ASPARTAME AND LABELING – WHY CAN’T THEY JUST LABELIT SO THAT WE CAN HAVE SOME PROTECTION AT LEAST?
STATEMENT TO THE FDA ON FOOD LABELING –
JAMES D. BOWEN, M.D.
3118 S Logan Ste.3
Lansing, MI 48910
My statement for the public record regarding food labeling and the aspartame
issue is serious if not somewhat facetious at times. The reasonfor this is
because I have found little evidence of honesty, integrity or stabilityon
the part of Food & Drug Administration officials regarding theaspartame
issue, since its approval in 1981. This attitude is largely sharedby the
general public. I come in contact with approximately two newpeople each
week who are now being or who have in the past been poisoned by aspartame.
All of them share the same reactions that it is not worth writingto the FDA
or NutraSweet, because you and your agency have run amuck and are nolonger a
valid public benefactor.
The recent revelations about the problems surrounding generic drug approvals
are compelling evidence of what happens when an agency considered itself
above the law in dealing with these matters. In my opinion, thishas
resulted in the mass poisoning of the American public as well as seventy-plus
countries in the rest of the world. Watching FDA officials walkthrough the
“revolving door” and be further rewarded by being promoted to otherpositions
of high public responsibility is clear evidence of a government outof
control.
For this reason, I am opposed to labeling aspartame content of foodand
drinks. To do so would imply that the government is taking somesort of
responsible action…when the only responsible action would be to immediately
take aspartame off the market, fully disclose its toxicities, offerfull
compensation to the injured, public and criminally prosecute anyonewho
participated in the fraudulent placement of aspartame on the marketplace.
That includes those who work so diligently to keep in on the marketas well.
Further, to label the purported aspartame content of a product wouldcover a
number of toxic flaws in the product and its allowable daily intake(ADI) as
follows:
1. That the amount stated on the label was accurate and factual
rather than theoretical. Aspartame breaks down relatively quicklyin
solution. Given the well established modus operandi of the manufacturer,
there is no concern given the ultimate consumer. And cover-upsseem to be a
part of the routine of doing business. The public should be welladvised
that the amounts really used in liquid products are relatively greaterthan
those stated to accomplish a relative compensation for the loss ofproduct
sweetness occurring during storage in solution.
2. That the ADI presently allowed is 50% greater than that expectedto
cause a reversal of the phenylalnine/tyrosine ratios in the human brain.
This has profoundly bad implications for the human being, includingdopamine
and serotonin synthesis inhibition, causing depression, appetite changes,
mental inabilities, increased susceptibility to seizures and a hostof
neurohormonal problems.
3. Every known metabolite of aspartame is of marked or questionable
toxicity and patently unsafe for human use. Methyl alcohol ismetabolized to
nascent formaldehyde in the eye, nervous system and other metabolically
active organs. It immediately attacks and denatures the tissuestructure
proteins in which is metabolized to nascent formaldehyde. Thisstimulates
specific organ and subcellular autoimmunity which seems to be a preponderant
source of the bad experiences reported by NutraSweet victims. Aspartic Acid
is a neuroexcitotoxic present in damaging amounts, it own right, atthe ADI
for aspartame. Simple logic tells one that it will vastly increasethe
metabolism of methyl alcohol to formaldehyde attach there. Thiscorresponds
well with the symptomalogies often experienced, such as Lou Gehrig’sDisease
(ALS), bulbar palsies, neurohormonal disorders, diketopiperazine issue
remains totally unresolved and dangerous. The amino acids thatare released
by hydrolysis, form eimers and isomers that are either not sufficiently
studied, or which are known substrates in undesirable pathologicalstates
such as Alzheimer’s disease.
4. There is the issue of the approval of aspartame for market,which has
violated every principle of responsible science and responsible government.
Everyone responsible for this hearing should at least completely reviewthe
approval process and the comments of the participants and observerswho have
so excellently elucidated all the malfeasance for the public record,such as
Dr. Adrian Gross and many, many others (all on the public record).
In light of the above 4 points, I highly recommend that you deny inevery way
possible any subterfuge of respectability that the aspartame peoplehave
enshrouded themselves and their product within hopes of quickly denyingits
access to the worldwide marketplace. I write this, not believingthat it
will do the slightest bit of good in the sense of affecting the labeling
issue per se, but that instead, it might reach some honest, concerned,
conscientious individuals in the process.