Two studies, which appeared in one of the best magazines in nutrition : The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition [1], reveal once again the danger of aspartame ! These yet very serious studies are refuted by the European authorities who don't revise not therefore (Once again) the tolerable daily intake of aspartame (ADI).
A Danish study shows that the consumption of sweetened beverages, the female pregnant, causes an increased risk ofpreterm birth. This study is very important because has been brought on 59 334 women.
An Italian study by the Ramazzini Institute shows that aspartame has a carcinogenic effect. It is the 3th study conducted by this Institute which brings again the same conclusions. The protocol used by the Institute exceeds the requirements of the classical Protocol because longer corresponds to the reality of human exposure (longer exposure of animals, number of animals more important to increase the accuracy of statistics, etc.). The RES (Environment health network) says that "the Ramazzini Institute is the only global center with the National Toxicology Program of the United States in capacity to conduct experiments of this magnitude" and speaks of "mega-experiment"..
In a letter addressed to theHANDLES (National French food safety agency, environment and labour) [2] the RES asked the Agency to "re-open the file assessment of aspartame and more widely the use of sweeteners.. The acceptable daily intake (ADI) at the present time is to 40 mg/kg/day, Gold, According to studies should be 2 µg/kg/day or... 20 000 times less than the current dose !
In the journal of theEFSA (European food safety authority) We can read the following thing : "Aspartame is considered safe for human consumption.. » [3] and in a press release that «The authority» European of food safety (EFSA) concludes that the two recently published studies on the safety of artificial sweeteners […] do not warrant a revision of the previous evaluations of aspartame or other sweeteners currently authorised in the European Union. EFSA has carried out the review of these studies in collaboration with the French national food safety agency, environment and labour (HANDLES)» [4].
EFSA criticizes two studies do not provide sufficient scientific evidence which bumped the RES. « It is amazing that EFSA continues to push for the 3th Once a positive carcinogenicity study, but does not call into question its ADI based on 2 studies dating back to 1973 and 1974 which have never been published. The RES request that all studies be assessed with the same grid of analysis"says the RES and concluded that "EFSA confirms once again his deficiencies from the point of view of the ethics of expertise".
Journalist and filmmaker Marie - Monique Robin («Le monde selon Monsanto» and «» Our daily Poison ») denounced for its ARKUB for employment of researchers who have conflicts of interest with chemical industries (Monsanto, Coca-Cola, Nestlé, etc.).
Laurent Chevallier nutritionist finds that this decision was "incomprehensible" and that "the text of the EFSA indicates clearly that there is a doubt, but the doubt benefits to manufacturers, not to consumers.. Indeed, comme nous l’avons vu dans l’article « Produits Light et Aspartame = Danger ! », industrialists have power and a huge impact to public health authorities (corruption of the Food and Drug Administration -FDA) because aspartame is a great bargain for them because generates huge profits !
It is also sad to see all these newspapers which publish articles, following the statements of ANSES and EFSA, without any discernment where we see "Aspartame". : no risk to health "., "Aspartame safe., or even Cancer., preterm birth : aspartame declared safe..
We hope have made you a few tracks response and elements that will allow you to make your own opinion on this topic.
At work, lunch breaks are often done on the go, en quelques minutes et…
Plastic pollutes the environment, we all know it. Il faut aussi rappeler que les objets…
These last years, le bio et le sain se sont imposés avec insistance dans nos…
The company L’Atelier du Valois has recalled batches of "Plateau variegated" suite…
Should we choose a wooden plank or a plastic ? La planche en bois…
After a series of festive meals, caloric menus, alcoholic or carbonated drinks,…
View Comments
I just discovered your site by typing in google keywords "ramazzini Institute" and Aspartame
I'm in an Internet cafe that will soon close but I'll be back to visit you, ça c'est sûr
Hello,
N'hésitez pas en effet à revenir et à réagir sur les différents sujets !
See you soon !
N'y a -t-il pas une coquille (or worse ) in the 3rd paragraph bold text : 2 mg/kg:jour n'est pas 20 000 times lower than 40 mg/kg/day .
C'est un peu choquant pour un texte en gras et ne contribue pas à la crédibilité .
Hello,
Indeed, There was indeed an error (qui vient d'être corrigée) et qui malgré le nombre de lectures n'a pas été relevée avant.
Ce n'est pas 2mg/kg/jour mais bien 2µg/kg/jour.
A miligramme (mg) = 1 000 micrograms (µg)
Toutes nos excuses pour l'erreur et merci à vous de l'avoir remarqué !
Hey banana, si tu sais pas lire c'est dommage. La mesure n'est pas en milligrammes(mg )but in microngramme ( Unfortunately the letter " Micron" n'existe pas sur mon clavier ). If you do not know, looking on "Google", your best friend.
before treating the people of banana, apprends à écrire les mots Baron... on ne parle pas de microngramme mais de microgramme... dommage... et je ne sais pas quel genre de clavier tu as pour ne pas avoir la touche µ... d'autant plus que la personne qui gère le site avait répondu que l'erreur avait été corrigée... Finally, before you criticize others, un peu de réflexion ne ferait pas de mal à certains...