First, go HERE (it opens in a new window).
There's something I just don't understand, and Aspartame (or NutraSweet), the artificial sweetener commonly found in Diet Coke, Pepsi Max, Coke Zero and just about any food marketed as "sugarless", is a glaring example.
By way of background, let me tell you a story...
In the late '70s, Searle Laboratories applied to the US Food and Drug Administration for approval to market a revolutionary new sugar replacement as a food additive.
The company presented a great deal of research that they claimed proved this new chemical was perfectly safe. The regulators from the FDA that evaluated this data raised a significant number of red flags. It was clear that, at best, the the conduct of the research was incompetent. At worst, it was fraudulent.
For example, a couple of rats in one of the studies (each rat having a number) were recorded as having died, and then, miraculously, were then recorded as being alive again some weeks later.
When rats did die, they were autopsied to determine the cause of death. The rats were dissected, and tissue sample taken and stored for later examination, which would have been great if they hadn't waited more than a year, by which time, brain tissue had degraded to a point where it was impossible to determine of there had been any tumour.
The regulators unanimously recommended against approval, but the company applied significant political pressure so the FDA relented, granting "conditional" approval... the condition being that the company refrain from marketing the substance as a human food additive until such time as a further review was conducted, and new studies carried out.
Aspartame looked dead in the water.
Enter Donald Rumsfeld. Yes. THAT Donald Rumsfeld, who was appointed CEO of Searle with the specific brief to get Aspartame approved. Rumsefeld, of course, looked at this as a political problem, and was uninterested in research findings, product safety or any of the other things rational people would have concerned themselves with.
Once you take the facts out of the equation, politics becomes a much easier environment, and the way Rumsfeld got Aspartame approved demonstrated his mastery of the dark political arts.
He went to his friends in the US Congress and suggested that the problems with the Aspartame approval process was indicative of a lack of regulatory framework. "What we need", he said, "are minimum standards for safety testing, so that companies know the rules, and this sort of stand-off can't happen again."
It's difficult to argue with that position, and a Bill setting down such standards seemed certain to pass through both Houses of Congress. President Reagan, being a long time friend and supporter of Rumsfeld, would rubber stamp it if it was passed.
The problem was, that Bill wasn't going to help Searle because it would have meant they would need to redo all of their safety testing. It would cost millions, take years, and, given what they knew, would probably fail...
...which is where Rumsfeld played his hand. At the 11th hour, Rumsfeld's buddies in Congress inserted at clause into the bill dictating the compliance with the standards shall not be applied retrospectively. The Bill passed and was signed into law, which then allowed Searle to tell the FDA that its "conditional" approval could no longer be enforced. Aspartame was "approved", and approved by stealth rather than by real science.
(By the way, the bureaucrat in the FDA that gave Aspartame its final rubber stamp resigned within weeks to take up a position as spokesman for the US Soft Drink Industry. Similarly, the lead attorney representing the FDA through all the approval hearings resigned within weeks of the approval to take up a partnership in the law firm representing Searle.)
The sweetener was an instant hit, and the hundreds of millions of dollars it was now earning its makers would be put back into re-doing human safety trials for other jurisdictions (like Europe and Australia). Those trials would be manipulated to deliver the desired outcome.
For example, another rat trial was conducted, and rats were fed pellets of food that were either laced with Aspartame, or not. That trial showed NO difference in mortality or cancer rates between the two groups, and this is one of the key trials upon which approval in other jurisdictions was granted. It wasn't until years later that one of the researchers came forward with a startling admission.
When the pellets were prepared, little attempt was made to properly blend the Aspartame into the food. That meant the pellets were filled with chunks of Aspartame, and the clever rats were simply eating around those chunks. That meant the mortality and cancer rates were the same because the rats in the "Aspartame" group weren't actually consuming any Aspartame.
Since the initial approval, there have been more than 140 studies into Aspartame's human safety. Of these, roughly half either find Aspartame to be safe, or find it probably safe with additional research required. The other half find Aspartame unsafe, or probably unsafe with additional research required.
When that happens, follow the money. The "safe" half were mostly funded by the food industry, while the "unsafe" half were mostly funded from outside the food industry.
Ok. That's the background, and I apologise for the length of the story but it was needed to get to the core of this post.
Given the balance of evidence, how is it possible for regulators to continue to allow this poison into our food supply. It's been linked to more than 90 serious medical conditions including brain tumours, liver cancer, chronic fatigue, Parkinson's Disease (ironically for Diet Pepsi poster boy, Michael J Fox) and Alzheimer's Disease (ironically for Ronald Reagan). It's also been linked to reduction in intelligence and cognitive ability. And here's the kicker... it's marketed as a "diet" sweetener to help people lose weight, but it appears to do exactly the opposite.
Would you drink a Diet Coke? Would you let your kids drink a Pepsi Max?
Even if the 50/50 split in research is the reflection of some bias on either side, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle, isn't there enough doubt to say "no". After all, that's the argument the climate change doomsayers use when they tell us to cut the carbon.
I just don't understand how bureaucrats are more concerned with following rules and regulations than they are about the real job they're there to do. The FDA in the USA, or the ANZFSA here downunder, are charged with the responsibility of ensuring something like Aspartame doesn't enter our food supply.
Even more of a mystery is why, in a hyper-litigious environment like the USA, the courts haven't been overloaded with lawsuits.
Somehow, money speaks, and when it speaks, those in power and in the bureaucracy listen.
Let me tell you how to get money to speak even louder. Stop buying the stuff.
Footnote.
A few weeks ago, Coca Cola announced that it had patented a "new" sweetener derived from a South American plant called Stevia. This sweetener isn't new, and it's safe. Coca Cola's "patented" form will get FDA approval. Natural Stevia still isn't formally approved for human consumption in the USA or Australia.
Another natural sweetener with significant health benefits is curiously called "Xylitol", though why you'd want to name something natural so that it sounded artificial must have something to do with fashion. Xylitol is a restricted import in Australia.
