Artificial Sweeteners Alter How Body Handles Real Sugar

Total Sellout: American Academy of Family Physicians Lets Coca-Cola Sponsor Health Advice

Natural News
Friday, March 19, 2010 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer

The American Academy of Family Physicians has come under fire for a controversial decision to partner with the Coca-Cola Company in a new public outreach campaign about the health risks of soda consumption.

“Coca-Cola, like other sodas, causes enormous suffering and premature death by increasing the risks of obesity, diabetes, heart attacks, gout, and cavities,” said Walter Willett of Harvard University. “[The academy] should be a loud critic of these products and practices, but by signing with Coke their voice has almost surely been muzzled.”

The academy claims that its health message will not be compromised by accepting tens of thousands of dollars from Coca-Cola. However, it has also stated that a goal of the program is “to develop educational materials to help consumers make informed decisions so they can include the products they love in a balanced diet and healthy lifestyle.”

Dr. William Walker, a health officer for Contra Costa County, Calif., said that the partnership is reminiscent of old advertisements in which doctors endorsed the safety of mild cigarettes. Although he had been a member of the academy for 25 years, he and 20 other doctors in his practice recently resigned in protest of the deal.

According to academy chief executive officer Douglas Henley, Coca-Cola’s money will help fund a Web site containing information on the connection between soft drinks and obesity, and promoting sugar-free beverages.

Twenty-two health specialists and consumer advocates have responded with a letter challenging the endorsement of artificial sweeteners as safe, and asking the academy to condemn sugary drinks “in the strongest language.”

Alliances between medical associations and corporations promoting unhealthy products are not as uncommon as some might believe. In 2005, the American Academy of Family Physicians partnered with McDonald’s to produce a fitness program. Its Web site also carries advertisements for deli meat and other commercial products. The American Academy of Pediatrics drew criticism in 2002 for allowing an infant formula company to advertise on breast feeding materials, and prior to that the American Medical Association stirred up anger by agreeing to endorse Sunbeam home appliances without even testing them.

Sources for this story include: www.foxnews.com.

Consumers of aspartame (Nutra-Sweet): check out this documentary

Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World

Aspartame has been renamed and is now being marketed as a natural sweetener

Friday, February 12, 2010 by:
Ethan Huff, citizen journalist
NaturalNews

In response to growing awareness about the dangers of artificial sweeteners, what does the manufacturer of one of the world’s most notable artificial sweeteners do? Why, rename it and begin marketing it as natural, of course. This is precisely the strategy of Ajinomoto, maker of aspartame, which hopes to pull the wool over the eyes of the public with its rebranded version of aspartame, called “AminoSweet”.

Over 25 years ago, aspartame was first introduced into the European food supply. Today, it is an everyday component of most diet beverages, sugar-free desserts, and chewing gums in countries worldwide. But the tides have been turning as the general public is waking up to the truth about artificial sweeteners like aspartame and the harm they cause to health. The latest aspartame marketing scheme is a desperate effort to indoctrinate the public into accepting the chemical sweetener as natural and safe, despite evidence to the contrary.

Aspartame was an accidental discovery by James Schlatter, a chemist who had been trying to produce an anti-ulcer pharmaceutical drug for G.D. Searle & Company back in 1965. Upon mixing aspartic acid and phenylalanine, two naturally-occurring amino acids, he discovered that the new compound had a sweet taste. The company merely changed its FDA approval application from drug to food additive and, voila, aspartame was born.

G.D. Searle & Company first patented aspartame in 1970. An internal memo released in the same year urged company executives to work on getting the FDA into the “habit of saying yes” and of encouraging a “subconscious spirit of participation” in getting the chemical approved.

G.D. Searle & Company submitted its first petition to the FDA in 1973 and fought for years to gain FDA approval, submitting its own safety studies that many believed were inadequate and deceptive. Despite numerous objections, including one from its own scientists, the company was able to convince the FDA to approve aspartame for commercial use in a few products in 1974, igniting a blaze of controversy.

In 1976, then FDA Commissioner Alexander Schmidt wrote a letter to Sen. Ted Kennedy expressing concern over the “questionable integrity of the basic safety data submitted for aspartame safety”. FDA Chief Counsel Richard Merrill believed that a grand jury should investigate G.D. Searle & Company for lying about the safety of aspartame in its reports and for concealing evidence proving the chemical is unsafe for consumption.

Despite the myriad of evidence gained over the years showing that aspartame is a dangerous toxin, it has remained on the global market with the exception of a few countries that have banned it. In fact, it continued to gain approval for use in new types of food despite evidence showing that it causes neurological brain damage, cancerous tumors, and endocrine disruption, among other things.

The details of aspartame’s history are lengthy, but the point remains that the carcinogen was illegitimately approved as a food additive through heavy-handed prodding by a powerful corporation with its own interests in mind. Practically all drugs and food additives are approved by the FDA not because science shows they are safe but because companies essentially lobby the FDA with monetary payoffs and complete the agency’s multi-million dollar approval process.

Changing aspartame’s name to something that is “appealing and memorable”, in Ajinomoto’s own words, may hoodwink some but hopefully most will reject this clever marketing tactic as nothing more than a desperate attempt to preserve the company’s multi-billion dollar cash cow. Do not be deceived.

Sources:

Ajinomoto brands aspartame ‘AminoSweet’ – FoodBev.com

Aspartame History Highlights – Janet Starr Hull

FDA’s approval of aspartame under scrutiny – The Globe and Mail (Canada)

An Overdue Ban On A Dangerous Sweetener – Huffington Post