In my book ASPARTAME (NutraSweet) IS IT SAFE?  I discuss the
aspartame studies and their shortcomings.  These are exerpts from the
chapter:  The Myth of "The Most Thoroughly Tested Additive in History"

"Physicians and consumers who seek information from producers and
governmental agencies about reactions to aspartame products are offered
scores of reports published in scientific journals that seemingly
reinforce the issue of their safety.  I have previously discussed the
major shortcomings of these studies.  Let me summarize some of my
objections:

* The failure of investigators to detect, or to report, tumors of the
  brain, uterus and ovary to the FDA.

* The failure of the senior investigator of a "negative" doubleblind
  study on behavioral reactions (presented at an international con-
  ference) to know, or to recall, the details of how the aspartame
  given to children being tested was constituted and administered
  when I asked for such information.

* The failure of double-blind studies on patients with alleged
  aspartame-induced headaches and seizures to use the same incrimi-
  nated commercial products (easily obtained in any store) rather
  than aspartame-containing capsules.

* The failure to test MALE mice for tumors of the urinary bladder
  following aspartame implantation.

* The failure of an investigator to even respond to my inquiry about
  his published statistical data, from which he had concluded that
  aspartame does not adversely affect non-insulin-dependent diabetics.

* The failure of FDA administrators and attorneys to investigate animal
  studies (particularly seizures in monkeys) before the five year
  statute of limitations for prosecution expired - specifically, on
  October 10, l977 and December 8, l977.

* The failure of the FDA to act on a major concern expressed in
  correspondence (dated January 10, l977) from Richard A. Merrill,
  its own Chief Counsel.  He requested a grand jury investigation of
  the manufacturer for its alleged "concealing material facts and
  making false statements in reports that the animal studies
  conducted to establish the safety of the drug Aldactone and the
  food additive Aspartame."  Mr. Merrill prophetically projected

  "The FDA must receive the truth, not psychological warfare.  To
  emphasize the importance of safety data on aspartame, we note
  that if ultimately approved for marketing, this sweetening agent
  can reasonably be expected to be part of the daily diet of every
  American."  "

The book continues and probably this is the most outrageous when
pathologists agree NOT TO COMMENT!

*  "The failure to challenge the manufacturer's contract with
  Universities Associated for REsearch and Education in Pathology
  (UAREP).  this private group was engaged to determine the factual
  accuracy of prior aspartame studies - but with the stipulation
  that UAREP "shall not express an opinon" regarding either the
  design or safety significance of these studies, nor make recommenda-
  tions about the safety of aspartame for human use!  Dr. M. Adrian
  Gross also challenged the credentials of UAREP relative to its
  ability to asses prior aspartame studies.

*The failure of the then-FDA Commissioner, who had held this office
only several months, to heed the strong dissenting opinions of in-
house FDA scientists concerning aspartame licensure.

*The failure of the NIH to renew research grants in basic pharmaco-
logy concerning hte metabolism of aspartame, notwithstanding prior
investigations that gave promise of major insights.  One involved
a potentially simple blood test to detect a deficiency or genetic
variant of an enzyme responsible for the intestinal breakdown of
aspartylphenylalanine."

So read now the Bressler Report, the priority investigation, that was
ignored, so that a neurotoxin was  able to be approved and marketed
for human consumption. 

Dr. H. J. Roberts