|
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.
|
