By Dr. Betty Martini, D Hum
11-20-16
California, Prop 65, November 15th Meeting on Aspartame
On this date, the California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's (OEHHA), Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) met to decide whether to list aspartame as a carcinogen. The speakers were CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Dr. Adamson, Calorie Control Council and myself. No listing considerations are made at this meeting.
For those who sent in comments prior to the meeting, these are being listed on their web. and were sent to the Carcinogen Identification committee. The first thing they do is vote. It can be no priority, low, medium or high. After the speakers, they vote again. This is the process for prioritizing, It is a committee of 8, and 6 were present.
After the last vote, I recall there was medium, medium to high, high to medium and two highs. It can be checked when added to the net. The vote was declared a draw though it was a win for the people. If the vote had been no priority or all lows it would have ended. The vote means they will continue the investigation. If they get the real facts it can be classified a carcinogen which is what it is. FDA's Dr. Adrian Gross admitted to Congress on 8/1/85 aspartame violated the Delaney Amendment because it causes cancer.
We were given 5 minutes to speak. The front group, Calorie Control Council gave its usual self-serving hype as did Dr. Adamson. The only Dr. Adamson I know of is Richard Adamson of American Beverage. They changed their name from National Soft Drink Assn but couldn't hide their paper trail. The NSDA wrote a 33 page protest against using aspartame in carbonated beverages, then turned around and lobbied for the manufacturer. http://www.mpwhi.com/open_letter_dick_adamson.htm Richard Adamson never answered my letter.
The testimony of the Center for Science in the Public Interest was helpful in that they knew of the misinformation of the European Food Safety Authority review that sugarcoated aspartame as "safe" and warned not to consider it. A member of the CIC committee mentioned the rats had infections as relates to the Ramazzini Studies which proved aspartame is a multipotential carcinogen. Front groups use this spin to defend the poison. I explained the Ramazzini studies were so extraordinary and exemplary as research Dr. Morando Soffritti received an award. The prestigious Selikoff Award is only granted for groundbreaking cancer research. It was created in 1993 by an academy of 180 internationally renowned experts in occupational and environmental health from over 30 nations. It has been awarded just twice before being presented to Dr. Soffritti. His study was peer reviewed by 7 world experts.
It was not known if this particular committee in Sacramento knew Dr. Soffritti had done three studies, each proving with certainty aspartame is a carcinogen. The study was so well done that in response, the aspartame people must have had to really scramble to discern how to mislead the public by continuing to conceal the truth. So, they proclaimed the rats had respiratory disease. Dr. Soffritti then informed them, "of course the rats had respiratory disease because it was a life study; respiratory disease is part of the dying process and the rats were dying. " There was a full rebuttal of their nonsense. Industry tried whatever they could to deceive the public. Finally the head of EFSA, Dr. Herman Koeter, resigned stating that industry pressured them to hijack science!
Next, they said they had a study that proved aspartame didn't cause cancer. However, their "definitive study" turned out to be a food questionnaire sent to elderly people ten years earlier asking if they remembered what they ate last year. How many seniors can precisely list what they ate over the course of an entire year? Aspartame was mentioned once when it asked what sweetener they put in tea and coffee. They also asked if they had a hysterectomy or ate cornbread or brownies. In truth it was just a" Cornbread Brownie Study".
Industry has had to use this level of blatant fiction and misrepresentation for over 30 years, and one wonders how anyone could actually believe such nonsense? Obviously, the reader must realize you can NOT make a poison safe.
In their original corporate-sponsored studies, the original patent holder G. D. Searle removed brain tumors from rats, and when they died resurrected them on paper to advance their planned research results. The FDA, to its credit, then tried to have G. D. Searle indicted for fraud but both US Prosecutors hired on with the defense team and the statue of limitations conveniently expired. Then the FDA revoked the petition for approval. Don Rumsfeld got aspartame approved by political chicanery, in conjunction with his hand picked stooge, Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, who became Reagan's FDA Commissioner. The immediately prior FDA Commissioner, Jere Goyan, was fired at 3:00 AM by someone from President Reagan's transition team and prevented from signing the revoked petition into law by executive order. This is one of the darkest chapters in regulatory history in the already checkered history of the United States Food and Drug Administration.
See how Aspartame Became Legal - the Timeline: http://www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm
With such an outrageous history of malfeasance and misrepresentation, how would you get this chemical poison approved in another country? In England it was approved through a business deal and Parliament had a big blowout about it. http://www.wnho.net/how_aspartame_got_approved_in_england.htm It was rubberstamped around the world. Now that you have it in England and the population sick on it, how do you do a review when independent studies show the real facts? You can't without cheating, So here is the review by the European Commission Scientific Committee on Food (/SCF) opinion on aspartame by Mark Gold, Aspartame Toxicity Center.
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/scf2002.html
Here is the postscript which discusses OLAF finding that only one individual (not the SCF) wrote the opinion on aspartame:
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/scf2002-postscript.htm
OLAF is the European Fraud people. Once OLAF exposed them the European Commission Scientific Committee on Food became inactive. Now we have EFSA. The conflict of interest is obvious.
Here is a link to a spreadsheet on European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) plagiarizing a manufacturer-funded review:
http://holisticmed.com/aspartame/EFSA-Draft-Plagiarism.htm
See that EFSA lifted large sections of the manufacturer-funded review and copied the text with minimal word changes to produce their review.
Until aspartame is banned the lies will continue because a poison is never safe. The FDA tried to prevent approval but today they are just an extension of industry. In 2009 nine FDA scientists wrote Congress and the President and said they were broken. Then the FDA called me and when I told them people were sick and dying all over the world I was told: "So what, we have to depopulate".
FDA lead scientist, Dr. Adrian Gross, told the Senate in 1985 that FDA shouldn't have been able to set an allowable daily dose because it causes cancer. There is no safe dose.
I'm delighted with Prop 65 clearly trying to label products accurately, and look forward to their continued investigation of aspartame with the real facts void of corporate brainwashing. About six years ago aspartame was banned in Romania because it was causing so much cancer. It's past time to do the same in the US.
Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum.
Founder, Mission Possible World Health International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
770-242-2599
E-Mail: BettyM19@mindspring.com
http://www.wpwhi.com
http://www.wnho.net
http://www.dorway.com
Aspartame Toxicity Center: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame