John E. Garst, PHD toxicologist, 13 papers in PubMed, offers detailed
defence of aspartame (methanol, formaldehyde) safety: Murray
2007.02.08
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1408

Connecticut already banning artificial sweeteners in public schools:
short aspartame (methanol, formaldehyde) toxicity research summary:
Murray 2007.02.08
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1404

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1369
Bristol, Connecticut, schools join state program to limit
artificial sweeteners, sugar, fats for 8800 students,
Johnny J Burnham, The Bristol Press: Murray 2006.09.22

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1341
Connecticut bans artificial sweeteners in schools,
Nancy Barnes, New Milford Times: Murray 2006.05.25

One liter aspartame diet soda, about 3 12-oz cans,
gives 61.5 mg methanol,
so if 30% is turned into formaldehyde, the formaldehyde
dose of 18.5 mg is 37 times the recent EPA limit of
0.5 mg per liter daily drinking water for a 10-kg child:
www.epa.gov/teach/chem_summ/Formaldehyde_summary.pdf
2007.01.05 [ does not discuss formaldehyde from methanol
or aspartame ]
http://www.epa.gov/teach/teachsurvey.html comments
t...@environmentalhealthconsulting.com

"Of course, everyone chooses, as a natural priority,
to actively find, quickly share, and positively act upon
the facts about healthy and safe food, drink, and
environment."

Rich Murray, MA  Room For All  rmfor...@comcast.net
505-501-2298  1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages
group with 77 members, 1,407 posts in a public,
searchable archive
http://RMForAll.blogspot.com

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1340
aspartame groups and books: updated research review of
2004.07.16: Murray 2006.05.11

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1395
Aspartame Controversy, in Wikipedia democratic
encyclopedia, 72 references (including AspartameNM # 864
and 1173 by Murray),  brief fair summary of much more
research: Murray 2007.01.01

Dark wines and liquors, as well as aspartame, provide
similar levels of methanol, above 120 mg daily, for
long-term heavy users, 2 L daily, about 6 cans.

Within hours, methanol is inevitably largely turned into
formaldehyde, and thence largely into formic acid -- the
major causes of the dreaded symptoms of "next morning"
hangover.

Fully 11% of aspartame is methanol -- 1,120 mg aspartame
in 2 L diet soda, almost six 12-oz cans, gives 123 mg
methanol (wood alcohol). If 30% of the methanol is turned
into formaldehyde, the amount of formaldehyde, 37 mg,
is 18.5 times the USA EPA limit for daily formaldehyde in
drinking water, 2.0 mg in 2 L average daily drinking water.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1286
methanol products (formaldehyde and formic acid) are main
cause of alcohol  hangover symptoms [same as from similar
amounts of methanol, the 11% part of aspartame]:
YS Woo et al, 2005 Dec: Murray 2006.01.20

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1143
methanol (formaldehyde, formic acid) disposition:
Bouchard M et al, full plain text, 2001: substantial
sources are degradation of fruit pectins, liquors,
aspartame, smoke: Murray 2005.04.02

[ More..... ]
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/915
formaldehyde toxicity:  Thrasher & Kilburn: Shaham: EPA:
Gold: Wilson: CIIN: Murray 2002.12.12

Thrasher (2001): "The major difference is that the
Japanese demonstrated the incorporation of FA and its
metabolites into the placenta and fetus.
The quantity of radioactivity remaining in maternal and
fetal tissues at 48 hours was 26.9% of the administered
dose." [ Ref. 14-16 ]

Arch Environ Health 2001 Jul-Aug; 56(4): 300-11.
Embryo toxicity and teratogenicity of formaldehyde.
[100 references]
Thrasher JD, Kilburn KH.  toxicol...@drthrasher.org
Sam-1 Trust, Alto, New Mexico, USA.
http://www.drthrasher.org/formaldehyde_embryo_toxicity.html
full text

http://www.drthrasher.org/formaldehyde_1990.html full text
Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Alan Broughton, Roberta Madison.
Immune activation and autoantibodies in humans with
long-term inhalation exposure to formaldehyde.
Archives of Environmental Health. 1990; 45: 217-223.
PMID: 2400243
[  More..... ]
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

New West Network | New Mexico Signers of Anti-Global Warming Letter
Garrett, John E Garst, PhD, John C Garth, PhD, Art Gebeau, Raymond
George, PhD, TG George, Claude M Gillespie, PhD, H Scott Gingrich, ...
www.newwest.net/index.php/plain/entry/10365 - 52k - Supplemental
Result

1: Wilson WC, Simon J, Garst JE.
The effects of selected bulky substituents on the pulmonary toxicity
of 3-furyl ketones in mice.
J Anim Sci. 1990 Apr; 68(4): 1072-6.
PMID: 2332384 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
University of Illinois, Urbana 61801.

2: Garst JE.
No abstract
The clinical relevance of the LD50.
Vet Hum Toxicol. 1987 Apr; 29(2): 160. No abstract available.
PMID: 3576952 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

3: Klasing SA, Mora MI, Wilson WC, Fahey GC Jr, Garst JE.
Abstract        Biological activity of phenolic compounds. Hepatic
cytochrome P-450, cytochrome b5, and NADPH cytochrome c reductase in
chicks and rats fed phenolic monomers, polymers, and glycosides.
Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1985 Sep; 179(4): 529-38.
PMID: 2991941 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

7: Garst JE, Wilson WC.
Abstract        Accurate, wide-range, automated, high-performance
liquid
chromatographic method for the estimation of octanol/water partition
coefficients I: Effect of chromatographic conditions and procedure
variables on accuracy and reproducibility of the method.
J Pharm Sci. 1984 Nov; 73(11): 1616-23.
PMID: 6520766 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.dailylobo.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticleComments&...

John Garst
posted 9/26/2006 @ 1:32 PM EST

Well again Stephen Fox continues his tirade against aspartame.

To bad he just doesn't get it. The scientific community will not take
any action against aspartame because there is no case here. Twenty
years ago there may have been, but after twenty-years science has
still failed to find any reason for such a ban. And why should
anything be banned when the scientific community doesn't concur with
questions as to aspartame safety. I hold a Ph.D in drug chemistry and
postdoctoral and academic experience teaching toxicology. I have no
connections with the aspartame industry whatsoever. I have studied
this matter thoroughly and consequent to my own investigation I have
helped to block any action on this matter by NM authorities ( read my
review at http://webpages.charter.net/jegarst/ ).

This matter should completely go away. But Fox and others just keep
pushing the argument that methanol and formaldehyde are toxic. No
doubt they can be if you drink them, but can water also kill if you
drink too much. In fact sugar also has adverse effects that aspartame
could prevent. It is only the dose that makes the difference and in
the dose obtained from aspartame (used properly) there is no issue
here. Those who want to ban aspartame fail to understand that many
natural products that we consume regularly, including most plant
materials contain methyl ethers and methyl esters; these are
metabolized to formaldehyde and/or methanol. So aspartame, when used
as directed, adds negligibly to our total formaldehyde and methanol
intake. Moreover, because such materials are regularly consumed,
biology has taken advantage to utilize these substances. The
formaldehyde/methanol so produced are vital for proper function of the
folate vitamin system which uses this formaldehyde and methano
l to generate methylenetetrahydrofolate. This folate intermediate is
then reduced to methyltetrahydrofolate which provides methyl groups
vital to the function and control of DNA and the vital control of the
truly and far more toxic amino acid homocysteine. High blood
homocysteine is associated with many disease states, so aspartame
consumption could literally help obviate these disease states.

Efforts to ban aspartame are truly a waste of time and energy; they
certainly should not prevail.

John E. Garst, Ph.D.  505-434-2871
3008 Del Prado, Alamogordo, NM 88310 jega...@totacc.com

http://katiemrsfatty.blogspot.com/2006/12/aspartame.html

 Anonymous said...

    Katie:

    You really don't know what you are talking about and you are
misinforming others based on heresay. Read Snopes (Urban Legend site),
then read the manufacturers critique of the anti-aspartame people. But
if you still think there is some master conspiracy realize this ---
aspartame is just like the thousands of substances that you eat in
your normal diet daily that are also metabolized to methanol or
formaldehyde.

There are so many such substances, a biochemical process using the
vitamin folate has evolved to convert the formaldehyde into methyl
groups for use in vital biochemistry. Read the real truth and see why
few scientists involved in real risk assessment issues cares about
aspartame, see http://webpages.charter.net/jegarst/.

That document also explains how the "anti-aspartame authorities" are
not really authorities at all. Efforts to ban aspartame will fail
everytime once any governmental official reads my common sense Word
2003 document. It already played a major role in obliterating the
misguided efforts to ban aspartame in New Mexico. There is no giant
conspiracy here, just common sense. Folate is worthless without
formaldehyde substrate to utilize to make the methyl groups with which
to methylate DNA and vital proteins. Put another way, aspartame is
actually good for you and that is a comment from one of America's
leading nutritionists at a Big 12 University.

    John E. Garst, Ph.D.
    (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, and Toxicology)
    see http://webpages.charter.net/jegarst/
    December 25, 2006 7:05 PM

An Open letter to NM Representative Harrison and NM Senator Ortiz y
Pino and any proponent of a ban on aspartame in New Mexico

It has come to my attention that you have introduced bills to ban
aspartame in the NM legislature (House Bill 202 and Senate Bill 250).
I cannot emphasize enough the totally unjustified and unwise nature of
this proposed legislation. Explore this document and its web links,
but for thoughtful, careful examination I encourage you to print and
read this document.

First a bit of background about me and evidence my comments reflect
scientific and independent due diligence. I am a citizen of New Mexico
and a toxicologist, who has recently examined the safety aspects of
aspartame for my own family's security. I hold an undergraduate
chemistry degree from the University of Kansas, a doctorate from the
University of Iowa (Medicinal Chemistry), and have postdoctoral
experience at Yale U. (Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry), and
Vanderbilt U. (two, one in Physiology-then Pharmacology and the second
in Biochemistry-Nutritional Toxicology). I was on the faculty at the
University of Illinois (Nutritional Toxicology, Animal & Dairy
Science, Champaign-Urbana) for seven years before moving to Kansas
State University (Veterinary Medicine). I left Kansas State U. in 1986
to work on prospective AIDS drugs at the Primate Research Institute
(PRI) of NMSU. Since the PRI's demise, I have done drug consulting
work and am currently researching a phenomenal,
highly promising toxicological cause of schizophrenia. With 13 papers
(PubMed, enter Garst JE) and other papers not listed there, I am an
elected member of the Society of Toxicology, which is foremost in the
world in matters of toxicology (the science of poisons). I am also a
member of the American Chemical Society and its divisions of Medicinal
Chemistry and of Chemical Toxicology. For the record I have never, nor
do I now receive any monies from any organization having any
connection to aspartame. The following comments are my own, but are
very widely shared by my colleagues. My investigation was undertaken
in part, because I know of no one in my scientific community that
supports a ban on aspartame and I know many who think it is
ridiculous.

It is essential first to educate you about chemical and drug
toxicology. The fundamental tenet of toxicology is that everything is
poisonous; only the dose and exposure time makes the difference
between effect and no effect. Water is not considered toxic, but
drowning kills frequently. You are probably aware that cyanide is
highly lethal; you are probably unaware that it is present in many
foods we eat regularly (Jones, 1998). Methanol and ethanol are perhaps
the best studied "poisonous" substances, because of methanol's
presence in adulterated or illicit drinking alcohol (ethanol). Of
course the neurotoxic effects of ethanol are legend, a fact may DUIs
reiterate. Aspartame is no different from these and other chemicals or
drugs; given a sufficiently high dose over a sufficiently long time,
it too will exert toxic effects and may even kill.

Most substances rapidly disperse throughout the body and are
detoxified by a wide variety of enzymes forming metabolites with
different properties; this contributes to why "only the dose and
exposure time makes the difference between effect and no effect." So
even with "non-toxic" water, it is dose and exposure time that make
the difference between life and death. Cyanide in our foods has no
effect, because it rarely attains concentrations where dose and time
produce lethality. In the high doses associated with illicit alcohol,
methanol can cause blindness and death "with as little as 0.1 mL/kg
(6-10 mL in adults." Actually 6 mL is a significant dose rarely
attained except by direct consumption or by working with methanol
fumes in a closed airspace. Aspartame is no different here either. Its
two amino acid metabolites phenylalanine and aspartic acid are vital
amino acid building blocks; they are part of a balanced diet and not
considered a problem. The non-amino acid metabolite met
hanol is released from aspartame by stomach hydrolysis and/or by
metabolism and is then rapidly destroyed by oxidation to formaldehyde
and then formic acid. Clearly, if any substance is destroyed as fast
as it is made available, the concentrations of these metabolites can
drop below those concentrations required for a measurable effect. This
is true for aspartame even at the highest sweetener doses. In the
maximal doses that people take if they follow the instructions,
aspartame is simply not dangerous or even risky. You must realize too
that aspartame is much safer than the sucrose it is intended to
replace, especially amongst the many diabetics in NM. Moreover, there
are many chemicals and drugs in current and common use that are far
more dangerous.

Fundamentally your legislation is faulty, because it targets only the
toxicity issue and neglects the other part of the toxic definition,
namely the importance of dose and exposure time. Using your rationale
water, which kills far more people by neurotoxic asphyxiation
(drowning), should also be banned. There are no recorded,
substantiated cases of aspartame-linked death, yet Tylenol
(acetaminophen), for example, is known to kill children (Marinetti et
al, 2005) and adults. It is remarkably unsafe at just over the
recommended dosage. Far more people die of Tylenol poisoning each
year, but nobody has proposed banning Tylenol have they? Moreover, in
NM ethanol abuse and neurotoxicity is a far worse issue than
aspartame. Aspartame is also far safer than peanuts, which kill many
people yearly. Isn't it only right to ban the more lethal Tylenol,
alcohol, and peanuts, if we ban aspartame? After all they kill, but
aspartame doesn't. (Compare "aspartame AND human deaths",
"ethanol AND human deaths", "peanuts AND human deaths",
with "Tylenol AND human deaths"; type each without the quotes
in the subject line at PubMed to get 0, 379, 22 and 75 papers
discussing the deaths, respectively).

Your legislation's claim of "neurotoxic and carcinogenic
metabolites" (assuming you mean methanol, formaldehyde, and/or formic
acid), is also without merit, because again all things are toxic and
may even be carcinogenic unless you define dose and exposure time.
Many, if not most, foods, drugs, and chemicals (even water) have some
adverse effect at unrealistic doses from normal exposure or in
irrelevant test systems. Likewise, that high dose tests might reveal
such actions in some in vitro or even in rodent test system does not
make that observation relevant to risk assessment, because it too
neglects the important dose and time issue. If you claim "neurotoxic
and carcinogenic metabolites", you must define the dose and exposure
time for those metabolites to exert that effect, since these factors
can dramatically modify and even obviate toxicity. Doing so has
revealed NO reproducible evidence for aspartame or for its metabolites
causing problems in humans at the recommended dose (Bu
tchko et al, 2002). This is in addition to ongoing efforts by US
scientists (National Toxicology Program, enter aspartame).

Methanol, formaldehyde, and formic acid readily disperse through the
blood and tissues and are therein altered and removed by metabolism,
which rapidly reduces their concentrations. Though formic acid can be
toxic at high concentrations, it is also vital for proper function of
the folate vitamin system. This system provides methyl groups critical
for regulatory methylation of proteins and DNA. So your legislation
banning aspartame based on its conversion to your "toxic metabolite"
is actually banning something essential for life. Moreover, hundreds
of foods, chemicals, and drugs contain structural elements (O-methyl
ethers, methyl esters, or N-methyl substituents) that are also
metabolized to formaldehyde and formic acid and therefore are equal
hazards. Thus the rationale of your legislation that these metabolites
are "neurotoxic and carcinogenic" also applies equally to hundreds of
foods, chemicals, and drugs that are also metabolized to these
identical products. Are you sure you want to ban aspartame,
if the rationale would also ban morphine, codeine,
or Demerol pain relievers, the anti-inflammatory drug
indomethacin, the widely used anti-hypertensive drug diltiazem and
perhaps 20% of all drugs? Diltiazem is particularly relevant because
its chemical structure contains one O-methylether and two N-methyl
substituents. Given equal numbers of molecules of diltiazem and
aspartame, diltiazem produces three times more formaldehyde than the
methyl ester in aspartame.

For these reasons, I strongly suggest that at a minimum your
legislation be withdrawn this term. If you persist in thinking such a
ban has any merit, a more formal study could still be made by credible
toxicologists for the next legislative term. Much is at risk for the
image of New Mexico in this issue. But New Mexico also has a problem.
New Mexico has but 51 toxicologists (listed as members of the Society
of Toxicology); most of these scientists are involved in respiratory
research (Lovelace) or are engaged in other research at NM
Universities and/or Colleges.

Few NM scientists evidently have interest or training in nutritional
toxicology, reactive metabolites, or this type of risk assessment.
Earlier this month I returned from attending the 7th International
meeting on Biological Reactive Intermediates (BRI, http://
swehsc.pharmacy.arizona.edu/bri/)
in Tucson. Other than myself, there was not a soul there from New
Mexico amongst the 150 registrants. If you want to have a real impact
on understanding this and related problems, support research in food
and nutritional toxicology in NM. Support it, if for no other reason
than to provide you legislators with answers to these types of
questions. Maybe if NMSU with its inherent agricultural and food
interests were given appropriate funding for training in nutritional
toxicology, it could foster understanding and further interest in this
subject, so New Mexicans can better understand the risks and benefits
of nutrition-related drug and chemical issues. It is also relevant to
NM and to you legislator's that capsaicin,
the active ingredient in chili peppers, was mentioned at BRI
as forming a reactive and hence likely toxic metabolite.
Capsaicin's ability to form formaldehyde and formic acid,
which is equal to that of aspartame, was so insignificant that it was
not even mentioned. Will society act to ban capsaicin before the NM
legislature even knows it is an issue? For a subject so vital to NM
like capsaicin, where was NM's representation?

Much relevant work could be accomplished by legislative funding for
the discipline of nutritional toxicology in New Mexico. And several
scientific questions involving aspartame could be a focused part of an
effort that could even impress the rest of the nation. One scientific
question that needs attention is whether some people may have a
deficiency of vital protective systems. First, might people that
experience problems with aspartame actually be deficient in the
vitamin folate? Without folate enzymes to detoxify formate, an
aspartame user obviously would be subject to higher methanol,
formaldehyde, and formate doses, which might then explain their
alleged symptoms. Such a deficiency of one or more folate enzymes is
known to contribute to methanol toxicity in humans (Johlin et al,
1987). Second, people perceiving problems with aspartame might have a
deficiency of the pseudo vitamin carnitine, which likely alters the
disposition of methanol, increasing its excretion (Czech et al,
2004). Perhaps for that reason carnitine can actually prevent deaths
in rodents given methanol (Olszowy et al, 2005).

Another scientific question that needs attention involves the
possibility of a combinational effect of legal and/or illegal drug
with aspartame. Many legal drugs and most illegal drugs (cocaine,
ecstasy, LSD, and many others) have O-methyl or N-methyl groups that
are likely metabolized to methanol, formaldehyde, and/or formate.
Might such drug use increase methanol, formaldehyde, and formic acid
concentrations, accentuating the alleged effects of aspartame? Lau et
al, 2006) found an exacerbation of aspartame effects with various
other non-nutritional food additives, though none investigated are
sold in the USA. While the responsible mechanism here is uncertain,
drugs that specifically form or affect methanol, formaldehyde, and
formate metabolites could make it seem that the effect was aspartame
related. Such a response would be unique to the specific person using
the sweetener and explain the inability of controlled scientific
experiments to document such results. In this case sinc
e aspartame containing products are clearly labeled, the user should
avoid aspartame, but this is NO justification to ban aspartame.

If what I have mentioned here has not been discussed by others, you
may have been seriously misled. Please feel free to contact me for
more information or for questions at the address below. I know you
wish to do the right thing, but banning aspartame is simply
ludicrous.

Regards,

John E. Garst, Ph.D.
(Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, and Toxicology)
3008 Del Prado
Alamogordo, NM 88310
phone 505-434-2871
jega...@totacc.com

PS:  Should the above considerations be insufficient to make the point
that banning aspartame is laughable, at least six related or unrelated
arguments can be made against your proposed legislation banning
aspartame.

First, aspartame-containing products are labeled as required by
existing law; no one is forcing anyone to use them. If you don't want
to risk problems using aspartame, don't use it. Neither those
supporting such a ban nor members of the New Mexico legislature have
credible expertise in chemical and drug risk assessment. Why should
either group determine what people can or cannot eat? Banning
aspartame is bizarre for these reasons alone. Moreover such a ban will
affect interstate commerce and for that reason could even violate the
interstate commerce parts of the US constitution. NM cannot afford to
go off half-cocked, for a ban will substantially weaken the view of NM
from outside the state at the same time TV advertisements are trying
to tell the US what a nice place NM is.

Second, concerning the "metabolites" you claim to be "poisonous and
deleterious food additives." What are they? Be specific -- put them in
the legislation for that is why you want to ban aspartame isn't it?
There are actually several metabolites of aspartame and none are
particularly toxic. But the one that seems underlying this legislation
is methanol and the fact that it is further metabolized to
formaldehyde, or formic acid, which the proponents behind this
legislation claim to be toxic. Remember everything is toxic; it is
just a matter of dose and time. It is true that methanol,
formaldehyde, and formic acid can be toxic at high doses and high
exposure times, but not at those concentrations encountered from
aspartame exposure. And many other substances produce these same
metabolites. So metabolite toxicity is simply an insufficient reason
to ban aspartame. A real, honest evaluation of toxicology requires
consideration of body distribution, dose and time. Extensive work has
been done and does not suggest a problem with aspartame
(Butchko et al, 2002). After twenty years of use and scientific
evaluation,
don't you think that, if it existed, someone would have discovered a
reproducible ill effect of aspartame?

A proponent of this ban targets the carcinogenicity of methanol,
formaldehyde, formic acid and suggests applying the Delaney Clause in
urging its removal based on new work by Soffritti et al, 2006 in a
respected National Institutes of Health journal. In their study
Soffritti et al (2006) cite an increase in lymphomas and leukemias and
other findings to claim "APM is a multipotential carcinogenic agent,
even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg body weight, much less than the
current acceptable daily intake. On the basis of these results, a
reevaluation of the present guidelines on the use and consumption of
APM is urgent and cannot be delayed." But there are many things
questionable about this paper and its conclusions. First, this paper
has a history and has already been challenged. Second and most
striking, however, is that they let their Sprague-Dawley rats die
natural deaths. This is a very unusual event in cancer studies,
because other factors can become unduly important over a long ti
me line. And the status of the vitamin folate is but one such factor
as Choi et al, 2005, Crott et al, 2005, and Choi et al, 2003 all
discovered in Sprague-Dawley rats. Taken together these three papers
suggest that inadequate folate may adversely affect Sprague-Dawley
rats; in the aspartame case it would coincide with what was already
mentioned about folate issues in humans three paragraphs before my
first signature. The tumor variance seen between treated and untreated
groups in the Soffritti et al, 2006 study might really reflect natural
variance of folate based on individual differences in food consumption
within the rats over a lifespan. Relevant too is that a search of the
Soffritti PDF for "folate" didn't reveal any mention of this term.
Another Italian study by Gemmati et al, 2004 furthers this point for
"lymphomas and leukemias." Gemmati et al. (2004) studied folate issues
relative to a leukemia and a lymphoma in adult humans who possessed
different types of folate enzyme variants. Amongst their conclusions
was that:
"folate assessment is strongly recommended in future studies,
because its levels could mask/influence this protective effect of
genetic variants."
Although pointing out genetic variances between humans, it is clear
again that
differences in folate status can affect occurrence of human lymphomas
and leukemias that might well extend backward to rats.

Moreover, the Soffritti et al study is inconsistent with other work
(Heck and Casanova, 2004, also see the National Toxicology Program,
aspartame). But invoking the Delaney Clause reflects an emotional
response that is no longer scientific valid, because of strong
evidence that rodents are often irrelevant cancer models for humans
(Williams et al, 1996). Moreover, common sense indicates you simply
don't ban something consequent to one questionable paper. You must
realize cancer issues have arisen before and never been substantiated
(Heck and Casanova, 2004; Weihrauch and Diehl, 2004). Weihrauch and
Diehl mention in their conclusion that "despite unscientific articles
in the mass media and scientific press, there is no evidence that the
artificial sweetener aspartame bears a carcinogenic risk." Activists
supporting such a ban have systematically ignored much scientific work
refuting anecdotal evidence of harm that could be discussed at
length.

Third, another argument questioning a ban is the abundance of the
natural metabolites of aspartame. Methanol is abundant in nature and
to ban exposure to this substance requires a ban of many drugs and
foods. Did you know that methanol can, for example, be found as either
an ether or ester linkage in perhaps 20% of legal drugs and from those
drugs it is directly hydrolyzed or metabolized to methanol,
formaldehyde, and/or formic acid? Check out the chemical structures of
cocaine, codeine, methyl salicylate (muscle warming agent) and many,
many more for starters. Most methyl groups on nitrogen also afford
formaldehyde by metabolism.

But methanol itself can be found at even greater concentrations in
many natural foods, such as fruits and vegetables. Besides tomato
juice (mentioned shortly), peaches, bananas, and apples contain
methanol too (Taucher et al, 1995). For NM another food that contains
a source of formaldehyde is capsaicin, the active ingredients in chili
peppers.

Capsaicin's chemical structure contains a methyl ether; although this
is a bit different than the methyl ester linkage in aspartame, it too
is expected to be metabolized to formaldehyde in the body.

Virani et al, 2003 published a paper on Graves' disease and pulmonary
hypertension. It drew a comment by Roberts, 2004 suggesting aspartame
was responsible, and a rebuttal by Virani et al, 2004. Virani et al,
2004 first indicated no literature pertinent to this possibility, and
then followed with the paragraph below (the red coloration below is
added for emphasis):

"Aspartame consumption had initially been linked to neurologic
dysfunction, cognitive dysfunction, and allergic reactions.1-3
Recently, an extensive review failed to confirm most of these early
concerns regarding the safety of aspartame.4 As Dr. Roberts noted,
aspartame is metabolized into phenylalanine, aspartic acid, and
methanol. The above-mentioned metabolites from aspartame are found in
much higher quantities in foods and beverages of daily use. For
example, a glass of non-fat milk provides about 6 times more
phenylalanine and 13 times more aspartic acid, and a glass of tomato
juice provides about 6 times more methanol than does an equivalent
volume of beverage sweetened 100% with aspartame.4"

1 Maher TJ, Wurtman RJ. Possible neurologic effects of aspartame, a
widely used food additive. Environ Health Perspect 1987;75:53-7.

2 Pinto JM, Maher TJ. Administration of aspartame potentiates
pentylenetetrazole- and flurothyl-induced seizures in mice.
Neuropharmacology 1988;27(1):51-5.

3 Bradstock MK, Serdula MK, Marks JS, Barnard RJ, Crane NT, Remington
PL, Trowbridge FL. Evaluation of reactions to food additives: the
aspartame experience. Am J Clin Nutr  1986;43(3):464-9.

4 Butchko HH, Stargel WW, Comer CP, Mayhew DA, Benninger C, Blackburn
GL, et al. Aspartame: review of safety. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol
2002;35(2 Pt 2):S1-93.

If you ban aspartame, because it generates methanol, formaldehyde,
and/
or formic acid, logically you must ban many drugs, natural foods and
vegetables including capsaicin too! They produce the identical "toxic,
neurotoxic, carcinogenic, poisonous or deleterious" metabolites at the
same or even greater concentrations that your legislation purports to
avoid with a ban on aspartame. Perhaps you can see now that banning
anything because it contains or releases methanol and/or can be
metabolized to formaldehyde and/or formate is simply laughable.

Toxicology is dependent on dose and time, because we have a wide
variety of enzymes in us that are designed to detoxify (metabolize)
chemicals in our foods. It is thought that such destruction achieves a
reduction in concentration to avoid lethal biochemical,
pharmacological, or toxicological issues. For example, the cyanide we
ingest daily is detoxified by the enzyme rhodanese. Methanol ingestion
has occurred by humans for many centuries. Perhaps, consequently we
have developed enzymes to detoxify methanol, formaldehyde, and formic
acid, lest we be killed. The ultimate methanol metabolite, formate,
that you imply is dangerous is, in fact, a substrate (meaning it is
required) for the vital folate enzyme system (Danishpajooh et al,
2001). Without the folate enzymes, spina bifida and many other
teratological and neurological problems can result. This is because
the folate system provides vital methyl groups for methionine
formation and methylation and thus regulation of protein and D
NA. To ban aspartame because of its methanol metabolite, which is
oxidized to formaldehyde and to formic acid, and thus allows the
folate enzymes to function, is again unreasonable, making a ban all
the more misdirected legislation.

Fourth, if you don't want to listen to the people whose job it is at
FDA to determine the safety of such substances in the USA or to my
independent investigation of aspartame, you must note that the
European Union has also just concurred as to the safety of this
substance (see
http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scf/out155_en.pdf ).

In contrast to the 30,000+ web pages that allege aspartame toxicities
of about every type, there is not some giant conspiracy on the part of
the scientific community to support aspartame. Instead there is simply
NO scientifically viable, reproducible evidence supporting any valid
allegation. In an earlier paragraph I have suggested new science that
could possibly explain this discrepancy. But it is important to note
that we toxicologists are people first and we too use aspartame
containing products. We would be first to ban it, were a ban
justified.

I have obtained practically all pertinent literature on this subject
to evaluate the safety myself. In that effort I have found nothing to
justify a ban of aspartame and no amount of hand waving, emotion-
driven arguments, distorted and false web pages, or lobbying justify
such a ban. Consequently, why is little populated NM out to ban
aspartame? Are there other ulterior motives to undertake such an
unprecedented step?

Perhaps those wanting such a ban should be evaluated more closely for
motive. In that regard the legislature needs to consider the biases
inherent with some activists (lobbyists) supporting this legislative
ban. Proponents likely have many agendas, some even honorable if not
misguided, but others may have many ulterior motives for supporting
this ban. First such a ban provides lawsuit financial opportunities.
How many proponents are lawyers or are on retainer from lawyers, who
have something to gain from having NM regulate aspartame? Are these
lawyers using poor little NM, a state with very limited expertise in
the field not to speak of resources to defend itself, to try and
create a precedent here by banning aspartame mainly to help their
legal case in California? Others supporting this ban may have
political purposes (critical of Bush or Rumsfeld, see Rumsfeld
disease). But drugs and chemicals should never be allowed or
disallowed based on political decisions. Alternatively other
s may have personal issues (e.g. book deals, Excitotoxins: The Taste
That Kills by RL Blaylock, an MD author with no credible scientific
publications on aspartame available on PubMed, enter Blaylock RL AND
aspartame).

Along the same line I have heard it said that it was difficult to
criticize the many MDs recruited from major US institutions to present
their "expert" opinions on this matter in past hearings on this issue.
But it is not difficult at all to criticize this lineup of "experts."
These "experts" may be MDs and may hold clinical positions and may
reside at major institutions, but they are hardly experts in
toxicology or risk assessment. How many are members of the Society of
Toxicology? None, at last count. How many have published their
supposition of toxicity in relevant journals? Aside from an irrelevant
rebuttal letter or two, effectively none. There are many experts in
the aspartame field; where were they? Specifically, where was the
University of Iowa's TR Tephly, perhaps the foremost expert on
methanol toxicology in the country, who has been working on methanol
issue long before aspartame? He was a coauthor in (Butchko et al,
2002), which disagrees with these allegations.
Does the absence of these opponents instead reflect another agenda?
You might as well listen to your minister or accountant on this matter
as to listen to these so-called experts. This is not a criticism of
those
holding an MD degree, but it is merely recognition that the vast
majority of (but not all) MDs are simply not trained in research. An
MD is unquestionably a very skilled individual performing life-saving
diagnostic and clinical work with patients, etc. But an MD rarely
makes for an expert in toxicology. Some 99.5% of the ~6,000 member
national and internationally known Society of Toxicology members are
PhDs, are PhD candidates, or are DVM's, but are NOT MDs. That 0.5%
means about 50 SOT members are MDs. But if that isn't enough, note
that most of the 50 or so members of SOT that are MDs are actually
double degreed PhD/MDs. How many of the "experts" called to testify
earlier even have PhDs much less double degrees? These facts alone
make the recruited MD supporters highly suspect, no matter their
institution.
Do not let this smokescreen affect your common sense.

Fifth, such a ban sets serious precedents for New Mexico not only
because it is scientifically unjustified, but because it will have
profound and perhaps unrecognized consequences. Again this type of
legislation should not be anything but a scientific matter. Why then
is the NM legislature involved? If it is anything else than purely
scientific, this issue will come back to haunt you legislators.
Specifically it will logically force legislative action on many more
"allegedly" toxic substances than aspartame that are in common use,
just several of which include alcohol or Tylenol, not to speak of the
active ingredient in chili peppers, capsaicin, or the many pesticides.
That means the New Mexico legislature could be inundated with requests
from other people or groups with an agenda to ban or otherwise
regulate this or that other substance. The consequence could easily
require the legislature to deal with each compound or even to create
its own FDA and EPA to deal with other foods, drugs, and chemicals
that are widely known to be far more lethal or
dangerous than aspartame. Check peanuts for one. Many people die from
peanuts every year, yet there is no reported, substantiated aspartame-
linked death from aspartame. Are you prepared to handle the costs for
creating such bureaucratic organizations to supervise drugs and
chemicals? This action for aspartame could set a precedent that will
cost New Mexico much both in the eyes of the nation and in the
pocketbook. Will the people accept all that duplication of costs? NM
may have some extra monies this year, but creation of a bigger
bureaucracy is not a good way to spend it.

Sixth, such a ban of aspartame is very likely to be unrealistic and
unenforceable. Will the state dare challenge Kroger's, Wal-Mart, K-
Mart, Pepsi-Cola, Coca-Cola and the many other business entities who
will still market aspartame products in NM. You might think yes, but
as a taxpayer I refuse to let my money go to support such a ridiculous
and narrow action and I vote. Should aspartame become illegal, there
is also the possibility of a citizen's rebellion against a legislature
doing what it has no qualifications to do. An aspartame ban is but an
invitation to a class action by perhaps hundreds of businesses and
individuals against the state, especially in the light of the fact
that no other state or major nation has banned aspartame. I know we
have extra monies this year, but inviting lawsuits is not the way to
spend it.

Having studied this substance since last summer, I have found there is
NO scientific basis to ban aspartame. But you say what about all this
bad stuff I hear about aspartame? What about the 30,000+ web pages
questioning its safety? Actually what you may be hearing from the
activists are some of the many theoretical reasons that were given in
the 1980s for why aspartame might be harmful, before it actually
appeared commercially and could even be evaluated. While these
arguments might have had merit beforehand, none of these reasons can
be shown to be a factor now. In general if it was aspartame work
published before 1990, it is probably discounted now as irrelevant or
it has long been repudiated. For example, note references 1-3 in the
quoted Virani et al paragraph of my second point. The literature is
full of repudiated aspartame toxicity claims that are simply ignored
by these activist supporters of this ban, who quote pre-1990 papers
extensively. People that support such a ban are simply ill-informed
about the current science on aspartame.

It is also relevant that those claiming problems from aspartame
dismiss and even denigrate the authorities at the FDA. No one is
perfect, but if you dismiss authorities with the complex training
needed to do risk assessments, then why bother to provide an education
at all? Simply put there are NO credible and reproducible scientific
papers that show substantiated evidence of harm from aspartame today.
And again, even if there were any issues, aspartame is required to be
labeled, so the user can simply and easily avoid the substance. No one
is forcing aspartame down anyone's throat. There is no viable need for
a ban on aspartame.
-------------------------------------

John E. Garst, Ph.D.
(Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, and Toxicology)
3008 Del Prado, Alamogordo, NM 88310
phone 505-434-2871 jega...@totacc.com
Version 1.042
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////