I’m guessing that if you are the kind of person who reads health blogs you already know the dangers of aspartame (AKA NutraSweet) – the common artificial sweetener that should never have been approved for human consumption.
But it always helps to have some more evidence to convince family and friends who may still be consuming this poison.
This was the situation facing Victoria Inness-Brown MA, who did a two-year private scientific study using 108 rats because, as she says, ‘my family was addicted to diet soda’. She had read the literature describing the dangers, including the explosive report by Dr. Jerome Bressler who led a team on behalf of the US Food and Drug Administration to audit the findings of the pharmaceutical company that held the patent. Bressler’s team found that G.D. Searle, the company, had left out vital information in a study to see if aspartame produced cancer in rats, including evidence of significant tumours.
So Inness-Brown did some research herself. She is no slouch scientifically, and holds an MA in mathematics. Her results speak for themselves – 37 per cent of the females developed visible tumours (see the shocking pictures) when fed a daily dose equivalent to two-thirds the amount of aspartame in an 8oz drink of diet soda.
Now, as a scientist myself (I have a degree in microbiology) I can question the findings on the grounds that it is a relatively small study. I can also commend her for using a control group of genetically similar rats kept in the same conditions but not fed aspartame. (Only 6.25% of this group of females developed tumours).
But that is nothing compared to the questions I have around the original licensing of aspartame. Why, when there were serious question-marks over the drug’s safety, was it licensed?
It is a matter of public record that Jere E. Goyan, previous head of the FDA who refused to license aspartame over safety concerns, was removed from his post by Ronald Reagan on his first day as President. In his place, Reagan appointed Arthur Hayes, who approved aspartame a year later before going on to join G.D.Searle (the aspartame patent holders) as Senior Medical Advisor.
Draw your own conclusions!
For more on the dangers of aspartame, see this wikipedia article. Also http://dorway.com
del.icio.us : 
: 
: 
: 
ma.gnolia : 
Stumble It : 
Reddit : 
Facebook
March 13, 2008 at 2:01 am
Also check out http://www.presidiotex.com
http://www.sweetpoison.com and
http://www.aspartamesafety.com
March 14, 2008 at 3:37 am
The “My aspartame experiment” referred to herein is seriously flawed. But so is every other aspartame experiment regardless of results. However, like this experiment, this is especially true for those who report deleterious effects, because these effects arise soley because of the fundamental and fatal flaw. However, this design error also affects the original Searle experiments and the 2006 and 2007 Soffritti et al experiments reporting leukemia, lymphoma, and mammary tumors from aspartame too. The error itself will cause these types of tumors. Details of the critical and fatal control flaw and two experimental flaws in the Soffritti experiment all will be made known to the scientific community later this month. Suffice it to say, if the Searle studies were done incorrectly, the Bressler report is invalid too. But then again the entire argument against aspartame, which is based on these flawed experiments, is null and void. “Aspartame is perfectly safe used as directed in healthy people.”
John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, and Toxicology)
March 14, 2008 at 6:47 am
I’m interested to know about this ’serious flaw’ you mention. Strange that so many scientists have failed to see it.
Meanwhile, I think the onus is on the aspartame backers to prove that it is safe. If you are correct in writing that all previous aspartame experiments are flawed then surely aspartame should immediately be withdrawn from the market because it has not been adequately tested yet.
August 26, 2008 at 3:35 am
This experiment, no matter the outcome, was sick. It was probably also illegal, as it is an intentional act of animal cruelty.
They may be “just rats”, but they are capable of feeling the same pain, and suffering just as much, as a cat or a dog.
I am sad that this person, in the pursuit of “curiosity” tortured and killed 108 helpless animals, and all we’re debating is whether or not aspartame is bad for you.
-Mary Schneider
August 27, 2008 at 6:08 am
I would like to know about the way this person cared for those rats. I’m sure that some of the illnesses those rats developed came about due to poor living conditions and stress, which are a variable she did not seem to consider.
Regardless, this woman absolutely tortured those animals who were in dire need of veterinary care. One rat’s SKIN began to come off, and I don’t think I would be reaching to say that woman did not bring that animal to a vet. She caused needless suffering for what? To prove that an artificial sweetener is bad for you.. that soda is bad for you?! I have relatives who have died of cancer, so I do believe medical research can be necessary, but not in this case.