From: Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum., Bettym19@mindspring.com
Date: Mon, Mon, Jan 14, 2008 1:32 pm
Subject: Reply to Food Standards, Aspartame: Listen to the Outcry: Ban the poison and ditch the propaganda
Dear Ms. Griffith-Sackey:
Did you actually read this letter and the URL's ? First regarding your remarks that the Agency's Chief Scientist, Dr. Andrew Wadge proposed at a recent advisory forum of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that EFSA should lead a research project to address anecdotal concerns of consumers about aspartame, I'm aware of that. You say: "The idea is that the study would compare reported symptoms and biochemical parameters in a double-bind cross over design in self-selected groups who report that they are sensitive to aspartame compared with control groups. EFSA responded positively to this suggestion and will arrange a meeting with Member States to discuss this further."
Dr. Wadge recently put this message in a blog:
Anecdotal evidence and aspartame:
Posted by Andrew Wadge on December 21st 2007 in Science in Government: http://www.fsascience.net/categories/science_in_government
As a scientist, I see some sources of evidence as being more powerful than others. For example, published evidence from a double blind, cross-over study, done to best practice and challenged through peer review carries more weight than anecdotal evidence.
Nonetheless, all evidence is important and none is discounted when the Agency carries out a risk assessment, though it may be weighted according to its source. I have been interested to learn that the National Council of Women of Great Britain discussed the use of anecdotal evidence at its Annual Conference in October this year and adopted a motion to 'urge HMG to acknowledge the importance of anecdotal evidence in decision-making and put in place a system to seek, listen to, record, challenge and if proven act upon anecdotal evidence.
Having reproducible evidence and challenging through peer review are fundamental to the scientific process, but the Agency is not only about science. When we develop advice and make policies -the risk management part of the business - the Agency takes into account a far wider evidence base (individual liberty, regulatory constraints, economic and social consequences and consumers' appetite for risk). This second stage is distinct from the scientific process of advocacy and challenge that generates the risk assessment; it's an iterative, consultative process which leads to our Board reaching and making a judgement accountably and in public.
I see anecdotal evidence as a trigger for more rigorous scientific studies which will provide reproducible evidence for an independent analysis of the risks."
Mrs. Griffith-Sackey, Dr. Charles Harris in l987 said: "But the medical profession has a tendency to discard out of hand, and disparagingly, "anecdotal" information. Digitalis, morphine, quinine, atropine, and the like are chemical derivatives that stem from anecdotal folklore remedies. After all, one anecdote may be a fable, but 1,000 anecdotes can be a biography.... A vital function of the medical profession is to sift anecdotes and submit them, if possible, to scientific evaluation. But it all starts as anecdote." (1987 Medical Tribune, reprinted in Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic by H. J. Roberts, M.D.)
With aspartame we're not talking about 1000 anecdotes, we are talking about millions. They never stop. Even the FDA admits to 92 documented symptoms from 4 types of seizures to coma and death. http://www.mpwhi.com/fda_aspartame_reports.htm And they did submit them to the Center for Disease Control who said more neurological studies need to be done. You see we've been there and done that. However, the CDC also put a phony summary on their web site instead of the investigation saying the findings were mild. Their findings included seizures, cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, liver problems, mood alterations and death. I've spent most of my life in the medical field and I can assure you I've never seen a mild case of cardiac arrest or a mild case of death! You can see the influence of industry. We have the entire investigation on http://www.dorway.com
There is an old Chinese Proverb that says, "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by the right names." An additive by law must be inert or non-reactive. Aspartame is not an additive. It's an addictive excitoneurotoxic carcinogenic drug that interacts with other drugs and vaccines. Aspartame is now a disease. Dr. Roberts coined the term, aspartame disease, because this medical and public health problem continues to escalate. Its use is consistent with Hippocratic writings: "When a large number of people all catch the same disease at the same time, the cause must be ascribed to something common to all." (Rosenberg 1992).
Dr. H. J. Roberts who testified before Congress and treated aspartame victims in the trenches of medical practice says the term Aspartame Disease is appropriate because this affliction fulfills these four Koch-like postulates:
I'm shocked he doesn't believe in detoxification and said on his blog: "There's a lot of nonsense talked about detoxing' and most people seem to forget that we are born with a built-in detox mechanism. It's called the liver. So my advice would be to ditch the detox diets and supplements and buy yourself something nice with the money you've saved".
You can't do that with aspartame because its a poison. Detoxification is very important. Here's Dr. Russell Blaylock's detox program: http:// www.wnho.net/wtdaspartame.htm The free methyl alcohol in aspartame converts to formaldehyde and formic acid and the liver can take so much.
Dr. James Bowen says: "Formic acid is a blister poison. Upon killing the first cell it diffuses to cell after cell, creating a BLISTER of dead tissues! Methanol from aspartame, although immediately poisoning you, doesn't instantly elevate detectable blood methanol levels because first it is metabolized within cells into formaldehyde and formic acid which attack the mitochondria within those cells, especially the liver. Blood methyl alcohol levels rise subsequently. Formic acid is fire ant venom. These tiny insects can kill humans weighing millions of times more than they.
"Only after longer aspartame usage does liver damage cause blood methanol levels to measurably rise because the liver mitochondria are so damaged that the liver no longer quickly processes either methyl or ethyl (drink) alcohol. Then the acute methanol poisoning is directly measurable from lab results, as the blood methanol level elevates. This entire sequence or "toxic axis" begins with your very first dose of aspartame. Both acute and chronic poisonings from this methanol toxic axis, and other additive and synergistic aspartame poisonings, steadily accumulate in the aspartame consumer."
So aspartame damages the liver and what do you intend to do about it, just hope it will get better on its own? According to Dr. Russell Blaylock and other physicians you can use milk thistle to detoxify the liver as he discusses in his detox program. Dr. Wadge talks about drinking tap water. You couldn't do that with aspartame as the tap water might have fluoride in it which interacts with aspartame. http://www.dorway.com/blaytox.txt As to supplements magnesium protects the heart and brain from excitotoxins. The aspartic acid in aspartame is an excitotoxin or product that literally stimulates the neurons of the brain to death causing brain damage. Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, http://www.russellblaylockmd.com Here is also an article by Dr. Sandra Cabot, MP Australia, who goes into the need for supplements and why: http://www.dorway.com/liver.txt
Dr. Wadge worries me when he is against good nutrition and supplements, the need for detoxification, especially from a toxin. You do have to worry about supplements in the UK because when they come from industry many times they have aspartame in them, and for no reason when you swallow something. We've had a lot of complaints from England, and one lady who almost went blind on one of them. As you know, aspartame liberates free methyl alcohol. This even converts to formaldehyde and formic acid in the retina of the eye and destroys the optic nerve. It's Big Pharma who is so against vitamins and herbs and sell so many dangerous drugs to the public they remain in the news.
It's impossible for a deadly chemical poison to be on the market for a quarter of a century and no one know what it causes. In fact, Dr. Ralph Walton did research for 60 Minutes showing 92% of independent scientific peer reviewed research shows the problems aspartame causes. http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html In the last 24 months there have been 13 more scientific peer reviewed studies in mainstream journals showing aspartame toxicity: http://www.mpwhi.com/13_aspartame_research_studies.htm Actually now more. Isn't a quarter of a century of research and complaints enough for Dr. Wadge to investigate?
I'm interested in how you're going to do this study with over half the population using aspartame. How are you going to find a control group? What biochemical parameters? With millions being afflicted, complaints coming from all over the world, scientific peer reviewed research showing the problems, the government records admitting aspartame hazards, knowledge it was approved by the politics of Rumsfeld, aspartame detox centers, medical texts, organizations that do nothing but warn people off of it, movies and millions of articles, how much more proof do you need? Food Standards is trying to show they are trying when they are doing nothing. 47 members of your Parliament have asked for a ban. Believe the people who are afflicted, thousands having lost their family, their jobs, their homes and their health. Millions of lives ruined because its on the market. Who would investigate the control group. A lot of people don't even know they are using it and many times its hidden in processed foods and restaurants.
In the US aspartame was approved by the political chicanery of Donald Rumsfeld who was CEO of Searle. In the UK aspartame was approved by Paul Turner who made a business deal with Searle. Even Parliament had a big blow out but didn't rescind the product. No studies were done in the UK. The Guardian wrote the story.
It makes me wonder if you read these two articles and the URL's with the reports that confirmed the issue:http://www.mpwhi.com/investigative_report_on_aspartame_misinformation.htm The other article published by the UK Guardian on being cozy with industry is below my signature.
You say the agency is aware of the anecdotal reports in circulation which cast doubt on the safety of aspartame. You say these concerns are taken very seriously by the Agency and were addressed in 2001 by the European Commission. Remember I discussed I had a two hour meeting with the European Union, and was wired. What they did was delete all the damning research I gave them. I also showed them how industry fixes the studies and gave them papers on several outlining what was done. So instead of not taking flawed studies seriously, those were the ones they used. Then OLAF found that only one person made the decision. If this doesn't show "cozy with industry" I don't know what does. Then the Food Commission seems to disappear and now we have the EFSA. They were the ones responsible for the absurd statement that in the Ramazzini Study peer reviewed by 7 world experts that the rats got cancer because they had respiratory disease, knowing full well this is the dying process. These futile attempts to rebut impeccable scientific research are always made public. We let the world know that study confirmed original studies by the manufacturers themselves that aspartame causes cancer. In the US is against the law to approve something that causes cancer because it violates the Delaney Amendment which is still in existence. Even though there was a confession by an ESFA committee member that industry pressured them to hijack science nothing has been done.
How much evidence is needed when a deadly chemical has been poisoning the public for a quarter of a century? Take it off the market and show the people of the UK and the World that Food Standards is interested in food safety. You have never addressed my letter and the fact that all the information on your web site is propaganda that has been constantly rebutted and lies to the public.
This so called anecdotal study is just another way to take up more time while more people are being poisoned. The large food chains are already taking it out of their own products. It doesn't take a rocket scientist for Food Standards to know aspartame is a deadly chemical poison and is disabling and killing people the world over.
Really address my letter, Mrs. Griffith-Sackey. In good faith remove the propaganda that has been proven to be wrong and written by industry flacks. Do you think all the people with symptoms and afflictions from aspartame are lying? In many cases if they don't have a fatal disease from aspartame all it takes is for these people to be warned for these symptoms to disappear. Otherwise, it can cause their death. And all it takes to get their symptoms back is reuse their Diet Slop or some other aspartame (Canderel/E951) product.
I'm not impressed until something is definitively done, like get rid of the propaganda and get rid of the poison. You want a see a real anecdotal study? Take it off the market and watch millions get well!
There is a lot of joy when you see someone like Cori Brackett, co-owner of Sound and Fury Productions, walk out of a wheelchair when she could hardly talk or walk, diagnosed with MS from aspartame. Eight months later her large lesion all but disappeared off the toxin. She did something productive. She went on to make the aspartame documentary, Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World, http://www.soundandfury.tv so others could be warned and walk out of wheelchairs too. Have you seen the film? Maybe you should.
I'm not impressed until the known and accepted propaganda is removed from the web site of Food Standards and efforts are made immediately to remove this deadly poison. That would be productive in stopping the outcry.
Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum.
Founder, Mission Possible World Health International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
Aspartame Toxicity Center: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:37:39 -0500
From: Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum.
Subject: Guardian Unlimited - Food Standards, UK, Cozy With Industry, yet was set up to put consumer interests first. Why couldn't they stick to honesty?
This is very interesting. I recently wrote the Food Standards about using nothing but propaganda in the issue of aspartame. Here is that investigative report: http://www.mpwhi.com/investigative_report_on_aspartame_misinformation.htm They were also reported. A copy was sent to many in Food Standards and not one choose to answer this because they couldn't. I give complete information about their lies. A copy is also going to the UK Parliament.
Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum.
Founder, Mission Possible World Health International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
Aspartame Toxicity Center: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame
January 7, 2008 1:00 PM
The curious thing about last week's cabinet office report on our food supply is that it came from the cabinet office in the first place, and not from the body set upby Tony Blair to look at our food supply, the Food Standards Agency.
In 1997, the new Blair government asked Professor Philip James to resolve the tangled mess in which the old ministry, the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Maff), had entwined itself by being both regulator and promoter of food and farming interests. James suggested that an independent body, acting transparently and being seen to put consumer interests first, might just do the trick.
And so, after two decades of mad cows, salmonella, listeria, E coli, pesticides, GM foods and other notable crises in the food supply chain, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) was launched amid a wave of publicity stating that at last UK consumers would have a champion free from the industrial ties that had so badly compromised Maff.
In 1999, the white paper proposing the new FSA emphasised the independence that would be expected from the agency and the need to put the public first. "The Agency will have protection of the public as its essential aim," it said. The governance of the agency would rest with a board, of who "a majority will be drawn from a wider public interest background".
So now the question raised by the cabinet office report is this: Does the government now see it as an unreliable source of independent advice? Has the FSA become compromised by the very commercial interests that it should be regulating?
Take the chief executive. The first one to be appointed was an experienced senior civil servant. The second and third have also been appointed from public service. But the latest - due to start this spring - comes straight from running the UK's largest milk and dairy company, Arla, having previously worked for food companies Northern Foods, Sarah Lee and Express Dairies.
Take their daily activities. The FSA website lists the meetings held by the top FSA officials. It shows that for every meeting held with a consumer or public interest body, seven to eight meetings, lunches, dinners and receptions are held with food companies and industry-linked bodies.
Take the governing board. Are any of them likely to be compromised when asked to regulate against the food industry? Their details are listed on the agency's website. Eleven of the 12 members of the board either works, or worked, for a food, farming or catering company, or owns shares in such companies, or is an adviser to the industry or has a close relative working in it.
And take the board's recent decisions. Presented with evidence that confirmed earlier findings that certain food additives could cause hyperactivity in children, the board could have recommended the additives be phased out and banned. They had the power to do so. But they ducked any decision and kicked it to Europe. They did the same when a study of the commonly used sweetener, aspartame, showed a raised risk of lymphomas and leukaemia in laboratory animals.
When the World Cancer Research Fund published its recent expert study showing that processed meats such as bacon and salami were linked to bowel cancer, the meat industry was predictably upset. Did the FSA support the experts or the industry? Remarkably, the agency's chief scientist, Andrew Wadge, went on record in the Telegraph, stating that he would continue to recommend that people eat bacon, and that he enjoyed it himself.
But perhaps the most remarkable incident is the board's discussion on transfats - the industrially synthesised fats used to extend the shelf life of biscuits, pastries and frying oils, and which are now closely identified with raising the risk of heart disease. Having commissioned a hasty review from the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) - who were clearly uncomfortable that they been asked for a rushed opinion without being given time to consult with consumers and other experts - the board were told by the SACN chair, Professor Alan Jackson, that it appeared at first sight that the quantities of transfats being eaten were now fairly low with only some 4% of adults above the recommended maximum levels.
No one on the board asked how many people this represented (2 million people in the UK, as it happens) nor if there were social inequalities (in fact, 12% of low income people eat above the recommended maximum), nor whether the recommended level might need to be revised (Jackson felt there was not enough evidence either way, but other experts believe there is no safe level).
No one asked how reliable was the evidence that people are eating less now than they were before (in fact about 20% of foods and drinks are missed in food intake surveys). Research as recently as 2005 showed that a single fast food meal of nuggets and fries could exceed the daily recommended maximum transfats for an adult, but no one mentioned this study at the board meeting. Curiously, the industry claim that they now use very little of this nasty ingredient, while also claiming that it is too difficult to make further reductions (even though the have made such reductions in Denmark).
The outcome was that the board recommended that no action was necessary. Just as the chair was moving onto the next agenda item, the deputy chair interrupted and said he believed that a vote of thanks from the board to the food industry was in order, for reducing transfats voluntarily. This extraordinary and unprecedented proposal was accepted by the board without further comment.
No one wants to see the FSA abolished, although the idea might creep into an opposition party's manifesto at some point. But if the FSA doesn't improve its consumer credentials pretty soon, it will be seen as a captured agency, and politicians right up to No 10 will cease to rely on it to provide strategic guidance on our food supply.
The author writes here in a purely personal capacity, and the views expressed here are his own.
At 05:15 AM 1/9/2008
Dear Dr Martini
Thank you for your email dated 21 November 2007 in which you raise concerns about the safety of the sweetener aspartame. I apologise for the delay in responding.
To clarify the Food Standards Agency's position as regards aspartame, we are of the view that approved additives can be used in foods unless there is convincing evidence that they will harm consumers. Furthermore, all approvals of food additives should be kept under review as and when new scientific information becomes available. The Agency is aware of the anedoctal reports in circulation which cast doubt on the safety of aspartame, and these have caused concern for some consumers. These concerns are taken very seriously by the Agency, and were addressed in 2001 by pressing the European Commission to re-visit its previous safety assessment of aspartame (1988) at its earliest opportunity. I can report that the Agency's Chief Scientist, Dr Andrew Wadge, proposed at a recent advisory forum of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that EFSA should lead a research project to address anecdotal concerns of consumers about aspartame. The idea is that the study would compare reported symptoms and biochemical parameters in a double-blind cross over design in self-selected groups who report that they are sensitive to aspartame compared with control groups. EFSA responded positively to this suggestion and will arrange a meeting with Member States to discuss this further.
I hope this information proves useful.
Food Standards Agency
Novel Foods, Additives and Supplements Division