Why genetically engineered food is dangerous: New report by genetic engineers

Earth Open Source press release 17 June 2012

Aren’t critics of genetically engineered food anti-science? Isn’t the debate over GMOs (genetically modified organisms) a spat between emotional but ignorant activists on one hand and rational GM-supporting scientists on the other?

A new report released today, “GMO Myths and Truths”,[1] challenges these claims. The report presents a large body of peer-reviewed scientific and other authoritative evidence of the hazards to health and the environment posed by genetically engineered crops and organisms (GMOs).

Unusually, the initiative for the report came not from campaigners but from two genetic engineers who believe there are good scientific reasons to be wary of GM foods and crops.

Dr Michael Antoniou

One of the report’s authors, Dr Michael Antoniou of King’s College London School of Medicine in the UK, uses genetic engineering for medical applications but warns against its use in developing crops for human food and animal feed.

Dr Antoniou said: “GM crops are promoted on the basis of ambitious claims – that they are safe to eat, environmentally beneficial, increase yields, reduce reliance on pesticides, and can help solve world hunger.
“I felt what was needed was a collation of the evidence that addresses the technology from a scientific point of view.

“Research studies show that genetically modified crops have harmful effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials and on the environment during cultivation. They have increased the use of pesticides and have failed to increase yields. Our report concludes that there are safer and more effective alternatives to meeting the world’s food needs.”

Dr John Fagan

Another author of the report, Dr John Fagan, is a former genetic engineer who in 1994 returned to the National Institutes of Health $614,000 in grant money due to concerns about the safety and ethics of the technology. He subsequently founded a GMO testing company.

Dr Fagan said: “Crop genetic engineering as practiced today is a crude, imprecise, and outmoded technology. It can create unexpected toxins or allergens in foods and affect their nutritional value. Recent advances point to better ways of using our knowledge of genomics to improve food crops, that do not involve GM.

“Over 75% of all GM crops are engineered to tolerate being sprayed with herbicide. This has led to the spread of herbicide-resistant superweeds and has resulted in massively increased exposure of farmers and communities to these toxic chemicals. Epidemiological studies suggest a link between herbicide use and birth defects and cancer.

Claire Robinson

“These findings fundamentally challenge the utility and safety of GM crops, but the biotech industry uses its influence to block research by independent scientists and uses its powerful PR machine to discredit independent scientists whose findings challenge this approach.”

The third author of the report, Claire Robinson, research director of Earth Open Source, said, “The GM industry is trying to change our food supply in far-reaching and potentially dangerous ways. We all need to inform ourselves about what is going on and ensure that we – not biotechnology companies – keep control of our food system and crop seeds.

“We hope our report will contribute to a broader understanding of GM crops and the sustainable alternatives that are already working successfully for farmers and communities.”

Notes

The report, “GMO Myths and Truths, An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops”, by Michael Antoniou, PhD, Claire Robinson, and John Fagan, PhD is published by Earth Open Source (June 2012). The report is 123 pages long and contains over 600 citations, many of them from the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the rest from reports by scientists, physicians, government bodies, industry, and the media. The report is available here: http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58

A shorter summary version will be released in the coming weeks.

Key points from the report

1. Genetic engineering as used in crop development is not precise or predictable and has not been shown to be safe. The technique can result in the unexpected production of toxins or allergens in food that are unlikely to be spotted in current regulatory checks.
2. GM crops, including some that are already in our food and animal feed supply, have shown clear signs of toxicity in animal feeding trials – notably disturbances in liver and kidney function and immune responses.
3. GM proponents have dismissed these statistically significant findings as “not biologically relevant/significant”, based on scientifically indefensible arguments.
4. Certain EU-commissioned animal feeding trials with GM foods and crops are often claimed by GM proponents to show they are safe. In fact, examination of these studies shows significant differences between the GM-fed and control animals that give cause for concern.
5. GM foods have not been properly tested in humans, but the few studies that have been carried out in humans give cause for concern.
6. The US FDA does not require mandatory safety testing of GM crops, and does not even assess the safety of GM crops but only “deregulates” them, based on assurances from biotech companies that they are “substantially equivalent” to their non-GM counterparts. This is like claiming that a cow with BSE is substantially equivalent to a cow that does not have BSE and is thus safe to eat! Claims of substantial equivalence cannot be justified on scientific grounds.
7. The regulatory regime for GM foods is weakest in the US, where GM foods do not even have to be assessed for safety or labelled in the marketplace, but in most regions of the world regulations are inadequate to protect people’s health from the potential adverse effects of GM foods.
8. In the EU, where the regulatory system is often claimed to be strict, minimal pre-market testing is required for a GMO and the tests are commissioned by the same companies that stand to profit from the GMO if it is approved – a clear conflict of interest.
9. No long-term toxicological testing of GMOs on animals or testing on humans is required by any regulatory agency in the world.
10. Biotech companies have used patent claims and intellectual property protection laws to restrict access of independent researchers to GM crops for research purposes. As a result, limited research has been conducted on GM foods and crops by scientists who are independent of the GM industry. Scientists whose work has raised concerns about the safety of GMOs have been attacked and discredited in orchestrated campaigns by GM crop promoters.
11. Most GM crops (over 75%) are engineered to tolerate applications of herbicides. Where such GM crops have been adopted, they have led to massive increases in herbicide use.
12. Roundup, the herbicide that over 50% of all GM crops are engineered to tolerate, is not safe or benign as has been claimed but has been found to cause malformations (birth defects), reproductive problems, DNA damage, and cancer in test animals. Human epidemiological studies have found an association between Roundup exposure and miscarriage, birth defects, neurological development problems, DNA damage, and certain types of cancer.
13. A public health crisis has erupted in GM soy-producing regions of South America, where people exposed to spraying with Roundup and other agrochemicals sprayed on the crop report escalating rates of birth defects and cancer.
14. A large number of studies indicate that Roundup is associated with increased crop diseases, especially infection with Fusarium, a fungus that causes wilt disease in soy and can have toxic effects on humans and livestock.
15. Bt insecticidal GM crops do not sustainably reduce pesticide use but change the way in which pesticides are used: from sprayed on, to built in.
16. Bt technology is proving unsustainable as pests evolve resistance to the toxin and secondary pest infestations are becoming common.
17. GM proponents claim that the Bt toxin engineered into GM plants is safe because the natural form of Bt, long used as a spray by conventional and organic farmers, has a history of safe use. But the GM forms of Bt toxins are different from the natural forms and could have different toxic and allergenic effects.
18. GM Bt toxin is not limited in its toxicity to insect pests. GM Bt crops have been found to have toxic effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials.
19. GM Bt crops have been found to have toxic effects on non-target organisms in the environment.
20. Bt toxin is not fully broken down in digestion and has been found circulating in the blood of pregnant women in Canada and in the blood supply to their foetuses.
21. The no-till method of farming promoted with GM herbicide-tolerant crops, which avoids ploughing and uses herbicides to control weeds, is not more climate-friendly than ploughing. No-till fields do not store more carbon in the soil than ploughed fields when deeper levels of soil are measured.
22. No-till increases the negative environmental impacts of soy cultivation, because of the herbicides used.
23. Golden Rice, a beta-carotene-enriched rice, is promoted as a GM crop that could help malnourished people overcome vitamin A deficiency. But Golden Rice has not been tested for toxicological safety, has been plagued by basic development problems, and, after more than 12 years and millions of dollars of research funding, is still not ready for the market. Meanwhile, inexpensive and effective solutions to vitamin A deficiency are available but under-used due to lack of funding.
24. GM crops are often promoted as a “vital tool in the toolbox” to feed the world’s growing population, but many experts question the contribution they could make, as they do not offer higher yields or cope better with drought than non-GM crops. Most GM crops are engineered to tolerate herbicides or to contain a pesticide – traits that are irrelevant to feeding the hungry.
25. High adoption of GM crops among farmers is not a sign that the GM crop is superior to non-GM varieties, as once GM companies gain control of the seed market, they withdraw non-GM seed varieties from the market. The notion of “farmer choice” does not apply in this situation.
26. GM contamination of non-GM and organic crops has resulted in massive financial losses by the food and feed industry, involving product recalls, lawsuits, and lost markets.
27. When many people read about high-yielding, pest- and disease-resistant, drought-tolerant, and nutritionally improved super-crops, they think of GM. In fact, these are all products of conventional breeding, which continues to outstrip GM in producing such crops. The report contains a long list of these conventional crop breeding successes.
28. Certain “supercrops” have been claimed to be GM successes when in fact they are products of conventional breeding, in some cases assisted by the non-GM biotechnology of marker assisted selection.
29. Conventional plant breeding, with the help of non-GM biotechnologies such as marker assisted selection, is a safer and more powerful method than GM to produce new crop varieties required to meet current and future needs of food production, especially in the face of rapid climate change.
30. Conventionally bred, locally adapted crops, used in combination with agroecological farming practices, offer a proven, sustainable approach to ensuring global food security.

About the authors

Michael Antoniou, PhD is reader in molecular genetics and head, Gene Expression and Therapy Group, King’s College London School of Medicine, London, UK. He has 28 years’ experience in the use of genetic engineering technology investigating gene organisation and control, with over 40 peer reviewed publications of original work, and holds inventor status on a number of gene expression biotechnology patents. Dr Antoniou has a large network of collaborators in industry and academia who are making use of his discoveries in gene control mechanisms for the production of research, diagnostic and therapeutic products and human somatic gene therapies for inherited and acquired genetic disorders.

John Fagan, PhD is a leading authority on sustainability in the food system, biosafety, and GMO testing. He is founder and chief scientific officer of a GMO testing and certification company. He is a director of Earth Open Source. Earlier, he conducted cancer research at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and in academia. He holds a PhD in biochemistry and molecular and cell biology from Cornell University.

Dr Fagan became an early voice in the scientific debate on genetic engineering when in 1994 he took an ethical stand challenging the use of germline gene therapy (which has subsequently been banned in most countries) and genetic engineering in agriculture. He underlined his concerns by returning a grant of around $614,000 to the US National Institutes of Health, awarded for cancer research that used genetic engineering as a research tool. He was concerned that knowledge generated in his research could potentially be misused to advance human germline genetic engineering (for example, to create “designer babies”), which he found unacceptable on grounds of both safety and ethics. For similar reasons, around the same time, he withdrew applications for two additional grants totalling $1.25 million from the NIH and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). In 1996 he founded one of the pioneering GMO testing and certification companies after realising that this could be useful to assist industry in providing consumers with the transparency that they desired regarding the presence of GMOs in foods.

Claire Robinson, MPhil is research director at Earth Open Source. She has a background in investigative reporting and the communication of topics relating to public health, science and policy, and the environment. She is an editor at GMWatch (www.gmwatch.org), a public information service on issues relating to genetic modification, and was formerly managing editor at SpinProfiles (now Powerbase).

New Report on the Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods

Published on Thursday, July 5, 2012 by Common Dreams

New Report on the Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods

by Richard Schiffman

 

 
Soy bean field (Image: earthopensource.org)

“Aren’t critics of genetically engineered food anti-science? Isn’t the debate over GMOs (genetically modified organisms) a spat between emotional but ignorant activists on one hand and rational GM-supporting scientists on the other?”

These questions are posed by Earth Open Source, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to assuring the sustainability, security, and safety of the global food system. They answer their own questions in a new study “GMO Myths and Truths.” The myth, they say, is that GM foods have been proven safe. The truth is that there are hidden dangers which corporate-funded research has not yet adequately investigated.

What makes this report unusual is that it was authored not by the usual food activists and environmentalists, but by two well known genetic engineers with help from an investigative reporter. The team conducted an exhaustive survey of hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies and concluded not only that GM food crops pose significant, if largely under-evaluated, health risks, but that they have so far failed to deliver on their promise to increase crop yields and lower herbicide and pesticide use.

The authors argue, moreover, that there are already safer environmentally friendly ways to grow more food for the planet’s exploding population. By focusing on the false panacea of genetic modification as a way to feed the world’s hungry, vital research dollars have been siphoned away from more promising lower-tech approaches to increasing the efficiency of the global food system.

The report’s authors include Dr Michael Antoniou of King's College London School of Medicine in the UK, who helped to develop genetic engineering for medical applications, and John Fagan, a biomedical researcher and expert in food system sustainability and GMO testing, who returned $614,000 in grant money to the National Institutes of Health in 1994 because of his concerns about the safety and ethics of genetic modification.

The paper, produced together with Claire Robinson, research director of Earth Open Source, comes out at a critical moment as California voters are considering a referendum which will appear on their ballot in November calling for the labeling of genetically modified foods in the state. Such labeling is already mandatory in Europe, China, India and many other nations.

Seventy percent of the foods that Americans purchase in the supermarket contain ingredients (mostly corn, soy and canola oil) that are genetically modified. The food industry, and often the media, assure us that there is a scientific consensus that GM foods are equivalent nutritionally to foods that have not been modified and not a danger to those who consume them. But it is just not true that all scientists agree. Given the uncertainties in the field and the lack of long-term health studies, some groups like the American Academy of Environmental Medicine and the Union of Concerned Scientists have called for labeling of GM foods.

If Californians agrees, it could have a big impact on the rest of us. Some believe that if the labeling referendum there passes, other states may follow suit. Furthermore, as I reported in the Guardian last month, if food companies are made to label GM foods in California, the nation’s most populous state, they may well do so all over the country, rather than maintain a costly two-tier packaging and distribution system.

The food and biotech industries are expected to fight the labeling initiative with a multi-million dollar statewide PR blitz, like the one which helped to defeat a similar measure in Oregon in 2002. But nearly 90% of Americans-- Republicans and Democrats equally according to a recent survey-- want to see GMOs labeled. This latest report on the dangers of genetically engineered foods will give the referendum’s advocates valuable ammunition in the upcoming California debate.
Here are some of the conclusions of the report:

*Genetically modifying crops, which involves the transfer of genes between biologically unrelated species, is not an extension of traditional plant hybridization, but a radical departure which can produce new toxins or allergens in food that are unlikely to be spotted in current regulatory checks.
*GM foods have not been adequately safety tested. There has been no long term research, and the few short term studies have been inadequate. In many cases proprietary restrictions put in place by biotech companies like Monsanto have prevented independent research by scientists not connected to the corporations which are making claims about their safety.

*Animal studies of the effects of GM foods have disclosed clear signs of toxicity– notably disturbances in liver and kidney function and immune responses.

*Over 75% of genetical modification are to to increase crop tolerance of herbicides. Where these crops are grown there has been a massive increases in herbicide use.

*Over half of GM crops are engineered to withstand application of Monsanto’s best selling Roundup. Contrary to the company’s claims Roundup is not safe at the levels it is being use, but has been found to be associated with miscarriage, birth defects, neurological development problems, DNA damage, and certain types of cancer. A public health crisis has occurred in GM soy-producing regions of South America, where people exposed to spraying with Roundup and other agrochemicals report escalating rates of birth defects and cancer.

*There is insufficient evidence that the BT toxin engineered into the plant structure of corn and cotton (whose seeds are used in food oil production) is safe for human consumption. Bt crops have been found to have toxic effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials. These toxins have also been found circulating in the blood of pregnant women in Canada and in the blood supply to their foetuses.
*GM crops have not been shown to offer higher crop yields, enhanced nutritional value or greater drought tolerance, as they have been hyped to do. The products of conventional breeding continue to outstrip GM in all of these arenas.

*Conventionally bred, locally adapted crops, used in combination with environmentally sustainable farming practices, offer a safer, cheaper and more efficient way to ensure global food security than genetic modification.

“Crop genetic engineering as practiced today is a crude, imprecise, and outmoded technology,” says the report's coauthor John Fagan. “Recent advances point to better ways of using our knowledge of genomics to improve food crops, that do not involve GM."

 

Selling patented genetically modified seeds, and the agro-chemicals designed to be used with them, has earned biotech giants like Monsanto, Dupont, Bayer and Syngenta untold billions of dollars in the past two decades. But what is good for these corporate bottom lines may not be good for human health, or the integrity of the environment.

 

Richard Schiffman is the author of two books and a former journalist whose work has appeared in, amongst other outlets, the New York Times and on a variety of National Public Radio shows including Morning Edition and All Things Considered.

Can Too Much Information Harm Patients? [Excerpt]

Home » Features »

Features | Health

Can Too Much Information Harm Patients? [Excerpt]

In his new book, cardiologist Eric Topol explores the ways in which the digital age is transforming medicine

By Eric Topol  | January 27, 2012 | 

Editor's Note: The following is an excerpt from The Creative Destruction of Medicine: How the Digital Revolution Will Create Better Health Care (Basic Books, 2012), by Eric Topol, a professor of innovative medicine and the director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute.


Nearly 7 Billion people on the planet

Over 3 million doctors

Tens of thousands of hospitals

6000 prescription medicines, 4000 procedures and operations

Countless supplements, herbs, alternative treatments

Who gets what, when, where, why and how?

When a 58 year old, active, lean, intelligent financier from Florida came to see me for a second opinion, I should not have been surprised. For Valentine's Day the prior year, his wife's present was a computed tomography (CT) scan for his heart. She heard about it on the radio and also saw heart scan billboards on the highway. There was even a special deal of $100 off for Valentine's.

But her husband didn't have any symptoms of heart disease, didn't take any medications, and played at least two rounds of golf a week. On the other days, he worked out on an elliptical machine for 30 to 40 minutes. Until he got the heart scan.

My patient was told that he had a score of 710—a high calcium score—and his physician had told him that he would need to undergo a coronary angiogram, a roadmap movie of the coronary anatomy, as soon as possible. He did that and was found to have several blockages in two of the three arteries serving his heart. His cardiologists in Florida immediately put in five stents (even though no stress-test or other symptoms had suggested they were necessary), and put him on a regimen of Lipitor, a beta-blocker, aspirin and Plavix.

Now, in my office four months later, this patient is not doing well at all. He is worried that he might have a heart attack if one of the stents becomes clotted. He feels profoundly tired and has muscle aches that are so disturbing he can neither play golf nor do his usual exercise. He complains of marked depression and an inability to have or sustain an erection. A fit individual, who had taken good care of himself and was enjoying his life, was now debilitated and depressed. The cardiology trainee who saw this patient with me asked, "How could this have happened?"

Unfortunately, this individual's story is not so uncommon. Think predator and prey: the physicians and hospital advertise, leading to a high volume of heart scans, billed directly to the patients at some $500 each. Then, should an abnormal score come up, the patient may be quickly referred for first a diagnostic procedure, and then one to implant metal stents in the arteries on the surface of the heart. Naturally the cardiologist who put in multiple stents feels gratified to have saved the patient's life with unsuspected, advanced coronary disease. Overall, however these cases are like riding a train to the last stop, regardless of the most logical destination. All procedures are performed, as likely as not, the outcome is not a saved life but a "cardiac cripple."

I didn't enjoy telling the patient that he should probably not have ever had the stents. I could see the cholesterol buildup in the two arteries on an angiogram he brought with him, but the case was not severe. Of course, it was too late to do anything about the stents, which can't be removed, except to reassure him that he was not in any imminent or real danger, but I could get him off some of his medications, which would help his current symptoms and get him back to golf and exercise.

Mark Twain said, "To a man with a hammer, a lot of things looks like nails that need pounding." Surgeons are notorious for a similar bias: "When it doubt, cut it out." My patient was the victim of the same tendency. As badly as he got pounded, it could have been worse: in 2010 the "Olympic record" of stenting was published. One patient had sixty-seven stents placed throughout his coronary arteries and bypass grafts, in the course of twenty-eight coronary angiograms over a ten-year period.

This problem of inappropriate use or overuse of medical procedures is a difficult nut to crack. For one, physicians, hospitals, and the life science industry are all aligned and incentivized to do more procedures. Even at the subconscious level, as graphically portrayed in Atul Gwande's 2009 New Yorker article, "The Cost Conundrum," patients can be seen as representing an ATM. Certainly not all those procedures are carried out in the patients' best interests; the profound regional variability seen in the use of all sorts of procedures and operations across the United States reinforces the fact that appropriateness and need are not the sole determinants of whether patients are subjected to them. And it isn't just across the United States. For every 1,000 people in France, 192 will have an angioplasty or stent procedure. In the United States, the number is more than double at 437. Too few in France, or too many in the U.S.? The difference can't simply be attributed to Americans drinking less French red wine.

In the case of my patient, of course, it didn't just start with the unnecessary procedure, but with the initial response to an advertisement, followed by his trust in his original physicians to make objective recommendations about what the proper course of care would be. Similar problems confront anyone trying to navigate all the medical procedures, operations, prescription medications, vitamins, supplements, herbs, alternative treatments, over-the-counter products, and home devices that confront them. The key to the problem is an empowered, knowledgeable patient, but, as we shall see, extra information need not lead to empowerment. Whether information is pushed to consumers (by the news media or by direct-to-consumer advertising) or pulled out of the system by consumers themselves (by, for example, visiting Google Scholar or a social-networking site developed for sufferers of a particular disease), if a consumer can't make the best, most intelligent use of it, all sorts of trouble can unfold.


Reprinted from The Creative Destruction of Medicine, by Eric Topol, by arrangement with Basic Books. Copyright © 2012 by Eric Topol.

10 Reasons Most People Like Obamacare Once They Know What's Really In It

AlterNet.org

PERSONAL HEALTH  

AlterNet / By Joshua Holland

10 Reasons Most People Like Obamacare Once They Know What's Really In It

People are suspicious of Obamacare in the abstract, but when it gets to the specifics they tend to like it a lot better.

July 4, 2012  |  

 

Photo Credit: ShutterStock.com

 

 

There are two Affordable Care Acts. There's the legislation passed by Congress in 2009, and then there's the mythical Affordable Care Act – the perfidious “government takeover” decried and demagogued by so many conservatives (and quite a few liberals). The former is quite popular, the latter gets decidedly mixed reviews.

Don't take my word for it. A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found Americans split down the middle, with 41 percent approving of the law, and 40 percent saying they didn't like it (PDF). But then Kaiser asked about 12 specific provisions in the legislation, and found that, on average, 63 percent of respondents approved of the nuts and bolts of Obamacare. Of the 12 measures they tested, only one – the controversial mandate to carry health insurance or pay a penalty – received the approval of less than half of Americans (35 percent).

Or consider this divide: while only 12 percent of Republicans had a positive view of the law overall, 47 percent, on average, viewed its specifics favorably.

And here's the kicker: Kaiser found that the most popular parts of the law were also the ones most Americans weren't aware of, and vice-versa. Almost everyone knows about the mandate, which most people don't like, but fewer than half of those polled knew about the law's tax credits for small businesses that offer their employees coverage, a provision that eight out of 10 people liked when they heard about it.

None of this should come as a surprise, given the level of mendacity of the law's opponents. If the Affordable Care Act did in fact feature “death panels,” resulted in deep cuts to Medicare, represented a "massive” tax increase and “Sovietized” our healthcare system, nobody would support it. Fortunately, none of that bears any resemblance to reality.

Obviously, the law should be judged on what it actually contains, but according to Kaiser, six in 10 say they don't have enough information about the details to understand how it will impact them personally. So here, in no particular order, are 10 things you may not know about the Affordable Care Act.

1. People Will Be Getting Checks

Call it a crazy hunch, but my guess is that the law will look a lot less tyrannical when people start getting checks in the mail to help pay for their insurance.
Folks making up to four times the federal poverty line will be eligible for subsidies. In 2012, that would mean a family of four making up to $92,200 (it's a bit higher in Alaska) would see some cash.

Those subsidies will come in the form of “advanceable” tax credits, meaning that people won't have to wait until they pay their taxes to get the cash, and they'll be fully refundable, so those who don't pay enough in federal income taxes will get a check in the mail from the IRS.

2. The Richest Americans Are Going to Pay More Taxes

Wealthy investors are outraged, but most people probably don't know that a 3.8% surcharge on investment income – dividends and capital gains -- kicks in this January for everyone with an adjusted gross income of over $200,000 ($250,000 for joint filers). So those currently enjoying the lowest rate on investments in our nation's history will pay for a decent chunk of the bill.

3. Insurers' Overhead – and Profit Margins -- Are Limited

For the past 18 months or so, insurers have been required to spend 85 percent of the premiums they collect on healthcare (80 percent for individual and small-group plans). If they spend less than that, they have to send their customers a rebate to cover the difference.

Forbes' Rick Ungar called it, “the true ‘bomb’ contained in Obamacare and the one item that will have more impact on the future of how medical care is paid for in this country than anything we’ve seen in quite some time.”

4. Much Ado About the Mandate

With the Supreme Court's ruling last week, the mandate is gone, but the penalty for not carrying insurance remains. If there's one thing Democrats, Republicans and independents agree on, it's that they don't like it.

And they shouldn't. But most people probably don't know just how modest the impact of the mandate really is. According to the Congressional Budget Office, just 1 percent of the population will pay the penalty, which maxes out at 1 percent of one's income.

A lot of conservatives are convinced that jack-booted gummint thugs will round them up and stick them in FEMA camps if they don't pay up. But as Timothy Noah points out, “the health reform law explicitly states (on Page 336): 'In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.'" They can only dock future tax refunds.

5. And Nobody Ever Talks About the Employer Mandate

Starting in 2014, companies with 50 or more full-time workers (two part-timers count as one full-timer for this purpose) will have to pay penalties if they don't cover their employees' health insurance. (This provision is a bit complicated -- all the details are here.)

6. Shaves the Deficit

Mitt Romnney says that “Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt, and pushes those obligations onto coming generations.”
That message appears to be sinking in. According to Kaiser, a majority of Americans – and a third of Democrats – think the healthcare law will increase the deficit. But according to the Congressional Budget Office, the law will reduce the projected deficit by $210 billion over the next decade.

7. Chicks Will Dig This

Many people are aware of the regulation requiring insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions. It's one of the most popular parts of the whole. But fewer know that, beginning in 2014, insurers won't be able to charge women higher premiums than men.

Also coming in 2014: a ban on insurers placing annual limits on healthcare (lifetime coverage limits were already banned in 2010).

The Kaiser poll found that few people were aware of another popular new insurance regulation: since 2010, insurance companies can no longer charge co-pays or hold you to a deductible for preventive health services.

8. New Dollars for Community Health Centers

Kaiser didn't ask for people's opinions on this one, but it may be one of those under-the-radar provisions that actually ends up helping a lot of people.
Community health centers (CHCs) now serve the primary care needs of about 20 million Americans, and they have a proven track record. But the system is strained and underfunded.

The expansion of Medicaid will help alleviate some of the pressure, and the healthcare law also allocates $11 billion over a five-year period to build new CHCs and upgrade existing infrastructure. Most of the dollars will end up in poorer communities.

A lot of underserved people live in rural America, and the law also provides money to train and place 16,000 primary caregivers in rural communities over a five-year period.

9. Essential Benefits

Starting in 2014, in order for insurers to sell coverage through state-based exchanges – a place where a lot of the newly insured will likely end up – they will be required to cover a package of “essential benefits,” including maternity care, mental healthcare and substance abuse treatment, pediatric care, ambulance rides and hospitalization.

They don't have to if they don't want to participate in the exchanges, yet this measure is, according to many, at the heart of the supposed “government takeover” of our healthcare system.

10. It's Not So Easy to Repeal

There is no doubt that we'll hear lots of Republicans blustering about how they'll repeal Obamacare on day one if they win the White House and the Senate, but it's a lot less clear that they'd actually follow through.

As Igor Volsky notes, unless the Republicans were to win both the White House and a huge number of senate seats, they “can do little more than weaken Obamacare’s regulations and defund some of its provisions.” They also have nothing to replace it with, and would own our screwed up healthcare system for a generation. And they'd lose an issue that fires up the conservative base. They will, however, do their best to gum up the works as the law is implemented.
The takeaway to all of this is that the healthcare law is only going to get more popular as it's provisions kick in. People will see some tangible benefits, and the fearmongering will prove unfounded.

Like the idea of government itself, people are suspicious of the Affordable Care Act as an abstraction, but when it gets to the specifics they tend to like it a lot better.

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet. He is the author of The 15 Biggest Lies About the Economy: And Everything else the Right Doesn't Want You to Know About Taxes, Jobs and Corporate America. Drop him an email or follow him on Twitter.

Aspartame: From the Pentagon as a biochemical warfare agent to Your Table Top

WORLD NATURAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION

ASPARTAME - THE SHOCKING STORY OF THE WORLD'S BESTSELLING SWEETENER

THE ECOLOGIST
By Pat Thomas


Posted: 26 September 2005

THE ECOLOGIST
SEPTEMBER 2005; pages 35-51

Cover Story, pages 35-46

ASPARTAME - The Shocking Story of the World's Bestselling Sweetener

Aspartame is the most controversial food additive in history. The most recent evidence, linking it to leukaemia and lymphoma, has added substantial fuel to the ongoing protests of doctors, scientists and consumer groups who allege that this artificial sweetener should never have been released onto the market and that allowing it to remain in the food chain is killing us by degrees.

PAT THOMAS REPORTS

Once upon a time, aspartame was listed by the Pentagon as a biochemical warfare agent. Today it's an integral part of the modern diet. Sold commercially under names like NutraSweet and Canderel, aspartame can be found in more than 5,000 foods, including fizzy drinks, chewing gum, table-top sweeteners, diet and diabetic foods, breakfast cereals, jams, sweets, vitamins, prescription and over-the-counter drugs. This means that there is a good chance that you and your family are among the two thirds of the adult population and 40 per cent of children who regularly ingest this artificial sweetener.

Because it contains no calories, aspartame is considered a boon to health-conscious individuals everywhere; and most of us, if we think about it at all, think it is safe. But independent scientists say aspartame can produce a range of disturbing adverse effects in humans, including headaches, memory loss, mood swings, seizures, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's-like symptoms, tumours and even death.

Concerns over aspartame's toxicity meant that for eight years, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) denied it approval, effectively keeping it off the world market. This caution was based on compelling evidence, brought to light by numerous eminent scientists, litigators and consumer groups, that aspartame contributed to serious central nervous system damage and had been shown to cause cancer in animals. Eventually, however, political muscle, won out over scientific rigour, and aspartame was approved for use in 1981 (see timeline for details).

The FDA's about-turn opened the floodgates for aspartame's swift approval by more than 70 regulatory authorities around the world. But, as the remarkable history of the sweetener shows, the clean bill of health given to it by government regulators - whose raison d'être should be to protect the public from harm - is simply not worth the paper it is printed on.

DECEMBER 1965
While working on an ulcer drug, a chemist at pharmaceutical manufacturer GD Searle accidentally discovers aspartame, a substance that is 180 times sweeter than sugar, yet has no calories.

SPRING 1967
Searle begins safety tests, necessary for FDA approval.

AUTUMN 1967
GD Searle approaches eminent biochemist Dr Harry Waisman, director of the University of Wisconsin's Joseph P Kennedy Jr Memorial Laboratory of Mental Retardation Research and a respected expert in the toxicity of phenylalanine (which comprises 50 per cent of the aspartame formula), to conduct a study of the effects of aspartame on primates. Of seven monkeys fed aspartame mixed with milk, one dies and five others have grand mal epileptic seizures.

SPRING 1971
Dr John Olney, professor of neuropathology and psychiatry at Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine, whose research into the neurotoxic food additive monosodium glutamate (MSG, a chemical cousin of aspartame) was responsible for having it removed from baby foods, informs Searle that his studies show that aspartic acid, one of the main constituents of aspartame, causes holes in the brains of infant mice. One of Searle's researchers, Ann Reynolds, confirms Olney's findings in a similar study.

FEBRUARY 1973
Searle applies for FDA approval and submits over 100 studies it claims support aspartame's safety. Neither the dead monkeys nor the mice with holes in their brains are included in the submission.

12 SEPTEMBER 1973
In a memorandum, Dr Martha M Freeman of the FDA Division of Metabolic and Endocrine Drug Products criticises the inadequacy of the information submitted by Searle with particular regard to one of the compound's toxic breakdown products, diketopiperazine (DKP). She recommends that marketing of aspartame be contingent upon the sweetener's proven clinical safety.

26 JULY 1974
FDA commissioner Dr Alexander Schmidt grants aspartame its first approval as a 'food additive' for restricted use in dry foods. This approval comes despite the fact that his own scientists found serious deficiencies in the data submitted by Searle.

AUGUST 1974
Before aspartame can reach the marketplace, Dr John Olney, James Turner (attorney, consumer advocate and former 'Nader's Raider' who was instrumental in removing the artificial sweetener cyclamate from the US market), and the group Label Inc (Legal Action for Buyers' Education and Labeling) file a formal objection to aspartame's approval with the FDA, citing evidence that it could cause brain damage, particularly in children.

JULY 1975
Concerns about the accuracy of test data submitted to the FDA by Searle for a wide range of products prompt Schmidt to appoint a special task force to examine irregularities in 25 key studies for aspartame and Searle drugs Flagyl, Aldactone and Norpace.

5 DECEMBER 1975
Searle agrees to an inquiry into aspartame safety concerns. Searle withdraws aspartame from the market pending its results. The sweetener remains off the market for nearly 10 years while investigations into its safety and into Searle's alleged fraudulent testing procedures are ongoing. However, the inquiry board does not convene for another four years.

24 MARCH 1976
The FDA task force completes its 500 page report on Searle's testing procedures. The final report notes faulty and fraudulent product testing, knowingly misrepresented product testing, knowingly misrepresented and 'manipulated' test data, and instances of irrelevant animal research in all the products reviewed. Schmidt says: '[Searle's studies were] incredibly sloppy science. What we discovered was reprehensible.'

JULY 1976
The FDA forms a new task force, headed by veteran inspector Jerome Bressler, to further investigate irregularities in Searle's aspartame studies uncovered by the original task force. The findings of the new body will eventually be incorporated into a document known as the Bressler Report.

10 JANUARY 1977
FDA chief counsel Richard Merrill formally requests the US 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 it requests a criminal investigation of a manufacturer.

26 JANUARY 1977
While the grand jury investigation is underway, Sidley & Austin, the law firm representing Searle, begins recruitment negotiations with Samuel Skinner, the US attorney in charge of the investigation. Skinner removes himself form the investigation and the case is passed to William Conlon.

8 MARCH 1977
Searle hires prominent Washington insider Donald Rumsfeld as its new CEO to try to turn the beleaguered company around. A former member of Congress and defence secretary in the Ford administration, Rumsfeld brings several of his Washington colleagues in as top management.

1 JULY 1977
Samuel Skinner leaves the US Attorney's office and takes a job with Searle's law firm. Conlon takes over Skinner's old job.

1 AUGUST 1977
The Bressler Report is released. It focuses on three key aspartame studies conducted by Searle. The report finds that in one study 98 of the 196 animals died but weren't autopsied until later dates, making it impossible to ascertain the actual cause of death. Tumours were removed from live animals and the animals placed back in the study. Many other errors and inconsistencies are noted. For example, a rat was reported alive, then dead, then alive, then dead again. Bressler comments: 'The question you have got to ask yourself is: why wasn't greater care taken? Why didn't Searle, with their scientists, closely evaluate this, knowing full well that the whole society, from the youngest to the elderly, from the sick to the unsick. will have access to this product.' The FDA creates yet another task force to review the Bressler Report. The review is carried out by a team at the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and headed by senior scientist Jacqueline Verrett.

28 SEPTEMBER 1977
The FDA publishes a report exonerating Searle of any wrongdoing in its testing procedures. Jacqueline Verrett will later testify to the US Senate that her team was pressured into validating data from experiments that were clearly a 'disaster'.

8 DECEMBER 1977
Despite complaints from the Justice Department, Conlon stalls the grand jury prosecution for so long that the statute of limitations on the aspartame charges runs out and the investigation is dropped. Just over a year later Conlon joins Searle's law firm, Sidley & Austin.
1978
The journal Medical World News reports that the methanol content of aspartame is 1,000 times greater than most foods under FDA control. In high concentrations methanol, or wood alcohol, is a lethal poison.

1 JUNE 1979
The FDA finally establishes a public board of inquiry (PBOI), comprising three scientists whose job it is to review the objections of Olney and Turner to the approval of aspartame and rule on safety issues surrounding the sweetener.

1979
In spite of the uncertainties over aspartame's safety in the US, aspartame becomes available, primarily in pharmaceutical products, in France. It is sold under the brand name Canderel and manufactured by the food corporation Merisant.

30 SEPTEMBER 1980
The FDA's PBOI votes unanimously against aspartame's approval, pending further investigations of brain tumours in animals. The board says it 'has not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive'.

1980
Canderel is now marketed throughout much of Europe (but not in the UK) as a low-calorie sweetener.

JANUARY 1981
Rumsfeld states in a Searle sales meeting that he is going to make a big push to get aspartame approved within the year. Rumsfeld vows to 'call in his markers' and use political rather than scientific means to get the FDA on side.

20 JANUARY 1981
Ronald Reagan is sworn in as president of the US. Reagan's transition team, which includes Rumsfeld, nominates Dr Arthur Hull Hayes Jr to be the new FDA commissioner.

21 JANUARY 1981
One day after Reagan's inauguration, Searle re-applies to the FDA for approval to use aspartame as a food sweetener.

MARCH 1981
An FDA commissioner's panel is established to review issues raised by the PBOI.

19 MAY 1981
Arthur Hull Hayes Jr, appoints a five-person commission to review the PBOI's decision. Three of the five FDA scientists on it advise against approval of aspartame, stating on the record that Searle's tests are unreliable and not adequate to determine the safety of aspartame. Hayes installs a sixth member on the commission, and the vote becomes deadlocked.

15 JULY 1981
Hayes ignores the recommendations of his own internal FDA team, overrules the PBOI findings and gives initial approval for aspartame to be used in dry products on the basis that it has been shown to be safe for its proposed uses.

22 OCTOBER 1981
The FDA approves aspartame as a tabletop sweetener and for use in tablets, breakfast cereals, chewing gum, dry bases for beverages, instant coffee and tea, gelatines, puddings, fillings, dairy-product toppings and as a flavour enhancer for chewing gum.

1982
The aspartame-based sweetener Equal, manufactured by Merisant, is launched in the US.

15 OCTOBER 1982
The FDA announces that Searle has filed a petition for aspartame to be approved as a sweetener in carbonated beverages, children's vitamins and other liquids.

1983
Searle attorney Robert Shapiro gives aspartame its commercial name, NutraSweet. The name is trademarked the following year. Shapiro later becomes president of Searle. He eventually becomes president and then chairman and CEO of Monsanto, which will buy Searle in 1985.

8 JULY 1983
Aspartame is approved for use in carbonated beverages and syrup bases in the US and, three months later, Britain. Before the end of the year Canderel tablets are launched in the UK. Granular Canderel follows in 1985.

8 AUGUST 1983
James Turner, on behalf of himself and the Community Nutrition Institute, and Dr Woodrow Monte, Arizona State University's director of food science and nutritional laboratories, file petitions with the FDA objecting to aspartame approval based on possible seriousadverse effects from the chronic intake of the sweetener. Monte also cites concern about the chronic intake of methanol associated with aspartame ingestion.

SEPTEMBER 1983
Hayes resigns as FDA commissioner under a cloud of controversy about his taking unauthorised rides aboard a General Foods jet (General Foods was and is a major purchaser of aspartame). He serves briefly as provost at New York Medical College, and then takes a position as senior scientific consultant with Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Searle and Monsanto.

AUTUMN 1983
The first carbonated beverages containing aspartame go on sale in the US.

17 FEBRUARY 1984
The FDA denies Turner and Monte's requests for a hearing, noting that aspartame's critics had not presented any unresolved safety questions. Regarding aspartame's breakdown components, the FDA says that it has reviewed animal, clinical and consumption studies submitted by the sweetener's manufacturer, as well as the existing body of scientific data, and concludes that 'the studies demonstrated the safety of these components'.

MARCH 1984
Public complaints about the adverse effects of aspartame begin to come in. The FDA requests that the US agency the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) begins investigations of a select number of cases of adverse reactions to aspartame.

30 MAY 1984
The FDA approves aspartame for use in multivitamins.

JULY 1984
A study by the state of Arizona Department of Health into aspartame is published in the Journal of Applied Nutrition. It determines that soft drinks stored at elevated temperatures promote more rapid deterioration of aspartame into poisonous methanol.

2 NOVEMBER 1984
The CDC review of public complaints relating to aspartame culminates in a report, Evaluation of Consumer Complaints Related to Aspartame Use, which reviews 213 of 592 cases and notes that re-challenge tests show that sensitive individuals consistently produce the same adverse symptoms each time they ingested aspartame. The reported symptoms include: aggressive behaviour, disorientation, hyperactivity, extreme numbness, excitability, memory loss, loss of depth perception, liver impairment, cardiac arrest, seizures, suicidal tendencies and severe mood swings. The CDC nevertheless concludes that aspartame is safe to ingest. On the same day that the CDC exonerates aspartame, Pepsi announces that it is dropping saccharin and adopting aspartame as the sweetener in all its diet drinks. Others quickly follow suit.

1 OCTOBER 1985
Monsanto, the producer of recombinant bovine growth hormone, genetically engineered soya beans, the pesticide Roundup and many other industrial and agricultural chemicals, purchases Searle for $2.7 billion.

21 APRIL 1986
The US Supreme Court, headed by Justice Clarence Thomas, a former Monsanto attorney, refuses to consider arguments from the Community Nutrition Institute and other consumer groups that the FDA has not followed proper procedures in approving aspartame, and that the liquid form of the artificial sweetener may cause brain damage in heavy users of low-calorie soft drinks.

16 OCTOBER 1986
Turner files another citizen's petition, this time concerning the risk of seizures and eye damage from aspartame. The petition argues that medical records of 140 aspartame users show them to have suffered from epileptic seizures and eye damage after consuming products containing the sweetener and that the FDA should ban aspartame as an 'imminent hazard to the public health'.
21 NOVEMBER 1986
The FDA denies Turner's new petition, saying: 'The data and information supporting the safety of aspartame are extensive. It is likely that no food product has ever been so closely examined for safety. Moreover, the decisions of the agency to approve aspartame for its uses have been given the fullest airing that the legal process requires.'

28 NOVEMBER 1986
The FDA approves aspartame for non-carbonated frozen or refrigerated concentrates and single-strength fruit juice, fruit drinks, fruit-flavoured drinks, imitation fruit-flavoured drinks, frozen stock-type confections and novelties, breath mints and tea beverages.

DECEMBER 1986
The FDA declares aspartame safe for use as an inactive ingredient, provided labelling meets certain specifications.

1987
An FDA report on adverse reactions associated with aspartame states the majority of the complaints about aspartame - now numbering 3,133 - refer to neurological effects.

2 JANUARY 1987
NutraSweet's aspartame patent runs out in Europe, Canada and Japan. More companies are now free to produce aspartame sweeteners in these countries.

12 OCTOBER 1987
United Press International, a leading global news-syndication organisation, reports that more than 10 federal officials involved in the decision to approve aspartame have now taken jobs in the private sector that are linked to the aspartame industry.

3 NOVEMBER 1987
A US Senate hearing is held to address the issue of aspartame safety and labelling. The hearing reviews the faulty testing procedures and the 'psychological strategy' used by Searle to help ensure aspartame's approval. Other information that comes to light includes the fact that aspartame was once on a Pentagon list of prospective biochemical-warfare weapons.

Numerous medical and scientific experts testify as to the toxicity of aspartame. Among them is Dr Verrett, who reveals that, while compiling its 1977 report, her team was instructed not to comment on or be concerned with the overall validity of the studies. She states that questions about birth defects have not been answered. She also states that increasing the temperature of the product leads to an increase in production of DKP, a substance shown to increase uterine polyps and change blood cholesterol levels. Verrett comments: 'It was pretty obvious that somewhere along the line, the bureau officials were working up to a whitewash.'

1989
The FDA has received more than 4,000 complaints from consumers about adverse reactions to the sweetener.

14 OCTOBER 1989
Dr HJ Roberts, director of the Palm Beach Institute for Medical Research, claims that several recent aircraft accidents involving confusion and aberrant pilot behaviour were caused by ingestion of products containing aspartame.

20 JULY 1990
The Guardian publishes a major investigation of aspartame and delivers to government officials 'a dossier of evidence' that draws heavily on the transcripts of the Bressler Report and demands that the government review the safety of aspartame. No review is undertaken. The Guardian is taken to court by Monsanto and forced to apologise for printing its story.

1991
The US National Institutes of Health publishes Adverse Effects of Aspartame: January '86 through December '90, a bibliography of 167 studies documenting adverse effects associated with aspartame.

1992
NutraSweet signs agreements with Coca-Cola and Pepsi stipulating that it is their preferred supplier of aspartame.

30 JANUARY 1992
The FDA approves aspartame for use in malt beverages, breakfast cereals, and refrigerated puddings and fillings and in bulk form (in large packages like sugar) for tabletop use. NutraSweet markets these bulk products under the name 'NutraSweet Spoonful'.

14 DECEMBER 1992
NutraSweet's US patent for aspartame expires, opening up the market for other companies to produce the substance.

19 APRIL 1993
The FDA approves aspartame for use in hard and soft candies, non-alcoholic flavoured beverages, tea beverages, fruit juices and concentrates, baked goods and baking mixes, and frostings, toppings and fillings for baked goods.

28 FEBRUARY 1994
Aspartame now accounts for the majority (75 per cent) of all the complaints in the US adverse-reaction monitoring system. The US Department of Health and Human Services compiles a report that brings together all current information on adverse reactions attributed to aspartame. It lists 6,888 complaints, including 649 reported by the CDC and 1,305 reported by the FDA.

APRIL 1995
Consumer activist, and founder of anti-aspartame group Mission Possible, Betty Martini uses the US's Freedom of Information Act to force the FDA to release an official list of adverse effects associated with aspartame ingestion. Culled from 10,000 consumer complaints, the list includes four deaths and more than 90 unique symptoms, a majority of which are connected to impaired neurological function. They include: headache; dizziness or problems with balance; mood change; vomiting and nausea; seizures and convulsions; memory loss; tremors; muscle weakness; abdominal pains and cramps; change in vision; diarrhoea; fatigue and weakness; skin rashes; deteriorating vision; joint and musculoskeletal pain. By the FDA's own admission, fewer then 1 per cent of those who have problems with something they consume ever report it to the FDA. This means that around 1 million people could have been experiencing adverse effects from ingesting aspartame.

12 JUNE 1995
The FDA announces it has no further plans to continue to collect adverse reaction reports or monitor research on aspartame.

27 JUNE 1996
The FDA removes all restrictions from aspartame use, and approves it as a general-purpose sweetener', meaning that aspartame can now be used in any food or beverage.

NOVEMBER 1996
Drawing on data compiled by the US National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results programme, which collects and distributes data on all types of cancer, Olney publishes peer-reviewed research in the Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology. It shows that brain-tumour rates have risen in line with aspartame consumption and that there has been a significant increase in the conversion of less deadly tumours into much more deadly ones.

DECEMBER 1996
The results of a remarkable study conducted by Dr Ralph G Walton, professor of clinical psychology at Northeastern Ohio Universities, are revealed. Commissioned by the hard-hitting US national news programme 60 Minutes, it sheds some light on the absurdity of aspartame-safety studies. Walton reviewed 165 separate studies published in the preceding 20 years in peer-reviewed medical journals. Seventy-four of the studies were industry-funded, all of which attested to aspartame's safety. Of the other 91 non-industry funded studies, 84 identified adverse health effects. Six of the seven non-industry funded studies that were favourable to aspartame were from the FDA, which has a public record of strong pro-industry bias. To this day, the industry-funded studies are the ones that are always quoted to the press and in official rebuttals to aspartame critics. They are also the studies given the greatest weight during the approval process and in official safety reviews.

10 FEBRUARY 1998
Monsanto petitions the FDA for approval of a new tabletop sweetener called Neotame. It is around 60 times sweeter than aspartame and up to 13,000 times sweeter than sugar. Neotame is less prone to breaking down in heat and in liquids than aspartame because of the addition of 3,3-dimethylbutyl, a poorly studied chemical with suspected neurotoxic effects. Strengthening the bond between aspartame's main constituents eliminates the need for a health warning directed at people suffering from PKU.

13 MAY 1998
Independent scientists from the University of Barcelona publish a landmark study clearly showing that aspartame is transformed into formaldehyde in the bodies of living specimens (in this case rats), and that this formaldehyde spreads throughout the specimens' vital organs, including the liver, kidneys, eyes and brain. The results fly in the face of manufacturers' claims that aspartame does not break down into formaldehyde in the body, and bolster the claims of aspartame critics that many of the symptoms associated with aspartame toxicity are caused by the poisonous and cumulative effects of formaldehyde.

OCTOBER 1998
The UK's Food Commission publishes two surveys on sweeteners. The first shows that several leading companies, including St Ivel, Müller and Sainsbury's, have ignored the legal requirement to state 'with sweeteners' next to the name of the product. The second reveals that aspartame not only appears in 'no-sugar added' and 'light' beverages but also in ordinary non-dietetic drinks because it's three times cheaper than ordinary sugar.

8 FEBRUARY 1999
Monsanto files a petition with the FDA for approval of the general use of Neotame.

20 JUNE 1999
An investigation by The Independent on Sunday reveals that aspartame is made using a genetic engineering process. Aspartame component phenylalanine is naturally produced by bacteria. The newspaper reveals that Monsanto has genetically engineered the bacteria to make them produce more phenylalanine. Monsanto claims that the process had not been revealed previously because no modified DNA remains in the finished product, and insists that the product is completely safe; though scientists counter that toxic effects cannot be ruled out in the absence of long-term studies. A Monsanto spokeswoman says that while aspartame for the US market is often made using genetic engineering, aspartame supplied to British food producers is not. The extent to which US brands of low-calorie products containing genetically engineered aspartame have been imported into Britain is unclear.

MAY 2000
Monsanto, under pressure - not least from the worldwide resistance to genetically manipulated food and ongoing lawsuits - sells NutraSweet to JW Childs Associates, a private-equity firm comprised of several former Monsanto managers, for $440m. Monsanto also sells its equity interest in two European sweetener joint ventures, NutraSweet AG and Euro-Aspartame SA.

10 DECEMBER 2001
The UK's Food Standards Agency requests that the European Commission Scientific Committee on Food conducts an updated review of aspartame. The committee is asked to look carefully at more than 500 scientific papers published between 1988 and 2000 and any other new scientific research not examined previously.

9 JULY 2002
The FDA approves the tabletop and general use of Neotame. The 'fast-track' approval raises eyebrows because, historically, the FDA takes at least 10 years to approve food additives. Neotame is also approved for use in Australia and New Zealand, but has yet to be approved in the UK.

10 DECEMBER 2002
The European Commission Scientific Committee on Food publishes its final report on aspartame. The 24-page report largely ignores independent research and consumer complaints, relying instead on frequently cited articles in books and reviews put together by employees or consultants of aspartame manufacturers. When independent research is cited, it is generally refuted with industry-sponsored data. An animal study showing aspartame's disruption of brain chemistry, a human study linking aspartame to neurophysiological changes that could increase seizure risk, another linking aspartame use with depression in individuals susceptible to mood disorder, and two others linking aspartame ingestion with headaches are all dismissed.

The report's conclusion amounts to a single sentence: 'The committee concluded that.there is no evidence to suggest that there is a need to revise the outcome of the earlier risk assessment or the [acceptance daily intake] previously established for aspartame.'

As with the FDA, there are concerns about the neutrality of some of the committee's members and their links with the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), an industry group that funds, among other things, research into aspartame. ILSI members include Monsanto, Coca-Cola and Pepsi.

19 FEBRUARY 2003
Members of the European Parliament's Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy Committee approve the use of sucralose (see page 50) and an aspartame-acesulfame salt compound (manufactured in Europe by the aspartame-producing Holland Sweetener Company and sold under the name Twinsweet), agreeing to review of the use of both in three years' time. At the same time, a request by European greens that the committee re-evaluate the safety of aspartame and improve the labelling of aspartame-containing products is rejected.

MAY 2004
The feature-length documentary Sweet Misery is released on DVD (see http://www.soundandfuryproductions.com). Part-documentary, part-detective story, it includes interviews with people who have been harmed by aspartame, as well as credible testimony from advocates, doctors, lawyers and long-time campaigners, including James Turner, HJ Roberts and renowned neurosurgeon Dr Russell Blaylock. (UK orders: Namaste Publishing,
info@namastepublishing.co.uk.)

SEPTEMBER 2004
US consumer group the National Justice League files a $350m class action lawsuit against the NutraSweet Corporation (the current owner of aspartame products), the American Diabetes Association and Monsanto. Some 50 other defendants have yet to be named, but mentioned throughout the lawsuit is the central role of Donald Rumsfeld in helping to get aspartame approved through the FDA. The plaintiffs maintain that this litigation will prove how deadly aspartame is when it is consumed by humans. Little progress has been made so far in bringing the action to court. The NutraSweet Company reopens its plant in Atlanta, Georgia, (dormant since 2003) in order to meet increased demand for its sweetener. Aspartame, sold commercially as NutraSweet, Equal, Equal-Measure, Spoonful, Canderel and Benevia, is currently available in more than 100 countries and used in more than 5,000 products by at least 250 million people every day. Worldwide, the aspartame industry's sales amount to more than $1 billion yearly. The US is the primary consumer.

JULY 2005
The Ramizzini Institute in Bologna, a non-profit, private institution set up to research the causes of cancer, releases the results of a very large, long-term animal study into aspartame ingestion. Its study shows that aspartame causes lymphomas and leukaemia in female animals fed aspartame at doses around 20 milligrams per kilogram of body weight, or around half the accepted daily intake for humans.

Page 47
ASPARTAME REACTIONS: A HIDDEN EPIDEMIC
Aspartame has been linked to a host of devastating central nervous system disorders

When aspartame was approved for use, Dr HJ Roberts, director of the Palm Beach Institute for Medical Research, had no reason to doubt the FDA's decision. 'But my attitude changed,' he says, 'after repeatedly encountering serious reactions in my patients that seemed justifiably linked to aspartame.' Twenty years on, Roberts has coined the phrase 'aspartame disease' to describe the wide range of adverse effects he has seen among aspartame-guzzling patients.

He estimates: 'Hundreds of thousands of consumers, more likely millions, currently suffer major reactions to products containing aspartame. Today, every physician probably encounters aspartame disease in everyday practice, especially among patients with illnesses that are undiagnosed or difficult to treat.'

As a guide for other doctors, Roberts, a recognised expert in difficult diagnoses, has published a lengthy series of case studies, Aspartame Disease: an ignored epidemic (Sunshine Sentinel Press), in which he meticulously details his treatment of 1,200 aspartame-sensitive individuals, or 'reactors', encountered in his own practice. Following accepted medical procedure for detecting sensitivities to foods, Roberts had his patients remove aspartame from their diets. With nearly two thirds of reactors, symptoms began to improve within days of removing aspartame, and improvements were maintained as long as aspartame was kept out of their diet.

Roberts' case studies parallel much of what was revealed in the FDA's report on adverse reactions to aspartame - that toxicity often reveals itself through central nervous system disorders and compromised immunity. His casework shows that aspartame toxicity can mimic the symptoms of and/or worsen several diseases that fall into these broad categories (see sidebar, below).

Case studies, especially a large series like this, address some of the issues surrounding real-world use in a way that laboratory studies never can; and the conclusions that can be drawn from such observations aren't just startling, they are also potentially highly significant. In fact, Roberts believes that one of the major problems with aspartame research has been the continued over-emphasis on laboratory studies. This has meant that the input of concerned independent physicians and other interested persons, especially consumers, is 'reflexively discounted as "anecdotal"'.

Many of the diseases listed by Roberts fall into the category of medicine's 'mystery diseases' - conditions with no clear etiology and few effective cures. And while no one is suggesting that aspartame is the single cause of such diseases, Roberts' research suggests that some people diagnosed with, for example, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's or chronic fatigue syndrome may end up on a regimen of potentially harmful drugs that could have been avoided if they simply stopped ingesting aspartame-laced products.

Sidebar
Conditions Mimicked By Aspartame Toxicity
§ Multiple sclerosis
§ Parkinson's disease
§ Alzheimer's disease
§ Fibromyalgia
§ Arthritis
§ Multiple chemical sensitivity
§ Chronic fatigue syndrome
§ Attention deficit disorder
§ Panic disorder depression and other psychological disorders
§ Lupus § Diabetes and diabetic complications
§ Birth defects
§ Lymphoma
§ Lyme disease
§ Hypothyroidism

Pages 48-49

ASPARTAME'S TOXIC CONTENTS

Aspartame is made up of three chemicals: the amino acids aspartic acid and phenylalanine, and methanol. The chemical bond that holds these constituents together is fairly weak. As a result, aspartame readily breaks down into its component parts in a variety of circumstances: in liquids; during prolonged storage; when exposed to heat in excess of 86° Fahrenheit (30° Centigrade); and when ingested. These constituents further break down into other toxic by-products, namely formaldehyde, formic acid and aspartylphenylalanine diketopiperazine (DKP).

Manufacturers argue that the instability of aspartame is irrelevant since its constituents are all found naturally in food. This is only partially true and ignores the fact that in food amino acids like aspartic acid and phenylalanine are bound to proteins, which means that during digestion and metabolism they are released slowly into the body. In aspartame, these amino acids are in an unbound or 'free' form that releases greater amounts of these chemicals into the system much more quickly. Similarly, the methanol present in natural foods like fruits, for example, is bound to pectin and also has a co-factor, ethanol, to mediate some of its effects. No such chemical 'back-stops' exist in aspartame.
According to neuroscientist Russell Blaylock, the effect of aspartame's breakdown components on brain function is central to its known adverse effects. Like monosodium glutamate (MSG) and L-cysteine, an amino acid found in hydrolysed vegetable protein, aspartame is what is known as an 'excitotoxin' - a chemical transmitter that allows brain cells to communicate. Blaylock has written a book about them, Excitotoxins: the taste that kills, and says: 'Even a minute over-concentration of these chemicals causes the brain cells to become so over-excited that they very quickly burn themselves out and die.'

While aspartame manufacturers say aspartame cannot penetrate the blood-brain barrier - the tightly-walled membrane that keeps toxins from reaching the brain, Blaylock counters that a number of factors make the blood-brain barrier more porous, including exposure to pesticides, hypoglycaemia, all immune diseases (such as lupus and diabetes), Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, strokes (including silent strokes) and a whole range of medical drugs. Under these conditions, ingesting aspartame-laced foods may cause a spike in the level of excitotoxins that directly reach the brain, thus increasing the likelihood of adverse effects. Each of aspartame's main constituents is a known neurotoxin capable of producing a unique array of adverse effects.

PHENYLALANINE
The essential amino acid phenylalanine comprises 50 per cent of aspartame. In people disorder, phenylketonuria (PKU) with the genetic the liver cannot metabolise phenylalanine, causing it to build up in the blood and tissues. Chronically high levels of phenylalanine and its breakdown products cause significant neurological problems, which is why foods and beverages containing aspartame must carry a warning for PKU sufferers.
 
But according to Dr HJ Roberts, sensitivity to aspartame is not limited to PKU sufferers. PKU carriers - people who inherited the gene for the disorder but do not themselves have the condition (around 2 per cent of the general population) - are also more prone to adverse effects. In Roberts' data there is also a high incidence of aspartame reactions among the close relatives of patients who cannot tolerate aspartame. Furthermore, there is evidence that ingesting aspartame, especially along with carbohydrates, can lead to excess levels of phenylalanine in the brain even among those not affected by PKU.

Although phenylalanine is sometimes used as a treatment for depression, excessive amounts in the brain can cause levels of the mood regulator serotonin to decrease, making depression more serious or likely. Build-up of phenylalanine in the brain can also worsen schizophrenia or make individuals more susceptible to seizures. Moreover, decrease in serotonin levels can result in carbohydrate craving. This could explain aspartame's lack of effectiveness as a diet aid.

DKP
DKP is a breakdown product of phenylalanine that forms when aspartame-containing liquids are stored for prolonged periods. In animal experiments it has produced brain tumours, uterine polyps and changes in blood cholesterol. Before the FDA approved aspartame, the amount of DKP in our diets was essentially zero. So no claim of DKP's safety can be accepted as genuine until good-quality long-term studies have been performed. No such studies have been done.

ASPARTIC ACID
Aspartic acid (also known as aspartate) is a non-essential amino acid that comprises 40 per cent of aspartame. In the brain, it functions as a neurotransmitter - facilitating the transfer of information from one nerve cell (neuron) to another. Both human and animal experiments have demonstrated a significant spike in blood-plasma levels of aspartate after the administration of aspartame in liquids. Too much aspartate in the brain produces free radicals, unstable molecules that damage and kill brain cells.

Humans are five times more sensitive to the effects of aspartic acid (as well as glutamic acid, found in MSG) than rodents, and 20 times more sensitive than monkeys, because we concentrate these excitatory amino acids in our blood at much higher levels and for a longer period of time. Aspartic acid has a cumulative harmful effect on the endocrine and reproductive systems. Several animal experiments have shown that excitotoxins can penetrate the placental barrier and reach the foetus.

In addition, as levels of aspartic acid rise in the body so do levels of the key neurotransmitter norepinephrine (also known as noradrenaline), a 'stress hormone' that affects parts of the human brain where attention and impulsivity are controlled. Excessive norepinephrine is associated with symptoms such as anxiety, agitation and mania.

METHANOL
Methanol (wood alcohol) comprises 10 per cent of aspartame. It is a deadly poison that is liberated from aspartame at temperatures in excess of 86° Fahrenheit (30° centigrade) - for instance, during storage or inside the human body. The US Environmental Protection Agency considers methanol a 'cumulative poison due to the low rate of excretion once it is absorbed', meaning that even small amounts in aspartame-containing foods can build up over time in the body.

The most well known problems from methanol poisoning are vision disorders, including misty or blurry vision, retinal damage and blindness. Other symptoms include headaches, Tinnitus, dizziness, nausea, gastrointestinal disturbances, weakness, vertigo, chills, memory lapses, numbness and shooting pains in the extremities behavioural disturbances, and neuritis.

The EPA tightly controls methanol exposure, allowing only very minute levels to be present in foods or in environmental exposures. But Blaylock says: 'The level allowed in NutraSweet is seven times the amount that the EPA will allow anyone else to use.'

FORMALDEHYDE
The methanol absorbed from aspartame is converted to formaldehyde in the liver. Formaldehyde is a neurotoxin and known carcinogen. It causes retinal damage and birth defects, interferes with DNA replication, and has been shown to cause squamous-cell carcinoma, a form of skin cancer, in animals. Several human studies have found that chronic, low-level formaldehyde exposure has been linked with a variety of symptoms, including headaches, fatigue, chest tightness, dizziness, nausea, poor concentration and seizures.

FORMIC ACID
Formic acid is a cumulative poison produced by the breakdown of formaldehyde. It concentrates in the brain, kidneys, spinal fluid and other organs, and is highly toxic to cells. Formic acid can lead to accumulation of excessive acid in the body fluids - a condition known as acidosis. The small amounts of formic acid derived from the methanol absorbed from aspartame may or may not be dangerous; there are no human or mammalian studies to enlighten us.

Comment, page 49

ASPARTAME: TIME FOR ACTION
The story of aspartame is the story of the triumph of corporate might over scientific rigour. It shines a spotlight on the archaic and unbalanced procedure for approving food additives.

We ingest food additives daily, yet their approval does not require the same scientific thoroughness as drug approval; and, unlike drugs, there is no requirement for surveillance of adverse effects that crop up once the additive is in use.

Approval does not involve looking at what people are already eating and whether the proposed substance will interact with other additives. Nor does it take into account whether the additive exacerbates damage caused by other aspects of the modern lifestyle (for instance, the neurological damage caused by pesticide ingestion or exposure). Nor does it look for subtle chronic effects (for instance, the gradual build-up of methanol in the body with regular aspartame ingestion).

There are other problems. Most studies into aspartame are animal studies, which are notoriously difficult to relate to humans. So why bother performing them in the first place? The answer is, manufacturers and regulators use animal research as a double-edged sword. If an animal study reveals no evidence of harm, the manufacturer can use it to support its case. If it reveals harm, however, the manufacturer is free to flip-flop into the argument that the results of animal studies are inconclusive in relation to humans. Faced with inconclusive evidence regulators will always err on the side of the manufacturer, who has after all demonstrated proper bureaucratic procedure by funding and submitting its animal tests for consideration.

The approval process for any substance that humans put in their mouths on a daily basis should be based on solid human data and on the precautionary principle when such data is not available. But, as it stands, the regulation of food additives in the US, the UK and elsewhere leaves the burden of proof of harm on average people, despite the fact that most of us are either too detached or too timid to complain or simply don't have the energy to take on multinational corporations.

The history of aspartame is all the more remarkable because of the number of motivated people who have refused to accept the mantra 'if it's approved by the government it must be safe'. Nearly every piece of independent research shows the outrage of these people, who have had to withstand threats of litigation and being vilified in the media as 'hysterics', is justified.

After 30 years of aspartame's commercial success, it would be easy to conclude it is too late to act. And yet earlier this year hundreds of products were swept off supermarket shelves on the chance that they might have contained minuscule amounts of a potentially carcinogenic dye, Sudan 1. No studies existed to show that Sudan 1 could cause cancer in humans. The likelihood of any one person's exposure to Sudan 1 being high enough to produce a tumour was minute. Nevertheless, on the basis of the precautionary principle, action was taken.
Aspartame is not a life-saving drug. It is not even a very effective diet aid, as shown by widespread obesity in the West. Until the many concerns about it have been examined in 'corporate-neutral', large-scale, long-term, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled human trials (the gold standard of scientific proof) it should be taken out of our food.

Pages 50-51

SUCRALOSE: LIFE AFTER ASPARTAME
Aspartame should never have reached the marketplace. But even if the authorities were to remove it from sale tomorrow, how much faith should consumers place in the other artificial sweeteners on the market? PAT THOMAS REPORTS

There is not a single artificial sweetener on the market that can claim, beyond all reasonable doubt, to be safe for humans to consume. Saccharin, cyclamate and acesulfame-K have all been show to cause cancer in animals. Even the family of relatively benign sweeteners known as polyols, such as sorbitol and mannitol, can cause gastric upset if eaten in quantity. NutraSweet believes that its new aspartame-based sweetener, Neotame, is 'revolutionary'; but, seemingly, it is only amore stable version of aspartame. This leaves the market wide open for sucralose.
 
Sucralose, sold commercially as Splenda, was discovered in 1976 by researchers working for British sugar refiner Tate & Lyle. Four years later, Tate & Lyle joined forces with Johnson & Johnson to develop and commercialise sucralose under the auspices of a new company, McNeil Specialty Products (now called McNeil Nutritionals). Sucralose has been approved by more than 60 regulatory bodies throughout the world, and is now in more than 3,000 products worldwide. In the US, Coca-Cola has developed a new diet drink sweetened with Splenda, and other major soft drink manufacturers are expected to follow suit.
Splenda has had to rethink its slogan "made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar" in the wake of a heated US legal challenge and a recent ruling by the New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority that said it confused and misled consumers. While it is true that sugar, or sucrose, is one of the starting materials for sucralose, its chemical structure is significantly different from that of sucrose.

In a complex chemical process, the sucrose is processed with, among other things, phosgene (a chemical-warfare agent used during WWI, now a common intermediary in the production of plastics, pesticides and dyes), and three atoms of chlorine are selectively substituted for three hydroxyl (hydrogen and oxygen) groups naturally attached to the sugar molecule.

This process produces 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside (also known as trichlorogalactosucrose or sucralose), a new chemical substance which Tate & Lyle calls a 'water-soluble chlorocarbohydrate'.

Accepting Tate & Lyle's classification of sucralose as a chlorocarbohydrate at face value raises reasonable concerns about its suitability as a food additive. Chlorinated carbohydrates belong to a class of chemicals known as chlorocarbons. This class of chemicals includes a number of notorious human and environmental poisons, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); aliphatic chlorinated carbohydrates; aromatic chlorinated carbohydrates such as DDT; organochlorine pesticides such as aldrin and dieldrin; and aromatic chlorinated ethers such as polychlorinated dioxins (PCDD) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF).

Most of the synthetic chlorinated compounds that we ingest, such as the pesticide residues in our food and water, bio-accumulate slowly in the body; and many cause developmental problems in the womb or are carcinogenic. How do we know that sucralose is any different?

Tate & Lyle insists that sucralose passes through the body virtually intact, and that the tight molecular bond between the chlorine atoms and the sugar molecule results in a very stable and versatile product that is not metabolised in the body for calories. This doesn't mean, however, that sucralose is not metabolised in the body at all, and critics like HJ Roberts argue that, during storage and in the body, sucralose breaks down into among other things 1,6 dichlorofructose, a chlorinated compound that has not been adequately tested in humans.

Tate & Lyle maintains that sucralose and its breakdown products have been extensively tested and proven safe for human consumption. The company notes that in seeking approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), McNeil Specialty Products submitted more than 110 studies that attested to the safety of sucralose.

BUT CAN CONSUMERS TRUST THIS RESEARCH DATA?

The vast majority of studies submitted to the FDA were unpublished animal and laboratory studies performed by Tate & Lyle itself, and therefore liable to charges of potentially unacceptable bias. Only five involved human subjects, and these were short-term, often single-dose, studies that clearly could not adequately reflect the expected real-world usage of sucralose. After questions were raised by the FDA about the safety of sucralose for diabetics, and prior to approval, a further five human studies were eventually submitted. On 1 April 1998 the FDA approved sucralose for limited uses; one year later it approved it as a general-purpose sweetener.

Some questions about sucralose's safety, arising from the data submitted to the FDA, remain unanswered. These studies included unsettling findings about animals, which, when exposed to high doses of sucralose, experienced: § Shrunken thymus and spleen;

§ Enlarged liver and kidneys; and

§ Reduced growth rate in adults and newborns.

In the FDA's 'final-rule' report, several of the studies submitted by McNeil were found to have 'inconclusive' results or were 'insufficient' to draw firm conclusions from them. These included:

§ A test that examined the clastogenic activity (ability to break chromosomes apart) of sucralose, and a test that looked for chromosomal aberrations in human lymphocytes exposed to sucralose';

§ A series of three animal genotoxicity studies; and

§ Laboratory studies using lymphoma tissue from mice which showed that sucralose was weakly mutagenic' (capable of causing cellular mutations).
Clastogenic, genotoxic and mutagenic substances are all potential risk factors in the development of cancer.

In addition to these, three studies that looked at very specific 'anti-fertility' effects of sucralose and its breakdown products, especially with regard to sperm production were also deemed insufficient; this is particularly worrying, since other 'chlorosugars', such as 6-chloroglucose, are currently being studied as anti-spermatogenic drugs.

Furthermore, the administration observed that McNeil had failed to explain satisfactorily a reduction in body weight seen in animals fed sucralose and that 'additional study data were needed to resolve this issue'. Ironically for a product that 'tastes like sugar', McNeil argued that weight loss was due to the 'reduced palatability of sucralose-containing diets'. FDA reviewers also found that at mid to high doses there was a trend towards 'decreasing white blood cell and lymphocyte counts with increasing dose levels of sucralose'. This was dismissed as having no 'statistical significance' by the FDA; in healthy animals and humans this may be so, but what happens when already immune-compromised individuals ingest sucralose?

Tate & Lyle says that any lingering concerns about sucralose are unfounded and that only a small amount, 15-20 per cent, of sucralose is absorbed and broken down in the human gut. The rest passes through the body unmetabolised and is excreted in urine and faeces. This in itself provokes important questions.
§ What happens to sucralose that is flushed down the toilet? Does it remain stable or react with other substances (for instance, the chlorine used in water-treatment plants, or microbial life) to form new compounds?

§ Is sucralose or any resulting chemical compound it may form safe for the environment? Is it harmful to aquatic life or wild animals?

§ Will sucralose begin to appear in our water supply, in the way that certain drugs have, silently increasing our exposure to it? And would that increased exposure be safe?

PUBLISH AND BE SUED

In the face of emerging public criticism, lawyers for Tate & Lyle are already gearing up for a battle. According to attorney James Turner, a key player in the aspartame drama, 'There's going to be a huge fight about Splenda in the next few months.[Tate & Lyle's] lawyers are already on the case trying to shut everybody up'.

It's a tactic that worked well for Monsanto, which certainly used legal pressure against anyone who criticised NutraSweet. Recently, the publisher of the local newspaper the Brighton Argus considered it prudent to publish an apology composed by Tate & Lyle (or their lawyers) or face a legal action for defamation and loss of sales after printing an article suggesting that sucralose was harmful to humans.

Tate & Lyle's first high-profile victim, however, was mercola.com - one of the world's most visited internet health sites. Run by Dr Joseph Mercola, the site has been a vocal critic of sucralose for years. Instead of carrying freely available information on sucralose that might stimulate spirited public debate, it now carries the following message:

'Attorneys acting on behalf of the manufacturers of sucralose, Tate & Lyle Plc, based in London, England, have requested that the information contained on this page not be made available to internet users in England.'

At this point, concerned consumers should be asking themselves several questions. Does the story of sucralose sound familiar? If sucralose is safe beyond any reasonable doubt, why is there such a fervent need to suppress any criticism of it? Finally, whom do such tactics really serve? Do they serve the consumer and the principles of choice, information, safety and redress? Or do they serve the corporate machine and its need to keep generating profits without taking responsibility for the human cost of doing so?