The truth is non-partisan

On February 12 the Calorie Control Council issued a statement that a rat study conducted by Italy's Ramazzini Institute is totally contradictory to the extensive scientific research and regulatory reviews conducted on aspartame. The statement further indicated that the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has said they are not recommending any changes in the use of aspartame. According to Dr.George Pauli of the FDA, "FDA requested the data from the Ramazzini study in July 2005 but we have as not yet received the data. The agency cannot, therefore, comment on the study until it has the opportunity to review the study data, in depth. Based on the large body of evidence we have reviewed, including several studies on carcinogenicity, which showed no adverse effects and data on how aspartame is metabolized by humans, we have no reason to believe that aspartame would cause cancer. Thus, it remains FDA's position that use [of aspartame] is safe."(PR News Wire. (February 12, 2006). Overwhelming Scientific Evidence Confirms Safety of Aspartame; FDA, Others Affirm Safety of Aspartame.)

The statement was issued on the same day that the New York Times ran an article entitled "The lowdown on sweet?" which described the findings of Dr. Morando Soffritti, a cancer researcher in Bologna, Italy. A seven year study he conducted found that the sweetener was associated with unusually highrates of lymphomas, leukemias and other cancers in rats that had been given doses of it starting at what would be equivalent to four to five 20-ounce bottles of diet soda a day for a 150-pound person. The study, which involved 1,900 laboratory rats and cost $1 million, was conducted at the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences, a nonprofit organization that studies cancer-causing substances.

According to the New York Times, "The findings, first released last July, prompted a flurry of criticism from the Calorie Control Council, a trade group for makers of artificial sweeteners that has spent the last 25 years trying to quell fears about aspartame. It said Dr. Soffritti's study flew in the face of four earlier cancer studies that aspartame's creator, G. D. Searle & Company, had underwritten and used to persuade the Food and Drug Administration to approve it for human consumption."

So who do we believe?

According to Jeffrey Smith, about 165 peer reviewed studies were conducted on aspartame by 1995. They were divided almost evenly between those who found no problems and those who raised questions about its safety. Of those that found no problem with aspartame, 100 percent were paid by GD Searle, the manufacturer of the sweetener. During the period of the studies, GD Searle was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Monsanto.

Now that raises questions in my mind about the validity of those studies that support aspartame. As a matter of fact, according to Smith, research in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that studies of cancer drugs funded by non-profit groups were eight times more likely to reach unfavorable conclusions than studies funded by pharmaceutical companies. Another study of 800 scientists showed that a third had financial interests in the companies they were doing research for. This raises real questions about the ethics of research and conflicts of interest.

As for my conflicts of interest, I'm married to a woman who firmly believes in natural remedies and sells Tahitian Noni Juice. Am I unbiased? Heck no! But who is?

See Jeffrey M. Smith. (2003). The Seeds of Deception. Fairfield, IA: Yes! Books.