From the April 2006 Idaho Observer:

Aspartame front groups claim federal food survey proves their favorite neurotoxic carcinogen does not cause cancer

We should work for the day when people are able to understand that well-informed corporate-neutral investigators are usually telling the truth and corporate-compromised investigators are usually lying. The former generously donate their expertise to finding the truth to help make the world a better place; the latter will use their position to confuse, obfuscate and lie to create, expand or protect a marketplace.

On April 18, 2006, IO editor Don Harkins spoke with National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute (NIH/NCI) spokesperson Jennifer Thompson. His question to her was whether or not NIH/NCI agreed that the Lim "study" below proves that there is no link between aspartame and cancer. She described NIH/NCI’s position would be that, though it offers an "interesting piece of evidence," the study has not yet been published for peer review and it is "premature" to call the study conclusive.

We are being poisoned by corporately-compromised people. It is hard to say what type of adult is more shameful: Those who knowingly bastardize the scientific method to intentionally poison the people for profit or those who are fooled by bad science and continue poisoning themselves.

By Mission Possible

Desperate to reverse growing public awareness and scientific proof that the artificial sweetener aspartame is a deadly neurotoxin, the Calorie Control Council (CCC) issued a press release stating that a federal food survey proves aspartame is safe. The move is seen by many to be a face-saving gesture by the CCC, a self-described weight-loss advocacy group, that has been advising a calorie-conscious public to use this non-caloric, excito-neurotoxic, carcinogenic drug since the 80s. 

According to the April 4, 2006 CCC press release, "A new epidemiology study from the National Cancer Institute confirms previous study conclusions that there is no link between aspartame consumption and leukemias, lymphomas and brain tumors."

The release also quotes unnamed "researchers" as stating, "Our findings from this epidemiologic study suggest that consumption of aspartame-containing beverages does not raise the risk of hematopoietic or brain malignancies."

The release fails to mention that the quote was taken from a presentation entitled,   "Prospective study of aspartame-containing beverages and risk of hematopoietic and brain cancers," by Unhee Lim, et. al.

Lim’s team analyzed data from a "self-administered baseline food frequency questionnaire" administered during 1995/96 to over 500,000 men and women between the ages of 50 and 69.

Among the 16-page survey’s 56 questions ranging from oatmeal and brownies to strawberries in season and hysterectomies, aspartame is only mentioned once to determine "frequency and ‘diet’ type preference of three potentially aspartame-containing beverages (soda, fruit drinks, and iced tea) as well as aspartame added to coffee and hot tea." 

The "prospective study" was delivered at the annual American Association of Cancer Research meeting in Washington, D.C. April 4, 2006. The abstract explains how Lim and her team of researchers developed mathematical equations to demonstrate that the results of a non-scientific food survey and its five-year follow-up period indicate no scientific association between aspartame consumption and specific cancers. Regardless of the theoretical "suggestions" of Lim’s "prospective study," other aspartame front groups, such as the American Beverage Association and the American Dietetic Association, have endorsed the study as proof that aspartame is safe.  Even the researchers who designed the Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) used on this study acknowledged that results obtained may be scientifically invalid.  "...Furthermore, a single FFQ-based measurement in adulthood may not represent long-term intake without error and may not assess the diet accurately for times when exposure is most critical in determining disease outcome...".

"Once again the Calorie Control Council circulates utter nonsense.  In this case, its report of this alleged ‘aspartame study’ is a bigger fraud than the product itself.  Save yourself and save your health; quit NutraSweet now," Washington D.C. Attorney James Turner said. 

Turner worked with Dr. John Olney to keep NutraSweet off the market from 1974 to 1981 and is intimately familiar with the scandalous nature of the aspartame approval process and the human misery that has been scientifically-linked to its consumption. He is currently the Chairman of "Citizens for Health" and earlier this month petitioned the FDA to ban Splenda.

Slated to replace the increasingly unpopular aspartame, Splenda (sucralose) is a chlorocarbon in the same family of chemicals as DDT and Lindane and is known to cause seizures and migraines.

"Because Splenda liberates chlorine we call it DDT-Lite," commented Mission Possible founder, Dr. Betty Martini, who wants to know, "When is government going to stop approving industry’s attempts to poison the people with toxic artificial sweeteners?"

Betting the farm you think a survey is science

Though the Lim "study" is merely a mathematical hypothesis taken from data accumulated over a decade ago, a blizzard of media articles are now claiming a "new federal study" on 567,000 Americans by the NIH/ NCI and the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) shows aspartame/NutraSweet/Equal doesn’t cause cancer. This scientifically specious claim attempts to contradict the aspartame-specific, 36-month, peer-reviewed Ramazzini Study (2005)  which demonstrated conclusively that aspartame causes lymphomas, leukemias, peripheral nerve tumors, kidney cancer, malignant brain tumors in rats and is a multipotential carcinogen.

This study, one of the most comprehensive and scientifically-sound food additive studies ever conducted, was meant to simulate a lifetime of aspartame ingestion, the equivalent of 50 to 90+ years of aspartame ingestion in humans.  The results indicated that even moderately low levels of aspartame caused these cancers.  The scientists attributed this finding to the significant formaldehyde exposure from aspartame ingestion.

The NCI/NIH/AARP survey asked participants to mark from memory their consumption of certain foods going back 12 months and did not inquire of past ingestion or whether the subjects were using any of the some 6,000 commonly-consumed aspartame-containing products available today.

The CCC’s jumping to Lim’s suggestions also contradict the observations of FDA toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross who, under oath more than two decades ago, told Congress, "In view of all these indications, the cancer-causing potential of aspartame is a matter that had been established way beyond any reasonable doubt. One can ask:  ‘What is the reason for the apparent refusal by FDA to invoke for this food additive the so-called Delaney Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act?’  Is it not clear beyond any shadow of a doubt that aspartame has caused brain tumors or brain cancer in animals?  (Senate S10839 - 10840, 8/1/85). 

The Delaney Amendment states that, if a product causes cancer in animals, it can’t be put in human food.

In corporate conclusion

At the bottom of its April 4 release, the CCC sends a powerful message indicating its allegiance to industry over individuals by stating, "The Calorie Control Council, established in 1966, is an international non-profit association representing the low-calorie and reduced-fat food and beverage industry. Today it represents 60 manufacturers and suppliers of low-calorie, low-fat and light foods and beverages, including the manufacturers and suppliers of more than a dozen different dietary sweeteners, fat replacers and other low-calorie ingredients. (emphasis added)

The CCC release encourages readers to contact CCC spokesperson Beth Hubrich, MS, RD at 404-252-3663.


Corporate neutral comments

Following is a collection of quotes and observations by corporate-neutral people who know scientifically and from personal experience that aspartame—contrary to the opinions of the corporate-compromised—is a dangerous, neurotoxic and carcinogenic drug: 

 "The methodology of the NCI study is so flawed that one can really draw no valid conclusions about aspartame and cancer.  Clearly the questionnaire was not designed to focus primarily on aspartame.  It does not even differentiate between aspartame and other artificial sweeteners, it does not assess aspartame consumption in the many sources other than diet drinks, and looks at any 12 months of sweetener use with ‘up to 5 years of follow-up.’  If one looked at 12 months of cigarette smoking with ‘up to 5 years of follow-up,’ one would conclude that cigarettes also do not cause cancer." ~Dr. Ralph Walton

Ralph G. Walton, M.D., is Medical Director, Safe Harbor Behavioral Health, Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, Northeastern Ohio University’s College of Medicine, Adjunct Professor Of Psychiatry, Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine. Dr. Walton’s study on aspartame: "Adverse Reactions to Aspartame: Double-Blind Challenge in Patients from a Vulnerable Population: His research on Scientific Peer Reviewed Studies and Funding:

"Epidemiology is the study of disease in human populations.   For this to be an aspartame/cancer epidemiology study, its authors would be looking for cancer among those exposed to this toxin. So naturally they would ask if you consumed aspartame products. They would want to know how many aspartame-containing products were consumed and for how long.  The form would list all the foods, beverages and medicines known to contain aspartame. They would list all of the known tabletop sweeteners by generic name and trade name. 

"There would be such questions as if you used aspartame in pregnancy and whether your children have cancer or birth defects.  Because aspartame is not labeled on restaurant food, nor is it common to ask if food prepared by others contains aspartame, the frequency with which participants eat out would also be considered in an epidemiological study.

"Though Lim’s prospective study does not qualify as an epidemiological aspartame study, the aspartame manufacturer’s PR groups, led by the CCC, have flooded the media with pronouncements about aspartame safety." ~Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum.

"The Calorie Control Council and the American Beverage Association, both of which represent beverage companies, hailed the study as further evidence that aspartame is a safe food additive."  ~The New York Times, April 8, 2006

"I am appalled by the inference that products containing the chemical aspartame are safe and ‘no cause for alarm’...based on the recent extensively reported summary of a National Cancer Institute study. My reaction after viewing the broad-based food consumption survey used for this study is one of disbelief that such a benign inference could be made from the database used. Indeed, this report should be embarrassing to the NCI, the FDA and an indifferent Congress. In my opinion, aspartame should not have been allowed for human consumption in the first place, based on the unequivocal demonstration of a high incidence of brain tumors in rats.  Several recent studies by other investigators fully support my assertion." ~Dr. H.J. Roberts

Dr. Roberts, author of the 1,038-page medical text, "Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic," and world expert who testified before Congress and declared the global aspartame plague has his own 9-page survey for persons with suspected reactions to aspartame products which could be used for a real epidemiological study on aspartame. contains many of his books. Dr. Roberts wrote about aspartame and lymphoma in a peer reviewed journal article 15 years ago:  This is an extremely well-documented  article on the issue and he made recommendations by saying it required careful analysis by corporate-neutral investigators. 

The Ramazzini Study did this.  Dr. Roberts further recommended that, in the event such a confirmation was shown and cancer rates continue to rise, the FDA should declare aspartame products an "imminent public health hazard."

"The National Cancer Institute researchers appeared to have collected no data on people’s prior consumption, whether they were regular consumers of beverages with aspartame or whether they recently began consuming them.  The duration of exposure to aspartame is inadequate in the study. We know nothing about how long they’ve been consuming aspartame.  One year is practically nothing." ~Dr. Morando Soffritti, as quoted by The New York Times, April 8, 2006

Dr. Soffritti is the scientific director of the European Ramazzini Foundation and author of the 2005 Italian study mentioned previously. 

"This is not science and cannot be taken seriously by anyone who cherishes the truth.  I would expect to find better uses of statistics at a high school science fair." ~Dr. Woodrow Monte

Dr. Monte authored the scientific, peer reviewed article, "Aspartame:  Methanol and the Public Health"  (

"In my own experience, supported by the credible research of world class physicians, aspartame is one of the most dangerous things you can ingest. One doctor describes aspartame disease as a  "Worldwide Plague." A survey of the eating habits of over half a million people 10 years ago is being touted as indicating that aspartame is safe. After reviewing the 16 pages of the survey listing all types of foods, I noted only one question asking about sugar free drinks, without mentioning the type sweetener (question 6, page 12), and one question that asked if you drank coffee and tea to mark the sweetener.  Aspartame was mentioned once. 

"If someone checked regular drinks and used Fresca or Tab not marked diet, they would still be getting aspartame but not counted as an aspartame consumer. And if they used it prior to the 12 months being questioned or used some of the other 6,000 products not even mentioned on the form, they still would not be considered an aspartame user.

"To make the conclusion that aspartame is safe based on it being mentioned once is irresponsible and dishonest. Not only will this deception cause millions to die or live with pain and disability but, under Title 18, Section 1001 of U.S. criminal code, it is against the law to deceive the public with full knowledge.  This is the law used when the FDA themselves attempted to have the original manufacturer Searle indicted.  The defense team hired the U.S. prosecutors! 

"There simply was no way to take a chemical poison and get it to show safety so they were doing such things as excising brain tumors from rats, putting them back in the study, and resurrecting them on paper when they died. A complete investigation is needed to probe the deception."

~Ed Johnson

Ed Johnson is a Texas attorney, former assistant U.S. attorney and former president and CEO of one of the largest law firms in Texas. An aspartame-induced brain tumor ended his career in law and he is now a natural health and wellness activist. He tells his story on camera in the documentary "Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World" and can be found online at

"If the so-called questionnaire is representative of the kind and quality of the evidence that the aspartame industry will use to support its conclusion that aspartame is safe, then the people of New Mexico have little to be concerned about at the pending hearing to ban aspartame here.  A first year law student could easily rebut the conclusions reached in the federal study." ~Stevan D. Looney

Looney is the New Mexico attorney who has led the legal charge to achieve a statewide ban on aspartame in New Mexico. Reports indicate that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson favors such a ban).

"The early release of this report represents bad science to say the least and is more consistent with an attempt to shore up a product that has been getting consistently bad reports from independent scientific researchers for the past decade. And these reports have been presented in peer-reviewed reputable journals from laboratories from all over the world. To properly evaluate such studies, as the one recently released, they should appear in peer-reviewed journals with all of the data and methods used in the study. Only then can the study be properly evaluated.

"It is accepted among scientist/clinicians that the poorest type of study you can do is an epidemiological (population) study in which you have a large number of people fill out questionnaires. And of the epidemiological studies the poorest are the ones depending on participants’ memory of intake of the product in question. This study falls in this category. In fact, these studies are so poor they have been used for over 60 years to cover up pharmaceutical disasters. For example, despite an enormous amount of evidence that the polio vaccine was contaminated with a cancer-causing virus (SV-40) the government was able to cover up this disaster by conducting similar epidemiological studies.

"This has been repeated for the thimerosal (mercury) -autism disaster, the MSG toxicity scandal and the trans-fatty acid scandal-all of which were carefully covered up by such studies, until so much evidence eventually accumulated that the truth won out.

"One reason 567,000 people were used is that you can dilute out high cancer rates in sub-groups of people-such as women, children or those with certain genetic weaknesses. This has been shown numerous times in similar studies. It also impresses the public. You cannot accurately obtain dietary information from 567,000 people. Likewise, you cannot adequately determine cancer risk in a population with an age range so small (age 50 to 69). The greatest risk of leukemia and lymphoma would be in a younger population (small children and teenagers) and they would need to be exposed regularly from early in life. The same is true for the rest of the population. Yet, they did not determine aspartame intake prior to the start of the study age. This is ludicrous.

"We also know from animal studies that the greatest risk is in females and that most of the brain tumors being reported are occurring in women (a known characteristic of formaldehyde—a recognized breakdown product of aspartame). Aspartame has been shown by carefully done, irrefutable studies, to cause damage to DNA and present harm to pregnant women and their babies.

"Aspartame is not an essential nutrient. I would not risk my life or the lives of those I love, especially my children, on the basis of such a poorly conducted and reported study.  There is just too much evidence that this sweetener is dangerous to babies, children, adults and the elderly. And much of the damage, especially to children, is irreversible." ~Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, MD

( Dr. Blaylock is a world renowned neurosurgeon and author of Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, Health & Nutrition Secrets To Save Your Life and Cancer Strategies.

He can be seen in the aspartame documentary, Sweet Misery:  A Poisoned World. He has a monthly newsletter on The Blaylock  Wellness Report)

Dr. Blaylock also commented on the 2005 study conducted by Dr. Soffritti: "This study confirmed the previous study by Dr. Trocho and co-workers (1998), which also found the formaldehyde breakdown product of aspartame to be damaging to cellular DNA and that this damage was cumulative.  The type of damage was a duplicate of that associated with cancers.  These two studies strongly indicate that drinking a single diet cola sweetened with aspartame every day could significantly increase one’s risk of developing a lymphoma or leukemia. This study should terrify mothers and all those consuming aspartame-sweetened products.  This was a carefully done study which clearly demonstrated a statistically significant increase in several types of lymphomas and leukemias in rats. Both of these malignancies have increased significantly in this country since the widespread use of aspartame."

"If this is what they’re throwing at us in defense of aspartame, we’ve already won. It’s not even a comparison of apples to oranges—at least they’re both fruit.  Lim’s team took unrelated, incomplete, non-scientific, decade-old data, derived from the memories of elderly people, to develop a mathematical equation to suggest that aspartame is not linked to the formation of two types of cancer. It is hard to say what is most shameful: That there are people who would intentionally mislead the public with bad science to promote the continued consumption of a known poison or that people would be fooled by bad science and continue poisoning themselves." ~Don Harkins

(Harkins is the editor of The Idaho Observer newspaper and The Artificially-Sweetened Times. The Idaho Observer will be publishing a booklet with letters from world experts on aspartame. The purpose of this edition is to provide parents, teachers and physicians with all the information they need to demand that foods and beverages containing aspartame be banned from the nation’s schools as a known cause of birth defects, mental retardation, and other chronic and irreversible types of damage. The "parent’s edition" is scheduled to be available in May, 2006).

"The so-called science behind this article totally ignores the initial toxicity tests which were done at only 1/1000 of the legally-required test dosage. Those tests showed that even a minute dose of aspartame caused a higher incidence of brain cancer in rats than any other chemical tested at that dose. In the first 6 months after aspartame’s introduction into the marketplace, the brain tumor rate in America jumped 10 percent and incidence of diabetes jumped 30 percent." ~James Bowen, MD

Dr. Bowen, who has Lou Gehrig’s disease from aspartame, wrote the FDA:  "...the only responsible action would be to immediately take aspartame off the market, fully disclose its toxicities, offer full compensation to the injured, publicly and criminally prosecute anyone who participated in the fraudulent placement of aspartame on the marketplace.  That includes all those who work so diligently to keep it on the market as well."

The USS Aspartame is sinking

Robin Goodwin, Mission Possible Falklands, petitioned for a ban of aspartame there and wrote all 3,000 citizens warning them. His wife suffered an aspartame brain tumor and his daughter had seizures for 18 years, which ceased when she abstained. In early April, 2006, he stated that aspartame-containing products have been sitting on Falkland store shelves for six months.

Roger Williams, Member of Parliament, has called for a ban in the UK and Stephen Fox has petitioned the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, and the state’s Board

of Pharmacy. 

New Mexico state Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino sponsored the bill to ban aspartame which didn’t make it in the 30-day session but we expect to see it again. The valiant fight of New Mexico led by Stephen Fox is a model for citizens worldwide.  Ten New Mexico state senators signed a letter asking Governor Bill Richardson to declare New Mexico in a state of public emergency and ban the toxin which violates state and federal adulteration statues, and therefore interstate commerce laws.  Dr. H. J. Roberts met recently with Governor Richardson who assured him aspartame does need to be banned and he is in full agreement.

Senator Ortiz y Pino said in an article he wrote in February:  "It’s only a matter of time until even Ajinomoto’s money won’t be able to block the unavoidable link between these unnecessary products and our decline in health...When that happens, as it finally did to tobacco and lead and other heavy metals found in gasoline, we will act. The sad thing is that thousands of deaths and ruined lives will occur between now and then." …"One of the cruel ironies to aspartame is that it was supposed to create sugar-free soft drinks for the benefit of diabetics.  Since its introduction, the incidence of diabetes has soared.  Some critics link the two. .....With all the money and muscle behind it,

aspartame has evaded its comeuppance for another year. But the final reckoning can only be postponed, not avoided."

Ajinomoto is the Japanese aspartame producer financing the fight to prevent an aspartame ban in New Mexico.

Question: Does the CCC, et al, poison their own children with aspartame?

A host of independent studies have exposed not only aspartame related cancer but the many horrors listed in medical texts by experts like Doctors H. J. Roberts and Russell Blaylock. A recent study from Greece shows aspartame causes memory loss and neurological problems.  Concentrations of aspartame influence acetylcholine metabolism, important relative to brain function with profound implications concerning Alzheimer’s disease.

A study in December on combining food additives including aspartame was damning. The Liverpool team reported that when mouse nerve cells were exposed to MSG and brilliant blue or aspartame and quinoline yellow in laboratory conditions, combined in concentrations that theoretically reflect the compound that enters the bloodstream after a typical children’s snack and drink, the additives stopped the nerve cells growing and interfered with proper signaling systems.

A generation of children have been damaged by aspartame because aspartame triggers ADD, ADHD, and autism and interacts with drugs and vaccines. Dr. Blaylock said "Since aspartame can increase obesity and may even cause the metabolic syndrome that affects 48 million Americans, there is no reason to ever consume this product.  At the least, it should be immediately banned from all schools." 

We thank Governor Richardson for getting it out of grammar and middle schools and now we need it to be removed from high schools in New Mexico.

Aspartame and sex

Dr. Kenneth Stoller, President of the International Hyperbaric Medical Assoc., Medical Director of HMCNM & HOCS, and listed as an Aspartame Detox Center in New Mexico also spoke out:  "Epidemiology studies have very significant drawbacks that most scientists do not realize.  The ultimate example of same is that it is impossible to prove that sex causes pregnancy with an epidemiology study."

It should also be noted, while sex is being mentioned, that aspartame destroys complete families.  As Dr. James Bowen wrote in "Aspartame Murders Infants,"  "At every point in the fertility process aspartame destroys, beginning with the gleam in Mom and Pop’s eyes:  It ruins female sexual response and induces male sexual dysfunction.  Beyond this, aspartame may have heinously damaged the DNA of the baby, cursing future generations."

"Using dishonest studies to deceive the world displays the heinous malevolence of the greedy conscienceless people using a broad based food consumption survey to trick the world into thinking a deadly excito-neurotoxic carcinogen drug doesn’t cause cancer and is safe. They have deceived consumers worldwide and consumers should be outraged," Martini concluded.

End note:

We would like to thank you for reading all the way through this article. We introduced the topic with the hypothesis that corporate-neutral people can be trusted to tell you truths that may save your life and that corporate-compromised people will tell you lies that could kill you, your friends, your family and future generations—for money. Then, like good scientists, we proved the hypothesis.

This controversy began April 4, 2006 with a CCC press release claiming the "study" being questioned here "proves" that aspartame is "safe. Within days the release was all over the world and being endorsed by other aspartame "front groups." On April 18, the NIH/NCI agreed that it would be premature to claim that the "study" proves anything. In other words, the CCC, et al, have no scientific evidence or backing for their claims—a phenomenally irresponsible, corporately-motivated move on their part.

Beth Hubrich of the CCC and Unhee Lim, a junior NCI researcher (and spokespeople for the American Beverage Association and the American Dietetic Association) were paid to generate and support lies intended to please their corporate sponsors by encouraging you to continue drinking their poisons.

Without exception, every corporate-neutral person who commented here did so without charge. Their payment is your reading what they had to say and passing it on so that someone you love may be spared the misery of "Rumsfeld’s disease." (DWH)

Worldwide aspartame consumption declining Holland Sweetener Co. to cease production; Marisant reports 22 percent sales decrease

Though we should not tolerate government officials who allow industry to cite nonsense as science to justify poisoning the public for profit, we are turning the aspartame tide regardless. Europe’s largest aspartame producer, Holland Sweetener Co., announced March 30, 2006, that it will cease aspartame production by the end of this year. The substance has become increasingly unprofitable for the company due to a "structural oversupply" in the marketplace and no improvements are anticipated for the foreseeable future. Chicago-based Marisant has reported that its 2005 North American sales are down 22 percent from 2004. It appears that the fate of aspartame will be determined by the marketplace—not government regulators.

Home - Current Edition
Advertising Rate Sheet
About the Idaho Observer
Some recent articles
Some older articles
Why we're here
Our Writers
Corrections and Clarifications

Hari Heath

Vaccination Liberation -

The Idaho Observer
P.O. Box 457
Spirit Lake, Idaho 83869
Phone: 208-255-2307