EFSA's Review of Ramazzini's Second Aspartame Study Shows Sellout

[Guest guest]

EFSA's Review of Ramazzini’s Second Aspartame Study Shows Sellout

 

 

In 2005 the prestigious Cesare Maltoni Cancer

Research Center at the European Foundation for

Oncology and Environmental Sciences published the

results of their 3 year aspartame study on 1,800

rats, known as the Ramazzini Study. It was the

most scrupulous and costly investigation of the

chemical sweetener ever performed. Dr. Morando

Soffritti led this groundbreaking research that

revealed aspartame causes lymphomas and leukemia

and is a “multipotential carcinogen.”

 

 

Now the European Food Safety Authority [EFSA] was

on the spot. Would they cover their eyes and keep

this poison on the market, destroying the health

and lives of millions? Of course! EFSA’s Dr.

Herman Koeter, admitted that commercial pressure

controlled them with these words in the article

" EU's Food Agency Battles Attempts to Hijack Science " :

 

" Science and politics make poor

bedfellows. Just ask Herman Koeter, deputy

executive director at the European Food Safety

Authority (EFSA) which has felt the push and pull

of national politics ever since the agency began

operating four years ago. ...Along the way he

also described the various political pressures

EFSA faces as it strives to maintain a firm line

between its independent scientific research and

the mire of EU politics.... " Hot decisions

that had political repercussions included … A

REVIEW OF A CONTROVERSIAL ASPARTAME STUDY.

 

 

" Pressure comes from the European

Commission, national legislators, regulatory

agencies and industry to tone down or beef up

results. Sometimes the pressure comes in the

form of a push for a firm opinion on

controversial subjects, when science is unable to

yield a clear answer, Koeter said”

 

Under such pressure EFSA gave aspartame a green

light! Now Dr Soffritti executed another flawless

unimpeachable study, peer reviewed by 7 world

experts which further condemned aspartame as unfit for humans or rats.

 

EFSA stepped into the breech to protect the

producers not the population, declaring, in part:

 

 

· The majority of the lymphomas and

leukemias observed appeared to have developed in

rats suffering from inflammatory changes in the

lungs, which is characteristic for chronic

respiratory disease. In accordance with the

previous view of the AFC Panel, these changes

were not considered to be related to the treatment with aspartame.

 

 

 

TRANSLATION: The

cancer-saturated rats had inflamed lungs. We think that’s meaningless.

 

REALITY: Respiratory

inflammation is part of the dying process!

 

 

 

· * The increase in incidence of mammary

carcinoma is not considered indicative of a

carcinogenic potential of aspartame since the

incidence of mammary tumours in female rats is

rather high and varies considerably between

carcinogenicity studies. The Panel also noted

that an increased incidence of mammary carcinomas

was not reported in the previous ERF study with

aspartame, which used much higher doses of the compound.

 

TRANSLATION: Female rats get breast

cancer. We don’t think that counts.

 

· REALITY: When they

consume aspartame mammary tumours multiply.

 

 

 

Read EFSA’s outrageous, unprincipled

head-in-the-profitable-sand decision and the

statements of fine medical experts motivated by

medical reality and their commitments to prevent

illness, not political persuasion.

 

 

 

Dr. Ken Stoller declared: " EFSA's position on

aspartame is a testament to the power of

corporations to influence, compromise and corrupt

the safety nets that have been put into place to protect the public. "

 

Here are the facts of the second Ramazzini Study:

 

 

 

The second ERF study (2007) was conducted on 400

Sprague-Dawley rats (70-95/per sex/per group). In

order to simulate daily human intake, aspartame

was added to the standard rat diet in quantities

of 100, 20, and 0 mg/Kg of body weight. Treatment

of the animals began on the 12th day of fetal

life until natural death. The results of the

second study show an increased incidence of

lymphomas/leukemias in female rats with respect

to the first study. Moreover, the study shows

that when lifespan exposure to APM begins during

fetal life, the age at which lymphomas/leukemias

develop in females is anticipated. For the first

time, a statistically significant increase in

mammary cancers in females was also observed in

the second study. The results of this

transplacental carcinogenicity bioassay not only

confirm, but also reinforce the first

experimental demonstration of APMs multipotential carcinogenicity.

 

When Dr. M. Soffritti, the lead researcher on the

two studies, lectured at New York's Mt. Sinai

School of Medicine he was honored for his

outstanding contributions to the identification

of environmental and industrial carcinogens and

his promotion of independent scientific research.

 

It was Ralph Walton, M.D. doing research for 60

Minutes who showed the importance of

" independent " scientific peer reviewed research

in his report titled: " Survey of Aspartame

Studies: Correlation of Outcome and Funding

Sources:

<http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html>http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html

92% of independent research showed the problems

aspartame causes and if you eliminate 6 studies

the FDA had something to do with when they became

influenced by aspartame manufactures and one

pro-aspartame summary, 100% of ALL independent studies show the problems.

 

EFSA’s mammary tumor excuse is

preposterous. It's always been known aspartame

triggers mammary tumors. Writer Alex Constantine explains:

 

" G. D. Searle (original manufacturer) submitted a

battery of cancer-test results, titled the

Willigan Report, which contained a statistical

table that wrongly excluded four malignant,

aspartame-related mammary tumors detected by Dr.

Willigan and incorporated in his initial

data. Somehow, the malignancies were made to

appear benign. Searle dismissed the

misrepresentation as a computer error, claiming

that the unfavorable mammary malignancy data were

innocently omitted from the summary table four

separate times by three different individuals. "

 

Also, read the Bressler Report, the FDA

audit:

<http://dorway.com/dorwblog/?page_id=56>http://dorway.com/dorwblog/?page_id=56

When Jerome Bressler’s report was retyped two

mouse studies were left out. Obviously the two

studies were too horrible for the public to

read. FDA told me they destroyed. FDA tried to

have Searle indicted but both US Prosecutors Sam

Skinner and William Conlon hired on with the

defense team; the statutes of limitation

expired. Now that's industry influence!!!

 

Citizen scientist Victoria Inness-Brown, M.A.

reported in her aspartame study 67% of female

rats developed tumors and one mammary tumor was

so large the rat used it as a pillow. She also

said: " My rats on aspartame also developed other

apparent health issues, such as paralysis,

difficulty walking, spasmodic torticollis (also

called dystonia, where the neck is twisted and

the head continually tilted to one side),

infected and blood eyes, skin lesions, thinning

and yellowing fur, and obesity-which is said,

because people often use aspartame to lose weight. "

 

In Dr. Soffritti's studies the rat’s hair

yellowed from the formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is

converted from the methyl alcohol, a severe

metabolic poison. In the Trocho Study

<http://www.mpwhi.com/formaldehyde_from_aspartame.pdf>http://www.mpwhi.com/forma\

ldehyde_from_aspartame.pdf

it shows the formaldehyde embalms living tissue

and damages DNA. When this devastating

independent study was published Dr. M. Alemany

reported the aspartame manufacturer resorted to

character assassination. When you damage DNA you destroy humanity! !

 

California Proposition 65 has a " nasty " list of

ingredients that if found in products coming into

that state must require a cancer warning. Two

of the nasties are methanol and formaldehyde! The

methyl ester in aspartame immediately becomes

methyl alcohol and then converts to

formaldehyde.

<http://www.mpwhi.com/letter_to_cynthia_oshita.htm>http://www.mpwhi.com/letter_t\

o_cynthia_oshita.htm

 

 

EFSA’s excuses about respiratory disease were

answered by Dr. Soffritti but they decided to see

if they could get away with their fable a second time.

 

Dr. Soffritti said:

 

" In examining the raw data of our study, the EFSA

(2006) observed a high incidence of chronic

pulmonary inflammation in males and females in

both treated groups and in the control group.

Based on this observation, it was concluded that

" the increased incidence of lymphomas/leukemias

reported in treated rats was unrelated to

aspartame, given the high background incidence of

chronic inflammatory changes in the lungs . . .

.. " In my opinion, this conclusion is bizarre for the following reasons:

 

" First, the EFSA (2006) overlooked the fact that

the study was conducted until the natural death

of the rodents. IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT INFECTIOUS

PATHOLOGIES ARE PART OF THE NATURAL DYING PROCESS IN BOTH RODENTS AND HUMANS.

 

" Second, if the statistically significant

increased incidence of lymphomas/leukemias

observed were indeed caused by an infected

colony, one would expect to observe an increased

incidence of lymphomas/leukemias not only in

females but also in males. The EFSA (2006) did

not comment on this discrepancy in their logic.”

 

 

H. J. Roberts, M.D., FACP, Palm Beach Institute

for Medical Research, who authored the 1000 page

medical text, Aspartame Disease: An Ignored

Epidemic, also reviewed EFSA's deceptive

report. He said, " The ongoing attempts to

ridicule clinical, epidemiologic and experimental

studies warning of probable carcinogenic effects

of aspartame products are both dubious and

retrogressive -- particularly in the case of

brain tumors, breast cancer and

leukemia/lymphoma. I have reviewed the evidence

in my corporate-neutral publications, and in

submissions to the legislatures of several states

seeking to ban the products and the European Food

Safety Authority. This is not an academic

consideration when over half the population has

been consuming these products. Moreover, I

disagree with the AFC Panel that there is no

reason to revise the ADI for aspartame of 40

mg/kg bw... as detailed in my

texts. <http://www.sunsentpress.com/>www.sunsentpress.com

 

FDA toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross

told Congress an ADI shouldn’t be set on aspartame since it causes cancer.

 

On August 1, l985 the FDA’s toxicologist, Dr.

Adrian Gross, told Congress one of Searle's

studies " has established beyond ANY REASONABLE

DOUBT that aspartame is capable of inducing brain

tumors in experimental animals and that this

predisposition of it is of extremely high

significance. ... In view of these indications

that the cancer causing potential of aspartame is

a matter that had been established WAY BEYOND ANY

REASONABLE DOUBT, one can ask: What is the reason

for the apparent refusal by the FDA to invoke for

this food additive the so-called Delaney

Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act? "

 

The Delaney Amendment outlaws any residues of

cancer causing chemicals in foods. In his

concluding testimony Gross asked, " Given the

cancer causing potential of aspartame how would

the FDA justify its position that it views a

certain amount of aspartame as constituting an

allowable daily intake or 'safe' level of it? Is

that position in effect not equivalent to setting

a 'tolerance' for this food additive and thus a

violation of that law? And if the FDA itself

elects to violate the law, who is left to protect

the health of the public? " Congressional Record SID835:131 (August 1, l985)

 

EFSA would you like to answer Dr. Gross' question?

 

Attorney James Turner, author of " The Chemical

Feast: The Nader Report on Food Protection at

the FDA, was the consumer attorney who with

neuroscientist Dr. John Olney, legally fought the

approval of aspartame from 1973 until 1985. He

has reviewed with disappointment the European

Food Safety Authority panel's original and

amended conclusions on the second Ramazzini Study.

 

Mr. Turner states:

 

" It is impossible to say that Aspartame is not

a carcinogen. This conclusion of the 1980 FDA

Public Board of Inquiry remains true

today.. FDAs own scientist Dr. Adrian Gross, who

worked on the FDA investigative team that

revealed dozens of legal volition in the

Aspartame's studies conducted by Searle Drug

Company, acknowledged that aspartame violated the

Delaney Amendment because of this.

 

" The approval of aspartame was the most contested

in FDA history. The sweetener was not approved

on scientific grounds but through strong

political and financial pressure and through the

political chicanery of Donald Rumsfeld who ran

the company making aspartame. The European Food

Safety Authority argues that the high incidence

of cancerous tumors that occurred in the

Ramazzini studies are caused by something other

than aspartame. However there were high

incidences of cancerous tumors in studies

provided to support aspartames FDA approval.

 

" There was also a significant increase in human

cancerous tumors like those in animals in the

first year of aspartame's use in diet sodas. The

record is to damming for any informed individual

to risk their own health by consuming aspartame.

Aspartame should never have been approved and

actions to ban it started soon after approval as

victims suffered from seizures, MS, blindness,

cancer and death. The FDA listed 92 reactions attributed to this poison.

 

" When I testified before Congress in 1987, I

stated that 'just because a substance reaches the

market it should not be treated as

sacrosanct. It must be recognized that over time

a substance that we know harms people will

continue to harm people. .. If the standard of

food safety is that a substance that only harms

some people, but not all people is going to be

allowed on the market, then special policies

should be adopted to protect those at risk.' This was never done.

 

" Since approval, victims of aspartame continue

to develop neurodegenerative disease, suffer

diabetes, drug interactions, obesity, heart

disease and loss of vision. Never has the public

been warned that it triggers birth defects, a

catastrophe the eminent Dr. Louis Elsas warned

Congress about. In fact the average consumer of

aspartame is not aware that the European Food

Safety Authority says that an acceptable daily

intake (ADI) of aspartame is 40

milligrams/kilogram of body weight about the

amount in a six pact of diet soda for a 10 year

old boy. Nor do they know how to tell if that

amount is being exceeded by intake of the more

than 5000 food and drug products currently sweetened with aspartame

 

”Enough from EFSA! The entire aspartame fiasco

is documented. The only responsible thing to do

is ban it. And if they refuse to ban it, then it

should carry heavy warnings including a statement

of the ADI and the amount of aspartame in every

product. The Ramazzini Study has confirmed twice

what the FDA knew from the beginning. To loose

upon an entire unwarned continent a chemical that

destroys the fetus, triggers mental illness and

cancer, and sickens millions without a word of

warning is corrupt and depraved. EFSA is

responsible to prevent such depredations not

simply protect the greedy pockets of poison producers.

 

Mr. Turner tells the story of aspartame approval

in Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World. Here is that clip:

<http://www.soundandfury.tv/pages/rumsfeld.html>http://www.soundandfury.tv/pages\

/rumsfeld.html

 

 

 

Russell Blaylock, M.D. Neurosurgeon: Author:

Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills,

<http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/>www.russellblaylockmd.com,

commenting on both Ramazzini studies, said: " My

review of the first Ramazzini Study concluded

that the study was one of the best designed,

comprehensive and conclusive studies done to date

on the multipotential carcinogenic danger of

aspartame. This second study is even more

conclusive, in that it shows a dose-dependent

statistically significant increase in

lymphomas/leukemia in both male and female rats

exposed to aspartame. These two cancers are the

fastest growing cancers in people under age 30.

 

" Also, of major concern is their finding of

statistically significant increases in breast

cancer in animals exposed to aspartame. With

newer studies clearly indicating that toxic

exposures during fetal development can

dramatically increase the cancer risk of the

offspring, this study takes on a very important

meaning to all pregnant women consuming aspartame

products. Likewise, small children are at

considerable risk of the later development of

these highly fatal cancers. It should be

appreciated that the doses used in these studies

fall within the range of doses seen in everyday

users of aspartame. This study, along with the

first study, should convince any reasonable

scientific mind, as well as the public, that this

product should be removed from the market. "

 

James Bowen, M.D., who has Lou Gehrigs disease

from aspartame states: “Aspartame grossly fails

all toxicity tests. I’m still one of the

unbroken scientists who saw the original toxicity

studies on aspartame. When aspartame was

marketed in carbonated beverages in 1983 the

brain tumor rate jumped 10 percent and new cases

of diabetes 30 percent. Both have progressed to

become epidemics. Aspartame mammary tumors were

seen in original studies and now breast cancer is

epidemic. We need legislators to face the facts

and ban this heinous poison. Read this letter to

New Mexico State Senator Gerald Ortiz ye

Pino. Note his comments on chemical

hypersensitization.

<http://www.wnho.net/letter_to_senator_goyp_concerning_aspartame.htm%A0>http://w\

ww.wnho.net/letter_to_senator_goyp_concerning_aspartame.htm

Senator Ortiz ye Pino sponsored the bill to ban

in New

Mexico.

<http://www.rense.com/general74/comn.htm>http://www.rense.com/general74/comn.htm

 

The nation of Romania banned aspartame in the

early l990's because it caused cancer. EFSA must

think aspartame only causes cancer in Romania but not the rest of the world

 

EFSA currently is reviewing aspartame for

safety. They will get opinions from scientists

worldwide and every one of them will have to be

checked out for links to the aspartame

industry. They are now reviewing consumer cases

often called anecdotes. Dr. Roberts e sent his medical text with hundreds.

 

" In 1987 Dr. Charles Harris 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.)

 

Dr. Maria Alemany, the courageous researcher who

did the Trocho Study, told me in

Barcelona: " Aspartame is going to kill 200

million people " . Many of them are already buried.

 

EFSA should apologize to Dr. Soffritti and the

public for their critical review, which misleads

people to use this addictive, excitoneurotoxic

carcinogenic drug, a deadly genetically engineered chemical poison.

 

For those wanting to ban aspartame from your

state or country please contact me or Stephen

Fox, Mission Possible New Mexico (stephen)

 

Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder

Mission Possible International

9270 River Club Parkway

Duluth, Georgia 30097

770 - 242-2599

<http://www.mpwhi.com/>www.mpwhi.com,

www.dorway.com, <http://www.wnho.net/>www.wnho.net

Aspartame Toxicity Center,

<http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame>www.holisticmed.com/aspartame

Aspartame Information List,

<http://www.mpwhi.com/>www.mpwhi.com, scroll down to banners

Bettym19

 

EFSA REVIEW:

 

Summary

 

Following a request from the European Commission,

the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources

added to Food (ANS) was asked to deliver a

scientific opinion on the results of a long-term

carcinogenicity study with prenatal exposure to

the artificial sweetener aspartame, performed by

The Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the

European Ramazzini Foundation (ERF) and published

in June 2007 by Soffritti et al.. The authors

concluded that the results of their study not

only confirm, but also reinforce their first

experimental demonstration (published in 2005 and

2006) of aspartame's multipotential

carcinogenicity at a dose level close to the

human Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI). Based on the

results of this study, the authors further

postulated that when lifespan exposure to

aspartame begins during fetal life, its carcinogenic effects are increased.

 

During the 1980s, aspartame has been authorised

for use in foods and as a table-top sweetener by

several Member States, and European legislation

harmonising its use in foodstuffs was introduced

in 1994 following thorough safety evaluations by

the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) in 1984

and 1988. Further reviews of aspartame data were

carried out by the SCF in 1997 and 2002. In 2006,

the Scientific Panel on Food Additives,

Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in

Contact with Food (AFC) assessed a long-term

carcinogenicity study on aspartame performed by

the ERF and published by Soffritti et al. in 2005

and 2006. Based on all the evidence available

from the ERF study and other recent studies and

previous evaluations, the AFC Panel concluded

that there was no reason to revise the previously

established ADI for aspartame of 40 mg/kg bw (EFSA, 2006).

 

In the second ERF study on aspartame in rats,

published in 2007, dietary concentrations of 400

and 2000 mg aspartame/kg diet equivalent to doses

of 20 and 100 mg aspartame/kg bw/day were used.

The rats were exposed to aspartame from the 12th

day of gestation until natural death. The group

size was 95/sex in the control and 70/sex in the

low- and high-dose groups. The authors reported a

significant dose-related increase of malignant

tumour-bearing males, particularly in the

high-dose group (p<0.01, Cox regression model), a

significant increase in incidence of

lymphomas/leukaemias in males from the high-dose

group (p<0.05), a significant dose-related

increase in incidence of lymphomas/leukaemias in

females (p<0.01), particularly in the high-dose

group (p<0.01), and a significant dose-related

increase in incidence of mammary carcinomas in

females (p<0.05), particularly in the high-dose group (p<0.05).

 

The Panel's assessment of the ERF carcinogenicity

study with prenatal exposure on aspartame as

reported by Soffritti et al. was directed towards

establishing the relevance of the reported

findings to human health. In carrying out its

assessment the main information available to the

Panel was the published paper, in which the

presentation of pathological findings was

restricted to the incidence of malignant tumours,

total number of malignant tumours per group,

incidence of lymphomas/leukaemias, and incidence

of mammary carcinomas. Further data from this

study were requested by EFSA in April 2007,

January 2008 and July 2008 in order to aid the

interpretation of the study. On 19 February 2009,

the Ramazzini Institute submitted to EFSA some of the requested data.

 

The Panel concluded that:

* Evaluation of aggregated malignant tumour

incidences as evidence of carcinogenic potential

of the test compound can only be performed based

on a thorough consideration of all tumour data

including onset, and data on non-neoplastic,

hyperplastic and preneoplastic lesions but these

data were not provided by the authors. Limited

information on the presence of inflammatory

changes in the lungs of animals with lymphomas

and leukemias were provided by the ERF in the additional submission.

* The majority of the lymphomas and leukemias

observed appeared to have developed in rats

suffering from inflammatory changes in the lungs,

which is characteristic for chronic respiratory

disease. In accordance with the previous view of

the AFC Panel, these changes were not considered

to be related to the treatment with aspartame.

* The increase in incidence of mammary

carcinoma is not considered indicative of a

carcinogenic potential of aspartame since the

incidence of mammary tumours in female rats is

rather high and varies considerably between

carcinogenicity studies. The Panel also noted

that an increased incidence of mammary carcinomas

was not reported in the previous ERF study with

aspartame which used much higher doses of the compound.

 

Overall, the Panel concluded, on the basis of all

the evidence currently available including the

last published ERF study that there is no

indication of any genotoxic or carcinogenic

potential of aspartame and that there is no

reason to revise the previously established ADI

for aspartame of 40 mg/kg bw/day.