Diet Coke sweetener number E951 (Aspartame): is it safe?
Part 1: Corporate fraudsters and bureaucratic pushovers
Is aspartame safe? - The answer is no! Therefore:-
Read this article about sweeteners!
Enjoy the following article!
Part 1: Corporate Fraudsters and Bureaucratic Pushovers
Picture: there’s a lot to read on a label. If you want a healthy and happy life, you’d better know what it means!
Introduction
According to Healthline.com, five government authorities and the World Health Organisation state that “aspartame and its breakdown products are safe and approved for use in the general population”. Also, “Many health-related organisations… …note aspartame has not been conclusively linked to any adverse side effects”.
Most of us would accept Healthline’s report (and all the links to the relevant authorities) at face value. After all, the authorities would never promote lies that would hurt us, would they?
Err… It’s a bit more complicated than that. I’ll show you some evidence.
1. Authorities and bureaucracies are always subject to corruption
Unfortunately, (as shown by this British Medical Journal article) food safety authorities are unreliable, being subject to “five main types of corruption… [including] …bureaucratic corruption, fraud, bribery, organised crime, and corporate political activity”. It’s like I say - complicated.
2. Bureaucracies hate to admit they were wrong
Bureaucracies and health-related organisations, like dinosaurs, are slow to adapt and fearful to admit that new evidence shows their old decision were wrong (read: “Bureaucracies Are Surprisingly Resistant to Evolutionary Pressures. Here’s How We Can Break Free”
3. Megacorporations hide alarming research findings about their products. (Aspartame is no exception!)
I shan’t cover the general topic right now. If you have time, read the following: Why Good Science + Corporate Oversight = Bad Science.
The history of the fraudulent research and product approval of Aspartame
The following lists just some of the fraud and strong-arm tactics that brought Aspartame to its regulatory approval. (You can read two longer versions here and here).
In 1965, James Slatter, a research chemist at G.D. Searle & Co, accidentally licked his finger while isolating Aspartame from a flask of ethanol (not good research practice!) and discovered it was sweet!
In 1970, G.D. Searle & Co. employs Dr. Harry Waisman at the University of Wisconsin to conduct toxicity studies on seven infant monkeys given Aspartame with milk (the daily dose was high - at 3 grams per kg of body weight -this alone would suggest the highest possible acceptable daily intake should not exceed say, 15 mgs/kg - or three cans of coke for a child - ideally none would be better! - but the FDA subsequently set it at 50mg/kg, see discussion here). Of the seven, one monkey dies after 300 days, and five others have grand mal seizures (epilepsy). I located a summary and original copy of the study here. These research results were not included in the initial application that G.D. Searle submitted to the American Food and Drug Administration.
In 1971, Ann Reynolds, a researcher employed by G.D. Searle, confirms Aspartame's neurotoxicity in infant mice. Searle ignores her discovery.
In 1977, Donald Rumsfeld becomes President and CEO of G.D. Searle. Later, from 2001 until 2006, Rumsfeld became secretary of defence under GW Bush. (Under Bush, Rumsfeld almost certainly oversaw the fraudulent compilation of documents purporting Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - from this we see that Rumsfeld was capable of commercial and political fraud). At G.D. Searle, Rumfeld hires many political and legal acquaintances, and together, they ramp up the Aspartame regulatory push.
There are many other histories about the highly controversial registration process of Aspartame. Look for them here.
The following article in this series will discuss Ongoing evidence of Aspartame harms.
In the meantime,