SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
center for science in the public interest
WHO Agency Reportedly to List Aspartame as 'Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans'
International Agency for Research on Cancer listings do not say anything about how much of a substance a person must consume to be at risk, but they can be hugely influential.
Jun 29, 2023
A World Health Organization' agency will list the widely used artificial sweetener aspartame as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" July 14, Reuters reported, citing two sources familiar with the situation.
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) listings do not say anything about how much of a substance a person must consume to be at risk, but they can be hugely influential. The body's 2015 determination that glyphosate was "probably carcinogenic to humans" has helped plaintiffs to win lawsuits and appeals against Bayer claiming that use of its glyphosate-containing herbicides caused their cancer.
"We have to wait until July 14 and see how it determines the assessment and in which group it encompasses it," Rafael Urrialde de Andrés, who sits on the board of directors of the Spanish Society of Nutrition and is a professor at the Faculty of Biological Sciences of the Complutense University of Madrid and the Faculty of Pharmacy of the San Pablo-CEU University, said in a statement. "From then on, the food safety agencies and authorities will have to determine whether to reevaluate, ban it, or maintain authorization and under what conditions."
"CSPI has long recommended that consumers avoid aspartame because of studies showing the sweetener caused cancer in animals."
Aspartame is a popular artificial sweetener used in products from Diet Coke to Mars chewing gum. Around 95% of carbonated drinks and 90% of teas that use artificial sweeteners use aspartame, according to The Washington Post.
It has been deemed safe in more than 90 countries including the U.S., and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has affirmed its safety five different times. However, there have been calls from scientists to reevaluate the chemical based on a series of Italian studies finding it caused tumors in rats, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has aspartame on its list of chemicals to avoid.
"CSPI has long recommended that consumers avoid aspartame because of studies showing the sweetener caused cancer in animals," the group tweeted in response to the Reuters story.
The IARC lists exposures as either possibly carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, or carcinogenic to humans, with the ranking dependent on the strength and extent of the evidence. Experts point out that the IARC is assessing whether foods or chemicals represent potential hazards.
"This means that the IARC experts do not assess whether, in practice, a substance or exposure presents a cancer risk to people," Kevin McConway, emeritus professor of applied statistics at Open University, explained. "Instead they assess whether it would ever be capable of presenting a risk, under any circumstances, even if the only harmful circumstances are really, really unlikely to occur."
Because of this, the body has been criticized for causing unnecessary worry with its listings, such as its warnings that eating red meat and working overnight were probably carcinogenic, and that mobile phones were possibly carcinogenic, The Guardian reported.
That said, another World Health Organization (WHO) body is also scheduled to present a ruling on aspartame July 14 that could provide greater clarity. The Joint WHO and Food and Agriculture Organization's Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), which sets dosage recommendations, is reviewing aspartame from June 27 to July 6, according to The Washington Post. It had previously set the safe level at 40 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day, McConway said.
"To consume over that limit would require a very large daily consumption of Diet Coke or similar drinks," McConway added. "On 14 July, JECFA may change that risk assessment, or they may not."
Industry groups are already pushing back against a potential change in aspartame's status.
"IARC is not a food safety body and their review of aspartame is not scientifically comprehensive and is based heavily on widely discredited research," Frances Hunt-Wood, the secretary general of the International Sweeteners Association said, as Reuters reported.
Kate Loatman, the executive director of the International Council of Beverages Associations, said that public health bodies should be "deeply concerned" by the "leaked opinion" that she said "could needlessly mislead consumers into consuming more sugar rather than choosing safe no-and low-sugar options."
Even before the Reuters leak, industry and national regulatory bodies were concerned with the news that IARC and JECFA were reviewing aspartame at all, The Washington Post reported.
"There is a broad consensus in the scientific and regulatory community that aspartame is safe. It's a conclusion reached time and time again by food safety agencies around the world," Kevin Keane, American Beverage Association interim chief executive, told the Post last week. "The fact that food safety agencies worldwide, including the FDA, continue to find aspartame safe makes us confident in the safety of our products. And people all over the world should be, too."
The FDA also sent a letter to WHO in August 2022 advising against having two subcommittees consider aspartame.
"In our opinion, a concurrent review of aspartame by both IARC and JECFA would be detrimental to the scientific process and should not occur," Mara Burr, director of the Office of Multilateral Relations in the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Global Affairs, wrote in the letter.
Burr argued that the review should be conducted by JECFA alone.
"They seem to be worrying in advance of the most authoritative review of the safety of this product," CSPI director Peter Lurie told The Washington Post. "But even if FDA chose to ignore what WHO has to say, the IARC pronouncement would still have a lot of pull in the rest of the world."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mercury: Groups Sue FDA for Seafood Health Information
Agency failed to respond to a petition filed in July 2011
Mar 10, 2014
Today, consumer protection and environmental advocates filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for failing to respond to a July 2011 petition in which the groups asked the FDA to give consumers clear, accurate and accessible information about toxic mercury in the seafood they eat.
The lawsuit, filed by Earthjustice on behalf of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Mercury Policy Project, a project of the Tides Center, seeks a court-ordered deadline for FDA to respond to its request that the agency require signs at market seafood counters and labels on packaged seafood to inform consumers of the relative amounts of mercury in fish and other seafood. Under its own regulations, FDA had 180 days to respond to the petition, but ignored that deadline. Its failure to issue a final decision violates federal law.
"FDA's failure to respond to our petition is frustrating and disappointing," said Earthjustice attorney Summer Kupau-Odo. "Citizens expect that the public health agency charged with ensuring that food is safe and properly labeled will respond to their valid food safety concerns in a timely manner, especially when the health of some of the most vulnerable members of our community--infants and children--is at risk."
Mercury exposure via seafood consumption has been a health concern for decades. Originating mainly from coal-fired power plants and artisanal and small scale gold mining, airborne mercury is deposited into the ocean, where it converts into methylmercury, a neurotoxin that is particularly harmful to developing fetuses and children. Methylmercury accumulates in fish and shellfish. Methylmercury exposure has been linked to learning disabilities, lowered IQ, and impaired cognitive and nervous system functioning.
"The public--and especially at-risk groups such as pregnant women and heavy fish eaters--urgently need updated information," said Michael T. Bender, director of the Mercury Policy Project. "It is unconscionable that FDA continues to drag its feet when the latest science indicates a far greater methylmercury exposure risk than when the Agency developed its fish consumption advisory in 2004."
FDA acknowledged these health risks in 2004, when, in collaboration with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), it issued an online advisory, "What You Need to Know About Mercury in Fish and Shellfish." Aimed at women of childbearing age, pregnant women, women who are nursing, and children, the advisory established guidelines for seafood consumption to minimize mercury exposure. The advisory is inadequate, lacking vital information for making healthy seafood choices. For example, while it advises such women and children not to eat shark, king mackerel, tilefish, or swordfish--predators at the top of the food chain that accumulate large amounts of the toxic chemical--it offers little information about healthier alternatives. Also, the advisory's encouragement to consume canned tuna, the largest source of mercury exposure for most Americans, is out of step with the science, which suggests the government's recommended levels are excessive and unsafe.
In addition to being inaccurate and inadequate, studies have confirmed that the information in the government's on-line advisory is not reaching the general public, particularly those who do not have Internet access, or simply do not know they can seek advice online. The plaintiffs' petition asks for regulations that would require package labeling and clear point-of-sale charts at grocery stores and fish markets to enable consumers to make healthier seafood choices that maximize the benefits of eating seafood while reducing the risk of mercury exposure.
Caroline Smith DeWaal, Food Safety Director, Center for Science in the Public Interest, commented: "Consumers deserve to have the information they need to enjoy heart-healthy seafood while avoiding dangerous mercury--particularly if they are pregnant or feeding young children. It's FDA's responsibility to provide that information, and it's long past time for the agency to do so."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Now Presenting.... The Activist Awards
The annual Academy Awards GALA, viewed by one billion people worldwide, is scheduled for the evening of March 2, 2014. Motion pictures and the people who act in and produce them are center stage. Apart from the documentaries, this is a glittering evening of "make-believe" and "make business."
Feb 14, 2014
Now suppose our country had another Academy Awards GALA for citizen heroes - those tiny numbers of Americans who are working successfully full-time in nonprofit groups to advance access to justice, general operations of our faltering democratic society, and the health, safety, and economic well-being of all citizens.
This must sound unexciting in comparison with the intensity of the world of film. Until you see what these unsung people do in your local communities, your state, and your country. Then let's see if you think what my choice of civic heroes do every day isn't exciting. They are selected because they work in groups associated either directly or indirectly with me over the course of several decades.
1. Clarence Ditlow, director of the Center for Auto Safety and an engineer and lawyer. Mr. Ditlow has forced the auto companies to recall millions of defective motor vehicles, has brought auto companies to justice on many occasions in courts of law, and puts out volumes of information to inform elected representatives and the public about the need for stronger federal regulation of the resisting auto industry.
2. James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International. As a mere high school graduate, he stunned specialists with the brilliance of his written analysis of energy subjects in Alaska. Mr. Love has been on the move all over the world challenging the tax-subsidized, highly profitable drug companies to stop gouging millions of patient-victims with "pay or die" marketing schemes. Big Pharma endured a rare defeat when Mr. Love convinced Ministers of Health and Dr. Yusuf Hamied, head of India's CIPLA Pharmaceutical, in 2001 to break the $10,000 per patient per year drug treatment for AIDS and bring the cost down to $300 per year (https://fireintheblood.com).
3. Dr. Michael F. Jacobson was a young PhD student in biochemistry at MIT when I interviewed him for a position with us. I told him we were looking for long-termers. He nodded. Nearly forty-five years later, Dr. Jacobson, having started the Center for Science in the Public Interest, has done more than anyone to document and brightly publicize enjoyable nutritional diets with less salt, sugar and fat. His Center knows how to communicate. Nutrition Action goes to 90,000 subscribers. He sends messages to your stomach in order to stimulate your mind.
4. Al Fritsch, another scientist PhD, joined us at the same time as did Michael Jacobson. He didn't spend much time in Washington before he returned to his home region of Appalachia where he started the Appalachia Center for Science in the Public Interest. Applied science and technology, as if people mattered most, was his credo. He pioneered simple, old and new ways - for example, to preserve the land and forest, make the drinking water safe, and grow more food - that he conveyed to local people of all ages who then became community scientists innovating themselves.
5. Lois M. Gibbs started as a mother and housewife until she saw what the chemicals seeping through the ground of their middle-income housing project in Niagara Falls were doing to residents, especially children. She then became unstoppable, moving from protesting for a cleanup to starting the Center for Health, Environment and Justice in 1981 with chapters and activists all over the country taking on and often winning the battle against the silent violence of reckless industries.
6. Dr. Sidney M. Wolfe founded with me the Health Research Group of Public Citizen. Do you want to see what a small group of half a dozen people can accomplish in getting rid of hundreds of prescription and over the counter drugs "that don't work?" Or do you want to learn how Dr. Wolfe has kept the Food and Drug Administration's feet to the fire and held many doctors accountable to professional standards? Or how about investigating scores of harmful conditions bred by the avarice or incompetence of the medical/hospital/drug industry complex (https://www.citizen.org/healthletter)?
7. Joan Claybrook, went from heading our immense Congress project, that issued magazine-sized profiles of every member of Congress going for re-election in 1972, to running the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for President Jimmy Carter, and then to the presidency of Public Citizen for nearly thirty years without missing a beat. The auto companies called her "the Dragon Lady." A fixture on Capitol Hill, she roared down the corridors on behalf of safety protections for millions of Americans.
8. Karen Ferguson started, a few years out of Harvard Law School, with my help the Pension Rights Center (PRC) in 1976. Karen and her staff dedicated themselves completely to being a watchdog of Congress, the Department of Labor, and a myriad of corporations, proposing legislative and regulatory changes and responding to the growing crisis of declining or looted traditional pensions for millions of workers. One of the biggest economic injustices in our economy is the loss or shredding of defined benefit pensions which either aren't being replaced or are replaced by exploitable 401(k)s. Trillions of dollars and millions of families are affected - luckily, the PRC and Ms. Ferguson are there year in and year out.
9. Robert C. Fellmeth in 1970 brought hundreds of eager law students from Harvard and other law schools to work with us. In a short time he authored or co-authored three large books, then went to California to become a prosecutor, then combined a career as law professor, litigator and leading public advocate for children through his Children's Advocacy Institute. No one can ever outwork or out-produce Fellmeth. His example has prompted his associates to coin the word "Fellmethian." His emphasis on children - protection, legislation, lawsuits, exposes, and a unique annual California Children's Budget only provide a glimmer of this creative civic giant's prodigious successes.
10. Robert G. Vaughn, when in his mid-twenties, chose our project on the federal civil servants. His work became a book titled The Spoiled System (1975). Over forty years later he teaches at American University Washington College of Law in Washington, D.C., is an expert on civil servant law and is the world's leading authority on whistle-blowing in dozens of countries (see The Successes and Failures of Whistleblower Laws, Edward Elgar, 2012). He has inspired hundreds of law students in treating law as justice and practicing along that pathway.
11. John Richard, has worked with us since 1978 becoming a peerless networker and adviser for citizen groups, their leaders and staff on all kinds of subjects. In his thirty-five years, he has participated in more gatherings and action meetings on more topics than anyone. This has nourished the wisdom of his assistance to scores of civic advocates who seek his help. Mr. Richard avoids taking any credit but his daily low-key pushing forward of the train of justice speaks for itself.
These people of significance, and many more stalwarts who labor in the vineyards of a better life for all Americans, receive far less public attention than cartoon characters, misbehaving entertainers and athletes, and carousing politicians.
The more difficult, despairing, and overburdened are the livelihoods of millions of hard-pressed Americans, the more they spend time becoming spectators of mass entertainment and sports as a distraction and relief from their painful and desperate situations.
A drama-filled activist award night for civic courage and creativity will inspire millions of viewers to try their hand at operating the levers of power for the good of our society. And what is more dramatic than real life struggles and successes for justice against the bullies, the greedhounds and the authoritarians who presently make up the few who rule the many?
Dare it be said that the more people immerse themselves in learning about these heroics, the more compelling will be their civic interest and passion. Certainly there is more meaning to their daily lives than watching "make-believe" or someone putting a ball in a hoop or into the ground.
Where is the enlightened billionaire who can launch such a televised national activist awards evening for the greatest work of humans on Earth - which is advancing justice?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular