LETTERS OF TESTIMONY FOR HB2680 & SB2506 (PART IV) BAN ASPARTAME IN HAWAII SENATE & HOUSE HEALTH COMMITTEES



From: Adrian Chang


Dear Honorable Chairs & Committee Members of the Senate or House Health Committees,

I am submitting Part IV of my testimony, in support of the bill, with comments on a recent study published in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 2007 (hereafter called the Burdock Study), claimed by opponents of the bill to be evidence of the safety of aspartame. This study was conducted by the Burdock Group located in Washington D.C. My comments are as follows:

  1. The sponsor of the study was Ajinomoto Company, Inc. Although the study states the identity of the sponsor of the review was unknown to the chair and expert panelists throughout the conduct and completion of the review, two of the panelists, of which one was the lead author, were from the Burdock Group. To assume that no conflict of interest or communication existed with the sponsor may be considered na . The pattern of industry funded studies, concluding that aspartame is safe, is well established. In an article in the British Medical Journal (Briffa, 2005), the MD author states this review is particularly worrying as it shows that, although 100%of industry funded (either whole or in part) studies conclude that aspartame is safe, 92% of independently funded studies have found that aspartame has the potential for adverse effects. The list of industry versus independent studies may be found at http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html

  2. 56 of 90 independent funded studies showing adverse reaction identified by Dr R.G. Walton, MD in Survey of Aspartame Studies: Correlation of Outcome and Funding Sources, were not cited or discussed by the Burdock Study. An example of concern is a study by Trocho, 1998, published in Life Sciences titled Formaldehyde Derived From Dietary Aspartame Binds To Tissue Components In Vivo. This is really troubling considering that aspartame breaks down to methanol which in turn breaks down to formaldehyde and accumulation in the tissue is definitely not acceptable for good health.

  3. After approximately 25 year of having aspartame in beverages and other products with frequent industry funded studies saying it is safe, one must ask now ask why was the Burdock Study initiated only now. It appears that this study was generated to scrutinize, criticize, and counter three recent studies published by the well-known European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences (Soffritti, 2007, 2006, 2005) which stressed that based on the adverse results of aspartame, a reevaluation on the use and consumption is urgent and cannot be delayed. My review found it unusual that 100% of studies cited by the Burdock Study (except those above that were excluded), that showed or discussed adverse effects were discredited by word-washing rationalizations. It appears that if they applied the same scrutiny and criteria to all the studies claiming aspartame to be safe, many may also be discredited. It raises a serious question on how could so many adverse studies, published in peer reviewed journals, be wrong?

  4. A recent study published in Circulation, the official journal of the American Heart Association, (Lutsey, 2008) confirms the adverse effect of metabolic syndromes when consuming diet beverages. The study states metabolic syndrome is a cluster of cardiovascular risk factor abnormalities associated with increased risk of Type 2 diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, and all-cause mortality. This study was published after the Burdock Study. However, the Burdock Study did not address the potential for any cardiovascular problems, even though heart disease is considered to be the number one cause of death in the U.S.

  5. Finally, there is the issue of phenylketonuria (PKU), a rare inborn error of metabolism in which, newborn screening was implemented as early as 1962. (Wilcken, 2008 & Therrell, 2007). PKU is a disease in which accumulation of phenylalanine is toxic to brain tissue (Mosbys Medical Dictionary, 1994). It is well established by published studies that PKU individuals are vulnerable to aspartame. As a result, the FDA requires that any food containing aspartame must bear on its label the following statement: Phenylketonurics: contains phenylalanine. In addition, when aspartame is used as a sugar substitute for table use, the label must bear instructions not to us it in cooking or baking (Burdock Study, pg 638). The big question is what about the millions of people who were born before PKU testing was initiated in 1962 that may not even be aware of the problem? This was not addressed by the Burdock Study.

Thank you for conducting this hearing. Copies of studies noted are available on request.

Mahalo,

Adrian Chang