|
Ask Gail Davis
A Tale of Two
Sweeteners
Aspartame & Stevia
For more than 20 years, a war has been silently waging in
this country. The battlefield is the billion dollar artificial
sweetener industry. The combatants are the giant agri-chemical
industry and its allied forces, the FDA against a handful of
small private companies and concerned citizens on the other.
The casualties are the 200 million men, women, and children
who regularly consume more than 5,000 food products
artificially sweetened with saccharin, acesulfame k, and
aspartame. They do so because they are diabetic, hypoglycemic,
or just concerned about their weight. They unwittingly become
victims by consuming artificial sweeteners in everything from
chewing gum to soft drinks. Even more disturbing, is the use
of aspartame, perhaps the most toxic of these chemicals in
children’s vitamins like Centrum, Jr., Sunkist Multivitamins,
and Bayer’s Flintstones and Bugs Bunny Chewables. Aspartame is
marketed under the innocuous sounding names Equal and
NutraSweet.
The only warning label which appears on the little blue
packets of Equal and products containing aspartame concerns
phenylketonuria (PKU) a rare disorder which affects about 1 in
15,000 individuals. These individuals lack one of the paired
genes that most people possess at birth which controls the
metabolism of phenylalanine.
But nowhere on the label is there even the slightest hint
that aspartame has caused brain tumors in laboratory animals
(although saccharin does carry this warning), or that
according to National Cancer Institute data, there has been an
alarming increase in the incidence and malignancy of brain
tumors in Americans since the introduction of aspartame into
our food supply in the early 1980's(1).
Nowhere on the label are consumers warned of the thousands
of complaints associated with aspartame that are on file at
the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control. Reports of 92
different serious side effects include headaches, menstrual
irregularities, nausea, dizziness, skin lesions, rashes,
hyperactivity, heart palpitations, gastrointestinal disorders,
blackouts, numbness, memory loss, blindness, seizures, and
suicidal depressions. While reports of these side effects
number only in the thousands, the real number of adverse
effects associated with aspartame use is estimated to be as
high as 700,000. This is because most people don’t associate
symptoms with aspartame, and even if they did, only a small
fraction of patients or doctors actually take the time to
report them.
Meanwhile, an all-natural, non-caloric, non-toxic sweetener
that is safe for use by both diabetics and hypoglycemics is
being kept a secret from the American public. This herbal
substance has been used safely for hundreds of years, is in
almost half of all sweetened foods consumed in Japan, has been
cultivated and studied extensively around the world with no
reports of any ill side effects, and has the ability to
prevent tooth decay, inhibit the growth of certain bacteria,
balance blood sugar levels, heal wounds, and reduce the
craving for sweets!
Why is the FDA keeping the world’s greatest sweetener a
secret from the American public?. Why aren’t diabetic,
hypoglycemic, and weight-conscious individuals allowed to
learn about a truly safe alternative to aspartame and other
artificial sweeteners? Let’s take a closer look.
What is Aspartame?
Researchers at G.D. Searle pharmaceutical company were
looking for an ulcer drug when they accidentally stumbled upon
a white, crystalline powder that was 180 times sweeter than
sugar. This man made synthetic compound consisted of two
isolated amino acids, phenylalanine and aspartic acid
chemically bonded by methanol (wood alcohol.) Searle dubbed
the new compound aspartame and was relentless in gaining
approval for its use as a food additive, despite the dangers.
Phenylalanine breaks down into diketopiperazine, a brain
tumor agent.Ê Rats in original laboratory studies developed
astrocytoma brain tumors.Ê Elevated levels of phenylalanine
also cause changes in brain chemistry which may account for
brain/mood symptoms such as seizures, mania, and severe
depression.(2) Other specific types of reactions which were
published in the Journal of Applied Nutrition in 1988
included: extreme irritability, severe anxiety attacks, marked
personality changes, recent severe insomnia, and severe
aggravation of phobias.(3)
Aspartic acid is a neurotransmitter, one of a class of
chemicals manufactured and used by the brain. It is believed
by some experts that the aspartic acid in aspartame causes
brain lesions by literally exciting brain cells to death.(4)
Aspartic acid has caused brain lesions in experimental
animals.Ê
In nature, methyl alcohol (or methanol) occurs in
combination with ethyl alcohol, its antidote. Only in
aspartame, does methyl alcohol appear alone. Once ingested,
methanol converts to formaldehyde, which not surprisingly,
affects the brain. It is then further converted to formic acid
(ant sting poison) which causes metabolic acidosis. Absorption
of methanol is hastened when aspartame has broken down, as it
does when it is heated, (added to hot beverages or baked
goods) or decomposes during prolonged storage. Methyl alcohol
is specifically toxic to the optic nerve and has been known to
cause blindness.(5)
There are 32 breakdown products from aspartame that we know
of. These include: methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid,
epinephrine, phenylethylamine, phenypyruvate, phenylactic
acid,Êdiketopiperazine, aspartylphenylalanine, beta aspartame,
tyrosine, L-Dopa, dopamine, and norepinephrine.
Approval Over Controversy and Objections
There are very powerful economic forces behind aspartame.
Even before aspartame received its final green light from the
FDA for use in dry foods in 1981 and in beverages in 1983,
scientists objected to its approval. Aspartame was initially
granted FDA approval for use in dry foods in 1974, but was
later blocked by objections raised by attorney James Turner
and John Olney, M.D. Investigators described aspartame safety
studies conducted by G.D. Searle between 1967 and 1975 as
‘shoddy science’ and ‘sloppy tests.’ Ninety out of 113
aspartame safety tests showed discrepancies. FDA scientists
and outside researchers insisted that more rigorous and
reliable testing was needed. Despite these concerns, on July
18, 1981 aspartame was approved for use in dry foods by FDA
Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes who, incredibly overruled his
own Public Board of Inquiry which recommended that approval be
denied. He also ignored the law, Section 409(c)(3) of the Food
Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348), which says that a food
additive should not be approved if tests are inconclusive (6)
Objections to aspartame’s continued use continued. In 1981,
John Olney, professor of psychiatry and neuropathology at
Washington University, St. Louis cited risks involved with the
use of aspartame. Olney, who was instrumental in banning the
use of cyclamates, warned that aspartame had brain damaging
properties. The American Academy of Pediatrics raised concerns
about the effects of phenylalanine on PKU carriers who were
unaware that they had the defect. Astonishingly, even the
National Soft Drink Association had serious doubts about the
safety of aspartame. In 1983, the NSDA filed a 30-page
objection to aspartame’s use in beverages and then,
inexplicably reversed its opposition. Aspartame received
approval for use in soft drinks in 1983 and shortly
thereafter, Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes left the FDA. He
was then hired as a consultant (at the rate of $1,000 per day)
with G.D. Searle's public relations firm, Burston
Marsteller.(7)
Prompted by mounting safety concerns within the scientific
community, Ohio Senator Howard Metzenbaum called for Senate
hearings on NutraSweet. He introduced the Aspartame Safety Act
of 1985 on August 1st of that year. The bill called for
clinical studies to ascertain the safety of aspartame, a
moratorium on the introduction of aspartame into new products
until independent testing was complete, labeling of products
including the amount of aspartame in each serving and the
allowable daily intake, and a warning that aspartame is not
intended for infant use. The bill also required the FDA to set
up a clinical adverse reaction committee to collect reports of
adverse effects and to send written notices to physicians
about aspartame. In a March 3, 1986 news release, the Senator
stated ‘we cannot use American’s children as guineas pigs to
determine the Ôsafe’ level of NutraSweet consumption.’ Sadly,
the bill that potentially could have stopped an ongoing
tragedy, was killed in the Labor and Human Resources
Committee, and never reached the Senate floor.
After suffering a $28 million dollar loss in the previous
year, G.D. Searle sold out to the chemical company, Monsanto
in 1985.(8) Monsanto then created the NutraSweet Company as a
subsidiary, separate from G.D. Searle. Over the next decade,
aspartame consumption soared and reports of ill side effects
increased.
In June of 1996, FDA Commissioner Dr. David Kessler lifting
all restrictions on the use of aspartame and granted it
blanket approval, despite the fact that this neurotoxin
(mislabeled as a food additive) is in reality, a dangerous
drug that changes brain chemistry and interacts with other
drugs. He did so without public notification. He also ignored
a request by Senator Metzenbaum (then retired) to initiate
additional safety testing. Aspartame could now be used as
freely as sugar.
Stevia: America’s Prohibited Sweetener
Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni is a perennial shrub native to
the Amambay Mountain region of Paraguay. It has been enjoyed
by the Guarani Indians for hundreds of years, who use it
primarily to sweeten their herbal mat tea . By the 1800's
daily consumption of stevia had spread to South American
settlers in Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil. In 1899, Stevia
was ‘rediscovered’ by Italian botanist, Moises Santiago
Bertoni. This set the stage for the cultivation of stevia,
which until that time had only grown in the wild in its native
Paraguay.
The first stevia crop was harvested in 1908. Soon
plantations began flourishing throughout South America and
abroad. Stevia was first brought to the attention of the US
Government in 1918 by a US Botanist. In 1921 American Trade
Commissioner George S. Brady, aware of stevia’s great
commercial possibilities, again brought it to the attention of
the US Government, this time to the USDA. Brady noted that
stevia had a long history of safe use, and was especially
ideal for use as a sweetener by diabetics. This news no doubt,
alarmed US sugar producers, much in the same way that the
sugar industry in Germany had felt threatened when stevia was
introduced there in 1913.
In 1931, the French isolated a pure white crystalline
extract: stevioside. US government researcher Dr. Hewitt G.
Fletcher labeled it ‘the sweetest natural product yet found.’
Curiously, it appears that stevia did not make its emergence
onto the US sweetener scene at this time.
In the late sixties and early seventies, the FDA was busy
setting the stage for approval of aspartame for mass
consumption in the US. But, Japan had already banned or
severely restricted its use, as it had with other unsafe food
additives. By 1970, the Japanese discovered stevia: the ideal
replacement for sugar and its synthetic substitutes.
In the mid-1980's stevia was being used by several US
companies as a flavor enhancer in herbal teas. Suddenly, the
FDA poised itself for an all out assault on stevia and
launched an aggressive campaign to stop its use. Prompted by
an anonymous trade complaint, a series of FDA actions against
companies using stevia included: embargoes, search and
seizures, and ultimately an all out ‘import alert.’ (9) Stevia
was not granted GRAS (Generally recognized as safe) status,
despite it’s long history of safe use and the numerous world
wide scientific studies supporting its safety. Instead, it was
classified as an ‘unsafe food additive’. Celestial Seasonings
and other companies were forced to stop using stevia.
While stevia was being grown and enjoyed in such countries
as China, Japan, Brazil, Israel, Malaysia, and even Germany,
it disappeared completely from the US marketplace until 1994.
Despite the FDA’s opposition, passage of the Dietary
Supplement Health & Education Act allowed stevia to
reenter the US market as a food supplement. Companies which
market stevia products are prohibited from making the
slightest implication that stevia has sweetening qualities. To
do so is to risk stevia being relabeled as an unsafe food
additive and to once again be banned entirely from the U.S.
market.
To further protect the interests of Monsanto, and to
continue the poisoning of the American public, the FDA would
ultimately resort to strategies frighteningly reminiscent of
tactics practiced in Nazi Germany. Recently, the FDA placed an
embargo on shipments of stevia to the small Stevita Company of
Arlington, Texas. In a letter to Stevita dated May 19, 1998
the FDA further demanded that Stevita destroy a warehouse full
of ‘cookbooks, literature, and other publications’ and
promised to be on hand to ‘witness the destruction’ of the
offending materials. In a later development, the FDA asked the
Stevita Company to recall the more than 6,500 books already in
distribution to stores, and private individuals for the
purpose of destroying these, as well.
Although the book burning has yet to take place (FDA
officials backed off when local media cameras began rolling)
and the FDA now denies these allegations, the letter to
Stevita is proof that these threats were real. The matter has
not gone unnoticed by the local chapter of the ACLU either.
The FDA’s actions which are in clear violation of the
constitutional right to freedom of the press, should be of
particular concern to all Americans at a time when free speech
is being attacked on several fronts. As evidenced by the
recent Oprah Winfrey trial, passage of food disparagement laws
in 13 states stifle free speech by threatening legal action
against anyone with a disparaging word to say about a U.S.
agricultural product.
Sweet Surrender
While the rest of the world freely enjoys an all-natural,
non-toxic, non-caloric herbal sweetener that is 180-400 times
sweeter than sugar, but without any of sugar’s side effects,
Americans are being kept in the dark. Even though the FDA
acknowledges that it considers stevia ‘a potent sweetener’,
U.S. companies are prohibited from implying that stevia has
any sweetening properties at all.
The benefits of stevia as a sweetener are
unrivaled:
* Stevia actually balances blood sugar levels, and is safe
for use by both diabetics and hypoglycemics.
* Unlike aspartame, there are no reports of adverse effects
from stevia’s use and scientific studies throughout the world
prove out its safety. Stevia has never been shown to cause
brain tumors, seizures, blindness, or any of the other 92
adverse reactions associated with aspartame. * Unlike
aspartame, stevia reduces the craving for sweets, making it
the ideal sweetener for a society desperate to lose weight.
* Unlike sugar, stevia reduces cavities by retarding the
growth of plaque.
* Stevia is used as a digestive aid in Brazil.
* Stevia contains antiseptic properties which have proven
beneficial in speeding the healing process of skin wounds.
* Tests show that stevia’s antimicrobial properties inhibit
the growth of streptococcus and other bacteria. This is
especially noteworthy since some forms of streptococcus have
become antibiotic resistant.
The Fight for a Safe Sweetener
I know that some might question my qualifications or
motivation for telling this story. Very simply, both are
rooted in my own personal experience with aspartame and
stevia. For twelve years, I suffered from chronic migraine
headaches, at least four times a week. I was literally
addicted to Fiorinal, a prescription drug containing
butalbital, caffeine, and aspirin, and the only medication I
found effective at alleviating the often unbearable pain. All
the while, I had attributed these headaches to a whiplash
injury I sustained in an automobile accident around the same
time the headaches began occurring more frequently. Several
months ago as I started reading about the hazards associated
with artificial sweeteners, I decided to quit using all
products containing aspartame. Since that day, I have not had
one single headache. The transformation from chronic pain to
living pain-free has been nothing short of miraculous.
I have also begun to learn about using stevia as a
sweetener. Granted, it takes some getting used to. Stevia is
so very powerful, that you have to learn to use the smallest
amount to achieve a desired sweetness. But the rewards are
more than worthwhile. In addition to not having to deal with
splitting headaches, I have noticed that my craving for sweets
has become significantly diminished. Talk about an easy,
painless way to stop overindulging in goodies. (my weakness!)
And I have found stevia concentrate to be not only delicious,
but an invaluable aid in healing skin abrasions and a
wonderfully nourishing skin mask.
Don’t wait for the FDA to give stevia its blessing. It may
be a long time in coming. I urge you to immediately (if not
sooner) empty your kitchen cupboards of all products
containing aspartame. Throw out your Equal, Crystal Lite, diet
sodas, chewing gum, and don’t forget the toothpaste! You not
only will become liberated, but a whole lot healthier in the
process. And remember these words from Dr. Julian Whitaker:
‘Frankly, I don’t let aspartame into my house--children live
there.’(10)
Notes
1. Dr. Julian Whitaker, A Natural Sweetener That’s Also
Calorie Free, Health & Healing, Vol.
4, No. 12, December, 1994.
2. Ibid
3. Aspartame: Is it Safe? an Interview with H.J. Roberts,
M.D., Mastering Food Allergies #61, 1990.
4. Linda Bonvie, Bill Bonvie, and Donna Gates, The Stevia
Story, B.E.D. Publications, Atlanta, Georgia, 1997.
5. Ibid 1.
6. Steven A. Farber, "Aspartame and the Regulation of Food
Additives: A Study of FDA Decision-Making and a Proposal for
Change," Master of Science in Technology and Public Policy
Thesis at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1989.
7 Gregory Gordon, "NutraSweet: Questions Swirl," UPI
Investigative Report, 10/12/87. Reprinted in US Senate (1987,
page 483-510).
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid 4.
10. Ibid 1. |
