Got cancer yet? Just how bad is aspartame?
Leroy N. Soetoro
leading-u.s.-fake-sweetener
When I wrote about diet soda and and its health effects last week, I
didn't expect much of a reaction. I guess in the back of my mind, I was
thinking, people still drink that stuff?
Well, they do -- by the bucketful. Overall, U.S. soda consumption is
declining slowly, but Americans still drink more soda than than anyone
else on the planet, by a wide margin. According to one reckoning, the
average American drinks 736 "eight-ounce servings" each year (though
"eight-ounce serving" seems like a quaint notion in the age of the Big
Gulp). I can't find good figures on how much of that gusher is diet soda,
but apparently it's a lot. According to AdBrands.net, four of the top 10
leading U.S. soda brands are diet versions of big names like Coke and
Pepsi.
It's no wonder, either. This is an industry with upwards of $70 billion in
annual U.S. sales, and a significant portion of those proceeds get
invested in marketing. As anxiety about the health effects of consuming
huge amounts high-calorie sweeteners ramps up, the industry peddles diet
drinks as the benign alternative. In a culture as fixated on body image as
it is on cheap-and-easy food, the lure of calorie-free cola -- all of the
addictive qualities and caffeine jolt of regular soda, none of the guilt!
-- is powerful indeed. (I didn't even get into the twisted gender/body-
image politics of Pepsi's "skinny can" in my earlier piece.)
So, not surprisingly given the widespread popularity of diet drinks, my
piece got lots of reaction. On Twitter, the high-profile political blogger
Ezra Klein responded, "Sigh. But I like my diet soda! #knowledgeispain."
And hence we come to the topic of this post. In response to Klein's tweet,
Adam Ozimek of the Modeled Behavior blog quickly mounted a vigorous
defense of aspartame, the artificial sweetener of choice for the soda
industry. Ozimek denounced my post as hippie-addled conspiracy mongering.
"Don't you put that soda down, Ezra!" Ozimek thunders. He continues:
You just calmly finish drinking that diet soda and don't concern yourself
for one second. I know you're worried, because you fearfully tweeted
earlier today about this Tom Philpott story at Grist about how diet soda
causes cancer. But the best thing you can do for your health is not listen
to Tom Philpott, because the unnecessary stress caused by worrying about
the aspartame in your diet soda is far more dangerous for you than the
aspartame in your soda.
Right. Ozimek goes on to compare my discussion of aspartame's dodgy ride
through the FDA to "'debating' whether 9/11 was an inside job." Oh, snap!
And then he sets out to debunk two of my central claims: 1) that
aspartame's approval by the FDA in 1981 came under a cloud of industry
political influence; and 2) that a 2006 Italian study implicates aspartame
as a possible carcinogen.
Before I get into the substance of Ozimek's critique, I want to establish
that suggesting that industry influence might affect FDA decisions (or
those of any regulatory agency) does not amount to 9/11 quackery. Indeed,
I'm sad to report, such influence is business as usual -- it's true today,
under our current vigorously pro-business, regulation-shy president, just
as it was in the early 1980s when the aspartame decision went down, under
another pro-business, regulation-shy president, Ronald Reagan.
Last fall, the Union of Concerned Scientists documented the sad state of
regulatory-agency independence. Working with Iowa State University, the
group surveyed more than 1,700 FDA and USDA employees. The findings are
sobering:
More than 620 respondents (38 percent) agreed or strongly agreed that
"public health has been harmed by agency practices that defer to business
interests." Three-hundred-and-thirty respondents (27 percent) said they
had personally experienced "instances where public health has been harmed
by businesses withholding food safety information from agency
investigators" in the past year. And more than 300 respondents (25
percent) said they personally experienced corporate interests forcing
their agency to withdraw or significantly modify a policy or action
designed to protect consumers in the past year. When asked that same
question about Congress and non-governmental interests, more than 260
respondents (24 percent) and more than 240 respondents (22 percent) said
yes, respectively.
Did President Obama usher in new era of regulatory backbone after eight
dark years under Bush? Not really: "Respondents said that interference had
decreased under the Obama administration, compared to the Bush years.
However, the improvement was very small."
Sigh. OK, now that I've shown that I'm not a nut job for daring to
question the independence of the FDA, let's get to particulars.
To discredit my account of aspartame's rocky regulatory path from lab to
your soda can, Ozimek leans on a 1987 General Accounting Office report
[PDF] on the affair. That agency had been called into action by Sen.
Howard Metzenbaum to investigate alleged irregularities in aspartame's
approval. The GAO, as Ozimek points out, concluded that "FDA adequately
followed its food additive approval process in approving aspartame."
Importantly, though, the GAO report doesn't challenge the facts I
presented: that in 1981, a well-connected GOP political man, Donald
Rumsfeld, was CEO of Searle, then the patent-holder on aspartame; that
Arthur Hull Hayes, then FDA director, decided to usher aspartame into the
food supply over the recommendation of an internal scientific panel; that
the aspartame decision was a make-or-break proposition for Searle, which
Rumsfeld soon sold to Monsanto in a lucrative deal; and that Hayes left
the agency soon after to launch a long career as a pharmaceutical industry
executive.
I should have added that, before plunging himself into the bosom of the
very industry that the FDA regulates, Hayes exited the agency under a
cloud of controversy. In a Washington Post piece from 1983 (which is
available for a fee on the WaPo site), Howard Kurtz reports that just
before Hayes' departure, the FDA inspector general found that he had
accepted honoraria for speaking engagements before private groups while
traveling on the FDA dime, as well as "free lodging from industry trade
groups" and "free travel on aircraft owned by Hershey Foods Inc. and
General Foods Corp."
Nor does the GAO report paint a picture of scientific consensus around the
safety of aspartame. "Twelve of the 69 scientists responding to GAO's
questionnaire expressed major concerns about aspartame's safety," the
report states. It adds: "In GAO'S questionnaire, 28 out of 69 scientists
indicated areas where they believed more research is needed on aspartame
to resolve their concerns." And what concerns were those?
The areas most frequently mentioned were neurological functions, brain
tumors, seizures, headaches, and adverse effects on children and pregnant
women.
Here, to me, is the kicker: "Research is ongoing in all of these areas
except for brain tumors." In other words, the key issue of whether daily
doses of aspartame causes tumors was left unresolved in 1987 -- with no
research pending to resolve it.
What the GAO was ultimately ruling on was whether Hayes had the authority
to make the decision on aspartame -- not whether it was the right decision
or not. And if GAO was indulgent regarding the FDA's process around
aspartame, contemporary journalists were more skeptical. In 1985, The New
York Times' Jane Brody reported that two prominent scientists were
publicly charging that the FDA the had "misled the public on aspartame's
safety." And in 1987, UPI reporter Gregory Gordon took a deep dive into
the twisted tale of aspartame's path through the FDA, uncovering numerous
instances of coziness between the agency and Searle.
In a 1996 survey, Ralph G. Walton of Northeastern Ohio Universities
College of Medicine looked at 166 peer-reviewed studies on aspartame
undertaken between 1980 and 1985. He found that all 74 of the studies
funded by the industry found no adverse effects from aspartame, while 84
of the 92 independently funded articles did find bad effects.
So, suggesting that political influence had something to do with
aspartame's FDA approval is hardly tantamount to insisting that, say,
President Bush's minions detonated bombs in the World Trade Center just
after it was struck by airplanes.
What, then, is the current state of science around aspartame? That brings
us to the second part of Ozimek's critique of my post: my citing of a 2006
study by the Italian research outfit the Ramazzini Institute that
implicates aspartame as a possible carcinogen. Ozimek points a 2010
statement by the FDA dismissing the Ramazzini findings as bad science. His
logic goes like this: the FDA rejected the study, therefore it's bad.
That may be true; but it could also be true that the FDA rejected the
findings because it has no appetite for clashing with a huge, well-
connected industry whose products are ubiquitous on supermarket shelves.
As New York Times reporter Melanie Warner put it in a 2006 article on the
controversy:
Putting restrictions on aspartame would come at a significant cost. Food
companies and consumers around the world bought about $570 million worth
of it last year. New regulatory action on aspartame would also jeopardize
the billions of dollars worth of products sold with it.
Whatever its flaws, the Ramazzini work was important, Warner reported,
because it was one of the few aspartame studies since the Searle-funded
studies of the ‘70s that looked at its long-term effects on animals, a
"lengthy and expensive" process. And it was much more comprehensive than
the Searle work. Warner writes:
The Ramazzini study was conducted with 1,900 rats, as opposed to the 280
to 688 rodents used in Searle's studies, and the rats lived for up to
three years instead of being sacrificed after two, which is the human
equivalent of age 53. "Cancer is a disease of the third part of life," Dr.
[Morando] Soffritti [of the Ramazzini Institute] said. "You have 75
percent of cancer diagnoses for people who are 55 years old or older. So
if you truncate the experiments at 110 weeks and the rats are supposed to
survive until 150 to 160 weeks, it means you avoid the development of
cancer at the time when cancer would be starting to arise."
Were the results invalid, as the FDA claims? Maybe, but if so, where are
the long-term, large-scale, independently funded animal studies showing
that aspartame is safe?
As it happens, Ramazzini came out with yet another study last year,
published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Industrial Medicine.
This one, conducted on mice, found that small doses of aspartame taken
throughout the lifecycle from the prenatal stage "induces cancer of the
liver and lungs."
So maybe Ezra Klein should consider putting that diet soda down after all.
In my previous post, I pointed to circumstantial evidence linking diet
soda consumption to heightened stroke risk. Since then, I've found similar
evidence linking it to obesity and metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes.
Compare these to findings regarding the effects of another popular low-
calorie, caffeine-laden beverage -- coffee. In contrast to diet soda,
coffee has been linked to lower mortality; reduced risk of Alzheimer's,
Parkinson's, cancer, and gallstone disease; and better cognitive
performance.
Perhaps in stimulative beverages as well as in overall dietary choices,
we'd all do well to heed Michael Pollan's famous advice: "Eat food, not
too much, mostly plants." Coffee, a plant that people have been consuming
in one form or another at least since the 15th century, qualifies. Diet
soda, which is "artificially blackened water tarted up with synthetic
chemicals" (as I put it last week), doesn't.
--
Obama's black racist USAG appointee.
Eric Holder, racist black United States Attorney General drops voter
intimidation charges against the Black Panthers, "You are about to be
ruled by the black man, cracker!"
Eric Holder, prejudiced black United States Attorney General settles the
hate crime debate, "Whites Not Protected by Hate Crime Laws."
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact, to
former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel of New
York's million dollar tax evasion. On December 3, 2010, Congress voted to
censure Rangel for 11 ethics violations. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
fought removal of Charles B. Rangel from the House Ways and Means
Committee.
Felony President. 18 USC, Sec. 600. Promise of employment or other
benefit for political activity
Obama violated the law by trying to buy Joe Sestak off with a political
appointment in exchange for not pursuing an election bid to replace Arlen
Specter. Obama violated the law by trying to buy former Colorado House
Speaker Andrew Romanoff off last fall to see if he'd be interested in an
administration job -- instead of running against Sen. Michael Bennet.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---