Think Again: Education

Relax, America. Chinese math whizzes and Indian engineers aren't stealing your kids' future.

BY BEN WILDAVSKY | MARCH/APRIL 2011

Article from Foreign Policy Magazine

"American Kids Are Falling Behind." 

Not really. Anybody seeking signs of American decline in the early 21st century need look no further, it would seem, than the latest international educational testing results. The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) -- the most-watched international measure in the field -- found that American high school students ranked 31st out of 65 economic regions in mathematics, 23rd in science, and 17th in reading. Students from the Chinese city of Shanghai, meanwhile, shot to the top of the ranking in all three categories -- and this was the first time they had taken the test.

"For me, it's a massive wake-up call," Education Secretary Arne Duncan told the Washington Post when the results were released in December. "Have we ever been satisfied as Americans being average in anything? Is that our aspiration? Our goal should be absolutely to lead the world in education." The findings drove home the sense that the United States faced, as President Barack Obama put it in his State of the Union address, a "Sputnik moment."

In fact, the U.S. education system has been having this sort of Sputnik moment since -- well, Sputnik. Six months after the 1957 Soviet satellite launch that shook the world, a Life magazine cover story warned Americans of a "crisis in education." An accompanying photo essay showed a 16-year-old boy in Chicago sitting through undemanding classes, hanging out with his girlfriend, and attending swim-team practices, while his Moscow counterpart -- an aspiring physicist -- spent six days a week conducting advanced chemistry and physics experiments and studying English and Russian literature. The lesson was clear: Education was an international competition and one in which losing carried real consequences. The fear that American kids are falling behind the competition has persisted even as the competitors have changed, the budding Muscovite rocket scientist replaced with a would-be engineer in Shanghai.

This latest showing of American 15-year-olds certainly isn't anything to brag about. But American students' performance is only cause for outright panic if you buy into the assumption that scholastic achievement is a zero-sum competition between nations, an intellectual arms race in which other countries' gain is necessarily the United States' loss. American competitive instincts notwithstanding, there is no reason for the United States to judge itself so harshly based purely on its position in the global pecking order. So long as American schoolchildren are not moving backward in absolute terms, America's relative place in global testing tables is less important than whether the country is improving teaching and learning enough to build the human capital it needs.

And by this measure, the U.S. education system, while certainly in need of significant progress, doesn't look to be failing so spectacularly. The performance of American students in science and math has actually improved modestly since the last round of this international test in 2006, rising to the developed-country average in science while remaining only slightly below average in math. U.S. reading scores, in the middle of the pack for developed countries, are more or less unchanged since the most recent comparable tests in 2003. It would probably be unrealistic to expect much speedier progress. As Stuart Kerachsky, deputy commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, put it, "The needle doesn't move very far very fast in education."

"The United States Used to Have the World's Smartest Schoolchildren."

No, it didn't. Even at the height of U.S. geopolitical dominance and economic strength, American students were never anywhere near the head of the class. In 1958, Congress responded to the Sputnik launch by passing the National Defense Education Act, which provided financial support for college students to study math, science, and foreign languages, and was accompanied by intense attention to raising standards in those subjects in American schools. But when the results from the first major international math test came out in 1967, the effort did not seem to have made much of a difference. Japan took first place out of 12 countries, while the United States finished near the bottom.

By the early 1970s, American students were ranking last among industrialized countries in seven of 19 tests of academic achievement and never made it to first or even second place in any of them. A decade later, "A Nation at Risk," the landmark 1983 report by the National Commission on Excellence in Education, cited these and other academic failings to buttress its stark claim that "if an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war."

Each new cycle of panic and self-flagellation has brought with it a fresh crop of reformers touting a new solution to U.S. scholastic woes. A 1961 book by Arthur S. Trace Jr. called What Ivan Knows That Johnny Doesn't, for instance, suggested that American students were falling behind their Soviet peers because they weren't learning enough phonics and vocabulary. Today's anxieties are no different, with education wonks from across the policy spectrum enlisting the U.S. education system's sorry global ranking to make the case for their pet ideas. J. Michael Shaughnessy, president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, argues that the latest PISA test "underscores the need for integrating reasoning and sense making in our teaching of mathematics." Randi Weingarten, head of the American Federation of Teachers, claims that the same results "tell us … that if you don't make smart investments in teachers, respect them, or involve them in decision-making, as the top-performing countries do, students pay a price."

If Americans' ahistorical sense of their global decline prompts educators to come up with innovative new ideas, that's all to the good. But don't expect any of them to bring the country back to its educational golden age -- there wasn't one.

"Chinese Students Are Eating America's Lunch."

Only partly true. The biggest headline from the recent PISA results concerned the first-place performance of students from Shanghai, and the inevitable "the Chinese are eating our lunch" meme was hard for American commentators and policymakers to resist. "While Shanghai's appearance at the top might have been a stunner, America's mediocre showing was no surprise," declared a USA Today editorial.

China's educational prowess is real. Tiger moms are no myth -- Chinese students focus intensely on their schoolwork, with strong family support -- but these particular results don't necessarily provide compelling evidence of U.S. inferiority. Shanghai is a special case and hardly representative of China as a whole; it's a talent magnet that draws from all over China and benefits from extensive government investment in education. Scores for the United States and other countries, by contrast, reflect the performance of a geographic cross-section of teenagers. China -- a vast country whose hinterlands are poorer and less-educated than its coastal cities -- would likely see its numbers drop if it attempted a similar assessment.

What about perennial front-runners like Finland and South Korea, whose students were again top scorers? These countries undoubtedly deserve credit for high educational accomplishment. In some areas -- the importance of carefully selected, high-quality teachers, for example -- they might well provide useful lessons for the United States. But they have nothing like the steady influx of immigrants, mostly Latinos, whose children attend American public schools. And unfortunately, the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic demographics of the United States -- none of which have analogues in Finland or South Korea -- correlate closely with yawning achievement gaps in education. Non-Hispanic white and Asian pupils in the United States do about as well on these international tests as students from high-scoring countries like Canada and Japan, while Latino and black teens -- collectively more than a third of the American students tested -- score only about as well as those from Turkey and Bulgaria, respectively.

To explain is not to excuse, of course. The United States has an obligation to give all its citizens a high-quality education; tackling the U.S. achievement gap should be a moral imperative. But alarmist comparisons with other countries whose challenges are quite different from those of the United States don't help. Americans should be less worried about how their own kids compare with kids in Helsinki than how students in the Bronx measure up to their peers in Westchester County.

"The U.S. No Longer Attracts the Best and Brightest."

Wrong. While Americans have worried about their elementary and high school performance for decades, they could reliably comfort themselves with the knowledge that at least their college education system was second to none. But today, American university leaders fret that other countries are catching up in, among other things, the market for international students, for whom the United States has long been the world's largest magnet. The numbers seem to bear this out. According to the most recent statistics, the U.S. share of foreign students fell from 24 percent in 2000 to just below 19 percent in 2008. Meanwhile, countries like Australia, Canada, and Japan saw increased market shares from their 2000 levels, though they are still far below the American numbers.

The international distribution of mobile students is clearly changing, reflecting an ever more competitive global higher-education market. But there are many more foreign students in the United States than there were a decade ago -- 149,000 more in 2008 than in 2000, a 31 percent increase. What has happened is that there are simply many more of them overall studying outside their home countries. Some 800,000 students ventured abroad in 1975; that number reached 2 million in 2000 and ballooned to 3.3 million in 2008. In other words, the United States has a smaller piece of the pie, but the pie has gotten much, much larger.

And even with its declining share, the United States still commands 9 percentage points more of the market than its nearest competitor, Britain. For international graduate study, American universities are a particularly powerful draw in fields that may directly affect the future competitiveness of a country's economy: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In disciplines such as computer science and engineering, more than six in 10 doctoral students in American programs come from foreign countries.

But that doesn't mean there's nothing to worry about. Although applications from international students to American graduate schools have recovered from their steep post-9/11 decline, the number of foreigners earning science and engineering doctorates at U.S. universities recently dropped for the first time in five years. American schools face mounting competition from universities in other countries, and the United States' less-than-welcoming visa policies may give students from overseas more incentive to go elsewhere. That's a loss for the United States, given the benefits to both its universities and its economy of attracting the best and brightest from around the world.

"American Universities Are Being Overtaken."

Not so fast. There's no question that the growing research aspirations of emerging countries have eroded the long-standing dominance of North America, the European Union, and Japan. Asia's share of the world's research and development spending grew from 27 to 32 percent from 2002 to 2007, led mostly by China, India, and South Korea, according to a 2010 UNESCO report. The traditional research leaders saw decreases during the same period. From 2002 to 2008, the U.S. proportion of articles in the Thomson Reuters Science Citation Index, the authoritative database of research publications, fell further than any other country's, from 30.9 to 27.7 percent. Meanwhile, the number of Chinese publications recorded in the same index more than doubled, as did the volume of scientific papers from Brazil, a country whose research institutions wouldn't have been on anyone's radar 20 years ago.

This shift in the geography of knowledge production is certainly noteworthy, but as with the international study market, the United States simply represents a proportionally smaller piece of a greatly expanded pie. R&D spending worldwide massively surged in the last decade, from $790 billion to $1.1 trillion, up 45 percent. And the declining U.S. share of global research spending still represented a healthy increase in constant dollars, from $277 billion in 2002 to $373 billion in 2007. U.S. research spending as a percentage of GDP over the same period was consistent and very high by global standards. The country's R&D investments still totaled more than all Asian countries' combined.

Similarly, a declining U.S. share of the world's scientific publications may sound bad from an American point of view. But the total number of publications listed in the Thomson Reuters index surged by more than a third from 2002 to 2008. Even with a shrinking global lead, U.S. researchers published 46,000 more scientific articles in 2008 than they did six years earlier. And in any case, research discoveries don't remain within the borders of the countries where they occur -- knowledge is a public good, with little regard for national boundaries. Discoveries in one country's research institutions can be capitalized on by innovators elsewhere. Countries shouldn't be indifferent to the rise in their share of the research -- big breakthroughs can have positive economic and academic spillover effects -- but they also shouldn't fear the increase of cutting-edge discoveries elsewhere.

  

"The World Will Catch Up."

Maybe, but don't count on it anytime soon. And don't count on it mattering. The global academic marketplace is without doubt growing more competitive than ever. Countries from China and South Korea to Saudi Arabia have made an urgent priority of creating world-class universities or restoring the lost luster of once great institutions. And they're putting serious money into it: China is spending billions on expanding enrollment and improving its elite research institutions, while Saudi King Abdullah has funneled $10 billion into the brand-new King Abdullah University of Science and Technology.

But the United States doesn't have just a few elite schools, like most of its ostensible competitors; it has a deep bench of outstanding institutions. A 2008 Rand Corp. report found that nearly two-thirds of the most highly cited articles in science and technology come from the United States, and seven in 10 Nobel Prize winners are employed by American universities. And the United States spends about 2.9 percent of its GDP on postsecondary education, about twice the percentage spent by China, the European Union, and Japan in 2006.

But while the old U.S.-centric order of elite institutions is unlikely to be wholly overturned, it will gradually be shaken up in the coming decades. Asian countries in particular are making significant progress and may well produce some great universities within the next half-century, if not sooner. In China, for instance, institutions such as Tsinghua and Peking universities in Beijing and Fudan and Shanghai Jiao Tong universities in Shanghai could achieve real prominence on the world stage.

But over the long term, exactly where countries sit in the university hierarchy will be less and less relevant, as Americans' understanding of who is "us" and who is "them" gradually changes. Already, a historically unprecedented level of student and faculty mobility has become a defining characteristic of global higher education. Cross-border scientific collaboration, as measured by the volume of publications by co-authors from different countries, has more than doubled in two decades. Countries like Singapore and Saudi Arabia are jump-starting a culture of academic excellence at their universities by forging partnerships with elite Western institutions such as Duke, MIT, Stanford, and Yale.

The notion of just how much a university really has to be connected to a particular location is being rethought, too. Western universities, from Texas A&M to the Sorbonne, have garnered much attention by creating, admittedly with mixed results, some 160 branch campuses in Asia and the Middle East, many launched in the last decade. New York University recently went one step further by opening a full-fledged liberal arts campus in Abu Dhabi, part of what NYU President John Sexton envisions as a "global network university." One day, as University of Warwick Vice Chancellor Nigel Thrift suggests, we may see outright mergers between institutions -- and perhaps ultimately the university equivalent of multinational corporations.

In this coming era of globalized education, there is little place for the Sputnik alarms of the Cold War, the Shanghai panic of today, and the inevitable sequels lurking on the horizon. The international education race worth winning is the one to develop the intellectual capacity the United States and everyone else needs to meet the formidable challenges of the 21st century -- and who gets there first won't matter as much as we once feared.

Ben Wildavsky, a senior fellow in research and policy at the Kauffman Foundation, is author of The Great Brain Race: How Global Universities Are Reshaping the World.

Radio Shack Gun Giveaway

Montana Store Offers Free Firearm With Dish Network Purchase 

First Posted: 03/27/11 12:19 AM

The Radio Shack store in Hamilton, Montana knows how to get customers' attention.

Since October, the franchise has been offering free guns to anyone who purchases Dish Network. And the promotion has been wildly successful--proprietor Steve Strand says business has tripled since its inception.

"I think it really, really fits the Bitterroot Valley," he told Montana's Ravalli Republic.

Before claiming their firearm, customers much undergo a background check. They are then given a gift certificate to Frontier Guns & Ammo, a nearby gun supply store. Those who don't qualify or prefer to opt-out of the giveaway receive a $50 coupon to Pizza Hut.

A sign outside the store proclaims, "Protect yourself with the Dish Network. Sign up now, get a free gun."

According to Strand, hundreds have come into his shop because of the advertisement, and store manager Fabian Levy told the Republic that people stop by just to take pictures of the sign.

The promotion comes amidst increased scrutiny of America's firearm industry. In the wake of the shooting massacre that rocked Arizona in January, a new poll shows key states support strengthening our country's background-check system for gun purchases. Recently, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg launched a nationwide gun control campaign.

Meanwhile, Strand claims his offer has been nothing less than successful. "We've received a tremendous amount of positive reactions," he told the Republic, noting that only one person has complained in the six months since he launched the campaign.

 

President of Yemen Vows to Stay

By LAURA KASINOF

Published: March 26, 2011

 SANA, Yemen — A day after he said he was ready to yield power to “safe hands,” President Ali Abdullah Saleh asserted Saturday that his departure was not imminent, leaving unclear when and under what terms he would agree to step down. 

His statement was the latest pivot in back-and-forth negotiations over a transfer of power, even as Mr. Saleh tries to frame the terms under which he would leave.

“A presidential source denied on Saturday what have been reported by some media outlets that President Ali Abdullah Saleh will step down,” said a statement by the official Saba news agency.

This was a reference to reports by several news agencies saying that the president was ready to agree to a transition as early as Saturday. Mr. Saleh said Friday that he would leave if he could hand the reins to safe hands, and not “malicious forces.” But early Sunday the president sounded obstinate in an appearance on Al Arabiya television, saying, “We are not clinging to power,” and adding that he would turn over power “to the people, but not to chaos.”

The shifting and sometimes murky stances of the government and its opponents have become a trademark of the current political crisis. A month ago, Yemen’s opposition coalition, the Joint Meetings Parties, proposed a plan under which Mr. Saleh would leave at the end of this year. The president recently agreed to the proposal.
But protesters have rejected the plan and called for Mr. Saleh’s immediate ouster. And the opposition has recently shifted positions and said that Mr. Saleh must leave immediately, without conditions.

Antigovernment protests continued across the country Saturday. In the southern city of Jaar, known as a Qaeda haven, militants took over all official government buildings, according to local reports.

You Could Be Eating & Drinking Poison Everyday

These articles I have linked and put together present an alarming food & beverage additive that may be poisoning men, women, and children on a daily basis since the FDA approved aspartame in 1981 for dry food products & approved in 1983 for drinking beverages. As you read through all these articles you will find insurmountable evidence that may very well prove you are in fact at risk. But I will let you make that decision.

What is Aspartame?

An artificial sweetener formed from aspartic acid. Chemical formula: C₁₄H₁₈N₂O₅.

What is Aspartic Acid?

An amino acid, one of the 20 building blocks of protein. A amino acid that is not essential to the human diet, aspartic acid was discovered in protein in 1868. It has a role as a neurotransmitter.

Wikipedia states:

Diet Coke was sweetened with aspartame after the sweetener became available in the United States in 1983;[2] to save money, this was originally in a blend with saccharin. After Diet Rite cola advertised its 100 percent use of aspartame, and the manufacturer of NutraSweet (then, G.D. Searle & Company) warned that the NutraSweet trademark would not be made available to a blend of sweeteners, Coca-Cola switched the formula to 100 percent NutraSweet. Diet Coke from fountain dispensers still contains some saccharin to extend shelf life.[3]

In other countries, in which cyclamates are not banned (as they were in the U.S. and the United Kingdom in 1970), Diet Coke or Coca-Cola Light may be sweetened with a blend containing cyclamates, aspartame, and acesulfame potassium.

In 2005, under pressure from retailer Wal-Mart (which was impressed with the popularity of Splenda sweetener), the company released a new formulation called "Diet Coke sweetened with Splenda".[4] Sucralose and acesulfame potassium replace aspartame in this version. Early sales were weaker than anticipated; however, Coca-Cola did little advertising for the brand, investing money and advertising in Coca-Cola Zero instead. By late 2009, some distributors had stopped supplying Diet Coke sweetened with Splenda.

Diet Coke does not use a modified form of the Coca-Cola recipe, but instead an entirely different formula. The controversial New Coke, introduced in 1985, used a version of the Diet Coke recipe that contained high fructose corn syrup and had a slightly different balance of ingredients. In 2004, Coca-Cola introduced Coca-Cola C2, which it claims tastes much closer to Coca-Cola but contains half the carbohydrates. In 2005, the company introduced Coca-Cola Zero, a sugar-free variation of regular Coca-Cola.

When Tab was released in 1963, the Coca-Cola Company refused to release a diet soda with the Coca-Cola name, fearing that its flagship brand might suffer. Its rival Pepsi had no such qualms, and after the long-term success of its sugar-free Diet Pepsi (launched in 1964) became clear, Coca-Cola decided to launch a competing sugar-free brand under the Coca-Cola name, which could be marketed more extensively than the more anonymous Tab.

Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi have capitalized on the markets of people who require low sugar regimens, such as diabetics and people concerned with calorie intake. In the UK, a 330 ml can of Diet Coke contains around 1.3 calories (5 kilojoules) compared to 142 calories (595 kJ) for a regular can of Coca-Cola.

How Rumsfeld Insured
Aspartame's Approval
Under Reagan
From Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum.
bettym19@mindspring.com

11-27-7

From wife of former FDA Commissioner Dr. Jere Goyan who was asked to resign so Rumsfeld could get aspartame on the market after FDA had revoked the petition for approval. Rumsfeld is responsible for the millions of lives lost from this poison.     November 13, 2007   Dr. Betty Martini 9270 River Club Parkway Duluth, GA 30097   Dr. Martini,   Jere E. Goyan, Ph.D., who was Commissioner of the FDA in 1980, was at my condominium in Novato, California when he received the call from the Reagan transition team. My recollection is that is was 3 AM and the woman's name was Mary Francis Wright. Dr. Goyan told me that she told him that his services were no longer needed and that he needed to have his letter of resignation to Mr. Reagan on Inauguration day. He said that he was also told to vacate his office before the Inauguration as that Mr. Reagan wanted to make it clear that there was going to be changes. Mark Novitvh, MD, was appointed acting Commissioner and Dr. Goyan was to stay for a month to help with the transition. He later told me that he was never consulted about anything after Inauguration day.   I have heard from various sources that Rumsfield was quoted as saying that "Goyan must go". I have also heard that the reason that Dr. Goyan became the first Commissioner to be fired at the change of an administration is that Rumsfield was concerned that he would not approve aspartame because of his position on cyclamate. I have heard that there was an executive order from the White House concerning aspartame after Dr, Goyan resigned. I have no direct knowledge about the Rumsfield quote or concern or the executive order.   I married Dr. Goyan in 1988 and he passed away January 2007.   Sincerely,   Linda L. Hart, Pharm, D.   ____ end of letter   Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder Mission Possible International 9270 River Club Parkway Duluth, Georgia 30097 770 242-2599 www.mpwhi.com, www.dorway.com, www.wnho.net Aspartame Toxicity Center, www.holisticmed.com/aspartame http://www.rense.com/general79/aspar.htm

The Man that Prevented Aspartame in Food

Jere E. Goyan, Ph.D.

10/21/1979 - 1/20/1981*
 Jere E. Goyan was the first pharmacist to serve as Commissioner of Food and Drugs. Born in Oakland, California in 1927, he was educated at the University of California-San Francisco and the University of California-Berkeley, where he received his Ph. D. in pharmaceutical chemistry in 1957. From 1956 to 1963 he was on the faculty of the University of Michigan School of Pharmacy, and from 1963 to 1979 he was a faculty member at the University of California-San Francisco School of Pharmacy, where he also was dean since 1967. His principal area of research expertise concerned pharmacokinetics.

Patricia Harris, Secretary of HEW, named Goyan Commissioner of Food and Drugs, a position he served in from October 1979 to January 1981. Highlights during Goyan's tenure at FDA included the emerging link between toxic shock syndrome and the Rely tampon--and the agency's response, an attempt to make patient package inserts compulsory, and an investigation of widespread polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination of livestock and feed.

Goyan returned to his deanship at UCSF after Ronald Reagan was elected president, where he remained until his recent move to an executive position in the pharmaceutical industry. Among many other honors, Goyan received the Remington Medal from the American Pharmaceutical Association, numerous lectureships, and honorary degrees from the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science, the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy, and other institutions.

* Mark Novitch, M.D., deputy commissioner from 1979 to 1985, acted as commissioner on two separate occasions, totaling approximately 13-1/2 months, between the tenures of Jere Goyan, Arthur Hayes, and Frank Young.

http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CommissionersPage/PastCommissioners/ucm113340.htm

The Man That Replaced Dr. Goyan & Approved Aspartame

Arthur Hull Hayes Jr., M.D.

4/13/1981 - 9/11/1983*
 Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., was born in Highland Park, Michigan, in 1933. A Rhodes Scholar, he received an M. D. from Cornell in 1964. Following his internship, residency, and a two-year stint in the army, Hayes began his career in clinical pharmacology at his medical alma mater from 1968 to 1972. He then moved to the faculty of Pennsylvania State College of Medicine.
In April 1981 Richard Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services, appointed Hayes to lead FDA. Under Hayes, FDA dealt with the Tylenol crisis, ushered in the first orphan drugs, and carried out major reorganizations of drugs, biologics, and other areas, among other activities.

Hayes left FDA in September 1983 to become dean and provost of New York Medical College, and in 1986 he shifted to executive positions in the pharmaceutical industry. Among other recognitions, Hayes served on the editorial boards of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Rational Drug Therapy, and the Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, he served as president of both the American Society of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics and the United States Pharmacopoeial Convention, and he received honorary degrees from St. John's University and New York Medical College.

• Mark Novitch, M.D., deputy commissioner from 1979 to 1985, acted as commissioner on two separate occasions, totaling approximately 13-1/2 months, between the tenures of Jere Goyan, Arthur Hayes, and Frank Young.
  

Donald Rumsfeld, G.D. Searle & Company, NutraSweet, and the Reagan Administration

Donald Henry Rumsfeld (born July 9, 1932) is an American politician and businessman who served as the 13th Secretary of Defense from 1975 to 1977, under President Gerald Ford, and as the 21st Secretary of Defense from 2001 to 2006, under President George W. Bush.[1] Combined, he is the second longest-serving defense secretary after Robert McNamara.

Rumsfeld was White House Chief of Staff during part of the Ford Administration and also served in various positions in the Nixon Administration. He was elected to four terms in the United States House of Representatives, and served as the United States Permanent Representative to NATO. He was president of G. D. Searle & Company from 1977–1985, CEO of General Instrument from 1990–1993, and chairman of Gilead Sciences from 1997-2001.

Business

From 1977 to 1985 Rumsfeld served as Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of G. D. Searle & Company, a worldwide pharmaceutical company based in Skokie, Illinois. During his tenure at Searle, Rumsfeld led the company's financial turnaround, thereby earning awards as the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981). In 1985, Searle was sold to Monsanto Company. Rumsfeld is believed to have earned around $12 million from this sale.[27]

Rumsfeld served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of General Instrument Corporation from 1990 to 1993. A leader in broadband transmission, distribution, and access control technologies for cable, satellite and terrestrial broadcasting applications, the company pioneered the development of the first all-digital high-definition television (HDTV) technology. After taking the company public and returning it to profitability, Rumsfeld returned to private business in late 1993.

From January 1997 until being sworn in as the 21st Secretary of Defense in January 2001, Rumsfeld served as Chairman of Gilead Sciences, Inc. Gilead Sciences is the developer of Tamiflu (Oseltamivir), which is used in the treatment of bird flu.[28] As a result, Rumsfeld's holdings in the company grew significantly when avian flu became a subject of popular anxiety during his later term as Secretary of Defense. Following standard practice, Rumsfeld recused himself from any decisions involving Gilead, and he directed the Pentagon's General Counsel to issue instructions outlining what he could and could not be involved in if there were an avian flu pandemic and the Pentagon had to respond.

During his business career, Rumsfeld continued public service in various posts, including:

• Member of the President's General Advisory Committee on Arms Control—Reagan Administration (1982–1986);
• President Reagan's Special Envoy on the Law of the Sea Treaty (1982–1983);
• Senior Advisor to President Reagan's Panel on Strategic Systems (1983–1984);
• Member of the U.S. Joint Advisory Commission on U.S./Japan Relations—Reagan Administration (1983–1984);
• President Reagan's Special Envoy to the Middle East (1983–1984);
• Member of the National Commission on the Public Service (1987–1990);
• Member of the National Economic Commission (1988–1989);
• Member of the Board of Visitors of the National Defense University (1988–1992);
• Chairman Emeritus, Defense Contractor, Carlyle Group (1989–2005);
• Member of the Commission on U.S./Japan Relations (1989–1991);
• Member of the Board of Directors for ABB Ltd. (1990–2001);
• FCC's High Definition Television Advisory Committee (1992–1993);
• Chairman, Commission on the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States (1998–1999);
• Member of the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission (1999–2000);
• Member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR);
• Chairman of the U.S. Commission to Assess National Security Space Management and Organization (2000);
• Honorary Vice-Chancellor of Yale University (2001), honoring Rumsfeld's U.S. foreign policy work.
  

Rumsfeld served as United Way Inter-governmental Affairs Director in Washington, D.C. from 1986 to 1989. He was asked to serve the U.S. State Department as a "foreign policy consultant," a role he held from 1990 to 1993. He served as Chairman of Gilead Sciences, Inc. and the RAND Corporation.



Taken from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld



G.D. Searle & Company or just Searle was a company focusing on life sciences, specifically pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and animal health. It is now part of Pfizer.

History

Searle was founded in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1888. The founder was Gideon Daniel Searle. In 1908, the company was incorporated in Chicago. In 1941, the company established headquarters in Skokie, Illinois. It was acquired by the Monsanto Company in 1985. Pharmacia Corporation was created in April 2000 through the merger of Pharmacia & Upjohn (itself the result of the merger of Pharmacia and Upjohn) with the Monsanto Company and its G.D. Searle unit. The merged company was based in Peapack, New Jersey. Pfizer acquired Pharmacia in 2003 and retired the Searle name.

Robert B. Shapiro acted as general counsel for the firm from 1979 onwards, where he went on develop Searle's aspartame product under the brand name NutraSweet. He became CEO of its NutraSweet subsidiary in 1982.

G.D. Searle & Company's chairman was William L. Searle until 1985. He was a University of Michigan graduate and Naval reservist, and was an officer in the Army Corps in the early 1950s.[1] Directors of G.D. Searle included Andre M. de Staercke, Reuben Richards, and Arthur Wood.

Donald Rumsfeld served as CEO, and then as President, of Searle between 1977 and 1985. During his tenure at Searle, Rumsfeld downsized the number of employees in the company by 60%. The resulting spike in the company's bottom-line financials earned him awards as the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981). In 1985, he played an instrumental role in the acquisition of G.D. Searle & Company by Monsanto.

 

Notable products

The company manufactured prescription drugs and nuclear medicine imaging equipment. Searle is known for its release of Enovid, the first commercial oral contraceptive, in 1960. It is also known for its release of the first bulk laxative, Metamucil, in 1934; Dramamine, for motion sickness; the COX-2 inhibitor Celebrex; Ambien for insomnia; and NutraSweet, an artificial sweetener, in 1965. It was released in 1981 by FDA.
In 1996, the FDA removed all restrictions on the use of aspartame, which enabled its use in heated and baked goods. G.D. Searle's patent on aspartame was extended in 1981 and ultimately expired in December 1992.[2]

This subject matter is taken from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._D._Searle_%26_Company

A side note: After reading this bio on Rumsfeld and company does it seem that there might be a direct conflict of interest here? One might conclude that Rumsfeld jumping in and out of high governmental positions and high positions in pharmaceutical companies might have a direct correlation on drugs obtaining FDA approval. Noting that Reagan immediately replaced the FDA Commissioner Jere E. Goyan who did not approve Aspartame, with Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr. who finally did approve Aspartame as an alternative food sweetener.

The Dangerous Effects of Aspartame
Article courtesy of: Mark Gold, mgold@tiac.net (researcher for more than 20 years on such subjects)

 

Equal, Nutrasweet, Equal Measure, Spoonful, Canderal (E951)

Aspartame was not approved until 1981, in dry foods. For over eight years, the FDA refused to approve it because of the seizures and brain tumors this drug produced in lab animals. The FDA continued to refuse to approve it until President Reagan took office (a friend of Searle) and fired the FDA Commissioner who wouldn’t approve it. Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes was appointed as commissioner. Even then, there was so much opposition to approval, that a Board of Inquiry was set up. The Board said: “Do not approve aspartame.” Dr. Hayes OVERRULED his own Board of Inquiry.

Shortly after Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., approved the use of aspartame in carbonated beverages, he left for a position with G.D. Searle’s Public Relations firm.

Long-term Damage

It [aspartame] appears to cause slow, silent damage in those unfortunate enough to not have immediate reactions and a reason to avoid it. It may take one year, five years, 10 years, or 40 years, but it seems to cause some reversible and some irreversible changes in health over long-term use.

 

Methanol [AKA wood alcohol/poison, 10 percent of aspartame]

Methanol/wood alcohol is a deadly poison. People may recall that methanol was the poison that has caused some “skid row” alcoholics to end up blind or dead. Methanol is gradually released in the small intestine when the methyl group of aspartame encounter the enzyme chymotrypsin.

The absorption of methanol into the body is sped up considerably when free methanol is ingested. Free methanol is created from aspartame when it is heated to above 86 Fahrenheit (30 Centigrade). This would occur when aspartame-containing product is improperly stored or when it is heated (e.g., as part of a “food” product such as Jello). Methanol breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde in the body. Formaldehyde is a deadly neurotoxin. An EPA assessment of methanol states that methanol “is considered a cumulative poison due to the low rate of excretion once it is absorbed. In the body, methanol is oxidized to formaldehyde and formic acid; both of these metabolites are toxic.” The recommend a limit of consumption of 7.8 mg/day. A one-liter (approx. 1 quart) aspartame-sweetened beverage contains about 56 mg of methanol. Heavy users of aspartame-containing products consume as much as 250 mg of methanol daily or 32 times the EPA limit.

The most well known problems from methanol poisoning are vision problems. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen, causes retinal damage, interferes with DNA replication, and causes birth defects. Due to the lack of a couple of key enzymes, humans are many times more sensitive to the toxic effects of methanol than animals. Therefore, tests of aspartame or methanol on animals do not accurately reflect the danger for humans. As pointed out by Dr Woodrow C. Monte, Director of the Food Science and Nutrition Laboratory at Arizona State University, “There are no human or mammalian studies to evaluate the possible mutagenic, teratogenic, or carcinogenic effects of chronic administration of methyl alcohol.”

It has been pointed out that fruit juices and alcoholic beverages contain small amounts of methanol. It is important to remember, that the methanol in natural products never appears alone. In every case, ethanol is present, usually in much higher amounts. Ethanol is an antidote for methanol toxicity in humans. The troops of Desert Storm were “treated” to large amounts of aspartame-sweetened beverages which had been heated to over 86 degrees F. in the Saudi Arabian sun. Many of them returned home with numerous disorders similar to what has been seen in persons who have been chemically poisoned by formaldehyde. The free methanol in the beverages may have been a contributing factor in these illnesses. Other breakdown products of aspartame such as DKP, may also have been a factor.

In a 1993 act that can only be described as “unconscionable,” the FDA approved aspartame as an ingredient in numerous food items that would always be heated to above 86?degrees F (30 Degrees C). Much worse, on 27 June 1996, without public notice, the FDA removed all restrictions from aspartame allowing it to be used in everything, including all heated and baked goods.

The truth about aspartame’s toxicity is far different than what the NutraSweet Company would have you readers believe. In February of 1994, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released the listing of adverse reactions reported to the FDA (DHHS 1994). Aspartame accounted for more than 75% of all adverse reactions reported to the FDA’s Adverse Reaction Monitoring System (ARMS). By the FDA’s own admission fewer then ONE PERCENT of those who have problems with something they consume ever report it to the FDA. This balloons the almost 10,000 complaints they once had to around a million. However, the FDA has a record keeping problem [they never did respond to the certified letter from the webmaster of this site - a major victim!] and they tend to discourage or even misdirect complaints, at least on aspartame. The fact remains, though, that MOST victims don’t have a clue that aspartame may be the cause of their many problems! Many reactions to aspartame were very serious including seizures and death. Those reactions included: abdominal pain, anxiety attacks, arthritis, asthma, asthmatic reactions, bloating, edema (fluid retention), blood sugar control problems (hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia), brain cancer (pre-approval studies in animals), breathing difficulties, burning eyes or throat, burning urination, chest pains, chronic cough, chronic fatigue, confusion, death, depression, diarrhea, dizziness, excessive, thirst or hunger, fatigue, feel unreal, flushing of face, hair loss (baldness), or thinning of hair, headaches/migraines, dizziness, hearing loss, heart palpitations, hives (urticaria), hypertension (high blood pressure), impotency and sexual problems, inability to concentrate, infection susceptibility, insomnia, irritability, itching, joint pains, laryngitis, marked personality changes, memory loss, menstrual problems or changes, muscle spasms, nausea or vomiting, numbness or tingling of extremities, other allergic reactions, panic attacks, phobias, poor memory, rapid heart beat, rashes, seizures and convulsions, slurring of speech, swallowing pain, tachycardia, tremors, tinnitus, vertigo, vision loss, weight gain.

 

Aspartame disease mimics symptoms or worsens the following diseases

fibromyalgia, arthritis, multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson’s disease, lupus, multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS), diabetes and diabetic complications, epilepsy, Alzheimer’s disease, birth defects, chronic fatigue syndrome, lymphoma, lyme disease, attention deficit disorder (ADD), panic disorder, depression and other psychological disorders
Read the Official FDA document of 92 symptoms:

 

How it happens

Methanol, from aspartame, is released in the small intestine when the methyl group of aspartame encounters the enzyme chymotrypsin (Stegink 1984, page 143). Free methanol begins to form in liquid aspartame-containing products at temperatures above 86 degrees F.. also within the human body.
 The methanol is then converted to formaldehyde. The formaldehyde converts to formic acid, ant sting poison. Toxic formic acid is used as an activator to strip epoxy and urethane coatings. Imagine what it does to your tissues!

Phenylalanine and aspartic acid, 90% of aspartame, are amino acids normally used in synthesis of protoplasm when supplied by the foods we eat. But when unaccompanied by other amino acids we use [there are 20], they are neurotoxic.

That is why a warning for Phenylketonurics is found on EQUAL and other aspartame products. Phenylketenurics are 2% of the population with extreme sensitivity to this chemical unless it’s present in food. It gets you too, causing brain disorders and birth defects! Finally, the phenyalanine breaks down into DKP, a brain tumor agent.

In other words: Aspartame converts to dangerous byproducts that have no natural countermeasures. A dieter’s empty stomach accelerates these conversions and amplifies the damage. Components of aspartame go straight to the brain, damage that causes headaches, mental confusion, seizures and faulty balance. Lab rats and other test animals died of brain tumors.

 

Despite the claims of Monsanto and bedfellows:

• *Methanol from alcohol and juices does not get converted to formaldehyde to any significant extent. There is very strong evidence to confirm this fact for alcoholic beverages and fairly strong evidence for juices.
• *Formaldehyde obtained from methanol is very toxic in “very small” doses as seen by recent research.
• *Aspartame causes chronic toxicity reactions/damage due to the methanol to formaldehyde and other break down products despite what is claimed otherwise by the very short, industry-funded experiments using a test substance that is chemically different and absorbed differently than what is available to the general public. “Strangely enough”, almost all independent studies show that aspartame can cause health problems.
• *A common ploy from Monsanto is to claim that aspartame is “safe” yet a few select people may have “allergic” reactions to it. This is typical Monsanto nonsense, of course. Their own research shows that it does not cause “allergic” reactions. It is there way of trying to minimize and hide the huge numbers of toxicity reactions and damage that people are experiencing from the long-term use of aspartame.
  

 

Summary:

Given the following points, it is definitely premature for researchers to discount the role of methanol in aspartame side effects:

• *The amount of methanol ingested from aspartame is unprecedented in human history. Methanol from fruit juice ingestion does not even approach the quantity of methanol ingested from aspartame, especially in persons who ingest one to three liters (or more) of diet beverages every day. Unlike methanol from aspartame, methanol from natural products is probably not absorbed or converted to its toxic metabolites in significant amounts as discussed earlier.
• *Lack of laboratory-detectable changes in plasma formic acid and formaldehyde levels do not preclude damage being caused by these toxic metabolites. Laboratory-detectable changes in formate levels are often not found in short exposures to methanol.
• *Aspartame-containing products often provide little or no nutrients which may protect against chronic methanol poisoning and are often consumed in between meals. Persons who ingest aspartame-containing products are often dieting and more likely to have nutritional deficiencies than persons who take the time to make fresh juices.
• *Persons with certain health conditions or on certain drugs may be much more susceptible to chronic methanol poisoning.
• *Chronic diseases and side effects from slow poisons often build silently over a long period of time. Many chronic diseases which seem to appear suddenly have actually been building in the body over many years.
• *An increasing body of research is showing that many people are highly sensitive to low doses of formaldehyde in the environment. Environmental exposure to formaldehyde and ingestion of methanol (which converts to formaldehyde) from aspartame likely has a cumulative deleterious effect.
• *Formic acid has been shown to slowly accumulate in various parts of the body. Formic acid has been shown to inhibit oxygen metabolism.
• *The are a very large and growing number of persons are experiencing chronic health problems similar to the side effects of chronic methanol poisoning when ingesting aspartame-containing products for a significant length of time. This includes many cases of eye damage similar to the type of eye damage seen in methanol poisoning cases.
  

Toxicity Effects of Aspartame Use Selection of Health Effects from Short-term and/or Long-Term Use Note:

It often takes at least 60 days without any aspartame NutraSweet to see a significant improvement. Check all labels very carefully (including vitamins and pharmaceuticals). Look for the word “aspartame” on the label and avoid it. (Also, it is a good idea to avoid “acesulfame-k” or “sunette.”) Finally, avoid getting nutrition information from junk food industry PR organizations such as IFIC or organizations that accept large sums of money from the junk and chemical food industry such as the American Dietetic Association.
If you are a user of any products with aspartame, and you have physical, visual, mental problems… take the 60-day no aspartame test. If, after two months with no aspartame your symptoms are either gone, or are much less severe, please get involved to get this neurotoxin off the market. Write a letter to the FDA, with a copy to Betty Martini (for proof of how the FDA doesn’t keep proper records). Write your congressmen. Return products containing aspartame to the point of purchase – for a FULL refund. Make a big stink if they WON’T give you a full refund! Tell all your friends and family… and if they stop using aspartame and also “wake up well”… get them involved in the same way.
Aspartame is an “approved sweetener” because of a few greedy and dishonest people who place profits above human life and well-being. With the FDA and our Congress culpable, only an INFORMED and ACTIVE public will affects its reclassification from “food additive” to TOXIC DRUG, and removed from the human food chain.
Link to a printable report form:

 

Addresses:

Commissioner
Food and Drug Administration
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, Maryland 20857
Mrs. Betty Martini
Mission Possible International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
Internet E-mail: bettym19@mindspring.com

 

Links for additional information:

• Mission Possible files: http://www.dorway.com/possible.html
• More in-depth Information: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame
• More articles: http://www.trufax.org/menu/chem.html
• Links for books: Recommended Reading
  

Note from Dave:

Now that you are aware of the 92 FDA recognized symptoms (that required a Freedom Of Information Act request to pry from their reluctant hands) and HOW aspartame does its dirty work, change to my Official Dogma page. On this page Mark Gold has taken the IFIC “Official” aspartame safety myth and shot it full of holes using all of the smoking guns that were used by the FDA to approve this poison as a food additive, along with information they either ignored or discounted. This excellent debunking of the official FDA/Monsanto/Searle/Nutrasweet/ Nutrasweet Kelco/AMA/ADA/IFIC/ chain of lies and half truths includes a long history of this “product’s” sordid trail to the marketplace and the sweet tooth.

 

The Deadly Neurotoxin Nearly EVERYONE Uses Daily

By 1984, three years after its initial approval for use in tabletop sweeteners and dry food, U.S. consumption of aspartame had already reached 6.9 million pounds per year. This number doubled the following year, and continued to climb well into the 90's.

According to statistics published by Forbes Magazine [i] based on Tate & Lyle estimates, aspartame had conquered 55 percent of the artificial sweetener market in 2003. One of the driving factors behind aspartame's market success is the fact that since it is now off patent protection, it's far less expensive than other artificial sweeteners like sucralose (Splenda).




Today, the statistics on the aspartame market are being kept so close to the vest, it has proven to be virtually impossible to find current data on usage, unless you're willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a market analysis reports and I felt there were better uses for the money than to purchase the answer to that question.
However, a 2009 FoodNavigator article[ii]cites the current global market for aspartame as being less than 37.5 million pounds and worth $637 million.

According to aspartame.org [iii], diet soda accounts for 70 percent of the aspartame consumed. A 12 ounce can of diet soda contains 180 mg of aspartame, and aspartame users ingest an average of 200 mg per day.
However, it can be quite difficult to calculate just how much you're really ingesting, especially if you consume several types of aspartame-containing foods and beverages. Dosing can vary wildly from product to product. For example, the amount of aspartame will vary from brand to brand, and from flavour to flavour. Some can contain close to twice the amount of aspartame as others, and some contain a combination of aspartame and other artificial sweeteners.

Interestingly, aspartame consumption now seems to have stalled, and there is some indication it may even be on the decline. Perhaps sufficient numbers of people are finally waking up to the unsavory truth about this chemical sweetener. It is my intention to educate you about the truth of this harmful and toxic ingredient and drive sales down even further. I have no ulterior motives other than to warn you so that you can protect your and your family's health, and I sell no competing products.

The only alternative sweetener I recommend is natural stevia, especially the flavoured ones which avoid many of the aftertaste objections some people have about using stevia. It is interesting to note that the powerful food industry has made it illegal to sell natural stevia as a sweetener. If I recommended to use stevia as a sweetener and sold it, the government would immediately file criminal charges and confiscate our product.

On December 17, 2008, the FDA did grant GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) status to rebaudioside , which is one component of the whole stevia plant, and this specific purified component of stevia may be used as a food additive and sold as an alternative sweetener. Examples of include Truvia and Purevia. The jury is still out, however, on whether consuming this one component of stevia is as safe as consuming extract from the whole plant, as all the synergistic, protective factors have been removed in these refined products.
Thankfully there is a loophole that allows vendors to sell extract of whole stevia as a dietary supplement. Since virtually everyone knows it is a sweetener it doesn't have to say it on the label, so you can still bypass this industry initiated censorship.

Ajinomoto, one of the leading aspartame manufacturers in the world next to NutraSweet, actually rebranded aspartame to AminoSweet [iv] last year, in order to dissociate itself from the negative associations of aspartame.

It also wanted to "remind the industry that aspartame tastes just like sugar, and that it's made from amino acids -- the building blocks of protein that are abundant in our diet," -- as opposed to a concoction of chemicals never before consumed by man, some ingredients of which are more toxic than others. They will probably deceive some consumers with this newer, more sweetly innocent name that does not bear the same controversial past as the word "aspartame." But I sincerely doubt they'll fool anyone even remotely aware of its dangers.

Aspartame can already be found in some 6,000 food products and beverages, and the list is about to get even longer, I'm sure, as Ajinomoto announced a global R&D alliance agreement with Kellogg Company [v] earlier this month.

Researchers Continue to Contest 'the Most Contested' FDA Approval in History

Concerned scientists and researchers fought and were successful in keeping aspartame out of the food supply for over ten years, ever since it was first considered as a potential food additive, and many of those still alive continue to speak out against it today.

If we fail to learn from history we are doomed to repeat the mistake we made. Many readers have long forgotten what the 60-Minutes' correspondent Mike Wallace stated in his 1996 report on aspartame - available to view in this 2009 article - that the approval of aspartame was "the most contested in FDA history." And for good reason.

At the time, independent studies had found it caused brain cancer in lab animals, and the studies submitted by G.D. Searle to the FDA for the approval were quickly suspected of being sloppy at best...
In that 60-Minutes video, former Senator Howard Metzenbaum states:

"According to the FDA themselves, Searle, when making their presentation to the FDA, had willfully misrepresented the facts, and withheld some of the facts that they knew would possibly jeopardize the approval."

Metzenbaum's staff investigated the aspartame approval process. He goes on to explain that:

"FDA officials were so upset they sent the file to the U.S. Attorney's office in Chicago for the purposes of presenting it to the grand jury as to whether or not there should be indictments.

But it wasn't presented. It was delayed."

Samuel Skinner, the U.S. attorney who led the grand jury probe ended up withdrawing from the case when he entered into job discussions with Searle's Chicago law firm, Sidley & Austin - a job he later accepted. Subsequently, the investigation stalled until the statute of limitation ran out, at which point the investigation against Searle was dropped.

For more details on the story of how aspartame made it through the FDA approval process despite warning signs of potential health hazards and alleged scientific fraud, please watch the 60-Minutes report, as Wallace does a nice job of summarizing an otherwise long story.

There are a number of well-written books on the market that detail the twists and turns of this part of history. This Harvard law summary of the legal wrangling [vi] that took place is also a worthwhile read.
Those who claim that aspartame watch-dogs are somehow engaged in conspiracy theories, perhaps do not understand the word "conspiracy," the simplest definition of which is: "a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act." In the case of aspartame, it sure does look as though it was a conspiracy -- by G.D. Searle & Co., to get a tremendously profitable product to market, no matter what the potential cost in terms of human health.

The FDA itself suspected Searle had unlawfully produced "evidence" to support its claims of safety, and FDA officials were sufficiently disturbed by what they received to launch its first-ever criminal investigation. A section in the Harvard Law School summary on the history of aspartame states:

"Another study that engendered severe criticism from the Department of Health Education and Welfare was the 46- week toxicity study performed on the hamster.

Although the data appears to be faulty and incomplete, Searle argues that any falsehood in the study is not material to the appraisal of the safety of aspartame."

How's that for assurance?

"...In addition to criticizing the study as a whole, the Department alleges that Searle violated Title 18, Section 1001 by falsifying data. The report alleges that the testing ran into problems and instead of correcting them, Searle covered the problem up."

FDA toxicologist, M. Jacqueline Verrett, Ph.D., discussed what she knew about some of these concerns in her testimony before Congress on November 3, 1987 (S.hrg;100-567).

Verrett's individual testimony is reprinted here, in which she states:

"From 1957-1977 I was employed as a Biochemist/Toxicologist in what is now designated the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition of the Food and Drug Administration.

... In the early l970's, I examined the animal studies submitted by G. D. Searle and Co. on aspartame prior to the initial approval by FDA in l974... these studies raised numerous questions in a number of areas that needed to be resolved before approval of aspartame for any food additive use.

In 1977 I served as a member of an FDA team... charged with examining three studies... to determine if they were 'authentic'. I wish to emphasize at this point that we were specifically instructed not to be concerned with, or comment upon, the overall validity of the study, this was to be done in a subsequent review carried out at the Bureau level.

It is apparent that that review, on a point by point basis, discarded or ignored the problems and deficiencies outlined in this Team report, and concluded that, even in toto, these problems were insufficient to render the study invalid. It also appears that the serious departures from acceptable toxicological protocols that were noted in the reevaluation of these studies were also discounted."

Verrett goes on to point out a number of the "deficiencies and improper procedures encountered" by her investigative team, which included but were not limited to:
*Animals were not permanently tagged to avoid mix-ups
*Tumors were removed and the animals returned to the study
*Animals were recorded as dead, but subsequent records, after varying periods of time, indicated the same animal was still alive (almost certain evidence of mix-ups)
*Many animal tissues were decomposed before any postmortem examinations were performed

"Almost any single one of these aberrations would suffice to negate a study designed to assess the safety of a food additive," Verrett said, "and most certainly a combination of many such improper practices would, since the results are bound to be compromised.

It is unthinkable that any reputable toxicologist, giving a completely objective evaluation of data resulting from such a study, could conclude anything other than that the study was uninterpretable and worthless,and should be repeated.

This is especially important for an additive such as aspartame, which is equally vital since DKP is a major breakdown product of aspartame in liquid media.

Not only is aspartame being used in the absence of basic toxicity information, but there is also no data to assess the toxicity of the interactions of DKP with the excess phenylalanine generated, with any other metabolite of aspartame, and its interactions with other additives, drugs, or other chemicals which may be present simultaneously in persons exposed to high levels of DKP in presweetened liquids such as diet drinks."

Many critics are using the lack of toxicity data as proof that aspartame is safe, when in fact aspartame appears to have been approved WITHOUT such data - which in my opinion is just another sign of aspartame's inherent LACK of empirical safety record...

Which brings us to a crucial point.

If you do not know this fact, you may never be able to extract the truth, because the 200+ studies that form the basis of aspartame's multiple FDA approvals DO exist. Those studies were published, and are quite easy to find as they're cited by every single conventional health agency and every single aspartame peddler across the world. No one is trying to refute the fact that they exist.
However, they were ALL funded by the aspartame industry.
And guess what happens when you remove corporate interest and influence from the equation...

All Industry-Funded Studies Give Aspartame Clean Bill of Health, While Majority of Independent Research Find Indications of Hazards

A 1996 review of 165 studies [vii] [viii] believed to be relevant to human safety, by Dr. Ralph G. Walton, a professor of Clinical Psychiatry, showed a remarkable discrepancy between study results and their source of funding.

Of the 165 studies, 74 had industry related funding (such as Searle, Nutrasweet®, Ajinomoto, and the International Life Sciences Institute Nutrition Foundation), and 91 were independently funded.

Of those:

*100 percent of the industry funded studies supported aspartame's safety, while

*92 percent of the independently funded studies identified at least one potential health concern

However, Dr. Walton also pointed out that of the seven remaining non-industry funded studies, which supported aspartame's safety, six were done by the FDA, and the seventh was a literature review of mostly industry sponsored research.

Considering the long-standing revolving door between various industries (especially Monsanto, which acquired G.D. Searle in 1985) and the FDA, it's questionable as to whether an FDA study can be considered truly "independent," even though they were counted as independent in Walton's review.

If you give that concern any merit, you'd more or less be looking at 100% of industry related studies claiming aspartame to be safe, and 100% of independent studies flagging some sort of health concern.

If this doesn't make you raise an eyebrow, then no need to read any further. You've slipped comfortably into the all-accepting fold of corporate self-interests, created by massively successful propaganda and public relations efforts, backed by powerful political lobbying.

Only you can decide whether or not you find this discrepancy to be acceptable evidence of rigorous scientific inquiry.

If it makes you question the validity of aspartame's "100% safe" designation, then read on...

Your Brain on Aspartame

In the Sweet Misery video above, Dr. Russell Blaylock, a recently retired board-certified neurosurgeon and author of the book Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, says that because aspartame is "a poison that affects protein synthesis; affects how the synapses operate in the brain, and affects DNA, it can affect numerous organs. So you can get many different symptoms that seem unconnected."

However, "when looking at the list of symptoms submitted to the FDA, most of them are neurological," Dr. Blaylock says.

He's referring to a Department of Health and Human Services report that categorizes 10,000 adverse reaction reports logged by the FDA (Department of Health and Human Services Quarterly Report on Adverse Reactions Associated with Aspartame Ingestion, DHHS, Washington, DC, October 1, 1986), published here in a 24-page primer on aspartame by Donald Harkins [ix], the former editor and publisher of the Idaho Observer.

Two years prior to that, a CDC MMWR dated November 2, 1984 [x] , discusses several hundred adverse reaction reports received, and at that time, the majority -- 67 percent - of complainants also reported neurological/behavioral symptoms.

Some of the most commonly reported neurological symptoms include:
*Headaches
*Changes in behavior or mood
*"Fuzzy" thinking
*Seizures
*Depression[xi]

A 1987 study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives [xii] states:

"If only 1% of the 100,000,000 Americans thought to consume aspartame ever exceed the sweetener's ADI, and if only 1% of this group happen coincidentally to have an underlying disease that makes their brains vulnerable to the effects of an aspartame-induced rise in brain phenylalanine levels, then the number of people who might manifest adverse brain reactions attributable to aspartame would still be about 10,000, a number on the same order as the number of neutrally related consumer complaints already registered with the FDA and other federal agencies."

[Note: the ADI for aspartame is 50 mg/kg of body weight in the US. ADI in Europe and Canada is 40 mg/kg of body weight. ]

Published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2008 [xiii], a South African study offers further information on the potential workings of aspartame on your brain:

"Phenylalanine plays an important role in neurotransmitter regulation, whereas aspartic acid is also thought to play a role as an excitatory neurotransmitter in the central nervous system.

Glutamate, asparagines and glutamine are formed from their precursor, aspartic acid.

Methanol, which forms 10 % of the broken down product, is converted in your body to formate, which can either be excreted or can give rise to formaldehyde, diketopiperazine (a carcinogen) and a number of other highly toxic derivatives.

Previously, it has been reported that consumption of aspartame could cause neurological and behavioral disturbances in sensitive individuals. Headaches, insomnia and seizures are also some of the neurological effects that have been encountered, and these may be accredited to changes in regional brain concentrations of catecholamines, which include norepinephrine, epinephrine and dopamine.

The aim of this study was to discuss the direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain, and we propose that excessive aspartame ingestion might be involved in the pathogenesis of certain mental disorders (DSM-IV-TR 2000) and also in compromised learning and emotional functioning."

There has been loads of conflicting "science" regarding the metabolism of methanol. The emerging evidence suggests that it may be a toxic poison that is one of the leading contributing factors for MS, and that some of the research is subsidized by the producers of methanol to make it appear less harmful.
I hope to an interview in the near future with an expert to review and clarify these details.

Aspartame and Headaches

The Sweet Misery documentary also includes Dr. H.J. Roberts M.D., a board-certified internist and author of Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic, who does a fine job of explaining, in layman's terms, what aspartame is made of, and how patients have, and can, test their vulnerability to this chemical using cessation and rechallenge. (I will also offer further suggestions on how to do this at the end of this article.)
This type of anecdotal evidence, which critics love to dismiss as silly nonsense, can nonetheless be invaluable to the individual in question, as you can clearly discover whether there's a direct cause and effect on your body from consuming aspartame.

Dr. H.J. Roberts is one of several expert investigators on aspartame and has testified before congress on the topic of aspartame safety.

In a document titled, Professional Opinion of H.J. Roberts, M.D., F.A.C.P., F.C.C.P., Concerning Headaches Caused by the Use of Products Containing Aspartame, he states that:

"People who suffer aspartame-induced headache are likely to encounter denial of this condition by physicians, the FDA and manufacturers.

This situation is largely influenced by "negative scientific studies" sponsored by corporate interests.

I have repeatedly challenged the nature of such studies, especially when the aspartame was administered as capsules or freshly-prepared cool solutions rather than "real world" products, namely soft drinks and other products sold in markets that undergo changes on exposure to high temperature or with storage of more than one or two months."

One study commonly cited by industry to refute the claim that aspartame causes headaches is the 1987 NEJM study [xiv] which concluded that "aspartame is no more likely to produce headache than placebo."
However, this study, again, has financial ties to Monsanto (owner of G.D. Searle), and the aspartame was given in capsule form, for one day...

There are a number of studies that point to concerns related to aspartame's detrimental impact on neurological function.

Under Sources above, you will find a link to a page on my site where I've created a list of studies, sorted by the health concern they pertain to, and headaches is just one of many potential concerns. That page is evolving, and I will continue to add to it as I find more relevant studies.

In my follow-up article, I will foray into a couple of the other health problems associated with aspartame.

Taking the Precautionary Principle into Account

Any good scientist, and any skeptic worth their own weight, would follow the evidence to its logical conclusion, no matter where it leads. Unfortunately, we have overwhelming evidence showing that it's nearly impossible to be impartial when your paycheck is on the line. Any corporation that pays you to investigate their product wants you to produce favorable results, and we know that powerful corporations can make these desires well understood by those who work for them.

Likewise, any good doctor or health professional would adhere to the Hippocratic Oath that says, "First, do no harm." Yet here we have a chemical sweetener being added to some 6,000 food products, which, due to its sheer prevalence and fervent backing by the conventional medical industry and health agencies, has the potential to harm a vulnerable section of the population.

You're told it is perfectly safe. (Unless you have a genetic disease called phenylketonuria (PKU), which prevents you from digesting the amino acid phenylalanine. An estimated 1 out of every 15,000 people are born with PKU. This is why aspartame containing products bear a warning label stating the product contains phenylalanine.)

But do you know whether or not you have phenylketonuria, or are part of any other "generally vulnerable" group of people?

Wouldn't you want to know if you might be at risk?

And if you knew you were vulnerable to its toxic effects, would you still consume high amounts of aspartame?

If you were not, but you knew that a family member or friend was part of that vulnerable subgroup, would you warn them?

These are simple questions that tend to get completely lost in the pro- versus anti-aspartame debate.

Do you think it's acceptable to willfully sacrifice those who are more vulnerable by issuing no warnings whatsoever? And worse -- pulling the wool over their eyes and saying aspartame has no related health hazards whatsoever, even at very high amounts?
I think not.

Consider the 1986 review of 231 adverse reactions to aspartame [xv], which found "no clear symptom complex that suggests a widespread public health hazard associated with aspartame use." Yet in the following sentence, the researchers admit that:

"...in some case reports... the symptoms may be attributable to aspartame in commonly-consumed amounts.

The systematic application of pre-defined review criteria, such as those described here, to monitor consumer complaints related to food additives will help identify products that warrant more focused clinical studies."

Staunch aspartame promoters pay no attention to that part - the part that states a certain number of individuals may indeed suffer health consequences, even from commonly-consumed amounts.
They also pay no attention to the fact that this review occurred a mere three years after the US became saturated with aspartame-containing beverages. Today we have thousands upon thousands of adverse reaction reports, anecdotal reports, and physician's case histories...
These people are indeed being sacrificed, without remorse whatsoever, by those hiding behind supremely biased, profit-driven, industry-funded research.

The conventional medical establishment and our health agencies are frightfully resistant to the possibility that aspartame may have anything to do with health problems - after all, aspartame is FDA approved and has been "safely used" for years!

I have one word for you - Vioxx.

Just one of a multitude of FDA-approved products that -- lo and behold - killed tens of thousands of people while the establishment reiterated the industry-funded "scientific evidence" that was the basis for its widespread use.

Are Your Health Problems Related to Aspartame Consumption?

You might not realize you're having a reaction to aspartame. In fact, most people don't make the connection, and a tremendous amount of time and money is spent by aspartame "reactors" (people sensitive to the chemical), trying to find out why they are sick.

To determine if you're a reactor, take the following steps:

1. Eliminate all artificial sweeteners from your diet two weeks. (Note: If you typically consume aspartame in caffeinated drinks, you'll want to gradually reduce your intake in order to avoid caffeine withdrawal symptoms.)

2. After two weeks of being artificial sweetener-free, reintroduce aspartame in a significant quantity (about three servings daily) and avoid other artificial sweeteners during this period.

3. Do this for one to three days and notice how you feel, especially as compared to when you were consuming no artificial sweeteners.

4. If you don't notice a difference in how you feel after re-introducing aspartame, it's a safe bet you're able to tolerate aspartame acutely, meaning your body doesn't have an immediate, adverse response. However, this doesn't mean your health won't be damaged in the long run by this chemical and its breakdown products.
I'm not trying to deny anyone the pleasure of life that is generated from consuming sweets. However, to promote aspartame to the population at large, without warning that a certain percentage of people may suffer terribly from its consumption is a reckless, irresponsible ethical breech, and clearly contributes to much unnecessary suffering in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars of profit..
In the end it's up to you to decide what you want to put into your body. Just make it an educated decision.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/aspartame-health-risks_b_668692.html

America's Deadliest Sweetener Betrays Millions, Then Hoodwinks You With Name Change

Aspartame is the most controversial food additive in history, and its approval for use in food was the most contested in FDA history. In the end, the artificial sweetener was approved, not on scientific grounds, but rather because of strong political and financial pressure. After all, aspartame was previously listed by the Pentagon as a biochemical warfare agent!

It's hard to believe such a chemical would be allowed into the food supply, but it was, and it has been wreaking silent havoc with people's health for the past 30 years.
The truth is, it should never have been released onto the market, and allowing it to remain in the food chain is seriously hurting people -- no matter how many times you rebrand it under fancy new names.

The Deceptive Marketing of Aspartame

Sold commercially under names like NutraSweet, Canderel and now AminoSweet, aspartame can be found in more than 6,000 foods, including soft drinks, chewing gum, table-top sweeteners, diet and diabetic foods, breakfast cereals, jams, sweets, vitamins, prescription and over-the-counter drugs.
Aspartame producer Ajinomoto chose to rebrand it under the name AminoSweet, to "remind the industry that aspartame tastes just like sugar, and that it's made from amino acids -- the building blocks of protein that are abundant in our diet."

This is deception at its finest: begin with a shred of truth, and then spin it to fit your own agenda.
In this case, the agenda is to make you believe that aspartame is somehow a harmless, natural sweetener made with two amino acids that are essential for health and present in your diet already.
They want you to believe aspartame delivers all the benefits of sugar and none of its drawbacks. But nothing could be further from the truth.

How Aspartame Wreaks Havoc on Your Health

Did you know there have been more reports to the FDA for aspartame reactions than for all other food additives combined?

In fact, there are over 10,000 official complaints, but by the FDA's own admission, less than 1 percent of those who experience a reaction to a product ever report it. So in all likelihood, the toxic effects of aspartame may have affected roughly a million people already.

While a variety of symptoms have been reported, almost two-thirds of them fall into the neurological and behavioral category consisting mostly of headaches, mood alterations, and hallucinations. The remaining third is mostly gastrointestinal symptoms.
This chart will familiarize you with some of the terrifying side-effects and health problems you could encounter if you consume products containing this chemical.

Unfortunately, aspartame toxicity is not well-known by doctors, despite its frequency. Diagnosis is also hampered by the fact that it mimics several other common health conditions, such as:


How Diet Foods and Drinks CAUSE Weight Problems

In recent years, food manufacturers have increasingly focused on developing low-calorie foods and drinks to help you maintain a healthy weight and avoid obesity. Unfortunately, the science behind these products is so flawed, most of these products can actually lead to increased weight gain!

For example, researchers have discovered that drinking diet soda increases your risk of metabolic syndrome, and may double your risk of obesity -- the complete opposite of the stated intention behind these "zero calorie" drinks.

The sad truth is that diet foods and drinks ruin your body's ability to count calories, and in fact stimulate your appetite, thus boosting your inclination to overindulge.

Unfortunately, most public health agencies and nutritionists in the United States recommend these toxic artificial sweeteners as an acceptable alternative to sugar, which is at best confusing and at worst harming the health of those who take their misguided advice.

Even More Toxic Dangers of Aspartame

Truly, there is enough evidence showing the dangers of consuming artificial sweeteners to fill an entire book -- which is exactly why I wrote Sweet Deception. If you or your loved ones drink diet beverages or eat diet foods, this book will explain how you've been deceived about the truth behind artificial sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose -- for greed, for profits, and at the expense of your health.
As mentioned earlier, almost two-thirds of all documented side effects of aspartame consumption are neurological.

One of the reasons for this side effect, researchers have discovered, is because the phenylalanine in aspartame dissociates from the ester bond. While these amino acids are indeed completely natural and safe, they were never designed to be ingested as isolated amino acids in massive quantities, which in and of itself will cause complications.

Additionally this will also increase dopamine levels in your brain. This can lead to symptoms of depression because it distorts your serotonin/dopamine balance. It can also lead to migraine headaches and brain tumors through a similar mechanism.

The aspartic acid in aspartame is a well-documented excitotoxin. Excitotoxins are usually amino acids, such as glutamate and aspartate. These special amino acids cause particular brain cells to become excessively excited, to the point that they die.

Excitotoxins can also cause a loss of brain synapses and connecting fibers. A review conducted in 2008 by scientists from the University of Pretoria and the University of Limpopo found that consuming a lot of aspartame may inhibit the ability of enzymes in your brain to function normally, and may lead to neurodegeneration.

According to the researchers, consuming a lot of aspartame can disturb:

• The metabolism of amino acids

• Protein structure and metabolism

• The integrity of nucleic acids

• Neuronal function

• Endocrine balances

Furthermore, the ester bond in aspartame breaks down to formaldehyde and methanol, which are also toxic in their own right. So it is not surprising that this popular artificial sweetener has also been found to cause cancer.
One truly compelling case study that shows this all too well was done by a private citizen named Victoria Inness-Brown. She decided to perform her own aspartame experiment on 108 rats over a period of 2 years and 8 months.

Daily, she fed some of the rats the equivalent (for their body weight) of two-thirds the aspartame contained in 8-oz of diet soda. Thirty-seven percent of the females fed aspartame developed tumors, some of massive size.

How to Ditch Artificial Sweeteners, and Satiate Your Sweet Tooth

If you suffer from sweet cravings, it's easy to convince yourself you're doing the right thing by opting for a zero-calorie sweetener like aspartame. Please understand that you will do more harm than good to your body this way.

First, it's important to realize that your body craves sweets when you're not giving it the proper fuel it needs.

Finding out your nutritional type will tell you exactly which foods you need to eat to feel full and satisfied. It may sound hard to believe right now, but once you start eating right for your nutritional type, your sweet cravings will significantly lessen and may even disappear.

Meanwhile, be sure you address the emotional component to your food cravings using a tool such as the Meridian Tapping Technique (MTT). More than any traditional or alternative method I have used or researched, MTT works to overcome food cravings and helps you reach dietary success.
And, if diet soda is the culprit for you, be sure to check out Turbo Tapping, which is an extremely effective and simple tool to get rid of your soda addiction in a short period of time.

Non-Acceptable Alternative Sweeteners

I have written a few articles on fructose earlier this year, and I will be writing many more, so please be aware that I am absolutely convinced that fructose ingestion is at the core of our obesity epidemic.
And I'm not only talking about high fructose corn syrup, which is virtually identical to table sugar. The only major difference between the two is HFCS is much cheaper so it has contributed to massive increase in fructose ingestion, far beyond safe or healthy.

Please understand you need to keep your fructose levels BELOW 25 grams per day. The best way to do that is to avoid these "natural" sweeteners as they are loaded with a much higher percentage of fructose than HFCS.

• Fruit Juice

• Agave

• Honey

Please note that avoiding these beyond 25 grams per day is crucial, even if the source is fresh, raw, and organic. It just doesn't matter, fructose is fructose is fructose ...

Acceptable Alternative Sweeteners

For those times when you just want a taste of something sweet, your healthiest alternative is Stevia. It's a natural plant and, unlike aspartame and other artificial sweeteners that have been cited for dangerous toxicities, it is a safe, natural alternative that's ideal if you're watching your weight, or if you're maintaining your health by avoiding sugar.

It is hundreds of times sweeter than sugar and truly has virtually no calories.

I must tell you that I am biased; I prefer Stevia as my sweetener of choice, and I frequently use it. However, like most choices, especially sweeteners, I recommend using Stevia in moderation, just like sugar. In excess it is still far less likely to cause metabolic problems than sugar or any of the artificial sweeteners.
I want to emphasize, that if you have insulin issues, I suggest that you avoid sweeteners altogether, including Stevia, as they all can decrease your sensitivity to insulin.

Lo han is another sweetener like Stevia. It's an African sweet herb that can also be used, but it's a bit more expensive and harder to find.

So if you struggle with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes or extra weight, then you have insulin sensitivity issues and would benefit from avoiding ALL sweeteners.

But for everyone else, if you are going to sweeten your foods and beverages anyway, I strongly encourage you to consider using regular Stevia or Lo han, and toss out all artificial sweeteners and any products that contain them.

If you have experienced an adverse reaction to any aspartame product, call the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator in your area.

Dr. Joseph Mercola is the founder and director of Mercola.com. Become a fan of Dr. Mercola on Facebook, on Twitter and check out Dr. Mercola's report on sun exposure!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/americas-deadliest-sweete_b_630549.html

Follow Dr. Joseph Mercola on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mercola 

 

Aspartame is it good for You

73

rate or flag this pageTweet this

By christinecook

Aspartame is it really good for you

Today many of our health concerns seem to be caused by conveniences. With the increased use of artificial sweeteners,and sugars which can be harmful to our health.

Sugar actually drains the body of vitamins,minerals and nutrients. How does it do this? Easy our body has to use up these nutrients in order to burn up the sugar for energy. Sugar also adds stress to our pancreas by causing it to produce unneeded digestive enzymes.

Populations studies have linked sugar consumption with diabetes and heart disease.When a body has too much sugar it automatically trys to protect itself and converts it into fat.

Natural sugars though are not your worst enemy. Apparently 75% of adverse reactions,reported to the US Food and Drug Administration, come from the artificial sweetener "aspartame".

Aspartame is marketed as,Nutrasweet,Equal,Spoonful,and Equal-Measure.

This artificial sweetener is made up of toxic chemicals:aspartic acid,phenylalanine and methanol.There is nothing sweet about these chemicals. Aspartame users report headaches,numbness,seizures,joint pain,chronic fatigue,multiple sclerosis and epilesy.

Dr Russell L Baylock,a professor of Neurosurgery at the Medical University of Mississippi wrote a book,Excitotoxins:The Taste That Kills.In his book he explains that aspartame is a neurotransmitter facilitating the transmission of information from on neuron to another neuron. Aspartame allows too much calcium into brain cells,killing certain neurons.

With aspartame in over 9000 products it comes as no surprise that there is a rise in memory loss,Alzheimer and multiple sclerosis.The "Monsanto" company that manufactures asparame is looking for a drug to combat memory loss caused by excitatory amino acid damage most often caused by aspartame.

Now Phenylalanine a by product of aspartame metabolism,is a amino acid normally present in the brain.Most of us have heard of PKU testing done on infants.It is a condition where phenylalanine cannot be metabolized and it can lead to death.It has been shown that excess amounts of phenylalanine in the brain can cause serotonin levels to decrease. Perhaps with the soft drinks and processed foods we consume that use aspartame it could be contributing to the need for drugs like prozac andd zoloft.

Dr Baylock writes that the Massachusetts Institute of technology surveyed 80 people who suffered seizures after ingesting aspartame.The Community Nutrition Institute concluded that these cases met the FDA definition of imminent hazard to public health,but the FDA did nothing to remove the product.

Did you know that both the Air Force magazine,Flying Safety and Navy Physiology,detailed warnings about pilots being more susceptible to seizures after consuming aspartame.The Aspartame Consumer Network,noted that 600 pilots have reported acute reactions to aspartame while in the cockpit!

Methanol a by-product of aspartame results in free methanol when heated above 86 degrees F. If you cook a sugar free pudding that contains aspartame.you are creating free methanol,or wood alcohol. Wood alcohol can lead to blindness and even death. One quart of aspartame sweetened beverage contain about 56mg of methanol. The EPA states that methanol is considered a cumulative poison due to the low rate of excretion once absorbed.

After methanol enters the body it breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde. We all know formaldehyde is a know carcinogenic and can cause birth defects by interfering with DNA replication
There are other alternatives to use as sweeteners.You can use Maple Syrup,grade b is suppose to be the best and most balanced sugar. Stevia is fifteen times sweeter than sugar and can be purchased at health food stores in liquid,or powder or pill shaped form.

What The Other Guys Say;

Aspartame Information Center

http://www.aspartame.org

Products

Aspartame has established itself as an important component in many low-calorie, sugar-free foods and beverages and is primarily responsible for the growth over the last two decades in the sugar-free market. The safety of aspartame has been affirmed by the U.S. FDA 26 times in the past 23 years.
Currently, aspartame is consumed by over 200 million people around the world and is found in more than 6,000 products including carbonated soft drinks, powdered soft drinks, chewing gum, confections, gelatins, dessert mixes, puddings and fillings, frozen desserts, yogurt, tabletop sweeteners, and some pharmaceuticals such as vitamins and sugar-free cough drops. In the United States, all food ingredients, including aspartame, must be listed in the ingredient statement on the food label.

Several tabletop sweeteners containing aspartame as the sweetening ingredient can be used in a wide variety of recipes. However, in some recipes requiring lengthy heating or baking, a loss of sweetness may occur; this is not a safety issue - simply the product may not be as sweet as desired. Therefore, it is best to use tabletop sweeteners with aspartame in specially designed recipes available from the manufacturers of these tabletop sweeteners. Aspartame tabletop sweeteners may also be added to some recipes at the end of heating to maintain sweetness.

The Following Reduced Calorie Products Have Aspartame-Sweetened Choices

• Breath Mints
• Carbonated Soft Drinks
• Cereals
• Chewing Gum
• Flavored Syrups for Coffee
• Flavored Water Products
• Frozen Ice
• Frozen Ice Cream Novelties
• Fruit Spreads
• Gelatin, Sugar Free
• Hard Candies
• Ice cream Toppings
• Ice Creams, No Sugar Added or Sugar Free
• Iced Tea, Powder
• Iced Tea, Ready to Drink
• Instant Cocoa Mix
• Jams & Jellies
• Juice Blends
• Juice Drinks
• Maple Syrups
• Meal Replacements
• Mousse
• No Sugar Added Pies
• Non-Carbonated Diet Soft drinks
• Nutritional Bars
• Powdered Soft Drinks
• Protein Nutritional Drinks
• Pudding
• Soft Candy Chews
• Sugar Free Chocolate Syrup
• Sugar Free Cookies
• Sugar Free Ketchup
• Table Top Sweeteners
• Vegetable Drinks
• Yogurt, Drinkable
• Yogurt, Fat Free
• Yogurt, Sugar Free

 Benefits

 Aspartame is a low-calorie sweetener which is approximately 200 times sweeter than sucrose. The rapid rise in aspartame's popularity can be attributed to the many benefits aspartame provides to calorie-conscious consumers, including:

Aspartame Tastes Like Sugar

Studies conducted with taste-test panels show that many believe aspartame's taste is very similar to the taste of sugar.

Aspartame Enhances and Extends Flavors

Aspartame has the ability to intensify and extend fruit flavors, such as cherry and orange, in foods and beverages. For example, aspartame makes chewing gum taste sweet up to four times longer than sugar-sweetened gum.

Aspartame Does Not Promote Tooth Decay

The American Dental Association has noted it "welcomes the development and FDA approval of new artificial sweeteners that are shown to be safe and non-contributory to tooth decay. . . . Aspartame is an FDA-approved, safe sweetening agent and flavor enhancer that can be substituted for sugar in the diet."

Aspartame is Helpful for Individuals with Diabetes

Aspartame offers people with diabetes greater variety and flexibility in budgeting their total carbohydrate intake and allows them to satisfy their taste for sweets without affecting blood sugar, which helps them to comply with a healthful meal plan. In addition, consuming products with aspartame can result in fewer calories, which helps people with diabetes manage their weight.

Scientific Studies Show Aspartame is Beneficial in Weight Control

With nearly two out of three Americans classified as overweight or obese, taking steps to assure appropriate calorie intake is important for many people. Because products with aspartame are lower in calories than their sugar-sweetened counterparts, using products with aspartame together with regular physical activity can help with weight management. Read Studies...

Aspartame Can Be Part of a Healthful Diet

Aspartame can reduce or replace the sugar and calories in foods and beverages while maintaining great taste. Thus aspartame offers one simple step to help people move closer to achieving a more healthful diet. See how many calories aspartame can save.

More About the Benefits of Aspartame and Low-Calorie Sweeteners

Low-calorie sweeteners provide consumers with many benefits, both psychological and physiological. Health professionals and consumers believe low-calorie sweeteners are effective for the following purposes: weight maintenance, weight reduction, management of diabetes, reduction of dental caries, and reduction in the risks associated with obesity. Read more about the benefits of aspartame and low-calorie sweeteners...

Latest

European Food Safety Authority Reconfirms Safety of Low-Calorie Sweeteners

In February 2011, following a comprehensive review of two recent studies questioning the safety of low-calorie sweeteners, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that these new studies do not give reason to reconsider the previous safety evaluations of aspartame or other low-calorie sweeteners (intense sweeteners) authorized in the European Union. As is the normal practice, EFSA will continue to monitor related scientific developments in this area. Read More.

Q: Traditional holiday foods are bad for your health - myth or fact?

A. Myth: Many holiday favorites are packed with nutrients. For example, sweet potatoes supply potassium and fiber and are loaded with the antioxidant vitamin A, which is important for a healthy immune system. Cranberries are high in vitamin C and may help fight urinary tract infections. Dried fruit and turkey can also be nutritious options. Try preparing foods that are nutritious and satisfying yet low in calories. Reducing the amount of fat and calories in meals can also help prevent weight gain. Create healthier versions of favorite baked goods by using fat-free milk instead of whole milk and applesauce in place of oil. Sweeten your beverage, casserole or dessert with a low-calorie sweetener such as aspartame. To thicken a liquid without adding fat, use one of the following: flour, cornstarch, potato flakes, yogurt or fat-free evaporated milk.

New Research: Sugar Substitutes Help Reduce
Caloric Intake without Overeating or Hunger

A new study published in the August 2010 journal, Appetite, further demonstrates that people who consume low-calorie sweeteners are able to significantly reduce their caloric intake and do not overeat.
Read More

"From Bench to Broadcast Putting Research into Perspective"

Health Professionals Receive CPE credit for this FREE webinar. Read More.

Food Safety Authority of Ireland Releases Aspartame Fact Sheet

"Aspartame (E951) has been used as a sweetener in foods and as a table-top sweetener for more than 20 years in many countries throughout the world. Aspartame is the methyl ester of the dipeptide of two amino acids, phenylalanine and aspartic acid. It is an odourless, white crystalline powder which has a clean, sweet taste. It is referred to as an intense (or artificial) sweetener and is used to replace sugar in a wide range of sugar-free and low-calorie foods."

Full text of Aspartame Fact Sheet ( pdf )

American Dietetic Association's Evidence Analysis Library Review of
Aspartame Complete

The American Dietetic Association (ADA) recently evaluated the low calorie artificial sweetener aspartame and its affects on weight, appetite, desire for sweetness and alleged adverse reactions for its Evidence Analysis Library (EAL).  After the evaluation, the ADA reaffirmed the conclusion of regulatory and scientific authorities around the world that aspartame is not associated with adverse effects for the general population, including hypersensitivity reactions, elevated blood methanol or formate levels, or brain cancers. This conclusion statement was given a “Grade 1,” the highest grade on the EAL scale, signifying there is good evidence supporting the conclusion.  Further, the conclusion statement notes, “In patients with diabetes, aspartame consumption is not associated with elevated plasma phenylalanine and tyrosine levels, fasting glucose control, intolerance to aspartame, opthalmologic effects, heart rhythm or weight.”
Read More

European Food Safety Authority Reconfirms Safety of Aspartame
EFSA Releases Opinion on Ramazzini Study

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has once again confirmed the safety of aspartame.  After a comprehensive review of data, EFSA’s Scientific Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact with Food (AFC) stated, "Overall, the Panel concluded on the basis of all the evidence currently available including the last published ERF [European Ramazzini Foundation] 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."  This statement further confirms EFSA’s 2006 statement regarding an earlier Ramazzini study, which alleged that aspartame consumption may cause cancer.



Facts


Aspartame (L-alpha-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine methyl ester) is a low-calorie sweetener used to sweeten a wide variety of low calorie foods and reduced calorie foods and beverages, including low-calorie tabletop sweeteners. Aspartame is composed of two amino acids, aspartic acid and phenylalanine, as the methyl ester. Amino acids are the building blocks of protein. Aspartic acid and phenylalanine are also found naturally in protein containing foods, including meats, grains and dairy products. Methyl esters are also found naturally in many foods such as fruits and vegetable and their juices. Upon digestion, aspartame breaks down into three components (aspartic acid, phenylalanine and methanol), which are then absorbed into the blood and used in normal body processes. Neither aspartame nor its components accumulates in the body. These components are used in the body in the same ways as when they are derived from common foods.
Further, the amounts of these components from aspartame are small compared to the amounts from other food sources. For example, a serving of no-fat milk provides about 6 times more phenylalanine and 13 times more aspartic acid compared to an equivalent amount of low calorie diet beverage sweetened 100% with aspartame. Likewise, a serving of tomato juice provides about 6 times more methanol compared to an equivalent amount of diet beverage with aspartame.

The Myths

The overwhelming body of scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that aspartame, even in amounts many times what people typically consume, is safe and not associated with adverse aspartame side effects. However, over the years, some consumers have reported symptoms, which they believed were associated with aspartame. The FDA has investigated these allegations and concluded that there is no "reasonable evidence of possible public health harm" and "no consistent or unique patterns of symptoms reported with respect to aspartame that can be causally linked to its use."

[ Read more from The Medical News about "aspartame danger" myths including false claims of aspartame's link to cancer, weight gain, and Alzheimer's disease. ]

In 1984, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reviewed 517 of these anecdotal reports and stated, "the majority of frequently reported symptoms were mild and are symptoms that are common in the general populace" and that “focused” clinical studies would be the best way to evaluate these complaints.
As a result, numerous scientific studies “focused” on the allegations were conducted by expert researchers at major academic institutions. The results of these studies overwhelmingly demonstrated that aspartame is not associated with adverse health effects, including headaches, seizures, changes in mood, cognition, or behavior, or allergic reactions.

Despite the overwhelming documentation of aspartame’s safety, unfounded allegations that aspartame is associated with a myriad of ailments, including multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and lupus, have continued to be spread via the Internet and the media by a few individuals who have no documented scientific or medical expertise. Recently, several governments and expert scientific committees (including the Scientific Committee on Food of the European Commission, the United Kingdom’s Food Standards Agency, the French Food Safety Agency and Health Canada) carefully evaluated the Internet allegations and found them to be false, reconfirming the safety of aspartame. In addition, leading health authorities, such as the Multiple Sclerosis Foundation, The National Multiple Sclerosis Society, The National Parkinson Foundation, Inc., the Alzheimer’s Association, and the Lupus Foundation of America, have reviewed the claims on the Internet and also concluded that they are false.

Experts

More than 100 countries
support use of Aspartame
(click arrow button to play)

The Food and Drug Administration, the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) of the World Health Organization, the Scientific Committee for Food of the European Community and regulatory agencies in more than 100 countries have reviewed aspartame and found it safe for use. The American Medical Association, the American Dietetic Association and the American Diabetes Association also have found aspartame safe.

Aspartame Experts
	Science and Professional Organizations
	Industry Organizations
	Consumer Information Sites
	Regulatory Authorities I have cross referenced a significant MIT lab result that flip flopped. Located in the Science and Professional Organizations. Please do the same.

http://www.wnho.net/before_and_after_aspartame_studies.htm

Conclusion 

So there you have it folks. Both sides of the argument. Even though Donald Rumsfeld had direct political input on the approval of aspartame and the FDA has researched and studied the effects of aspartame and concluded that it does not pose a harmful threat. One can still beg the question or questions. Does it mean aspartame is still good for you because the FDA say's it is? And has the FDA ever approved a chemical compound or pharmaceutical drug that later proved to be harmful to humans and the environment? So for you, the reader, can still make a cognitive decision on whether or not to eat foods or drink beverages with aspartame in them. Eat well & stay well.