PDA

View Full Version : DONALD RUMSFELD AND ASPARTAME


davidh
October 3rd, 2006, 01:20 PM
Since its discovery in 1965, controversy has raged over the health risks associated with the sugar substitute. From laboratory testing of the chemical on rats, researchers have discovered that the drug induces brain tumors. On Sept 30, 1980 the Board of Inquiry of the FDA concurred and denied the petition for approval.

In 1981, the newly appointed FDA Commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes, ignored the negative ruling and approved aspartame for dry goods. As recorded in the Congressional Record of 1985, then CEO of Searle Laboratories Donald Rumsfeld said that he would "call in his markers" to get aspartame approved. Rumsfeld was on President Reagan's transition team and a day after taking office appointed Hayes. No FDA Commissioner in the previous sixteen years had allowed aspartame on the market.

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive15.htm

DH

earler
October 3rd, 2006, 04:29 PM
This question arose in france not long ago. It seems the daily amount of aspartame that caused cancer in rats was more than any human being could consume in a week or a month. Therefore, the french health authorities, as well as the other european ones retain full approval for its use.

-er

Lindsey
October 3rd, 2006, 05:47 PM
It seems the daily amount of aspartame that caused cancer in rats was more than any human being could consume in a week or a month.
That's standard procedure, certainly in the early testing, in order to keep the screening programs within reasonable size and time limits. Yes, it's always possible that the problem is caused by the size of the dose itself; that's the sort of thing you have to determine with subsequent testing. But the results suggest at least a biochemical mechanism by which aspartame can induce cancer, and that further study is in order to determine what implications that has for human consumption.

As a matter of fact, a recent Italian study showed that LOW doses of aspartame causes cancer (leukemia and lymphoma) in rats. But a survey study reported this spring, involving nearly half a million adult humans, does not suggest such a link between aspartame consumption and cancer in humans. That's not the last word, either, but it does at least suggest that while people may want to be careful of their consumption of aspartame, there's no need to panic about it.

--Lindsey

Dodi Schultz
October 6th, 2006, 05:51 PM
As a medical writer, I'm inclined to pay attention to these things, and I wouldn't say that there's been anything like a raging controversy around aspartame since its approval by the FDA 25 years ago.

It's pretty well known that most of the "raging" around five or six years ago was generated by a one-woman crusade against the stuff.

Over the years, aspartame's relative safety has been repeatedly confirmed. The AMA 's Council on Scientific Affairs, for example, reviewed safety issues around the sweetener four years after its approval and concluded that, on the available evidence, "consumption of aspartame is safe except by individuals with homozygous phenylketonuria [a hereditary enzyme-deficiciency disorder]...aspartame is not associated with serious adverse health effects." (JAMA 1985; 254:400-02)

The European Food Safety Authority looked into the question of possible carcinogenity last year and concluded that the allegation was unsupported by any scientific data.

No, I haven't--and never have had--any connection with any drug company, including the one that makes aspartame.

--DS

Lindsey
October 6th, 2006, 06:23 PM
I was mostly answering Earle's implication that the initial study was bogus because of the high dosage of aspartame the rats were given. Such dosages are not at all unusual in carcinogenic and teratogenic studies, and while it doesn't give you the final word on any particular substance, it can help you quickly sort out what merits further testing.

Frankly, I hadn't heard anything about aspartame in quite some time, either, but it appears that there was a study in Italy recently that linked low levels of aspartame consumption in rats (closer to what a human might possibly ingest) with leukemia and lymphoma. I don't believe there is any human study that suggests that whatever is going on with those rats is happening with humans, though, and at least one that suggests the contrary. Doesn't mean the rat studies are necessarily invalid, only that, in the long run, rats are not humans. They may react similarly to a great number of things, but they're not going to react the same way to everything.

--Lindsey

earler
October 7th, 2006, 02:57 AM
I didn't say the italian study was bogus, only flawed, and that it has been discredited. It is not impossible there were good intentions. As dodi points out, aspartame has a clean bill.


-er

Lindsey
October 7th, 2006, 11:05 PM
I didn't say the italian study was bogus, only flawed, and that it has been discredited.
What you said had nothing at all to do with the Italian study, which was of LOW dosage exposure to aspartame. And you did not explain why what you did mention (apparently a study from the 1980s or earlier) was flawed.

--Lindsey

earler
October 8th, 2006, 03:32 AM
Health authorities here in france said it was flawed. Frankly, I forget the details, but that other national health agencies agreed with the french.

-er

Lindsey
October 8th, 2006, 10:35 PM
Health authorities here in france said it was flawed.
Flawed in what way?

--Lindsey

earler
October 9th, 2006, 08:36 AM
I don't remember the details, only that the study was flawed so was discarded as worthless.

-er

Lindsey
October 9th, 2006, 08:56 PM
I don't remember the details
How convenient.

--Lindsey

earler
October 10th, 2006, 03:46 AM
Not convenient, merely normal. Why should I memorize every detail of what I read? The important thing here was the conclusion. It ain't hamlet. I don't rely on cliff notes.

May I ask, why the sarcasm? It is I who might well have more justification. After all, I went out of my way to dine with you and two of your friends here in paris a year or so ago and never received a bread-and-butter letter in return.

-er

-er

Lindsey
October 11th, 2006, 12:20 AM
I do apologize; I was swamped that summer and fall after I got home -- I'm not sure I even got back to the TAPCIS forum at that point except the last few days before it closed up entirely. Not an excuse for a lapse in manners, I know, but it's what was going on with me at the time. The lovely people at the next table who offered us their wine is on of my favorite memories of Paris. In the wake of the Abu Ghraib revelations, I had fully expected we might be spit at on the street. It was touching to have Parisians to say they were glad we had come.

I'm sorry if I took you out of your way; you had contacted me to suggest getting together after a question about film that I posted on the travel forum. But I don't deny that I deserve a public reprimand. It was good of you to have given us an opportunity to see something of the "real Paris," and I am sorry to have offended you.

On the laboratory study: Perhaps it is because I was a science major, but it seems to me that how you arrive at an answer is as important as the answer itself. It's not enough to state that a study was flawed, you need to be able to give some indication of what the flaw was. Otherwise, you are simply arguing by fiat. Which frankly, Earle, is something you do fairly often.

--Lindsey

earler
October 11th, 2006, 04:15 AM
Your gracious apology is accepted with relief. Relief because I had been so deeply shocked and even after several months it was still on my mind. That said, I must apologize for making this a public rebuke rather than to have addressed a private message.

As for the aspartame question, I had read some of the details, but with all I do read, those had exited my mind since they had convinced me, as well as the national health authorities here. I was interested since I suck on losenges that use aspartame as well as plant flavors (brand is ricola in case you have them in the states). These help compensate for the cigarettes I abandoned a year ago. I had smoked for 55 years, 2 to 3 packs a day and I still miss the damned things.

-er