Guest guest Posted April 11, 2006 Report Share Posted April 11, 2006 11 Apr 2006 11:01:26 -0000 Health Supreme Update: Aspartame - Industry Says 'No Evidence' Of Cancer sepp Health Supreme Update: Aspartame - Industry Says 'No Evidence' Of Cancer 2006.04.11 13:01:24 ------ http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2006/04/11/aspartame_industry_says_no_evide\ nce_of_cancer.htm A feeding study of aspartame on rats, published by researchers at the Italian Ramazzini Foundation in Environmental Health Perspectives, showed increased leukemia, lymphoma and some cancers, but now a review of an earlier government-funded study in the U.S. is touted as " rejecting aspartame risks " . " It goes a fair way toward allaying concerns about aspartame, " said Michael Jacobson, head of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which had urged the government to review the sweetener's safety after a troubling rat study last year. Unfortunately, the relief provided by the new study is not so clear-cut as its promoters would have us believe. Betty Martini goes so far as to call it " cockamamie claptrap " in her recent comment published in the Idaho Observer. Mark Gold is more careful in his analysis, but comes to the same conclusion. There are important reasons why the new study should not be construed as a " all clear " signal for the artificial sweetener. The original aim of the government-sponsored study was not the evaluation of the effects of aspartame on humans, and the time period of consumption the study looked at - just 12 months - seems too short to say anything about the usual long-term consumption of the sweetener that is encouraged by industry and various diabetics associations... - - - Aspartame and Cancer Comment on the 2006 U.S. National Cancer Institute Research by Mark Gold In 2005, scientists from the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences (Italy) published research linking aspartame ingestion to lymphomas and leukemias as well as kidney and peripheral nerve tumors. (1) In the research, aspartame was fed to rats from the time they were eight weeks old until natural death. The study was meant to simulate a lifetime of aspartame ingestion -- the equivalent of 50 to 90+ years of aspartame ingestion in humans. The results indicated that lifetime ingestion of even moderately low levels of aspartame caused lymphomas and leukemias in female rats. A significant increase in kidney and peripheral nerve cancer was also seen in the research. The scientists attributed this finding to the significant formaldehyde exposure from aspartame ingestion. Significant formaldehyde exposure and accumulation from aspartame ingestion has been seen in recent European research. (2) Recently, there has been a flood of press releases related to a U.S. National Cancer Institute-sponsored study of aspartame and cancer. (3) The study involved 340,045 men and 226,945 women, ages 50 to 69. Participants in the study completed surveys in 1995 and 1996 that included several questions about diet beverage ingestion in the preceeding 12 months. No link was found between participants who ingested diet beverages in the preceeding 12 months and lymphomas, leukemias or brain tumors. There are several obvious differences between the two studies. The study by the Ramazzini Foundation was an animal study, but was designed to simulate life-long ingestion of aspartame (e.g., 50 to 90+ years for humans). The study funded by the National Cancer Institute was a human study, but only looked a 12 months of diet beverage ingestion. The questionnaire used in the National Cancer Institute study was not designed to provide a long-term history of dietary intake. It was designed to determine which types of foods the participants regularly ingested over the previous 12 months. Participants who used large amounts of aspartame from 1981 through 1994, but stopped before they received the survey would be classified as " non-users of aspartame. " But participants who recently started to use aspartame in 1995 would be counted as " users of aspartame " even though they may have only used it for several months. Therefore, some people may have used aspartame for over a decade, but they would be classified as " non-users " while others may have used aspartame for only a few months and they would be classified as " users. " The questionnaire was not designed to calculate aspartame intake. There are no questions in the survey asking participants to estimate aspartame intake or even intake of a variety of common aspartame-containing products. In fact, only persons drinking diet beverages or coffee/tea with aspartame would be counted as aspartame users. A participant in this study could ingest hundreds of aspartame-containing products per week in the form of syrups, candy, gum, etc. and they would be classified as " non-users of aspartame " so long as that refrained from regular diet beverages ingestion. While it is to be expected that the manufacturer of aspartame and their public relations organizations such as the Calorie Control Council will try to flood the media with press releases proclaiming safety, it is clear from a look at the questionnaire used in the National Cancer Institute-funded study that it was intended to look at only 12 months of diet beverage use and the Ramazzini Foundation study was designed to look at life-long use of aspartame. Negative findings in the National Cancer Institute-funded study are not surprising given the short period of time looked at. In defense of the researchers involved in the National Cancer Institute-funded study, they have not claimed that their 12-month look at diet beverage use in relation to lymphomas, leukemias or brain tumors is in any way similar to the life-long use of aspartame looked at by the Ramazzini Foundation. The scientists involved in creating the questionnaire in the mid-1990's are aware of limitations of looking at only 12 months of diet history: " Furthermore, a single [Food Frequency Questionnaire] FFQ-based measurement in adulthood may not represent long-term intake without error and may not assess the diet accurately for times when exposure is most critical in determining disease outcome. " (4) The press releases claiming that aspartame does not cause cancer appear to originate from the aspartame manufacturer's public relations organizations. Finally, as can be seen online or by looking at independent scientific research, cancer is just one of many aspartame toxicity concerns published in the scientific literature. (1) Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Degli Esposti D, Lambertini L, Tibaldi E, Rigano A, " First experimental demonstration of the multipotential carcinogenic effects of aspartame administered in the feed to Sprague-Dawley rats, " Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 114, Number 3, Pages 379-385, 2005. www.ehponline.org/members/2005/8711/8711.pdf (2) Trocho, C., et al., 1998. " Formaldehyde Derived From Dietary Aspartame Binds to Tissue Components in vivo, " Life Sciences, Vol. 63, No. 5, pp. 337+, 1998. (3) Press Release: Five-Year, Government Funded, Epidemiology Study Shows No Risk Between Aspartame and Cancer (4) Andrew Flood, Ellen M Velie, Nilanjan Chaterjee, Amy F Subar, Frances E Thompson, James V Lacey, Jr, Catherine Schairer, Rebecca Troisi and Arthur Schatzkin, " Fruit and vegetable intakes and the risk of colorectal cancer in the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project follow-up cohort " American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 75, No. 5, 936-943, May 2002 Mark D. Gold Aspartame/NutraSweet Toxicity Info Center 12 East Side Dr., #2-18 Concord, NH 03301 603-225-2110 mgold http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/ See also: Betty Martini: New Fed Aspartame 'Study' Is Cockamamie Claptrap http://www.rense.com/general70/coca.htm ------ http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2006/04/11/aspartame_industry_says_no_evide\ nce_of_cancer.htm -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.