe as rain. http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html
After a quarter of a century of independent studies exposing this poison, congressional hearings, documentaries baring the political chicanery, medical texts by eminent physicians and organizations like ours warning mankind of the plague of this poison, aspartame detoxification centers, and an Aspartame Toxicity Center putting the issue on record, enough is enough. The facts are incontrovertible so stop lying, and get the propaganda off your web site, and ban aspartame in the UK. The studies have been done, millions are afflicted, and victims die daily.
In the end it's just a matter of character, Ms. Griffin-Sackey. Do you have the character to stand up for the lives entrusted to FSA, or are you blinded by the blandishments of criminals caring nothing for the slain, disabled and bereaved in beautiful England? You need another study? How many would you like us to send you? Studies are constantly being done by independent researchers showing aspartame toxicity, but are ignored by Food Standards. Every day that FSA stalls and excuses is one more day people can die in the UK from aspartame. You say FSA needs convincing evidence to ban this toxin. If you would read the facts instead of covering them up you would have the evidence. Do you think now you can address these issues?
Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum.
Founder, Mission Possible World Health International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
Aspartame Toxicity Center: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame
Date: 1 May 2008 14:38:41 -0000
Subject: Re: To Food Standards: Food Additives Could Be As Damaging as Lead in Petrol - Independent - Our ref: ADB 33/265 L
To: Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum., firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 15:38:32 +0100
Dear Dr Martini
Thank you for your email dated 8 April 2008 where you refer to various issues regarding the safety of aspartame. In response to your emails dated 7 and 14 January 2008, I believe we have addressed these issues in earlier correspondence. To re-iterate the Agency's view on aspartame and other additives, approved additives can be used in foods unless there is convincing evidence that they will harm consumers. Following reviews from independent experts at European level and those who advise the UK Government, no evidence has come to light which warrants the prohibition of aspartame from foods. For the UK to take action and ban the use of any food additive, including aspartame, the UK would need to prove that it was harmful to human health. However, the FSA is of the view that the scientific evidence shows that the consumption of aspartame is safe for humans. Aspartame research One of the FSAs core values is to put the consumer first. In addition its policies must also be evidence based. The Agency recognises a hierarchy of scientific evidence, however it does not discount any evidence. Anecdotal evidence can act as a concern-based trigger for studies to provide extensive reproducible evidence. This has been the case with anecdotal reports of adverse reactions to aspartame. You were advised in our reply dated 9 January 2008 that the FSA has recently proposed that EFSA should undertake further research on aspartame. The proposal is to undertake a double-blind study of people chosen because they allege ill-health effects from aspartame consumption. Aspartame and pregnancy The European Commissions former Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) looked at reports on the use of aspartame during pregnancy and concluded that those reports did not provide any evidence that any adverse health effects would occur from consuming aspartame at intakes within the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI). Southampton Study
The Government takes consumer concerns about additives very seriously which is why the FSA commissioned Southampton University to undertake the study on the possible effects of artificial food colours on childrens behaviour. Our response to any research like this is always based on the scientific evidence presented to us. As such, the results of the study were referred to the Committee on Toxicity, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) for their consideration. This Committee provides independent scientific advice to the UK Government.
However, whilst this study was UK-led, any changes to legislation would have to be carried out at European level as additives legislation is harmonised throughout the European Union (EU). Furthermore, on the basis of the evidence in the Southampton study it was not possible to take unilateral action and withdraw the authorised use for these specific colours. We therefore forwarded the study for consideration by EFSA as a first step to initiating pan-EU risk management measures. The EFSA published their review of the study on 13 March, and the Board of the FSA discussed this issue on 10 April. This meeting saw the agreement of the Board to advise Ministers that there should be voluntary action by manufacturers in the UK to remove the colours in the study by 2009 and action to phase them out in food and drink in the EU over a specified period. A number of major UK retailers have started reformulating some of their own brand products in response to likely consumer demand. The colours included in the recently published study are amongst those that have been replaced. This will enable consumers to have a wider choice of foods which do not contain additives they wish to avoid. Use of additives in medicines The use of additives in medicines is regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and further details can be found at http://www.mhra.gov.uk. MSG and brain tumours With regard to monosodium glutamate (MSG), and brain tumours, the COT has published a statement on the neurotoxicity of a number of additives including aspartame, MSG and the colours quinoline yellow and brilliant blue. The COT concluded that a significant number of studies have been carried out on aspartame and MSG including many looking at indicators of neurotoxic effects and there is no evidence to show that aspartame or MSG is likely to cause neurotoxicity which may lead to seizures or brain tumours at current levels of intake. This statement can be found at the following address: http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementadditives.pdf
I hope this information proves useful.
Food Standards Agency
Novel Foods, Additives and Supplements Division