As I was busily clipping pictures for my 2010 vision board this morning, I came across an article in the November 2009 issue of New Zealand Women’s Health. It stopped me dead in my clipping tracks.

On page 18 was an advertorial called Balancing Your Weight, with advice from nutritionist Nikki Hart. The subhead? “Nikki explains how low-calorie sweeteners like aspartame can help”. Say what? Were the words “nutritionist”, “aspartame” and “help” just used in the same sentence?

Is this same nutritionist also telling us readers to swap a muffin or chocolate for a diet drink with aspartame? I wouldn’t have believed it if it wasn’t in front of me in black and white. Where did Nikki get her degree? The University of Coca Cola?

If you don’t know about this man made chemical called aspartame, research has shown it is the cause of toxicity and disease and should not be marketed for human consumption.

A recent study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology in San Diego found that adult women who drink at least two diet sodas a day experience a 30 percent drop in kidney function over the course of a decade.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. According to a report from Natural News, those using aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc.) and suffer from fibromyalgia symptoms, spasms, shooting pains, numbness in legs, cramps, vertigo, dizziness, headaches, tinnitus, joint pain, unexplainable depression, anxiety attacks, slurred speech, blurred vision, or memory loss, probably have aspartame poisoning.

Here’s an excerpt from the same article:

Diet soda is not a diet product, but a chemically altered, multiple sodium (salt) and Aspartame-containing product that actually makes you crave for carbohydrates and gain weight. These products also contain formaldehyde, which stores in the fat cells, particularly in the hips and thighs; no wonder the American population is turning obese and/or suffering from cancers and diabetes [From FAT to Fit, Dr. Leo Rebello, (www.healthwisdom.org) ].

Formaldehyde is an absolute toxin and is used mainly to preserve ’tissue specimens’ in laboratories. Formaldehyde poisoning symptoms include local irritation of eyes, nose, mouth, throat, respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts, and central nervous system causing vertigo, stupor, convulsions, unconsciousness, renal damage.

Aspartame is especially dangerous for diabetics. Physicians who thought they had a patient with retinopathy in fact had patients with symptoms caused by Aspartame. The latter drives the blood sugar out of control. Thus diabetics may suffer acute memory loss due to the fact that aspartic acid and phenylalanine are neurotoxic. With diabetics, Aspartame passes the blood-brain barrier, attacks the neurons of the brain causing various levels of brain damage, seizures, depression, panic attacks, uncontrollable anger and rage [Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, First Indian Edition, 1990] .

Ah yes folks, this little advertisement is indeed sponsored by one of the world’s leading soda companies. Go figure.

At the bottom of this intriguing article is teeny-tiny print that reads: *Phenylketonurics, aspartame contains phenylalanine. No really, say what? Are they speaking English? For all of us dummy readers here’s what this fine print translates into:

Phenylalanine is an amino acid normally found in the brain. Human testing has shown phenylalanine levels in the blood are increased significantly in those who chronically use aspartame. Excessive levels of phenylalanine in the brain can cause the levels of serotonin to decrease, which can lead to depression, schizophrenia and make one more susceptible to seizures.

Studies conducted on rats by G.D. Searle found phenylalanine to be safe for humans. However, Louis J. Elsas, II, M.D., Director of Medical Genetics and Professor of Pediatrics at Emory University School of Medicine told the U.S. Senate in 1987 that, “Normal humans do not metabolize phenylalanine as efficiently as do lower species such as rodents and thus most of the previous studies on aspartame effects on rodents are irrelevant.” Unfortunately, this fell on deaf ears and failed to garner additional testing.

But the glaring question begs to be answered: why would someone who has dedicated their time to obtaining a degree in nutrition tell readers to up our intake of a chemical that can harm us?

To read more articles on the dangers of Aspartame, click here.

Be Your Own Expert & Don’t Always Believe What You Read by Vegan Girl.

Photo: Deesillustration.com

Editor’s Note: Nikki Hart, who received a Masters degree in Nutritional Science at Massey University, kindly responded to our questions about her relationship with the soda company that paid for her expertise, as well as why she chooses to promote aspartame. Here, we share her responses.

Yes my time and quotes were paid for – as any professional is for their intellectual expertise. I dont think a solicitor would €˜cough up information for a client without charging them – do you? However, I am never told what to say. Whether the client choose to use my information after I have supplied it is up to them – it is never biased.

I collate all my information from reputable peer reviewed medical journals not €˜popular media sources. As far as I am concerned there is no scientific proof that aspartame causes health problems. When someone asks me about aspartame usage I simply say that it is a matter of choice. You can select not to have products with this ingredient added to it but that if you do choose to consume this ingredient then there is no reputable information that says that it causes harm when consumed as per the recommendations.

Its not about €˜manmade chemicals benefiting the body as you have asked – its about this ingredient being tested for safety – which it has been many times and most recently independently by a board who were chosen to test all aspects of aspartame. See Bernadene Magnussons toxicological work. Considering that the methanol component of aspartame for example is 4-5 times higher in tomato juice than an equivalent amount of soft drink sweetened with aspartame then maybe people should do their homework about what is really in our food.

Nanotechnology has changed what we eat, wear and apply to our skin unfortunately with little regulation and little understanding of the long-term consequences, both to our own health and that of the natural world.

The current issue of E – The Environmental Magazine looks at how sunscreens, energy drinks and high-tech clothing are just a few of the 800-plus consumer products made with nanomaterials: those manufactured at the scale of atoms and molecules. Sunscreen that turns clear on the skin contains titanium dioxide, an ordinary UV-blocker in extraordinarily small particles. Odor-eating socks are made with atoms of germ-killing silver. Supplement makers boast of amazing health effects from swallowing nanosolutions that are completely untested for effectiveness or safety.

Nobody — not even the worlds leading nanoscientists — knows what nanoparticles do inside the body or in the environment.

Nanotechnology, a fast-growing global industry, is essentially unregulated. “This is basically virgin territory,” says Rutgers University environmental scientist Paul Lio. “The fact that its virgin territory is not good for the field, and it should be fixed really quickly.”

Advocates and independent scientists agree that we need to get ahead of the risks before its too late. They are worried about unleashing a powerful new technology that could have vast unintended consequences.

Understanding Nano

Nanotechnology describes the ability to manufacture and manipulate minuscule materials into forms such as quantum dots, spherical buckyballs and cylindrical carbon nanotubes. These engineered nanomaterials take on unusual properties — changing color, for example, or becoming electrically conductive or penetrating cell walls. And they have many uses. Carbon nanotubes, or CNTs — made by rolling up sheets of graphite just one atom thick — are extremely light and strong; they show up in high-end tennis rackets and bicycle frames. Nanosilver is used as an antimicrobial agent in everything from paint to toothpaste to teddy bears. Nanometal oxides are blended into ceramics and coatings, making them more durable.

Nanotech offers enormous potential benefits. Medical researchers are investigating ways to use nanomaterials to target tumors and then deliver tiny amounts of drugs directly inside the cancer cells, sparing the healthy cells. Possible green tech applications include cheaper, more efficient solar panels and water-filtration systems, energy-saving batteries and lighter vehicles that use less fuel.

Thats the upside. But early research on the potential hazards of nanotech is producing major danger signs. Workers handling nanomaterials face the biggest risks. But there are concerns for consumers, too, especially with products — like cosmetics, food and supplements — that go directly on or in the body. And with potentially toxic nanomaterials washing down the drain and into the water and soil, theres reason to worry about environmental damage as well.

Ignoring the Dangers

Studies on nanotechs downsides are a mere nanospeck compared to the research thats being done on how this technology can benefit humanity — and corporate profits. Of $1.5 billion in federal nano spending each year, only between 1% and 2.5% goes toward studying environmental, health and safety risks. Worse, theres no national strategy for deciding what questions need to be answered, or what to do with those answers as they arrive.

Of the studies that have been done, results are alarming:

Last year, British researchers reported that when long, straight carbon nanotubes — shaped like asbestos fibers — were injected into mice, they caused the same kind of damage as asbestos. A follow-up study this year, by this countrys National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), found that when mice inhaled CNTs, the tiny tubes migrated from their lungs to the surrounding tissue — the very spot where asbestos causes the rare cancer known as mesothelioma.

One reason nanomaterials can cause trouble is simply that they are small enough to evade the bodys defenses. In a University of Rochester study of the accidental nanoparticles known as ultrafine pollution, they bypassed the protective blood-brain barrier and slipped directly into the brains olfactory bulb. Other research demonstrates that nanomaterials can penetrate into the deepest parts of the lungs. From there, they cross into the bloodstream and various organs.

Based on evidence like this, the European Unions occupational health and safety agency issued an expert report in March, citing nanoparticles as the number-one emerging risk to workers. In the U.S., NIOSH has issued a guidance document urging employers to avoid exposing workers to nanomaterials — for example, by enclosing equipment and using ventilation to reduce dust and fumes. But NIOSH has no regulatory power; it can only suggest.

And concerns continue to grow regarding the ability of nanoparticles to contaminate other people or the environment as they come loose from our sunscreens and clothing. Nanoparticles might also wash down the drain and create dangerously toxic environments for microorganisms — or inhibit good bacteria in sewage treatment plants from doing their work.

“The take-home message for me is, the behavior of these particles is very complex,” says Cyndee Gruden, a civil engineering professor at the University of Toledo in Ohio. “When you take a nanoparticle and put it into the environment, you have to know how its going to behave. And we don’t.”

Photo: Joe Shlabotnik Flickr Creative Commons