Avoid Aspartame and all artificial sweeteners

Aspartame, Nutra Sweet, Splenda, Equal, = headaches, nausea, vertigo, insomnia, numbness, blurred vision, blindness and other eye problems, memory loss, slurred speech, depression, personality changes, hyperactivity, stomach disorders, seizures, skin lesions, rashes, anxiety attacks, muscle cramping and joint pain, loss of energy, symptoms mimicking heart attacks, hearing loss and ear ringing, loss or change of taste, cancer, Parkinson’s disease, brain tumours, tremors…

This stuff is really bad, but for some reason, even today, there are people who don’t know that – like Michael J Fox

This is not one to mess with – really avoid it 100%

Even worse than standard Coke, is “DietCoke” – the really toxic stuff – it contains Aspartame…

Millions of misinformed people use Aspartame (NutraSweet) every day, another dangerous product approved by the ever reliable US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Aspartame can be found in thousands of products such as:

• breath mints
• cereals
• sugar-free chewing gum
• cocoa mixes
• coffee beverages
• frozen desserts
• gelatin desserts
• juice beverages
• laxatives
• multivitamins
• pharmaceuticals and supplements
• shake mixes
• soft drinks
• sweeteners
• tea beverages
• instant teas and coffees
• topping mixes
• wine coolers
• diet coke
• diet pepsi

85% of all complaints registered with the FDA are for adverse reactions to aspartame, and a closer look at the unscientific studies, suspicious approval methods, and it’s lethal ingredients, reveal the hidden dangers of this toxic artificial sweetener. Aspartame is a major health danger

Ailments Resulting From Aspartame

The components of aspartame can lead to a wide variety of ailments. Some of these problems occur gradually while others are immediate, acute reactions.
A few of the many disorders associated with aspartame include the following:

Birth Defects

A study funded by Monsanto to study possible birth defects caused by consuming aspartame was cut off after preliminary data showed damaging information about aspartame. Additionally, in the book, While Waiting: A Prenatal Guidebook, it is stated that aspartame is suspected of causing brain damage in sensitive individuals. A fetus may be at risk for these effects. Some researchers have suggested that high doses of aspartame may be associated with problems ranging from dizziness and subtle brain changes to mental retardation.

Cancer (Brain Cancer)

In 1981, an FDA statistician stated that the brain tumor data on aspartame was so “worrisome” that he could not recommend approval of NutraSweet.(14)
In a two-year study conducted by the manufacturer of aspartame, twelve of 320 rats fed a normal diet and aspartame developed brain tumors while none of the control rats developed tumors, and five of the twelve tumors were in rats given a low dose of aspartame.(15)
The approval of aspartame was a violation of the Delaney Amendment, which was supposed to prevent cancer-causing substances such as methanol (formaldehye) and DKP from entering our food supply. A late FDA toxicologist testified before the U.S. Congress that aspartame was capable of producing brain tumors. This made it illegal for the FDA to set an allowable daily intake at any level. He stated in his testimony that Searle’s studies were “to a large extent unreliable” and that “at least one of those studies has established beyond any reasonable doubt that aspartame is capable of inducing brain tumors in experimental animals … ” He concluded his testimony by asking, “What is the reason for the apparent refusal by the FDA to invoke for this food additive the so-called Delaney Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act? … And if the FDA itself elects to violate the law, who is left to protect the health of the public?”(16)
In the mid-1970s it was discovered that the manufacturer of aspartame falsified studies in several ways. One of the techniques used was to cut tumors out of test animals and put them back in the study. Another technique used to falsify the studies was to list animals that had actually died as surviving the study. Thus, the data on brain tumors was likely worse than discussed above. In addition, a former employee of the manufacturer of aspartame told the FDA on July 13, 1977 that the particles of DKP were so large that the rats could discriminate between the DKP and their normal diet.(12)


The American Diabetes Association (ADA) is actually recommending this chemical poison to persons with diabetes, but according to research conducted by a diabetes specialist, aspartame: 1) Leads to the precipitation of clinical diabetes. 2) Causes poorer diabetic control in diabetics on insulin or oral drugs. 3) Leads to the aggravation of diabetic complications such as retinopathy, cataracts, neuropathy and gastroparesis. 4) Causes convulsions.
In a statement concerning the use of products containing aspartame by persons with diabetes and hypoglycemia, the researchers says:
“Unfortunately, many patients in my practice, and others seen in consultation, developed serious metabolic, neurologic and other complications that could be specifically attributed to using aspartame products. This was evidenced by the loss of diabetic control, the intensification of hypoglycemia, the occurrence of presumed ‘insulin reactions’ (including convulsions) that proved to be aspartame reactions, and the precipitation, aggravation or simulation of diabetic complications (especially impaired vision and neuropathy) while using these products … Dramatic improvement of such features after avoiding aspartame, and the prompt predictable recurrence of these problems when the patient resumed aspartame products, knowingly or inadvertently.”
Another researcher stated that excitotoxins such as those found in aspartame can precipitate diabetes in persons who are genetically susceptible to the disease.(5)

Emotional Disorders

In a double blind study of the effects of aspartame on persons with mood disorders, findings showed a large increase in serious symptoms for persons taking aspartame. Since some of the symptoms were so serious, the Institutional Review Board had to stop the study. Three of the participants had said that they had been “poisoned” by aspartame. Researchers concluded that “individuals with mood disorders are particularly sensitive to this artificial sweetener; its use in this population should be discouraged.”(18) One researcher stated about aspartame, “I know it causes seizures. I’m convinced also that it definitely causes behavioral changes. I’m very angry that this substance is on the market. I personally question the reliability and validity of any studies funded by the NutraSweet Company.”(19)
Additionally, there are numerous reported cases of low brain serotonin levels, depression and other emotional disorders that have been linked to aspartame and often are relieved by stopping the intake of aspartame.


With the large and growing number of seizures caused by aspartame, it is sad to see that the Epilepsy Foundation is promoting the “safety” of aspartame. At Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 80 people who had suffered seizures after ingesting aspartame were surveyed. Community Nutrition Institute concluded the following about the survey:
“These 80 cases meet the FDA’s own definition of an imminent hazard to the public health, which requires the FDA to expeditiously remove a product from the market.”
Both the Air Force’s magazine, Flying Safety, and the Navy’s magazine, Navy Physiology, published articles warning about the many dangers of aspartame including the cumulative delirious effects of methanol and the greater likelihood of birth defects. The articles note that the ingestion of aspartame can make pilots more susceptible to seizures and vertigo. Twenty articles sounding warnings about ingesting aspartame while flying have also appeared in the National Business Aircraft Association Digest (NBAA Digest 1993), Aviation Medical Bulletin (1988), The Aviation Consumer (1988), Canadian General Aviation News (1990), Pacific Flyer (1988), General Aviation News (1989), Aviation Safety Digest (1989), and Plane & Pilot (1990) and a paper warning about aspartame was presented at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Aerospace Medical Association (Gaffney 1986).
A hotline was even set up for pilots suffering from acute reactions to aspartame ingestion. Over 600 pilots have reported symptoms including some who have reported suffering grand mal seizures in the cockpit due to aspartame.(21)

Why don’t we hear about these things?

The reason many people do not hear about serious reactions to aspartame is twofold: 1) Lack of awareness by the general population. Aspartame-caused diseases are not reported in the newspapers like plane crashes. This is because these incidents occur one at a time in thousands of different locations across the United States. 2) Most people do not associate their symptoms with the long-term use of aspartame. For the people who have killed a significant percentage of their brain cells and thereby caused a chronic illness, there is no way that they would normally associate such an illness with aspartame consumption.
How aspartame was approved is a lesson in how chemical and pharmaceutical companies can manipulate government agencies such as the FDA, “bribe” organizations such as the American Dietetic Association, and flood the scientific community with flawed and fraudulent industry-sponsored studies funded by the makers of aspartame.

Erik Millstone, a researcher at the Science Policy Research Unit of Sussex University has compiled thousands of pages of evidence, some of which have been obtained using the freedom of information act 23, showing: 1. Laboratory tests were faked and dangers were concealed. 2. Tumors were removed from animals and animals that had died were “restored to life” in laboratory records. 3. False and misleading statements were made to the FDA. 4. The two US Attorneys given the task of bringing fraud charges against the aspartame manufacturer took positions with the manufacturer’s law firm, letting the statute of limitations run out. 5. The Commissioner of the FDA overruled the objections of the FDA’s own scientific board of inquiry. Shortly after that decision, he took a position with Burson-Marsteller, the firm in charge of public relations for G.D. Searle.

A Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) was conducted in 1980. There were three scientists who reviewed the objections of Olney and Turner to the approval of aspartame. They voted unanimously against aspartame’s approval. The FDA Commissioner, Dr Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr. then created a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the PBOI findings. After it became clear that the Commission would uphold the PBOI’s decision by a vote of 3 to 2, another person was added to the Commission, creating a deadlocked vote. This allowed the FDA Commissioner to break the deadlock and approve aspartame for dry goods in 1981. Dr Jacqueline Verrett, the Senior Scientist in an FDA Bureau of Foods review team created in August 1977 to review the Bressler Report (a report that detailed G.D. Searle’s abuses during the pre-approval testing) said: “It was pretty obvious that somewhere along the line, the bureau officials were working up to a whitewash.”

In 1987, Verrett testified before the US Senate stating that the experiments conducted by Searle were a “disaster.” She stated that her team was instructed not to comment on or be concerned with the overall validity of the studies. She stated that questions about birth defects have not been answered. She continued her testimony by discussing the fact that DKP has been shown to increase uterine polyps and change blood cholesterol and that increasing the temperature of the product leads to an increase in production of DKP.(13)

Revolving Doors

The FDA and the manufacturers of aspartame have had a revolving door of employment for many years. In addition to the FDA Commissioner and two US Attorneys leaving to take positions with companies connected with G.D. Searle, four other FDA officials connected with the approval of aspartame took positions connected with the NutraSweet industry between 1979 and 1982 including the Deputy FDA Commissioner, the Special Assistant to the FDA Commissioner, the Associate Director of the Bureau of Foods and Toxicology and the Attorney involved with the Public Board of Inquiry.(24)
It is important to realize that this type of revolving-door activity has been going on for decades. The Townsend Letter for Doctors (11/92) reported on a study revealing that 37 of 49 top FDA officials who left the FDA took positions with companies they had regulated. They also reported that over 150 FDA officials owned stock in drug companies they were assigned to manage. Many organizations and universities receive large sums of money from companies connected to the NutraSweet Association, a group of companies promoting the use of aspartame. In January 1993, the American Dietetic Association received a US$75,000 grant from the NutraSweet Company. The American Dietetic Association has stated that the NutraSweet Company writes their “Facts” sheets.(25)

What is the FDA doing to protect the consumer from the dangers of aspartame?

Less than nothing.
In 1992, the FDA approved aspartame for use in malt beverages, breakfast cereals, and refrigerated puddings and fillings. In 1993 the FDA approved aspartame for use in hard and soft candies, non-alcoholic favored beverages, tea beverages, fruit juices and concentrates, baked goods and baking mixes, and frostings, toppings and fillings for baked goods.

In 1991, the FDA banned the importation of stevia. The powder of this leaf has been used for hundreds of years as an alternative sweetener. It is used widely in Japan with no adverse effects. Scientists involved in reviewing stevia have declared it to be safe for human consumption–something that has been well known in many parts of the world where it is not banned. Many people believe that stevia was banned to keep the product from taking hold in the United States and cutting into sales of aspartame.

Aspartame: Diet-astrous Results

by Rebecca Ephraim

As a nutritionist who straddles conventional and complementary therapies, I attend numerous lectures, workshops, and conferences in both realms. I can generally tell you whether a gathering is one of conventional practitioners or complementary practitioners simply by seeing who’s drinking what!

Where conventional practitioners such as registered dietitians, nurses, and medical doctors are meeting, the familiar, brightly colored cans of diet soda, sweetened with the artificial sweetener aspartame, prominently dot the meeting-room landscape. Not so in a gathering of complementary practitioners such as naturopaths, “alternative” nutritionists and chiropractors. Bottled or filtered water is the rule here.

It’s an apt example of the conventional medical mindset butting heads with the philosophy of the health providers who are natural-living advocates. Aspartame, which goes by names such as Equal, NutraSweet, and Spoonful, is and has been the giant among artificial sweeteners for the twenty years it has been around. Almost any “diet” food out there, in addition to the diet sodas, will surely have aspartame in its ingredient list. Holistic practitioners tell their clients and patients to never use the stuff—that it’s literally poison. Conventional practitioners usually encourage its use. Many, perhaps most, of my dietician colleagues, for instance, consider aspartame, with zero calories, pivotal in weight-control programs. Their perspective is that it’s a safe replacement for high-calorie sugary foods that sabotage dieters’ best intentions.

“No, no, no!” shout an escalating number of health practitioners, professionals and laypeople. They point to ugly and debilitating side effects from the use of aspartame, including headaches, memory loss, slurred speech and vision problems. For years these aspartame opponents were but small voices muffled by the incredibly loud sounds of money talking. Under the ownership of the giant international chemical company Monsanto, aspartame thoroughly trounced its competition by using an unstoppable combination of marketing brilliance and limitless spending—along with tactics characterized as morally and ethically corrupt.

One critic, David Rietz, denounces Monsanto for plying “agency [e.g. Food and Drug Administration, FDA] officials with gratuities and/or very favorable future employment, politicians with campaign funds/PAC money, non-profit foundations with endowments, scientists with research grants, and the media with lots of advertising dollars” all for the sake of defending its safety and, hence, its ironclad hold on the artificial sweetener market. Monsanto sold its aspartame ingredient business last year to a number of buyers (including, by the way, MSD Capital, which is computer king Michael Dell’s investment firm).

The voices of dissent have grown louder with the advent of the internet. Rietz, for example, is the owner and master of one of thousands of “anti-aspartame” internet websites ( Like so many other “anti-aspartame” crusaders, Rietz founded his website after years of battling debilitating health problems and finally regaining his health after discontinuing his use of the artificial sweetener. Examining why so many attest to aspartame’s role in scores of severe adverse reactions is beyond the scope of this article. But one thing is certain, despite what appears to be a concerted effort on the part of aspartame’s makers to negate the allegations of health problems, adverse reactions from aspartame are real.

This was eloquently borne out in 1996, when Ralph G. Walton, MD, professor and chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Northeastern Ohio University’s College of Medicine, conducted an analysis of all the medical studies—164 of them at the time—dealing with human safety as it relates to the use of aspartame. The studies were separated into two categories: 74 of the studies were sponsored by the aspartame industry and 90 of them were non-industry-sponsored studies. Dr. Walton found that of the 74 studies sponsored by the aspartame industry, 100 percent of them claimed there were no health problems associated with aspartame use. Of the 90 studies that had no connections to industry, all but seven of them identified one or more problems with aspartame use. Interestingly, of the seven studies that did not find problems, the FDA had conducted six. Critics suggest that since a number of FDA officials eventually went to work for the aspartame industry, these six studies should be considered industry-sponsored research as well.

Knowing all this, if a person desperately wanted to lose weight and was prepared to risk the safety problems associated with aspartame, would it make sense to use this sugar substitute as an easy and effective tool for weight control?

Hardly! Dr. Walton, who has also studied the effects of aspartame, is emphatic when he tells me, “Probably one major contributor to obesity is the widespread use of diet products!” A chorus of non-conventional health professionals echoes his statement, which can just as well be read as a warning. The reasons are not simple; they involve complex biochemical reactions linked to hormones and brain chemicals.

Aspartame itself doesn’t have any calories, but basically, one of its ingredients, the amino acid phenylalanine, blocks production of serotonin, a nerve chemical that, among other activities, controls food cravings. As you might well imagine, a shortage of serotonin will make your brain and body scream for the foods that create more of this brain chemical—and those are the high-calorie, carbohydrate-rich snacks that can sabotage a dieter. Obviously, the more aspartame one ingests, the more heightened the effects. Simply put, aspartame appears to muddle the brain chemistry.

Nutritionist Susan Allen, RD, CCN, at Chicago’s Northwestern Center for Integrative Medicine, suspects that something additional is going on in many of her patients who have been using aspartame and other artificial sweeteners. Allen believes that when they consume them, the sweet taste of no-calorie sweeteners triggers their bodies to release insulin, even though there is no food to feed the cells. Normally, when we eat, the sugar in that food, which is derived from carbohydrates, is broken down into simple sugars, like glucose, which then enter the blood stream (we call it “blood sugar”).

We depend on insulin (secreted by the pancreas) to usher that blood sugar into our cells to supply energy and maintain normal blood sugar levels. The problem Allen sees is that an “insulin-sensitive” person who uses artificial sweeteners teases his or her body into thinking food is on its way, so insulin is released. But when the body discovers it was cheated out of food, it revolts by throwing a food-craving tantrum that can only be quelled by eating blood sugar food that will more than likely be high-calorie sugary snacks. “I point out to them how it doesn’t make sense. . . they’re trying to save themselves sugar but then they eat more foods that are going to raise their blood sugar anyway.”

Yet, the unabashed public acceptance of artificial sweeteners, namely aspartame, is fueled by the approval of a host of scientific and professional organizations, including the American Dietetic Association, American Heart Association, American Medical Association and the National Cancer Institute. Is it any wonder that some 200 million Americans use this ubiquitous product?

Rebecca Ephraim


You are such a morron! – coca-cola isn’t as bad as you think because it has aspartame; i’m a diabetic and i eat aspartame instead of sugar with al my meals and I haven’t had any complaints yet. I”ve been doing this for at least 15 years. So please, just stop making people paranoide about everything they eat or drink!! – NM

“Aspartane is healty its grate for wieght loss and hasnt never been proved to be toxic. Only a moran would avoyd drinking asspartame as is gud 4 u” – BM