There is absolutely NO safe dosage of artificial sweeteners

Pouring-Sugar-SweetenerSome people think that they can get away with using small amounts of harmful substances every once in a while, but a new study suggests that applying this approach to sucralose could give you cancer.

An Italian research study has linked the artificial sweetener Splenda, which contains sucralose, with a higher risk of leukemia and other cancers.

Sucralose is estimated to be as much as 650 times sweeter than table sugar by weight depending on what it is mixed into. It was approved by the FDA in 1998 in a limited number of foods and beverages before gaining blanket approval the following year.

Unlike many other artificial sweeteners, sucralose is soluble in both water and alcohol, which means it can be used in a broad range of foods and drinks. In 2011, sucralose made up 27.9 percent of the global high-potency sweetener market, which was estimated to be worth $1.146 billion.

Study shows possible link between sucralose and cancer

In the Italian study, the researchers divided 457 male and 396 female mice into groups receiving sucralose at 0, 500, 2,000, 8,000 and 16,000 parts per million (ppm) in their feed.

The rates of malignant cancer in the study’s male mice rose with the amount of Splenda they consumed. The male mice that were fed 2,000 ppm and 16,000 ppm of the sweetener also had a much higher rate of leukemia.

The research team from the Ramazzini Institute wrote: “These findings do not support previous data that sucralose is biologically inert.”

The researchers’ findings prompted them to call for an “urgent” follow-up to investigate just how harmful the substance is.

The makers of Splenda, Heartland Food Products Group, have refuted the claim by casting doubt on the study’s reliability. They claim that the researchers gave the mice doses of sucralose that exceed the acceptable daily intake for humans. Nevertheless, some researchers are quick to point out that the dosage is irrelevant.

Dr. Lisa Lefferts of the Center for Science in the Public Interest was quoted by the Daily Mail as saying: “Even if you consume less, that doesn’t mean there’s no problem. When something causes cancer at high doses, it generally causes cancer at lower doses, the risk is just smaller.”

Just the latest in a long list of sucralose side effects

Sucralose consumption also reduces the body’s beneficial bacterial counts, which can play a role in conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn’s disease, allergies and gastric cancer.

A study by the Department of Internal Medicine at the Mercer University School of Medicine in Macon, Georgia, found a link between sucralose and migraines.

Another study, which was published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B in 2013, showed that sucralose can release cancer-causing dioxins in food when it is heated or baked. The study authors wrote: “Cooking with sucralose at high temperatures was reported to generate chloropropanols, a potentially toxic class of compounds. Both human and rodent studies demonstrated that sucralose may alter glucose, insulin, and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) levels.”

Other artificial sweeteners are just as bad. Aspartame, one of the most popular artificial sweeteners in the world, was approved by the FDA more than 30 years ago under dubious circumstances. It can have serious adverse effects on the brain and body. The body converts it into formaldehyde, which can cause cancer.

In addition, a 2013 study in the journal Appetite showed that aspartame is actually even worse than sugar when it comes to promoting weight gain. Another study from the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine determined that the substance can boost appetite and sugar cravings by changing the body’s natural production of hormones.

Food manufacturers will try to spin study results in a way that favors their products, but when it comes to artificial sweeteners, there really is no safe dosage. If you want to learn more about the toxic ingredients and contaminants in the US food supply, and what you can do to avoid them and bolster your health, check out Mike Adams’ new book Food Forensics, in stores July 26, 2016.

Sources include:

Author: Isabelle Z.
Learn more:

Patent Confirms that Aspartame is the Excrement of GM Bacteria

Sugar-AspartameIn 1999, The Independent published an article entitled “World’s top sweetener is made with GM bacteria,” which revealed that Monsanto was knowingly adding aspartame to soft drinks in the United States – and that aspartame is made from GM bacteria. This report, which remains one of the earliest disclosures on aspartame in a mainstream newspaper, received little attention after its publication – possibly because its implications were underestimated at the time – and it has long been forgotten.

Since 1999, the world has become a little more attentive to Monsanto and aspartame, but ignorance still abounds about the latter’s genesis. While more and more people are starting to awaken to aspartame’s destructive effects on our health, do they know how it is actually made? Fortunately, a 1981 patent for aspartame production, once confined to the drawers of patent offices, is now available online for everyone to see – and it confirms everything that Monsanto was happy to tell us in 1999 before their meteoric growth necessitated greater prudence.

The production process

The patent, which is entitled Process for producing aspartame and is credited to Bahl, Rose, and White, summarizes the process as follows:

“The artificial sweetener aspartame, a dipeptide with the formula Asp-Phe-me, is produced using a cloned micrcorganism [sic]. A DNA which codes for a large stable peptide comprised of the repeating amino acid sequence (Asp-Phe)n is inserted into a cloning vehicle which in turn is introduced into a suitable host microorganism. The host microorganism is cultured and the large peptide containing the repeating Asp-Phe sequence is harvested therefrom. The free carboxyl group of the large peptide is benzylated and then hydrolysed to benzyl Asp-Phe dipeptides. This dipeptide is methylated and then debenzylated to formaspartame.”

This scientific jargon obfuscates (perhaps deliberately) a truly disturbing process:

1.) ‘Cloned microorganisms’ (which the patent later reveals to be genetically modified E. coli) are cultivated in tanks whose environments are tailored to help them thrive.

2.) The well-fed E. coli cultures defecate the proteins that contain the aspartic acid-phenylalanine amino acid segment needed to make aspartame.

3.) The proteins containing the Asp-Phe segments are ‘harvested’ (i.e. lab assistants collect the bacteria’s feces).

4.) The feces are then treated. This includes a process of methylation (adding an excess of the toxic alcohol, methanol, to the protected dipeptide).

While common sense dictates that this abomination doesn’t belong anywhere near our bodies, the patent’s authors made no secret about their belief that aspartame constitutes a safe and nutritious sweetener:

“Aspartame is not only sweeter than sucrose, but is preferable as a food to sucrose. While sucrose can provide the body with little more than energy, aspartame is composed of amino acids, the building blocks of body proteins, and like other proteins is broken down by the digestive enzymes in the stomach to its constituent amino acids thus providing nutritive value. […] For these reasons, aspartame holds significant promise in replacing sugar as a sweetener.”

So there we have it: An official document that not only reveals the shocking truth behind aspartame production, but also freely admits that it was intended for mass consumption as a sucrose substitute. Therefore, the next time someone claims that your reservations about this sweetener are unfounded, direct them to this patent – the truth behind aspartame is now in plain view.

Sources for this article include:

Author: Michael Ravensthorpe – Natural News

Yes, aspartame triggers retinal detachment and bleeding

Dear Pat Davies,

I just sent you the Aspartame Resource Guide.  Note that there is a URL for aspartame and blindness.  It will give you a lot of information, and in Dr. Roberts medical text, Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic,  there is an entire chapter on aspartame and the eyes.

Yes, aspartame triggers retinal detachment and bleeding.  In fact, when Dr. Ralph Walton did a study on aspartame some years ago the institution stopped it.  The administrator who took part in the study had a retinal detachment and lost vision in one eye.  Someone else had conjunctival bleeding.  Some said they were being poisoned.  So the study was stopped.

I’m so sorry you weren’t warned in time.  You should complain to Food Standards there but they won’t do anything, but send them a harsh letter just the same.

All my best,
Aspartame Toxicity Center,

More new evidence against Aspartame

Thanks for this.  I thought I would let you know Jim I was in New York and just got back.  I was talking to Shelly, President of the Board of the American Anti-Cancer Institute.  She was telling me about a conversation with a funeral director.  It seems they don’t understand why when embalming they no longer need as much formaldehyde for bodies, and said they are now using 25% less.  The bodies are preserved.  Nothing like getting embalmed before you die.  If you remember, the case in Puerto Rica, where an aspartame victim died and they had to close the casket of what was suppose to be an open casket funeral.  The formaldehyde was oozing out of the skin, from where the methanol had converted to formaldehyde.

This is also in Dr Roberts medical text, Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic,  under pre-embalming.  I really should have left a copy with Dr. Alemany when I was in Barcelona.  He speaks of the funeral directors also not knowing why the bodies have so much formaldehyde.  If you remember in the Trocho Study all the formaldehyde in the tissues.  Every country should repeat the Trocho Study by independent researchers.  However, as you know the government agencies who work with industry ignore all independent research.  On the other hand, the use industry studies which are all fixed.  There is no way to do a study on a chemical poison and have it show safety.  As you recall in original studies they couldn’t get aspartame to show safety so committed fraud and the FDA tried to have them indicted but the two U.S. Prosecutors hired on with the defense team.  The pharmaceutical companies have bottomless checkups and can pay for influence and power.   Mark Gold of the Aspartame Toxicity Center has on his web site,  abuse in research and shows how they fix the studies.

The problem is evidence doesn’t matter.  After 30 years there is so much evidence on aspartame all you have to do is google aspartame and aspartame dangers and get millions of hits.

Abby Cormack who was so ill from aspartame (when I went to New Zealand) made the suggestion about the Trocho Study being repeated and she was absolutely right.  She did a wonderful job getting the information on aspartame dangers in New Zealand.  She and the New Zealand team did so much to expose aspartame in her country saving the lives of thousands.

Almost 100% of independent scientific peer reviewed research shows aspartame to be unsafe.  Even though the last documentary was in Spanish you could see all the independent researchers told the truth and there was the FDA, Dr. Hattan, lying.  He was there when the FDA tried to have G. D. Searle indicted and when the Board of Inquiry revoked the petition for approval.  Their job means more than the lives of the people.  So what it amounts to is Parliament not accepting anything EFSA says if they try again to say aspartame is safe knowing full well its a deadly poison.

I remember when I first got started  over 20 years ago and someone told me to find out more about it from a book.  I tried under aspartame, NutraSweet, Equal, etc and couldn’t find it.  Taking it page by page I finally did.  It was listed where it should have been listed under “Chemical Poison”.  That’s what it is.  Parliament has got to tell EFSA if they try to go along with industry again – no way.  If they do it again EFSA should be dissolved and a new organization that is completely independent should be set up.  A law should be made by Parliament that if they succumb to the power of industry instead of going by science it is a crime.

All my best,
Mission Possible Intl, Founder
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
Aspartame Toxicity Center,

 At 05:36 AM 7/5/2012, Jim McDonald wrote:

For the Attention of:

Mr. Tim Smith
Chief Executive
Food Standards Agency

Dear Mr Smith,

The UK is getting a raw deal from FSA in relation to the current and past reviews of aspartame. From where I am sitting FSA, COT and EFSA are suppressing vitally important information pertaining to the current assessment of aspartame safety for their own ends and totally ignoring any new independent evidence which does not suit their apparent particular objective – Keep aspartame safe.

I am particularly concerned at the shenanigans going on with the Hull Pilot Study which will now be 2 years late in concluding; coincidentally 3 months AFTER  EFSA is due to give its opinion on their review. This is not acceptable, a full review of aspartame which does not include the Pilot Study results and our particular challenges is a farce. FSA have not said a word about how the study is going and are very reluctant to give out any information, I wonder why??

The British Public are relying on honest, open and independent scientific advice from FSA based on full disclosure of the facts. Public money is paying for this study which is more than 200% over the original budget with unexplained delays. What is the scientific justification for the latest injection of £114,000, an additional 25 volunteers and another 12 months on the study time? Will the study be changed in any way? if so in what way and why?

For the last 4 years we have challenged with FSA, the UK ADI of aspartame, as being 35 times too high for safety and for 2 years that the methanol in the NOAEL used to set the ADI would likely kill a human – IE. The ADI is seriously WRONG. Neither the FSA nor EFSA have provided a shred of scientific evidence to disprove our challenges or  shown any counter science to confirm the ADI as it stands. It is not acceptable to just say we (FSA and UKAAC) disagree on the source of and interpretation of the available data it is too important for that; one of us must be right. We have provided detailed data on our submissions from day one FSA must scientifically refute or agree them.

New Evidence: (see attachments)

Prompted by 2 letters from Dr Dianne Benford (FSA) from around June last year, I looked at her claims that the body handles all methanol in the same way, that it is  the amount of methanol released by aspartame that counts and the MSDS is not a suitable source of data for “dietary” methanol – let us put all three of these to bed.

The covering letter above explains what I set out to do and the EU attachment is a spreadsheet containing the figures. In essence, using data from the MSDS :-

A 60kg adult who consumes the FSA daily “safe” limit of 240 mg of methanol each day, in 29 days will have ingested enough methanol equivalent to the acute blinding dose (6840mg – one tablespoon) –  In 86 days they will have ingested methanol equivalent to the acute lethal dose (20580mg – 3 tablespoons)
The ADI of aspartame at 40mg/kg is not safe.

I would be grateful on behalf of the long suffering British population, if you would ensure the above letter and worksheet are included in the EFSA safety review, before it concludes at the end of September.

Yours Sincerely

James McDonald

How is this poison still allowed?

Dr Leonard,

In January of 2011, Woodrow C. Monte, Professor
Emeritus of Nutrition at Arizona State University,
saw a memo that had been kept secret for 30 years.

The memo proves that the FDA knew in 1978 that
lab tests showed birth defects and developmental
brain damage caused by aspartame.

How is this poison still allowed?


– Traci Styner
The Real Food Channel

P.S. Please share Real Food Channel videos
with your friends, family and colleagues.

Like us on Facebook:

Methanol toxicity from aspartame may cause autism, spina bifida, preterm delivery and more

The issue hardly gets as much attention as it deserves, but the extreme toxicity of the artificial sweetener aspartame is wrecking human health on a massive scale. And in a comprehensive study on methanol, the major alcohol component of aspartame, retired food scientist and Professor Emeritus of Food Science and Nutrition atArizona State University(ASU) Dr. Woodrow C. Monte explains how methanol toxicity from aspartame and other sources appears responsible for causing autism, spina bifida, preterm delivery, multiple sclerosis, cancer and many other chronic health conditions.

Not tied to the processed food industry or any other corporate player that might taint or bias his findings, Dr. Monte’s interest in the subject of methanol toxicity comes purely from a genuine concern about protecting human health. And his many years of experience studying food ingredients for use in specialized health care food products has afforded him a wealth of knowledge on this important subject that rarely, if ever, gets publicized by the corporately-funded mainstream media.

Methanol, the chemical trojan horse responsible for many modern diseases

In his study entitledMethanol: A chemical Trojan Horse as the root of the Inscrutable U, Dr. Monte evaluates the role that methanol plays in human health. Since methanol is a relatively new addition to the human diet, thanks to processing methods and chemical syntheses that did not exist prior to 1800s, it is vitally important to determine how this chemical substance affects the human body.

What Dr. Monte discovered is that methanol is converted by the body into formaldehyde, a highly toxic substance known to cause cancer in humans. He also uncovered the fact that methanol metabolizes in organs of the body other than just the liver which, based on all available evidence, is directly responsible for causing what Dr. Monte has termed “diseases of civilization” (DOC).

“Methanol is particularly dangerous to humans, more so than any other animal,” says Dr. Woodrow C. Monte on his “When humans consume low doses of methanol it is metabolized directly into formaldehyde which is a cancer producing agent of the same level of danger as asbestos and plutonium.”

Where Dr. Monte’s research diverts from the mainstream view of methanol’s toxicity has to do with the way dietary methanol is processed by the body. Rather than dissipate as is widely believed, methanol-induced formaldehyde tends to lodge itself into certain areas of the body that avoid filtering through the liver — and these are the same areas of the body where DOCs tend to appear.

“Once methanol runs the gauntlet of first-pass metabolism, its detoxification is no longer exclusive to the liver,” writes Dr. Monte in his study. “Methanol transports its potential to become formaldehyde past normal biological barriers in the brain and elsewhere that environmental formaldehyde itself cannot usually penetrate … [formaldehyde] can then be produced within the arteries and veins, heart, brain, lungs, breast, bone, and skin.”

Aspartame, a primary source of toxic methanol in the American diet

Where is all this toxic, methanol-induced formaldehyde coming from? It turns out aspartame is one of the primary sources in the American diet today. According to Dr. Monte, every molecule of aspartame, which is also marketed under the names NutraSweet, Equal, Canderel, 951, and AminoSweet, converts into a molecule of methanol when consumed. And in its dry form, aspartame is 11 percent methanol by weight.

This means that people who regularly consume “diet” foods and beverages laced with aspartame are taking in high amounts of a formaldehyde-producing, chemical poison that is drastically increasing their risk of developing chronic illnesses.

“As aspartame eventually became a major source of methanol in the civilized human diet, the incidence of DOC gradually began to rise,” says Dr. Monte’s report. “In addition to aspartame, and canned vegetables, fruits, and their juices, a major source of the methanol entering the modern civilized human body is cigarette smoke, causatively linked to atherosclerosis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Alzheimer’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and other DOC.”

“It is my belief that diet soda has contributed to the rise of breast cancer and multiple sclerosis that has been preceded by the use of Aspartame as a food ingredient in every country that has allowed its use.”

You can view Dr. Monte’s complete study on methanol at:

Helpful tips for avoiding methanol

Avoiding all “diet” and “low-fat” food and beverage products that contain aspartame or any other artificial sweetener chemical is an absolute must for keeping toxic methanol out of your diet. Cigarette smoke, canned fruits and vegetables, smoked meats, and overly-ripe fruits and vegetables are also major methanol culprits that you will want to avoid.


Aspartame’s neurological side effects include blurred vision, headaches, seizures and more

Aspartame, an artificial sweetener commercially known as Nutrasweet, Spoonful and Equal, has infiltrated the world market and has become almost as ubiquitous as the sugar it seeks to replace. From soda drinks to chewing gum, it offers a low-fat, low-calorie and no-sugar option enticing to diabetics and people who are trying to lose weight.

Strangely, diet products containing aspartame has been shown to actually cause weight gain, and the components that make up aspartame have also been found to be toxic in themselves. Why then, despite the numerous studies conducted on this substance finding it to have potentially harmful effects, is it still considered safe for human consumption?

Interview with Russell Blaylock

In an interview conducted by Betty Martini and Jon Baum over Personal Achievement Radio, Dr. Russell Blaylock, a respected neurosurgeon and author of the book “Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills,” speaks about excitotoxins and shares his thoughts on why he believes aspartame is dangerous.

According to Dr. Blaylock, excitotoxins are substances that excite brain cells or neurons to the point of exhaustion and death. Normally, these substances act as transmitters, a substance allowing brain cells to relate with one another. However, these compounds are so harmful that the body keeps them in low concentrations. Anything that alters or increases these substances can cause neurodegeneration, degeneration of the spinal cord and the brain. Excitotoxins are normally found in plant substances, and, where most people are concerned, in food additives.

One of the components of NutraSweet or aspartame is aspartic acid, a powerful excitotoxin similar to glutamate. Moreover, phenylalanine, one of its components, an amino acid and a neurotoxin at high levels in the rain, has been known to cause seizures.

Dr. Blaylock goes on to add that what makes aspartame so dangerous is that it contains three neurotoxins: methanol, phenylalanine and aspartic acid. Methanol is a powerful neurotoxin whose exposure is carefully allowed by the EPA in minute levels in food and environmental exposure. Nutrasweet, however, provides levels that are seven times the amount the EPA will allow anyone to use. It’s been known to produce blindness and cellular destruction in the brain and spinal cord, particularly the optic nerves.

Aspartic acid, on the other hand, produces cellular excitation. It
is an excitotoxin that causes cell death in the brain and significantly affects neural developments in
infants, resulting in behavioral changes and even hyperactivity in children. Phenylalanine, like aspartic acid, can also alter brain development during fetal formation and create a lowering of the seizure threshold.

Phenylalanine and aspartic acid are both well-recognized neurotoxins and according to Dr. Blaylock, three neurotoxins in one mix are just unbelievable.

Neurological side effects

Today, aspartame is found in over 6,000 products and consumed by 250 million people world wide. There has been more report for aspartame reactions to the FDA than all other food additives put together. In 1988, 80 percent of complaints to the FDA about food additives were aspartame related. After more than 8,000 complaints on the side effect of NutraSweet, the FDA released a list of 92 side effects associated with aspartame consumption.

This is without taking into account other findings that show what aspartame can cause:

  • Destruction of kidney function– In a study conducted by scientists fromBrigham and Women’s Hospitalin Boston, it was discovered that subjects who drank more than two artificially sweetened beverages daily increased their risk of rapid kidney decline.
  • Headaches/migraines– In a study published in Headache:The Journal of Head and Face Pain, it was discovered that ingestion of aspartame by those who suffer migraines caused a significant increase in headache frequency for some subjects.
  • Increase of hunger and body weight– In an article published in theUT Health Science Center, it was revealed that diet soft drink consumption seemed much more related to the chances of becoming more overweight or obese.
    • Increase of the risk of preterm delivery– In a study funded by theCenter for Fetal Programming, Division of Epidemiology, a connection was discovered between the intake of artificially carbonated drinks and increased risk of preterm delivery.


    • Seizures and Convulsions– As early as 1987, a study was already conducted by Timothy Maher and Richard J. Wurtman who, through their work, discovered that aspartame potentially induces seizures.


  • Cancer– In a remarkably recent study conducted by theRamazzini Institute, it was discovered that in rodents, aspartame was a carcinogenic agent in multiple sites with autopsies that showed a significant risk to lung and liver cancer.


Why is it still legal?

Laws were meant to protect people from harm. Despite this, the FDA has continued to ignore years of research pointing to aspartame’s negative effects and continue to declare that aspartame is safe for use. This artificial sweetener openly sold in the market has caused many recorded health issues and was never tested in humans prior to its approval. We are now the unwitting subjects in a grand experiment whose results have long been foretold by the questionable way this additive came to be approved. It’s about time we stop relying on the government and do our own thinking. Perhaps, if we are not complacent, we can choose not to be victims.


Aspartame danger – urgent warning about tumors and seizures

The laws governing the sale of drugs and food additives require substances be safe for human consumption. The artificial sweetener aspartame primarily consumed in beverages and as a popular sugar substitute has consistently been found to cause tumors and brain seizures in animal subjects. In 2005, aEuropean Cancer Research Center, theRamazzini Foundation, called for an urgent re-examination of aspartame in food and beverages to protect children. This call is made in the face of the US FDA stand that aspartame is safe for human consumption on the ground that “aspartame as a carcinogen is not supported by data.”

Aspartame: A brief history

As early as 1960 aspartame was determined to be a dangerous chemical and the emerging research years later only served to affirm the true nature of this artificial sweetener. Over the years, aspartame has been found to create holes in brain tissue, adversely affect the brain and nerve development in the fetus, cause cancer, migraines, headaches, seizures, convulsions and even retinal damage. With this amount of negative findings, aspartame should have been removed from the market years ago!

Ironically, aspartame was indeed removed from the market after it was already approved for limited use based on tests selected by Searle, the company who originally produced the artificial sweetener. This was after Dr. John Olney, a research psychiatrist fromWashington School of Medicine, revealed that consumption of aspartic acid, a major ingredient in aspartame, produced holes in the brains of animal subjects.

After two task forces that found questionable laboratory practices as well as findings, the FDA ordered a grand jury investigation of aspartame studies, but lawyers for the government failed to initiate a legal action against Searle. Time ran out, and the grand jury investigation had to be terminated. Of interest to note was that one of the lawyers for the government, U.S. attorney William Conlon, later joined the law firm representing Searle.

Unfazed by this setback, the FDA this time recommended a Public Board Inquiry which recommended that aspartame be kept off the market until further tests could prove that it did not cause tumors. This led to a formation of another team of experts brought together to look into the Public Board of Inquiry’s conclusions. This team found itself in a deadlock over aspartame approval, causing the FDA Commissioner not to approve aspartame this time.

In April 1981, Dr. Arthur Hayes was appointed the new Commissioner for the FDA and he later approved aspartame for use in dry goods. In 1983, he also approved aspartame for use in diet drinks, conveniently leaving months later to work for Searle’s advertising agency.

Warning to aspartame consumers

We can only guess and read between the lines what kind of politics it took to get aspartame approved. After more than 8,000 complaints on Nutrasweet side effects, a list of symptoms attributed to aspartame from complaints submitted to the FDA was made public. This list included among others: hallucinations, diarrhea, seizures, depression, migraine, fatigue and insomnia. Aspartame has also been linked to tumors, cancer and infertility.

Except for a brief declaration that carefully controlled clinical studies showed aspartame is not an allergen, the FDA merely issued an advisory that products containing aspartame must include a warning to phenylketonurics, people sensitive to the compound phenylalanine. It still continues to adhere to its stand that “aspartame as a carcinogen is not supported by data.”

Aspartame was never tested on humans before its approval. Now, it is found in 6,000 products and consumed by more than 250 million people, with Americans consuming around half of the world supply. By default, we have now become the test subjects for aspartame’s safety. Unwittingly we are providing evidence to aspartame’s toxicity through the devastating effects it is slowly producing among its consumers. The list of complaints submitted to the FDA as well as from anecdotal reports does not seem to end anytime soon. If the government chooses to turn a blind eye on aspartame, let us at least choose not to be a willing conspirator and suffer the consequences of being a willing victim.


The top 10 worst sources of aspartame

If you think you are making a healthier option because you chose to have diet soda over a regular soda drink, its time to think again. Crafty advertising may have given the term “sugar free” an impression of healthy alternative, but the truth of the matter is that chemical sweeteners are far from healthy.

Despite the dismissive stand of aspartame producers that aspartame is safe for human consumption, various studies over the years have shown that aspartame is actually linked to headaches, migraines, dizziness, tumors and even cancer. The U.S. FDA made public 92 symptoms attributed to aspartame from submitted complaints. Despite its questionable effect, aspartame was approved for use in 1981 and still continues to be so today. Ironically, aspartame was never tested in humans before its approval. Its use in over 6,000 products and by 250 million people has made the public its unwitting guinea pig in a grand experiment 40 years in the making.

Key to health: Low-Sugar, not sugar-free

Stocking up on diet foods is the best way to gain weight. Latest research on aspartame has revealed that it actually increases the risk of weight gain. Being 200 times sweeter than sugar, aspartame appears to be the perfect answer to dieting since it contains only a few calories while still having the sweet taste of sugar. Unfortunately, phenylalanine and aspartic acid, major components of aspartame, trigger the release of insulin and leptins. The latter are hormones that stimulate storage of body fat.

Moreover, large doses of phenylalanine lower serotonin levels and lead to food cravings. Since both real and artificial sweeteners stimulate the taste buds, they affect the same taste and pleasure pathways in the brain. Artificial sweeteners, however, merely activate but do not satiate the pleasure-related region of the brain, proving to be an inferior system in preventing sugar cravings. In theYale Journal of Biology and Medicine, researcher Qing Yang – a faculty at theDepartment of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology– published findings that revealed artificial sweeteners more likely to cause weight gain than weight loss.

This is over and above the fact that aspartame is also highly addictive. The phenylalanine and methanol components increase the dopamine levels in the brain and cause a certain high. This further creates an addiction that is only made worse by the release of methyl alcohol or methanol, which is considered a narcotic. Keeping this in mind, it’s time we reconsider the “health benefits” aspartame is supposed to give.

Products containing aspartame

The following are well-known products that use aspartame:

    • Diet sodas


    • Yogurts


    • Chewing gum


    • Cooking sauces


    • Crisps


    • Tabletop sweeteners


    • Drink powders


    • Flavored water


    • Sugar-free products


  • Cereals

The above mentioned popular products are just a few of many that contain aspartame. Despite the rising reports of aspartame’s toxicity, a re-investigation by the FDA as well as of key regulatory bodies worldwide doesn’t seem to be coming anytime soon. We can only protect ourselves by making a conscious choice to check the label of every product we buy at the grocery store.

If you have complaints regarding aspartame, don’t be shy in making your complaint known. The last thing you want to be is a face in a crowd lining up before a government office that doesn’t have your interest at heart.

Sources for this article:


Neotame the next aspartame? FDA doesn’t require labeling of latest chemical sweetener from Monsanto

(NaturalNews) It could be lurking in the foods you eat every single day, including U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) certified organic foods, and you would never even know it. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declared that one of Monsanto’s latest creations, a synthetic sweetener chemical known as neotame, does not have to be labeled in food products, including even in organic food products.

A modified version of aspartame with even more added toxicity, neotame received quiet and unassuming FDA approval back in 2002, even though no safety studies have ever been conducted on the chemical ( In fact, an investigation conducted by found only four studies relating to neotame in the MEDLINE database.

Two of these “studies” were not studies at all, and the other two were actually one duplicate study conducted by NutraSweet, the company that produces and sells neotame.

So just like with aspartame, the FDA has once again approved for use a dangerous sweetener chemical that metabolizes into formaldehyde when consumed. Except this time, the chemical contains added 3-dimethylbutyl, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has listed as one of the most hazardous known chemicals, and it does not have to be labeled on any of the products to which it is added.

“Neotame has similar structure to aspartame — except that, from it’s structure, appears to be even more toxic than aspartame,” writes on its page about neotame. “Like aspartame, some of the concerns include gradual neurotoxic and immunotoxic damage from the combination of the formaldehyde metabolite (which is toxic at extremely low doses) and the excitotoxic amino acid” (

The FDA, the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), and the World Health Organization (WHO) all consider neotame to be safe for use, despite the fact that WHO actually published a paper seeking to establish acceptable daily intake levels for neotame. If neotame is so safe that it does not even have to be labeled, according to the FDA, then why do acceptable daily intake levels have to be established? And what is the point of establishing them in the first place?

This dog and pony show of special interest regulatory corruption is a travesty that will have global negative health consequences. Like most other toxins added to foods, neotame will most likely cause chronic damage over a long period of time, which means mainstream health authorities will get away with never having to admit that neotame is a dangerous toxin.

Sources for this article include: