Take Me Back To
Saccharin - With NutraSweet
You Just Can't Win
Analyzing 9th National Toxicology Report on Carcinogens
and the Incredible Tamoxifen Fiasco
From Betty Martini <>

Saccharin has been on the market for over 100 years with few complaints. Yet in April, l977 the FDA proposed restrictions on its use saying studies involving male rats given large amounts of saccharin developed urinary bladder tumors? H. J. Roberts, M.D., says in a position paper on the rat model is not considered appropriate since humans lack a critical protein in the urine that causes saccharin to form jagged irritating crystals in the male rat bladder. And not only has there not been any convincing increase in the frequency of urinary bladder cancer since the introduction of saccharin over more than a century ago but a 23 year monkey study failed to evidence a cancer causing effect of saccharin in primates. Are we suppose to believe nobody knew this?
According to Joseph Rodicks in CALCULATED RISKS, Page 161: "Saccharin is the least potent carcinogen ever detected in an animal study, the dose required to produce a given lifetime incidence of tumors is greater than that of any other known animal carcinogen."
It is believed by many the saccharin scare was a scheme to get aspartame approved. So what was going on in l977? On January 10, l977 in a 33 page letter, FDA Chief Counsel Richard Merrill recommended to U.S. Attorney Sam Skinner a grand jury investigate Searle (original manufacturer of aspartame/NutraSweet/Equal/Spoonful - Monsanto bought them in l985) for "apparent violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 331 (e) and the False Reports to the Government Act, 18 U.S.C. 1001 for "their willful and knowing failure to make reports to the Food and Drug Administration required by the Act, 21 U.S.C. 355 (i), and for concealing material facts and making false statements in reports of animal studies conducted to establish the safety of aspartame." FDA called special attention to studies on the effect of NutraSweet on monkeys and hamsters.
Unfortunately, the two U.S. Prosecutors, Sam Skinner and William Conlon, switched sides and were hired by the defense lawyers and the case died forever. Let's face it, when the District Attorney goes to work for the Godfather expect acquittal. But FDA would not approve aspartame. At the center of the effort to land FDA approval stood Donald Rumsfeld - chairman of G. D. Searle upon leaving the Ford administration in l977. He said he would "call in his markers" to get NutraSweet approved. On January 21, l981, the day after Reagan's inauguration, Searle submitted "ten new studies". Dr. Woodrow Monte said: "It's impossible they could have conducted those studies in four months. Obviously they'd previously done those studies but hadn't officially submitted them, although much of the information in those studies was informally presented to the board of inquiry." President Reagan appointed Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes as FDA Commissioner. He was no disinterested bureaucrat. He served in the Army Medical Corps in the 60's and according to the Washington Post was assigned to Edgewood Arsenal at Fort Detrick, Maryland, the Army's chemical warfare base of operations, "one of a number of doctors who conducted drug tests for the Army on volunteers .. to determine the effect of a mind-disorienting drug called CAR 301,060". Dr. Hayes was into mind control! According to an article by Alex Constantine aspartame was actually listed with the pentagon in an inventory of prospective biochemical warfare weapons submitted to Congress. (NutraPoison by Alex Constantine - )
Dr. Hayes over-ruled a Board of Inquiry to approve NutraSweet and then went to work for the PR company of the manufacturer and has refused to speak to the press ever since! Even with three congressional hearings due to the outrage of the public on being poisoned nothing was accomplished because of heavy Monsanto lobbying and Senators like Orrin Hatch being paid. Senior FDA toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross, told Congress aspartame violated the Delaney Amendment that forbids putting anything in food or drugs you know will cause cancer, because it triggered brain tumors. His last words to Congress will never be forgotten. "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
Aspartame triggered brain, mammary, uterine, ovarian, and testicular tumors, astrocytomas, pituitary adenomas, etc. So several years ago I prepared 26 questions for the FDA to answer, one of which was if you have a warning on saccharin that it can cause cancer, then there should be a warning on aspartame (NutraSweet/Equal/Spoonful). ( These were given to the FDA by then Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich and after over four years the FDA has still refused to answer! It wasn't long before we heard the FDA would remove the warning on saccharin! But what about the fact that aspartame breaks down to diketopiperazine, a brain tumor agent?
From Sweet'ner Dearest ( by H. J. Roberts, M.D., page 212:
(Regarding the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and Saccharin) "Urinary bladder tumors were found in a few male rats given large amounts of saccharin. There are two flaws. First, the validity of this rat model has been challenged by experts. Second, other researchers haven't been able to reproduce these findings. So you ask, "what's the big deal?" It became a real big deal when bureaucrats pounded on this mouse-to-man controversy by invoking the Delaney Amendment relative to use of saccharin. The FDA mandated that products containing it were to be labeled as potentially causing cancer in man. The producers of other sweeteners clearly were not displeased."
So now saccharin has been delisted as a cancer threat. H. J. Roberts, M.D., has declared Aspartame Disease a world plague and its toxicity has become public knowledge. The Nutratanic hit an iceberg so Monsanto sold it, and merged with Pharmacia to change their name. CAN CONSUMERS TRUST INDUSTRY RESEARCH?
Cynthia Crossen in The Tainted Truth has exposed industry studies -- "the road to hell has been paved with research funds"! So many examples: Searle threatened Dr. Richard Wurtman of MIT with not getting research funds according to a United Press International investigation on aspartame (l987) because he wanted to do studies on aspartame and seizures. He didn't get them. His friend, Dr. Paul Spiers did studies and was alarmed to discover subjects developed "cognitive deficits" and that aspartame can depress intelligence. Today Dr. Wurtman has flip-flopped and MIT receives research funds. Even Dr. Paul Spiers redid his study funded by Monsanto. Now, the study shows safety, the difference in the two studies being "industry funding"!
It seems when news gets out about a negative problem industry can always come up with a study. As news spread aspartame hardens the synovial fluids and causes severe joint pain, often misdiagnosed as fibromyalgia, a new study appeared. In Dr. Manion's junk science you could now use aspartame for pain! It was so known aspartame would react even before it was approved that it was actually used as a placebo in studies with MSG by the glutamate people. They wanted to show MSG would not react anymore than the placebo but never let it be known the placebo was aspartame back in the 70's. What they really proved is that both
The report that delisted saccharin contained a total of 218 cancer causing substances. Formal additions included Tamoxifen that was suppose to fight breast cancer. But Tamoxifen has been known to be a carcinogen from the beginning. Having spoken personally to the researcher, Dr. Trudy Bush, years ago she admitted she told Zeneca Tamoxifen is an pro-estrogen and not an anti-estrogen, but "they would not listen". As Dr. Tibor J. Hegedus wrote in INDICTED: CANCER RESEARCH:
"Tamoxifen is given to women with breast cancer to block the entrance of estradiol into the tumor cells dependent upon this hormone to stimulate growth. When the hormones are blocked from reaching their primary targets, they are forced to travel to other organs."
This stimulates proliferation of cells in the lining of the womb, and in certain cases Bingo: Endometrial Cancer! "Tamoxifen stimulates cell proliferation by sensitizing cells to proliferative effects of IGF-I" wrote LR Wiseman, Pathologist at the Royal Victoria Infirmary, in a paper on breast cancer. IGF, is a hormone designed to make things grow up, calves and babies, it also stimulates and accelerates cancer in sensitized women, those taking Tamoxifen. Dr. Trudy Bush said data on endometrial cancer in Tamoxifen users suggest the drug probably triples, rather than doubles, the usual incidence of this malignancy.
In l996 the World Health Organization declared Tamoxifen a carcinogen but industry said they would market it anyway. Zeneca wants all women to take Tamoxifen their entire lives as a preventative. They seek the Holy Grail - the fantasy, the chimera, the dream of all drug pushers through the ages: To seduce entire populations into life long dependence on a drug they don't need for a disease they don't have. To consume a carcinogen to prevent cancer is nothing more than Russian Roulette with an automatic weapon. Even as late as July 29, l999 it was reported that scientists at Duke University had found in a study that "Tamoxifen eventually backfires - breast cancer fighter could boost disease". Tamoxifen continued to be prescribed by physicians.
But what good does it do to expose Tamoxifen as a carcinogen if industry has the power to keep it in use and allow more people to die from cancer? All they have to do is provide a study to the contrary and make people believe it. So now that Tamoxifen has been added to the cancer causing list, surely a study will be provided to mislead the public. And here it is conveniently dated today, May 19 and reported by the Associated Press!
"LONDON (AP) Better treatment over the last decade has slashed breast cancer death rates in the US and Britain and will save the lives of 14,000 women this year in the two countries, new research show. Most of the credit goes to the drug tamoxifen, taken by about 1 million women worldwide, said Sir Richard Peto, a professor of epidemiology at Oxford University who headed the study, published this week in The Lancet medical journal. "This is the first time that improvements in the treatment of any type of cancer have ever produced such a rapid fall in national death rates," Peto said. "they really are remarkable trends." While a lot of things contribute, I think the key one is tamoxifen," he said, adding it's much too sudden a drop to be due to changes in the causes of the disease"... AD NAUSEAM
Today breast cancer is so epidemic it's heart-breaking. The carcinogen aspartame caused an alarming amount of gross mammary tumors in original studies and is being used by 100 million people. See FDA audit, Bressler Report, and Carol Guilford's report on Breast Cancer on Monsanto's bovine growth hormone increases the insulin growth factor, the regulator of cancer, and makes it grow. Many reports have been written by Dr. Samuel Epstein. See for more info, and read Milk: The Deadly Poison by Robert Cohen. Industry fights back with the milk mustache. Robert Cohen provided every bit of the needed evidence to remove RBGH and petitioned the FDA. But they are simply Monsanto's Washington Branch office and FDA Commissioner Jane Henney turned her back on the consumer public and refused to ask for its withdrawal. Concerned with the public being poisoned, Robert Cohen remains on a water starvation diet until the FDA acts. FDA could care less.
What will happen next? Will Coke and Pepsi go back to Saccharin because they know the world knows aspartame is a deadly chemical poison. They knew it was illegal to add aspartame to carbonated drinks in the first place according to the National Soft Drink Assoc protest. ( And Coke has big problems with Coke Enterprises having lost 62% in 12 months and Coca Cola down 28% since July, l999. So the total market cap losses for two companies in a year equal $58 billion. And the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported today that, 5/19 that Coke was raided by European regulators in Brussels and London, taking documents as part of an antitrust investigation in Belgium and the UK.
The press release below says Acesulfame Potassium doesn't cause cancer either but according to Aspartame (NutraSweet) Is It Safe? by Dr. Roberts (Charles Press), page 283/284 Acesulfame K produced "lung tumors, breast tumors, rare types of tumors in other organs (such as the thymus gland), several forms of leukemia,"...
So why not use the safe sweetener Stevia which is an herb and is the salvation of the diabetics because it helps in the metabolism of sugar? The drug baron can't patent it, so the FDA keeps attacking it going so far as to ask the Stevita Company to burn their cookbooks so people won't know its sweet.
Today consumers have to take responsibility for their own health. Believing the FDA and industry can cost you, your life! Those responsible to solve the problem ARE the problem!
Betty Martini, Mission Possible International 770 242-2599
To: "Mrs. Betty Martini" < From: "Dave Rietz (" < Subject: Fwd: Saccharin delisted as cancer threat
X-AWOD-LOCAL: Virus scan passive test (version 1 alpha 1). No action taken. From: "Mr. E" < To: "Dave Rietz" < Subject: Saccharin delisted as cancer threat Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 21:31:04 -0400 Organization: PCS
Saccharin delisted as cancer threat Government says 'no clear association' to human disease MSNBC NEWS SERVICES WASHINGTON, May 15 " More than two decades after a study in rats prompted scientists to link saccharin to human cancer, the federal government is dropping the artificial sweetener from its list of cancer-causing chemicals. But officials are adding 14 new substances to the list, including second-hand tobacco smoke, alcohol and sunlamps.
<'s cancer coverage < your views on MSNBC's Health Bulletin Board < BCM HE?image=
'Two decades ago, when saccharin was shown to produce bladder tumors in rats, it was a prudent, protective step to consider the sweetener to be a likely human carcinogen.' - DR. KENNETH OLDEN
NIEHS OFFICIALS at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences said Monday that new studies show "no clear association" between saccharin and human cancer. The announcement came with the release of the 9th National Toxicology Report on Carcinogens, an every-other-year listing of chemicals that the federal agency believes cause, or possibly cause, cancer. "Two decades ago, when saccharin was shown to produce bladder tumors in rats, it was a prudent, protective step to consider the sweetener to be a likely human carcinogen," said Dr. Kenneth Olden, director of the NIEHS and the National Toxicology Program. But Olden said an advance in scientific understanding "allows us to make finer distinctions today.... In other words, with better science we can now make a better call." Studies now show that laboratory rat bladder tumors once linked to saccharin are known to be "not relevant to the human situation," Olden said, adding that decades of human saccharin use "adds to our confidence."
< rates continue to decline
The action follows three years of new studies and scientific reviews about the effects of saccharin, the announcement said. Advertisement< Quick Gifts Swimwear Books Music & Video Computing Electronics Toys & Games More . . .< rmA dGifts.catId);
Saccharin previously had received a clean bill of health from such groups as the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, the American Dietetic Association and the American Diabetes Association. The carcinogen report also delisted ethyl acrylate, a chemical used in the manufacture of latex paints and textiles. It had been listed in 1989 as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen." A review of lab studies showed the chemical caused cancer in rats only when it was fed to the animals in high concentrations. Human exposure in such a way, the report said, "is unlikely."
The report contains a total of 218 cancer-causing substances. Formal additions to the list of "known human carcinogens" include environmental tobacco smoke; directly inhaled tobacco smoke; smokeless tobacco (such as snuff); alcoholic beverages; sunlamps and sunbeds, and six industrial chemicals and dyes. Alcohol has long been associated with cancers of the mouth, pharynx, larynx and esophagus, and there may be a link with liver and breast cancer. Chewing tobacco and snuff can cause cancer wherever they contact the mouth or nose. Also added to the list was tamoxifen. Although it fights breast cancer, the drug also increases the risk of uterine cancer. "There has been concern expressed that the listing of tamoxifen ... could raise concerns among patients regarding its use for cancer treatment or prevention," the report said. It pointed out that benefits can outweigh the risks. Seven chemicals, including diesel exhaust particulates, were added to the list of substances "reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens." The other additions are industrial chemicals.
Linking saccharin to cancer originated with 1977 laboratory studies in which male rats fed huge doses of the sweetener developed bladder tumors. Some compared the dosage to a human drinking 800 cans of diet soda daily for a lifetime.
<'s complete cancer coverage
The studies led the Food and Drug Administration call for a ban on saccharin, but Congress in 1977 placed a moratorium on the FDA ban. That moratorium was renewed periodically. Congress did pass legislation requiring all saccharin products to carry a label warning that the sweetener "may be hazardous to your health" because it caused cancer in lab animals. The 1981 Report on Carcinogens first listed saccharin as an "anticipated human carcinogen." But human studies soon began to question the dangers of the sweetener and in 1991, the FDA withdrew its proposed ban. With the delisting from the carcinogen report, saccharin supporters will next ask Congress to remove the warning label, said Keith Keeney of the Calorie Control Council, an association of diet food and beverage manufacturers. Saccharin is the oldest of the common artificial sweeteners. It was discovered by Johns Hopkins University chemist Constantine Fahlberg in 1879 and was used in diets starting early in the 20th century, particularly during wartime when sugar supplies were short. Use increased in the 1950s when diet foods became more popular. When aspartame became available in 1981, it quickly dominated the artificial sweetener market, in part because of superior flavor and in part because of the cancer worries. In addition to aspartame, there are two other artificial sweeteners now in wide commercial use " sucaralose and acesulfame potassium " none of which has been linked to cancer, Keeney said.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.



This Site Served by TheHostPros