- Ajinomoto, manufacturer of aspartame provided objections
to the EIB's hearing to ban aspartame in July. Copies were mailed to
appropriate parties as well as to H. J. Roberts, M.D., and Dr. Betty Martini
who submitted answers to the Board in great detail. Mark Gold of the
Aspartame Toxicity Center also submitted answers with important data. They
were not allowed in evidence even though they clearly answered the objections.
The hearing scheduled for July 2006 on banning aspartame was allowed but
postponed another six months, and these necessary answers were not added
into evidence for full understanding. Below are the refused submissions:
-
- 1. Mark Gold, Founder, Aspartame Toxicity Center
-
- By Mark D. Gold to Comments by Ajinomoto
- Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005
- Submission to Environmental Improvement Board: Answering
Ajinomoto's objections to a hearing on aspartame
-
- Please find below a short response to the Comments by
Draft Orders
- By Ajinomoto Food Ingredients LLC.
- ------------
- State of New Mexico
- Before the Environmental Improvement Board
-
- In the Matter of Proposed
- Amendments to 7.6.2 NMAC,
- Food Service and Food Processing,
- Proposed Ban on Aspartame
-
- December 30, 2005 EIB 05-11 (R)
-
- Response by Mark D. Gold to:
-
- Comments on Draft Orders
- By Ajinomoto Food Ingredients LLC
-
- Claim: "The ten copies of Exhibits required is unmanageable.
This will convert a multi-million page physical record into a multiple
of ten millions of pages or a record of tens of millions of pages into
hundreds of millions of pages."
-
- Response: There are three reasons this claim holds no
merit:
-
- a) Ajinomoto's aspartame PR web page (www.aspartame.net)
makes
- the following provably false claim: "[Aspartame]
is made from two building blocks of protein just like those found naturally
in many everyday foods such as meat, fish, cheese, eggs and milk. Aspartame
is digested by the body in exactly the same way as these other protein
foods and so does not bring anything new to the diet." But if they
- believe that the issue is so simple as what they claim
on their web page, it would be a very simple matter to prove safety and
would not take "millions" or "tens of millions" of
pages.
-
- b) Ajinomoto provided no evidence that they compiled
and delivered millions or tens of millions of pages of documentation for
other reviews that have taken place, particularly the recent review by
the E.C. SCF that was mentioned in their comments. One would expect that
they have already compiled these documents for past reviews and
- to prepare for future reviews. I believe one will find
that Ajinomoto has never prepared or provided anything more than thousands
of pages of documentation to governmental organizations reviewing aspartame.
-
- c) Ajinomoto claims in their comments that there are
"more than 200 studies in the files establishing the safety of aspartame."
If one gives them the benefit of the doubt and assumes 1,000 studies at
20 pages per study average, that would only amount to 20,000 pages. The
reality is that there are fewer aspartame studies relevant to safety and
the average length is probably much shorter. While there are some government
documents, it is ridiculous to claim that there are millions or tens of
millions of pages of relevant documents.
-
- Claim: "The five days for hearing are totally inadequate."
-
- Response: As mentioned above, Ajinomoto makes the provably
false claim
- that aspartame is simply building blocks of protein and
adds nothing
- new to the diet. If that were the case, they would easily
be able to
- make there case with submitted documents and no more
than one day of
- testimony. They desparately want to avoid a hearing because
whatever
- the final decision, it will become obvious that many
of the statements
- they make to the general public (and to the EIB) are
inaccurate.
- It is true that one could spend days detailing how the
manufacturer-funded
- aspartame research is designed and manipulated to avoid
finding adverse
- effects as opposed to independently-funded studies which
almost always
- finds adverse effects. But a sampling of the independent
research and
- the issues related to manufacturer research would suffice
for demonstrating the toxicity of aspartame.
-
- Claim: "It will be impossible for the medical expert
and the EIB to review all of the data that are submitted and be prepared
for a hearing by July 17."
-
- Response: It is possible for a medical expert to review
the research by July 17. What Ajinomoto does not mention is that the SCF
review was drafted by a single individual and that was passed on to the
full Committee where no substantive changes were made. It is important
to note that the SCF was made up of numerous persons who had employment
- and other financial conflicts of interest (e.g., industry
consultants) and relied primarily on books and papers by the manufacturer
and their paid consultants. See: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/scf2002.html
- .
- Before the aspartame review, the SCF had already been
criticized in a medical journal for their conflict of interest. Nevertheless,
Ajinomoto did not show evidence that they filed a protest with the SCF
because the SCF document was drafted by a single individual.
-
- Claim: "We believe it will be necessary to have
more than one expert because
- the petitioner raises issues that would require the involvement
of individuals
- with various areas of expertise, such as expertise in
areas of toxicology,
- histopathology, neurology, and brain physiology, particularly
on the blood brain/barrier...."
-
- Response: Ajinomoto would like to have scientists with
other specialties involved in the review. That could work as long as the
scientists (and their lab/department) are completely independent and they
have a history of working to protect the safety of consumers and Ajinomoto
has zero input in the selection process. If the public relations claims
of safety of
- aspartame were as simple as Ajinomoto makes them out
to be, specialists would not
- be needed.
-
- I believe that Ajinomoto simply wants to delay the process
as long as possible and then kill the process of review altogether. The
most time- efficient process might be for the EIB medical expert to consult
with independent experts as needed.
-
- Claim: "Aspartame Regulatory Timeline" attached
to their comments.
-
- Response: For a referenced Timeline that does not exclude
nearly all negative FDA findings, please see:
- http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/history.faq .
-
-
- The important question is, "Does Ajinomoto believe
its own public relations
- statements about aspartame." If so, it would be
a relatively easy and quick
- effort for them to prove those statements and it would
give them an opportunity to allay and consumer concerns. The effort they
are making to avoid a hearing at all costs seem to demonstrate that they
do not believe their own public relations statements.
-
- Respectfully submitted,
-
- Mark D. Gold
- Aspartame Toxicity Information Center
- http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/
- 12 East Side Dr., Suite 2-18
- Concord, NH 03301
- Phone: 603-225-2110
-
-
-
- 2. H. J. Roberts, M.D.
-
- December 26, 2005
- Honorable Patricia A. Madrid
- Attorney General of New Mexico
- P. O. Drawer 1508
- Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-1508
- Fax 505 827 5826
-
- Re: Proposed ban of aspartame products (EIB 05-11)
-
- Dear Attorney General Madrid,
-
- I have just received a copy of the document by Dick Minsner,
Esq., titled "Comments on Draft Orders by Ajinomoto Food Ingredients
LLC," that was sent to the EIB on November 30.
-
- As a corporate-neutral friend of consumers in New Mexico,
whose health I regard as being threatened thereby, I request that the following
comments be added as supplements to my previous communications to this
Board and to the Pharmacy Board.
-
- Let me preamble my opinions by stating that your State
MUST assume the right to protect its inhabitants from a perceived imminent
public health threat if it believes that federal agencies have failed to
do so. A number of recent clinical observations and research studies
extend and validate the serious reactions induced by this chemical that
I have described in detail. They include hypertension and cancer.
-
- To fault New Mexico for being "a relatively small
and relatively poor state" in exercising this right - as indicated
by Mr. Minzner - is a matter for you, your Governor, and other elected
officials to deliberate.
-
- Allow me to simplify the Board's agenda by focusing on
the following issues that Mr. Minzner raises. I believe that they can
be addressed convincingly in several days of hearings without requiring
ana intimidating review of "tens of millions of pages,"
-
- 1. Alleged Determinations of Safety
- It is alleged that the FDA and over 130 countries have
independently determined that aspartame products have been shown to be
safe in humans. Demand copies of those that meet these criteria: studies
by competent corporate-neutral investigations (that is, having no conflicting
interests) on humans who were followed closely for at least three months
while using real world aspartame products (relative to unknown duration
of storage and temperature exposure).
-
- 2. Other Confounding Variables
- Other "well-designed studies" based on "the
underlying science" - especially the use of controls - must guarantee
against the concomitant use of placebos and other products that contain
neurotoxic substances, such as MSG ... perhaps unknown to the investigators.
-
- 3. FDA Data
- The Board is entitled to up-to-date and already - stored
information about the total number of complaints the FDA has received in
which aspartame products were alleged to have caused illness, the nature
of such complaints, the number followed up, and the number of complainants
from New Mexico. Moreover, the Board should insist that these data are
certified to be correct since there have been repeated allegations that
"the FDA stopped keeping count." These data address the challenged
assertion of Mr. Minzner that only "a tiny segment of the population"
reacts adversely to aspartame products.
-
- 2. Other Confounding Variables
- Other "well-designed studies" based on "the
underlying science" - especially the use of controls - must guarantee
against the concomitant use of placebos and other products that contain
neurotoxic substances, such as MSG ... perhaps unknown to the investigators.
-
- 3. FDA Data
- The Board is entitled to up-to-date and already - stored
information about the total number of complaints the FDA has received in
which aspartame products were alleged to have caused illness, the nature
of such complaints, the number followed up, and the number of complainants
from New Mexico. Moreover, the Board should insist that these data are
certified to be correct since there have been repeated allegations that
"the FDA stopped keeping count." These data address the challenged
assertion of Mr. Minzner that only "a tiny segment of the population"
reacts adversely to aspartame products.
-
- 4. Corporate-Neutral Expert Witnesses
- The Board should demand that all experts who testify
have no conflicts of interest. This term is specifically defined by many
medical and scientific journals relative to accepting submitted manuscripts.
-
- 5. Limitation of other FDA-Approved Products
- The Board should not concern itself with whether its
decision will invite litigation for other products.
-
- 6. Challenged Benefits of Aspartame-Products
- I challenge the alleged "health benefits" of
aspartame products cited by Mr. Minzner - in particular, "combating
obesity" and "making sweet products safe for diabetics."
Even a cursory study of my books and other publications will indicate
opposite adverse effects in patients.
-
- 7. Original Biased Approval
- The FDA commissioner who approved the use of aspartame
for humans in l991 did so unilaterally and arbitrarily, disregarding the
urging of FDA scientists, consultants for the General Accounting Office,
and a subsequent Public Board of Inquiry - especially relative to the matter
of brain tumors. The latter have now become an alarming public health
issue. Furthermore, the Timeline entry relative to the GAO investigation
failed to indicate that a majority of its consultants opposed the approval
of aspartame.
-
- 8. Misleading FDA Statement
- I totally disagree with the statement cited in the l994
Timeline about the failure of the FDA to determine "any consistent
pattern of symptoms that can be attributed to the use of aspartame..."
I have detailed these hallmarks of Aspartame Disease in all my publications,
particularly Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic. If you and your boards
do not have this book, dealing with the first 1200 cases in my data base,
I shall be pleased to provide copies.
-
- **********************************
-
- May I request that you provide your staff, Governor Richardson,
and members of the two Boards with copies of this supplemental correspondence?
Thank you.
-
- Sincerely,
- Hyman J. Roberts, M.D., FACP, FCCP
- hjrobertsmd@aol.com
-
- (Note Dr. Roberts is author of Aspartame Disease: An
Ignored Epidemic, www.sunsentpress.com or 1 800 827 7991, and can be seen
in the aspartame documentary, Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World, www.docworkers.com
)
-
-
- 3. Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum.
- Founder, Mission Possible International
-
- Answering Ajinomoto's Objections to EIB Hearing on Aspartame
- Ajinomoto asserts the EIB Board "needs to devote
several years ... to employ many people including many scientific experts"
... and "needs to hold more than five days hearing." For 25
years citizens, scientists and physicians have petitioned authorities to
ban aspartame, but all efforts have been defeated, not by science but by
bureaucratic fiat. Ajinomoto just wants to hang yet another scalp (New
Mexico's) on their enormous bloody belt of duplicity.
-
- At the beginning, Searle submitted fraudulent research
reports to FDA that concealed cancers, hid brain tumors and resurrected
dead animals, etc. So egregious was Searle's corruption that FDA asked
the Department of Justice to prosecute them. Without any viable defense,
their attorneys simply hired both U.S. Prosecutors, Skinner & Conlon,
and the case died when the statute of limitations expired.
-
- However, two honest FDA toxicologists, Doctors Adrian
Gross and JacquelineVerrett
- exposed the dirty work in Congressional testimony. Dr.
Gross testified that aspartame violated the Delaney Amendment which forbade
adding carcinogens to food, since "Without a shadow of a doubt,"
aspartame can cause brain cancer, and FDA should not have set an allowable
dose since none could be allowed. Also: "If FDA violates its own
laws, who is left to protect the public?"
-
- Dr. Verrett told Congress aspartame had never been proven
safe, and that all studies were built on a foundation of sand and should
be thrown out. These 1985 and 1987 Senate hearings confirmed the 9/30/80
action of the FDA scientific Public Board of Inquiry which REVOKED Searle's
petition on the factual basis that aspartame was not proven safe and triggered
brain tumors. FDA scientists never changed their position; aspartame approval
was by power political fiat!
-
- In original studies, it also triggered mammary, uterine,
ovarian, testicular, pancreatic, and thyroid tumors. A 52 week oral toxicity
study on 7 infant monkeys gave 5 grand mal seizures and killed another.
This proved that aspartame gets in the blood stream, which the manufacturers
deny, yet their own study proved it. Rao study: http://www.dorway.com/raoreport.txt
-
- FDA's own report of 92 documented symptoms from 10,000
volunteered complaints, more than received on all other food additives
combined, lists four different seizures triggered by aspartame and included
death: http://www.dorway.com/badnews.html#symptoms
-
- The late Dr. Adrian Gross, FDA toxicologist, wrote about
Searle's antics and said they were a script for comedians.
-
- "The views of the FDA's Center for Food Safety read
like a script written for Abbott & Costello in the sense of their having
perceptions inside-out and upside-down ...329 fetuses were examined in
2 days by a single person (a clear impossibility)."
-
- Dr. Gross wrote letters to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
in Oct. and Nov. l987 and quoted points from the Task Force:
-
- "We have uncovered serious deficiencies in Searle's
operation and practices which undermined the basis for reliance on Searle's
integrity ...Searle has not submitted all the facts or experiments to FDA,
retaining unto itself the unpermitted option of filtering, interpreting
and not submitting information ...an attitude of disregard for FDA's mission
of protection of the public health, conduct which compromises the scientific
integrity of the studies." 14 test blunders are listed, including:
-
- Substitution of animals (hiding deaths)
- Using sick animals on drugs (unreported)
- Incomplete examination, unreported tumors
- Missing batch records
- Mixing food so rats in the test could avoid the product
- Destroying rats before they could be fully analyzed
-
- The full frequency of brain tumors was not disclosed
by Searle to the FDA. In l976, FDA Commissioner Dr. Alexander Schmidt
publicly stated that FDA could not rely on Searle's studies. But the sloppy,
incomplete, doctored and fraudulent "tests" with a little help
from some friends, put NutraSweet on the market and let slip the hounds
of disease and devastation upon an innocent unwarned American population.
Then this approval was rubber stamped around the world in at least 130
nations.
-
- Dr. Gross said: "It seems bizarre that essentially
the same set of studies could provide a foundation for a decision that
...demonstrated the safety of aspartame.... Although the General Accounting
Office expresses the view that FDA followed its required process, I sharply
disagree ... although FDA may have gone through the motions such a "process"
or dance represented no more than a farce and a mockery."
-
- Jerome Bressler wrote an FDA audit of the fraudulent
manipulations by the manufacturer in their failed attempts to show safety.
http://www.dorway.com/bressler.txt
-
- When I spoke to Jerome Bressler to thank him for exposing
Searle he said the facts were much worse than the report showed because
FDA retyped his results and removed the worst 20%. He personally confirmed
this to Doctors H. J. Roberts and Russell Blaylock. Dr. Roberts asked
his congressman to get Bressler's original, but FDA refused. Doctoring
scientific reports is fraud by the FDA and displays their loyalty to commerce,
not consumers.
-
- For 16 years, FDA denied approval of the poison, but
then Searle hired Don Rumsfeld to fix things. He joined Ronald Reagan's
team, so the next day after Reagan took office we got a new FDA Commissioner,
Arthur Hull Hayes. He approved aspartame, then bailed out while being
investigated for conflicts of interest and took a fat 10-year consulting
contract with Searle's PR Outfit. Aspartame was approved by a political
pawn finagled into FDA to poison us. Political manipulation, not science,
not upright public servants, cursed New Mexico and all America with this
neurotoxin.
-
- View the documentary Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World,
www.docworkers.com
- See how Rumsfeld "called in his markers": http://www.soundandfury.tv/pages/Rumsfeld2.html
-
- Ajinomoto is asking the EIB for a few extra years. Do
they want to market another sweet poison because they can't fight the evidence
that aspartame is poisonous. Meanwhile brain tumors breed, children are
ruined and the hounds of horror & grief savage our people. They claim
FDA examined aspartame for 30 years and decided it is a general purpose
sweetener. Pardon while I laugh! Searle admitted aspartame isn't a general
purpose sweetener in the secret trade information given to Congress 12/20/70.
Herbert Helling of Searle detailed the planned psycho-manipulation Searle
used on FDA:
-
- "At this meeting, the basic philosophy of our approach
to Food and Drug should be to try to get them to say "yes" and
to rank the things that we are going to ask for so that we are putting
first those questions we are likely to get "yes" to, even if
we have to throw some in that have no significance to us other than putting
them into a yes saying habit. We must create an affirmative atmosphere
in our dealing with them. It would also help if we can get them or get
the people involved to do us any sort of favor as this would also help
bring them into a subconscious spirit of participation. ...I think that
it's vital to point out to the Food and Drug people at this meeting that
the sweetener is not suitable for all applications for artificial sweeteners."
-
- The National Soft Drink Association protested to Congress
that aspartame is unfit for carbonated beverages and violates federal adulteration
statutes. Then, Hayes blessed it for soda pop in l983 so the bottlers
sang to the ring of their cash registers and forgot insignificant things
like health and tumors and staying alive. http://www.dorway.com/nsda.html
-
- FDA said aspartame can't be heated, then approved it
in '93 for baking. In '96 FDA Commissioner Kessler was about to approve
it as an all purpose sweetener but needed to rid the complaints. Easy!
FDA quit accepting them, then decided to change bookkeeping methods and
threw away hundreds of existing complaints. I've sent FDA thousands of
complaints, all ignored.
-
- In Searle's secret trade information, climactic is the
last paragraph: "With the spoon-for-spoon, we have no way of estimating
maximum likely abuse and hence need to utilize data based on almost complete
conversion to DKP. If we include this in the original FAP, we stand a
good chance of ending up with nothing in the short run and nothing in the
long run whereas the other approach would give us something in the short
run and quite likely as much as we would ever get in the long run."
-
- Based on this paragraph, Searle should have been put
out of business and their execs sent to prison. DKP is a brain tumor agent.
Searle, Monsanto, Ajinomoto, et al with full knowledge have been selling
brain tumors for 25 years. They sacrificed people in poor villages in
6 countries in an 18 month studies, destroyed their brains and CNS, aborted
a baby, induced seizures and triggered brain tumors and never published
the results. I have the translator's affidavit. Usually it takes longer
than this to grow brain tumors but the translator said they gave them "lots
of aspartame". This confirms the recent 3-year Italian study that
the cancers are dose related.
-
- Ajinomoto serves death at every dinner table in a global
plague! The just finished 3-year study by the European Ramazzini Foundation
of Oncology showed aspartame caused lymphoma, leukemia, cancer of the kidneys
and cancer of the cranial peripheral nerves. Only the rats fed aspartame
got malignant brain tumors. In September, they declared aspartame is a
"multipotential carcinogen." Of course, we've known it's a carcinogen
for years.
-
- The Italian study echoes the words of Dr. Gross in his
summary to Senator Metzenbaum on Nov 3, l987:
-
- "Quite aside from the remarkable significance of
the increased incidence with dose of those brain tumors, the ADI of 50
mgm/kgm body-weight recently set by the FDA for the human consumption of
aspartame is alarmingly dangerous in that it involves an extremely high,
and therefore, a totally unacceptable upper limit on the risk for those
consuming aspartame: between 1/1,000 and 5/1,000 population to develop
brain tumors as a result of such exposure."
-
- What else is this but a form of premeditated murder by
the manufacturers!
-
- Ajinomoto admits aspartame approval by other nations
was based on FDA's approval, which was the work of Rumsfeld and his puppet
Hayes! These nations knew nothing of
- aspartame's trail of blood & Rumsfeld politics.
-
- Let's put this in prospective: In 1996 Ralph Walton,
M.D. investigated aspartame's peer reviewed studies and correlated them
with who paid for the work, funding. http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html
This was discussed on 60 Minutes when Dr. John Olney made world news on
the brain tumor issue in l996. Dr. Walton found that 92% of independent
scientific peer reviewed studies showed problems with the poison, and if
one pro-industry summary and the 6 studies FDA had something to do with
are deleted because they're loyal to industry the score is 100% of independent
scientific peer reviewed studies show problems.
-
- What does that say about industry-controlled/funded
research? They make it a point to get what they pay for. The details of
this treachery are at http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/abuse/ Read
how aspartame manufacturers manipulate studies.
-
- Mr. Minzner says in his letter: "it would be unfair
and a denial of Ajinomoto' right to refuse to consider all of the relevant
information." Ajinomoto has refused relevant information for too many
years! The Public Board of Inquiry's revocation of aspartame approval,
FDA's Bressler audit, and FDA's 16 years of evidence since it was discovered
in the pre-Hayes period, together incriminate this poison. I'll happily
provide whatever further evidence you need.
-
- Minzner whines it would be extraordinary for New Mexico
to reach a differing conclusion. In Ajinomoto's Board of Directors' minds
the EIB should be behaving more like a bunch of rubber-stamping robots!
In the UK a Member of Parliament, Roger Williams, on December 14th asked
for a ban on aspartame throughout the UK. Several excellent actions are
developing in far principalities, but they're not for Ajinomoto's ears
yet.
-
- Minzner makes the incredible claim: "aspartame opponents
claim to have studies and science supporting their position. A careful
analysis of their "science" is needed to identify the flaws in
the underlying research." A Board of Inquiry of FDA's best scientists
revoked the petition for approval based on the studies. An FDA audit exposed
manipulation in studies. Experts said Searle's studies were hopelessly
flawed!
-
- Minzner says witnesses will have to explain much of the
science in the millions of pages.
- Note that the aspartame industry funds the American Diabetes
Assn, American Dietetic Assn, the MS people, and other professional organizations.
They use such as "experts" to defend them as a representative
of the American Diabetes Assn did in congressional hearings. Those responsible
to solve the problem are the problem.
-
- Aspartame has a front group to hand out "research"
money, ILSI (International Life Sciences Institute). Reported in UPI's
eight-month investigation. Dr. Richard Wurtman testified against aspartame
to Congress http://www.wnho.net/congressionalrecord.htm He intended to
do seizure studies but was told by a Searle VP that if he did his research
funds would be rejected. Today Dr. Wurtman no longer speaks out on aspartame,
but MIT continues to receive research funds. A TV station contacted Wurtman
who said: "I renege on everything I ever said about aspartame".
But he can't renege on his Congressional Record testimony, or his fine
book, Dietary Phenylalanine and Brain Function. It was removed from MIT's
library, but I have a copy. EIB needs to know this.
-
- Minzner says if EIB concludes it has the legal right
to proceed it should refrain as a matter of discretion. A thinly veiled
threat to sue EIB; winning by intimidation! Minzner says the petitioner
should raise his concerns with FDA. So they can build a bigger bonfire?
FDA Commissioners come and go like bus tokens, three in 2005. In June
02, I filed a Citizens Petition for ban. Law requires an answer in 180
days, and we're in the fourth year and they won't respond. They wrote that
they had more important priories. They can't answer without admitting FDA
wrongdoing, and since they're a law unto themselves I'll never hear from
them. http://www.wnho.net/citizens_aspartame_petition.htm
-
- Minzner says other food additives have opponents who
may bring them before the Board. Opponents of unsafe additives have the
right to expose them, and New Mexico has the right to safe food and drugs.
Minzner brings up mercury, failing to mention that it is a deadly poison
banned in six other states as a vaccine additive. He request experts needed
to testify on the blood brain barrier which he claims prevents the transfer
of aspartic acid into the brain from the blood. For years many manufacturers
said it doesn't get in the blood. Their own records prove that it does.
Now they admit it. Will they now admit it's a drug? The law requires
an additive be inert.
|
