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
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
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 www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm]
[Please see also: www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/12/711021/-
& the video with Rumsfeld and comments by former US Attorney James
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,
"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
Once OLAF exposed them, the European Commission Scientific Committee
on Food became inactive. Now we have EFSA. The conflict of interest
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