Industry appears to be having a temper tantrum. As soon as you read this release you can't help but think of the books by John Stauber such as " Toxic Sludge is Good For You, Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry" and "Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future".
Most researchers know the modus operandi of industry; when they cannot debate is to call names. Scaremonger is a favorite of Ajinomoto, and when I was called this, Dr. H. J. Roberts, author of "Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic" told me "you have now arrived". Those exposing aspartame for the poison it is are usually called toxic terrorists. When Mission Possible activists poured out Diet Coke in front of the media in Atlanta, Dr. Robert Moser who defends NutraSweet called it "Nutritional terrorism". Indeed, Nutrasweet has terrorized nutrition and disbelievers embark on the Monsanto Titanic. Its iceberg proof, you know!
When Dr. Maria Alemany did the now famous Trocho Study which showed the formaldehyde converted from the free methyl alcohol embalms living tissue and damages DNA, the aspartame industry tried to assassinate his character. I visited Dr. Alemany in Barcelona and he told me that aspartame would kill 200 million people. In his study you could see the formaldehyde in the tissues. No way for the aspartame industry to debate this evidence. Read his letter: http://www.mpwhi.com/hhc-malemany.pdf
You can't help but laugh out loud when you read, "Industry has joined forces in ousting the scientific research as "false" and "flawed" and damned Soffritti's decision to present this at the conference as "irresponsible" and "inappropriate" for a scientist." Industry has been exposed over and over and over again. The aspartame studies by Dr. Soffritti were peer reviewed by 7 world experts. What they are really saying is its irresponsible and inappropriate for a scientist to present the facts and expose them. The Ramazzini Studies are so impeccable that EFSA's excuse for rebuttal should receive an award from Walt Disney. They actually used as an excuse, "the rats had respiratory disease"!
Dr. Morando Soffritti responded: "CHRONIC PULMONARY INFLAMMATION IS COMMON IN THE NATURAL DYING PROCESS. MOREOVER, INFLAMMATION WAS OBSERVED IN BOTH ANIMALS WHO WERE TREATED WITH ASPARTAME AS WELL AS IN THE CONTROL GROUP.
"The European Ramazzini Foundation conducts what are known as lifespan mega-experiments, meaning that large groups of rodents are allowed to live out their natural lifespan and are examined for histopathological changes upon spontaneous death. This model is in contrast with most laboratories where rodents are sacrificed at 110 weeks of age (representing about 2/3 of the lifespan). The Ramazzini study design closely mirrors the human condition in which persons may be exposed to agents in the industrial and general environments from embryonic life under natural death. "Since 80% of cancer is diagnosed in humans over the age of 55, it is of paramount importance to observe how an agent affects laboratory animals in the last third of their lives."
It is well known that industry influences European Food Safety Association (EFSA). In fact, the head of their committee, Dr. Herman Koeter, resigned and the release was titled: "EU's food agency battles attempts to hijack science."
It read "Science and politics make poor bedfellows. Just ask Herman Koeter, deputy executive director at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which has felt the push and pull of national politics ever since the agency began operating four years ago." Aspartame was mentioned when it said: "Hot decisions that had political repercussions included a review of a controversial aspartame study".
Dr. Soffritti did two more studies showing aspartame to be a multipotential carcinogen. What did industry expect? After all, even the FDA toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross, told Congress in 1985 that aspartame violated the Delaney Amendment because it had proven to cause cancer. The FDA Task Force investigation of aspartame exposed the original manufacturer to such a degree that G. D. Searle sued to get the comments taken off the record.
The aspartame industry rebuts independent studies and when they can't think of an excuse they resort to name calling. This is why Dr. Ralph Walton did research for 60 Minutes on funding. He showed that only aspartame controlled and funded studies ever said aspartame was safe, yet 92% of independent studies showed the problems. He also said if you eliminate 6 studies that FDA had something to do with (they have now swapped sides) and one pro industry summary 100 per cent of independent studies show aspartame to be unsafe. Dr. Walton did a study himself and the reactions were so severe the institution had to stop the study. You can't do a study on a chemical poison and have it show safety for human consumption. In original studies the FDA tried to have the manufacturer indicted for fraud. Today the aspartame industry has their own front research group, ILSI. If you want money you have to say its safe.
Today it's a pleasure to see researchers with integrity like Doctors Soffritti and Alemany. They are giants against industry who would mislead the public because of profit and greed. They are willing to stand up against industry who care not how many suffer and die from their unsafe products.
Sucralose has been causing horrendous complaints since it was allowed on the market. Remember its chlorinated sugar, and if anyone likes to drink bleach, bon appetite. Attorney James Turner, and Citizens For Health have already petitioned the FDA to ban Splenda/sucralose. The FDA who once fought to prevent approval of aspartame today are simply Big Pharma's Washington branch office. Ten years ago I petitioned the FDA to ban aspartame and they have ignored it sending a letter that stated they had more important things to do. This is the modus operandi of the FDA; lie, deny and ignore or postpone the issue. When the FDA called and I said people were sick and dying everywhere they told me, "So what, we have to depopulate". Those their to solve the problem are the problem. FDA also ignored the imminent health hazard amendment in 2007. Yet they are suppose to answer within 7 to 10 days. Remember that the aspartame industry has close ties to government agencies such as FDA, EFSA and Food Standards.
Note the comment of the FSA spokesperson saying that if a particular food additive causes cancer, they should submit it to EFSA for evaluation. Indeed that was done and the head of EFSA resigned and confessed they were pressured by industry to hijack science. The fox is guarding the hen house. So if government agencies are biased protecting the aspartame industry, there is no place to get truth except from "independent, unbiased researchers". Their studies show the facts, and that's what gets industry and their front groups angered to the extent of having an outright temper tantrum!!
Now that you know the score read on about industry looking for excuses when their product is exposed with facts.
Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum.
Founder, Mission Possible World Health International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
770-242-2599
E-Mail: BettyM19@mindspring.com
http://www.wpwhi.com
http://www.wnho.net
http://www.dorway.com
Aspartame Toxicity Center: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame
BREAKING NEWS ON FOOD & BEVERAGE DEVELOPMENT – EUROPE
Industry Damns Sucralose Study At Cancer Conference
By Kacey Culliney, 25-Apr-2012
Related topics: Financial & Industry
Research led by the controversial Italian scientist, Dr Morando Soffriti, linking the artificial sweeteners sucralose and aspartame to cancer, was presented today at the Children with Cancer science conference in London; a move industry is damning “irresponsible”.
Soffritti presented several older studies on aspartame but also revealed findings from his latest research on sucralose, though he noted that the presented data had yet to be statistically evaluated, and thus currently remains unpublished.
He told attendees that 134 male and female Swiss mice had been fed with 99.4% purity sucralose at varying concentrations from prenatal life to death. The first results indicate that “sucralose in our experimental conditions induces a dose-related incidence of leukaemia in males.”
“On the basis of this study a second study needs to be conducted,” he said, and “we believe that action must be taken to review the present regulation governing the use of both aspartame and sucralose.”
Industry has joined forces in ousting the scientific research as “false” and “flawed” and damned Soffritti’s decision to present this at the conference as “irresponsible” and “inappropriate” for a scientist.
Flawed, rejected, old science
“This study, by a laboratory whose work has been dismissed by regulatory agencies, seems designed to produce scary but entirely false allegations,” Tate & Lyle said.
“It has not been reviewed by independent scientists, has not been published for independent review and does not follow internationally agreed scientific procedures,” it said.
Soffritti has been leading long-term carcinogenicity studies into aspartame, and now sucralose, since 2005 at the European Ramazzini Foundation (ERF) - a private research institute in Bologna, Italy.
The work of the institute has long been called into question by industry and regulatory authorities and discredited widely; by numerous ESFA panels, the FDA, the New Zealand and French Food Safety Authorities (NZFSA and ANSES), along with the UK’s department of health’s committee on the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COC).
Professor Andy Renwick, from the Faculty of Medicine and the UK’s University of Southampton, noted that Soffritti acknowledged these reviews “but ‘forgot’ to mention that EFSA had concluded they do not impact the safety,” of products.
“Of course he wouldn’t acknowledge the EFSA’s rejection at the conference,” Bob Peterson, VP of regulatory affairs at Tate & Lyle, told http://www.FoodNavigator.com.
Meanwhile an Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe spokesperson said “there is no truth or science in the allegations he is making… we’re talking about a piece of non-science.” “Bad science needs to be called for what it is and excellent science will always trump,” they added.
Peterson noted that “industry is familiar” with Soffriti’s “frustrating” way of working; going to press first and avoiding standard procedure.
Irresponsible publicising and scaremongering
Regrettably, Soffritti has chosen to “cause alarm by discussing the results of his discredited research at a conference that is focused on helping the parents and families of vulnerable and sick children,” Frances Hunt, secretary general of the International Sweeteners Association (ISA) said.
A spokesperson from the conference organiser, Children with Cancer UK, said that Soffritti had been invited by the conference committee, made up of independent experts - adding that “it is very common for unpublished data and research to be presented at conferences such as this.”
The Ajinomoto spokesperson said despairingly that “it’s about time the scientific community called out activities like this…Misinforming and scaring consumers is entirely inappropriate.”
Is sucralose safe?
In the conference’s Q&A session, Soffriti told attendees that his studies showed that drinking Diet Coke can be linked to increased mammary cancer for women. The International Sweeteners Association and the British Soft Drinks Association came together in condemning such claims linking low calorie sweeteners and the development of cancer.
A Food Standards Agency spokesperson said that the FSA will not be taking no further action following Soffritti’s presentation.
Sweeteners are a well-regulated sector across Europe, they said - a point the Food and Drink Federation supported. “All additives, including sweeteners such as sucralose, are permitted only after very careful evaluation,” they said, noting that the procedure is undertaken by independent scientific bodies that also consider whether substances cause cancer.
An acceptable daily allowance has been established by EU regulatory authorities for both sucralose and aspartame that ensure safe consumption without adverse health effects, she added.
"It is in everybody's interest that, if any researcher considers they have new evidence demonstrating that a particular food additive causes cancer, they should submit it to EFSA for evaluation," said the FSA spokesperson.
Copyright - Unless otherwise stated all contents of this web site are © 2012 - William Reed Business Media SAS - All Rights Reserved - For permission to reproduce any contents of this web site, please email our Syndication department copyright@wrbm.com - Full details for the use of materials on this site can be found in the Terms & Conditions
This Content Is Copyright Protected
However, if you would like to share the information in this article, you may use the headline, summary and link below:
Industry damns sucralose study at cancer conference
Research led by the controversial Italian scientist, Dr Morando Soffriti, linking the artificial sweeteners sucralose and aspartame to cancer, was presented today at the Children with Cancer science conference in London; a move industry is damning" irresponsible".
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Financial-Industry/Industry-damns-sucralose-study-at-cancer-conference