Back to...

GET VISIBLE! Advertise Here. Find Out More


Share Our Stories! - Click Here


Requiring A Carcinogenic Label On Aspartame -
Most Important US Consumer Protection Effort Of 21st Century
A vital step toward protecting California consumers with required labeling of aspartame as a product known to cause cancer, a slow process, but we are moving closer to achieving this; a detailed report from one of the 4 testifiers in Sacramento on Nov. 15, 2016, Dr. Betty Martini who has relentlessly led international efforts coordinated with the world's  top physicians who have treated many aspects of aspartame poisoning.

By Dr. Betty Martini, D Hum


California, under Proposition 65, is moving closer to labeling the artificial sweetener Aspartame as carcinogenic

Report on the November 15th Meeting in Sacramento, with quotes from Dr. Betty Martini's narrative….

On this date, the California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Heath Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and its Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) met to decide whether to list aspartame as a carcinogen. The speakers represented the CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest; a Dr. Adamson, representing the American Beverage Association; the Calorie Control Council, and Dr. Betty Martini, Founder of Mission Possible International (dedicated to ridding the world of this neurotoxic and carcinogenic scourge).

No listing considerations were made at this meeting; the intent was to listen to testimony, in addition to the already compiled 250 written comments that were filed before October 25, 2016.

For those who sent in comments prior to the meeting, these are in the process of being listed on their web by the staff at the OEHHA, as having already been sent to the Carcinogen Identification Committee.

The first thing the committee did before we spoke was vote as to whether labeling aspartame should be considered as no priority, low priority, medium priority, or high priority.

After the speakers, they voted again. This is the process for prioritizing, and it is a committee of 8; 6 were present.

After the first vote, Dr. Martini recalled there were medium, medium to high, high to medium and two highs. This all can be further corroborated when they add it to their website.

The vote was declared by the Chairman to be a draw, though it really was a win for the people. If the vote had been no priority or all lows, the entire discussion would have been concluded right then and there.

This vote means they will have to continue their investigation. If they get more of the real facts, it will be classified and subsequently required to carry the label of "containing a carcinogen," which is what it is, without a doubt.

FDA Toxicologist Dr. Adrian Gross admitted to Congress thirty one years ago (on 8/1/85) that aspartame violated the Delaney Amendment because it causes cancer.

The four speakers were given only 5 minutes to speak. The front group for the aspartame industry and the corporations that subsidizes its efforts, the Calorie Control Council, gave its usual self-serving hype, as did Dr. Adamson.

The only Dr. Adamson that Dr. Martini knows of is Richard Adamson of American Beverage Association. His group changed their name from National Soft Drink Assn but couldn't hide their paper trail.

In the early 80's, before aspartame was approved for soft drinks but after its first approval for other products was forced through the FDA by Donald Rumsfeld, the National Soft Drink Association in response filed with the FDA a 33 page protest against using aspartame in carbonated beverages. Ohio Senator Howard Metzenbaum then put the entire report in the Congressional Record. The soft drink association then turned around and lobbied for the manufacturers.


However, Dr. Richard Adamson never answered Dr. Martini's letter.

The testimony of the Center for Science in the Public Interest was helpful in that they described the misinformation in the European Food Safety Authority review that sugarcoated as aspartame as "safe" to be consumed in the European Union.

A member of the California Carcinogen Identification Committee mentioned the rats had infections as relates to the Ramazzini Studies which proved aspartame is a multipotential carcinogen.

Dr. Martini then explained the Ramazzini studies were so extraordinary and so exemplary as research that Dr. Morando Soffritti received an award for his efforts. The prestigious Selikoff Award is only granted for groundbreaking cancer research. It was created in 1993 by an academy of 180 internationally renowned experts in occupational and environmental health from over 30 nations. It has been awarded just twice before being presented to Dr. Soffritti. His study was peer-reviewed by 7 world experts.

It was not known if this particular committee in Sacramento knew Dr. Soffritti had done three studies, each proving with certainty that aspartame is a carcinogen.

The study was so well done that in response, the aspartame people must have had to really scramble to discern how to mislead the public by continuing to conceal the truth. So, they proclaimed that the rats had respiratory disease a priori.

Dr. Soffritti then informed them, "Of course the rats had respiratory disease, because it was a life study; respiratory disease is part of the dying process and the rats were dying."

Industry tried whatever they could to deceive the public. Finally the head of European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Dr. Herman Koeter, resigned, stating that industry pressured them to hijack science!

Next, the aspartame industry said they had a study that proved aspartame didn't cause cancer. However, their "definitive study" turned out to be a food questionnaire sent to elderly people ten years earlier asking if they remembered what they ate last year. How many seniors can precisely list what they ate over the course of an entire year?

Aspartame was mentioned only once in the questionnaire, when it asked what sweetener they put in tea and coffee. They also asked if they had a hysterectomy, and did they cornbread or brownies. In truth, it was just a" Cornbread and Brownie Study."

Industry has had to use this level of blatant fiction and misrepresentation for over 30 years, and one wonders how anyone could actually believe such nonsense? Obviously, the reader must realize you can NOT make a poison safe.

In their original corporate-sponsored studies, the original patent holder G. D. Searle removed brain tumors from rats, and when they died, they resurrected them on paper to advance their planned research results.

The FDA, to its credit, then tried to have Searle indicted for fraud, but both US Prosecutors hired on with the defense team, and then the statue of limitations conveniently expired.

Then the FDA revoked the petition for approval. Don Rumsfeld got aspartame approved by political chicanery, in conjunction with his hand-picked stooge, Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, who became Reagan's FDA Commissioner. The immeidately prior FDA Commissioner, Jere Goyan, was fired at 3:00 AM by someone from President Reagan's transition team and prevented from signing the revoked petition into law by presidential executive order.

This is one of the darkest chapters in regulatory history in the already checkered history of the United States Food and Drug Administration.

[see also: How Aspartame Became Legal - The Timeline]

[Please see also:

& the video with Rumsfeld and comments by former US Attorney James Turner]

With such an outrageous history of malfeasance and misrepresentation, how would you get this chemical poison approved in any another country? In England, it was approved through a business deal, and Parliament later had several big blowouts about it. Then the approval was rubber-stamped around the world.


For example, many years later, Member of Parliament Roger Williams of Wales' speech to the House of Commons, and his subsequent letter signed by 46 members of the United Kingdom Parliament, dated January 30, 2006, stating:

"This House expresses deep concern over the numerous independent toxicological studies and thousands of subjective reports attesting to the toxic effects of the artificial sweetener aspartame on human health; notes that aspartame, once patented as a biochemical warfare agent, is the synthetically produced methyl ester of a dipeptide which is readily broken down in the gut to release methanol; further notes that in naturally occurring foodstuff methanol is either not released into the body or present together with natural defence mechanisms that mitigate its toxic effects; recognises that methanol is a well known poison and is further converted into formaldehyde, a class A carcinogen according to the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer; accepts that severe health concerns occur from the gradual accumulation of formaldehyde in the body which cannot be excreted and that further research has shown that long term low level exposure to formaldehyde incudes leukaemia and nasopharyngeal cancer in humans; acknowledges that of the 155 studies conducted on aspartame's safety deemed relevant to humans, 92 percent of independently sponsored studies found unanimously in favour of aspartame's safety; and urges the Government to abide by the precautionary principle and make use of Statutes 13 and 16 of the 1990 Food Safety Act to remove aspartame from the permitted list of additives on the United Kingdom market."

Now that you have it in England and the population sick on it, how do you do a review when independent studies show the real facts? Clearly, you would NOT be able to at all, without cheating.

Here is the review by the European Commission Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) opinion on aspartame by Mark Gold, Aspartame Toxicity Center.

Here is the postscript which discusses OLAF (EUROPEAN ANTI-FRAUD OFFICE) finding that only one individual (not the SCF) wrote the opinion on aspartame:

Once OLAF exposed them, the European Commission Scientific Committee on Food became inactive. Now we have EFSA. The conflict of interest is obvious.

Here is a link to a spreadsheet on European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) plagiarizing a manufacturer-funded review:

See that EFSA lifted large sections of the manufacturer-funded review and copied the text with minimal word changes to produce their review.

Until aspartame is banned, the lies will continue to be promulgated because a poison is never safe. The FDA tried to prevent approval but today they are just an extension of industry, both Big Pharma and the junk food and additive industries.

In 2009, nine prominent FDA scientists wrote Congress and the President and said that the FDA was broken. Michael Delaney of the FDA called Dr. Martini, and when she told them people were sick and dying all over the world I was told: "So what? We have to depopulate!"

FDA lead scientist, Dr. Adrian Gross, told the Senate in 1985 that FDA shouldn't have been able to set an allowable daily dose because it causes cancer. There is no safe dose.

We consumer protectionists are delighted with Prop 65 thus far clearly trying to label products accurately, and look forward to their continued investigation of aspartame with the real facts void of corporate brainwashing. About six years ago, aspartame was banned in Romania because it was causing so much cancer. It's long past time to do the same in the US.

For more information, please contact:

Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum
Mission Possible World Health Intl


Donate to Support Free & Honest Journalism At   Subscribe To RenseRadio! Enormous Online Archives, MP3s, Streaming Audio Files,  Highest Quality Live Programs