From: Jim McDonald
To: mailto:Jeffrey.Moon@efsa.europa.eu
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 17:53:28 +0100
Subject: Mr Moon: Cover-up ?

Dear Mr Moon,

Reading the references to aspartame in the minutes of the 34th and 35th AF meetings I am concerned that your comments in the minutes of the 34th AF meeting do not fully cover all the events and therefore give a misleading account by concealing from the public some very important new information relevant to the safety of aspartame - There is no mention of the recorded inadequate level of expert scientists knowledge of the metabolism of aspartame and free methanol, nor the delay and additional experts meeting required for clarification, to complete their work.

In your advice to the 35th AF with Ms Talbot, you apparently seek to downgrade the 2 year fully blown review of the safety of aspartame, to the National Experts consideration of the anecdotal evidence only please note that the idea that the safety of aspartame was not in dispute was quoted by the FSA in defence of their ill-conceived Pilot Study in the face of severe pressure from Ajinomoto and the food industry. In this context the quote is questionably OK, but not when applied to the 2 years work of the EFSA National Experts.

I take issue with you when you infer, that the Mandate agreed by the AF has nothing to do with aspartame safety, I quote here from the Terms of reference of the Mandate of 19th September 2008 to identify possible areas of discrepancies, or gaps in the body of evidence on aspartame safety and to consider options to address these discrepancies and /or gaps if any.

Rather than complying with this Mandate, it appears to us that there is a deliberate attempt to suppress in the EFSA reports, information which constitutes a significant challenge to the safety of aspartame; specifically the approval of free methanol as food ingredient without its ADI being known. It is demonstrably untrue for the National Experts to claim that there is no new evidence or gaps in knowledge known about aspartame (unless information has been withheld from them) we have produced the evidence which you refused to include openly in the 2nd Experts meeting and have never contested or denied.

Please explain how and for what reason, the threat we highlighted from the free methanol in aspartame, although apparently discussed and reported upon at the 2nd Experts meeting with the resultant actions; were not deemed important enough to be included in the Minutes of the 34th and 35th meetings, even though they reflect directly on the safety of aspartame, and your scientists have publicly admitted a lack of knowledge of the new evidence.

The citizens of the EU deserve much better treatment than this. We (the UKAAC) are primarily interested in getting free methanol banned from the EU food chain, and steps taken to inform the medical profession of the possible danger to health, from long term methanol poisoning; it just happens that aspartame is the only artificial sweetener that delivers this poison. There are many alternatives, so aspartame is not a vital nor indispensable product by any means but our citizens would be much healthier without it.

The minutes of the 36th meeting have yet to be produced and the EFSA still has a chance to redeem its reputation for fairness, impartiality, professionalism and unbiased judgements. We propose the following:

1. Do not endorse the National Experts Report/ recommendations, that there is no need to change current opinions on aspartame.
   
2. Take time (6 months)to investigate the claims we make regarding free methanol ADI and long term sickness by methanol poisoning.
   
3. Consider a ban on free methanol in food and giving information to medical staff ASAP.
   
4. Show the World, Ajinomoto and the food industry that the EFSA takes its responsibilities to its citizens very seriously, and will not be rushed.

Best Regards,

Jim McDonald
UK Aspartame Awareness Campaign ( UKAAC)