mgold at max.tiac.net
Sat Aug 26 15:17:49 EST 1995
>From: grovesa at starbase1.caltech.edu (Andrew K. Groves)
>Subject: Re: bionet.neuroscience.not.aspartame
>Date: Sat, 26 Aug 1995 10:29:34 -0700
>In article <Pine.NEB.3.91.950826042333.12779A-100000 at max.tiac.net>, Mark
>Gold <mgold at max.tiac.net> wrote:
>> In 1992, an independent researcher, Camfield (Neurology;42:1000),
>> showed that children with a history of seizures who ingested a single
>> dose of aspartame had abnormal EEG spike waves.
>So why is this single dose study more valid than the other single dose
>studies that you rubbish?
I believe that the Camfield study had flaws as well. However, it is
the combination of multiple serious flaws that renders the industry
experiments useless. In the case of the studies I reviewed in the
last post, the fact that the subjects were on anti-epileptic medicine
was a particular bad flaw (especially when combined with use of
The Camfield study was very focused -- studying a very specific
population who were not on medication. The study looked at EEG
spike-wave discharge. I am disappointed that the Camfield study did
not use real-world aspartame products (at the FDA ADI level) and did
not last for a reasonable length of time (e.g., at least 6 months).
Even with these problems which would tend to significantly reduce
problems experienced from aspartame, Camfield did find significant
changes in the EEG measurements.
Given the large number of persons who have reported seizures and
convulsions from medium- or long-term aspartame use and the liklihood
of a much larger population of unreported or undiagnosed cases, I
would think that it would be an embarrassment to the scientific
community that some *quality*, truely independent studies have not
been conducted. Having read numerous case histories of people
discovering that aspartame was causing or contributing to their
seizures (including some on the Net -- one where the patient ended up
in a coma before it was finally determined that aspartame was the
cause -- of course problems cleared up eventually after aspartame was
stopped), I'm not about to wait until the scientific community gets
around to conducting some decent long-term tests.
>> I disagree. I believe that the most important key is to distinguish
>> between the industry studies which are almost always flawed to the point
>> of being worthless and the independent studies which usually show
>> adverse reactions caused by aspartame. And whatever you do, watch
>> out for the industry "reviews" which are just one convincing-sounding
>> mis-statement after another.
>Just out of interest, how can one tell whether a study is an 'industry
>study' or not?
Well, it used to be easier. Almost all of the industry studies were
conducted or funded by G.D. Searle or NutraSweet. As I pointed out
in an earlier post, NutraSweet will not even provide aspartame for a
study that has a chance of showing an adverse reaction let alone
actually fund a quality study. A few of the industry studies were
conducted by ILSI which is supported by NutraSweet and other
companies which have an interest in seeing aspartame "proven" "safe"
(e.g., NutraSweet Co., Ajinomoto Co. (Searle's Japanese licensee),
Coca-Cola Co., Pepsico, Inc., Royal Crown Cola Co., Seven-Up, General
Foods, etc) Some of the people who run ILSI have an enormous
conflict-of-interest. One person being one of the aspartame
industry's main researchers. One industry official reportedly
threatened to veto the ILSI funding of a researcher who had pointed
out possible dangers from aspartame.
Of course food industry officials are not total idiots. They know
that there has been quite a bit of criticism of them conducting or
funding studies that have forgone conclusions. I believe that is why
these "independent" organizations such as ILSI and IFIC were formed.
More recently, there have been some research where the
funding was not disclosed or that funding was a government
organization, but many of the same researchers have performed
simililarly flawed research paid for by industry in the past. The
studies presented in the "Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology" (1993; 15:406-407) is a good example.
Other seemingly independent studies had some involvement of NutraSweet.
The studies on pilots fits into this category. Also, the boss of one
of the organizations funding the study left took a job with the G.D.
Searle's law firm while he was involved in investigating G.D. Searle
for what was said to be fradulent aspartame pre-approval tests.
Given the fact that the protocol designs would lead to a significant
reduction in biochemical changes from all of aspartame's breakdown
products, I find it difficult to believe that NutraSweet didn't have
a hand in the design of these protocols. Even if they didn't these
studies were funded by organizations that historically have ignored
problems found caused by aspartame.
A few thoughts on a quality independent study:
1. Start by testing a vulnerable population (e.g., Patients with
2. Use real-world aspartame-containing products, especially diet
sodas (ingested in between meals). This way the subjects will be
getting a significant amount of beta-aspartame, racimized amino
acids, and DKP (linked to brain tumors), and other "good stuff" along
with the methanol, phenylalanine, and aspartic acid. Products
should be purchased from the store and *not* from NutraSweet.
3. The study should last at least 6 months, but one to two years is
much better. The longer tests are better for a less vulnerable
4. Test at the FDA ADI or double that value (to provide a safety
margin). Industry's own experiments show that large amounts of
aspartame can be ingested regularly by both adults and children.
5. Take various, relevant biochemical measurements at the proper time.
Important to use properly sensitive tests (for a change).
Present individual measurements or at least the mean *peak* values.
6. Test for a wide variety of relevant adverse reactions.
7. No game-playing with regular co-administration of other substances
which can reduce the effects of aspartame breakdown products.
8. Investigators should have no link to aspartame manufacturers,
food companies that use significant amounts of aspartame (e.g., soft
drink manufacturers) and organizations that have historically ignored
aspartame reactions. Studies protocol should be reviewed by
researchers who have shown their expertise on the subject (e.g., Dr.
Roberts, Dr. Olney, Dr. Monte, etc.). One of these experts should
participate as an investigator to help monitor the quality of the
9. The funding should come from the NIH.
10. No contact or input should be needed (or desired) from industry
researchers or officials.
mgold at tiac.net
More information about the Neur-sci