“Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World”

Thursday, February 11, 2010

You Can Finally View FREE Online

Sweet Misery is the movie that Pepsi and Coca Cola don't want you to see. Now at last the enlightening film is available on the Internet, in its entirety.

Here are Dr. Mercola thoughts:

"Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World" reveals one of the most pervasive, insidious forms of corporate negligence since tobacco. It is an expose on one of the most deadly chemicals you could find in your food: the artificial sweetener aspartame.

Aspartame products have littered supermarket shelves for almost 30 years, and there are now an estimated 9,000 of them. Aspartame is also a hidden ingredient in many pharmaceutical drugs.

The FDA has received over 10,000 complaints regarding adverse reactions to aspartame. By the FDA’s own admission, less than 1 percent of those who experience a reaction to a product ever report it, which translates to roughly a million people who have experienced adverse reactions to aspartame.

A survey conducted by the Calorie Control Council (CCC) reports the following disturbing statistics about current popularity of “low-calorie, sugar-free products” [i]:

•79 percent of American adults STILL regularly consume low-calorie and sugar-free products, most of which contain artificial sweeteners
•59 percent of Americans STILL drink diet soft drinks
•49 percent of Americans STILL use sugar substitutes

If you are one of these statistics, you should watch this film immediately—before you become a FAR GRIMMER STATISTIC.

What you don’t know can hurt you.

This Film Can Literally Save Your Life

The beautiful aspect of this movie is that, in a short 90 minutes, you will finally understand why aspartame is a toxic poison you need to avoid at all costs.
There are few things you can do in 90 minutes that can make a HUGE impact on your health—but this is one of them.
The toxic long-term effects of aspartame are often dismissed as a "hoax" by the sweetener industry; however this documentary thoroughly unravels truths far more disturbing than any "hoax."

So, grab a tall glass of filtered water and your favorite nutritious snack, plop down in your most comfy chair, and prepare to be blown away.

One Woman’s Nightmarish Aspartame Journey

Part documentary and part detective story, “Sweet Misery” starts with filmmaker and narrator Cori Brackett's poignant story about how she discovered aspartame's ill effects. Brackett had a strange cause-and-effect experience with the diet cokes she was drinking and quickly found herself disabled and diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.

Her condition quickly progressed to the point that she had double vision, slurred speech, and weak limbs forcing her to use a wheelchair.

When she read an article about aspartame being connected to many health problems, Cori immediately quit using products that contained aspartame—like diet soda.

And magically, many of her symptoms disappeared.

Cori Brackett's journey takes us across the United States to learn more about the devastating effects of aspartame from an impressive list of medical experts—including renowned neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock, Dr. Betty Martini, two respected physicians and one psychologist.

All experts agreed—aspartame is poison.

Stunning Evidence of Corporate Fraud and Manipulation

Aspartame’s approval by the FDA may be the most controversial of any food additive in history!

A close examination of the process by which the FDA approved aspartame illustrates how powerful corporations are influencing your once-trusted institutions. In “Sweet Misery” you’ll hear this incredible story, featuring:
•Archival footage from G.D. Searle, the producer of aspartame, and federal officials demonstrating the amount of propaganda and "dirty tricks" big business used to push aspartame into the market, including deceptive safety studies.
•Many heart-wrenching testimonials by aspartame victims, including one by a woman serving prison time for murdering her husband, who claims he actually died of aspartame toxicity.
•Key dialogue with Arthur Evangelista, a former Food and Drug Administration investigator, who exposes how far major conglomerates went to legalize the use of aspartame.
•Consumer Attorney Jim Turner's candid report of his exchange with Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld was the CEO of Searle, and at the same time, part of Reagan's transition team when the FDA's board of inquiry was overruled to allow the marketing of Aspartame as a food additive. Prior to this time, aspartame was unanimously rejected by the FDA.

A Crash Course in Aspartame Toxicity

Over the past three decades, aspartame has been associated with multiple neurotoxic, metabolic, allergenic, fetal and carcinogenic effects. Yet it remains a multi-million dollar business today.

Known to erode intelligence and disturb short-term memory, the components of this toxic chemical may lead to a wide variety of ailments.

The following list of health problems are now associated with aspartame consumption:

•Brain tumors, including brain cancer: Aspartame can disturb the metabolism of amino acids, protein structure and metabolism, the integrity of nucleic acids, neuronal function and depolarization, and endocrine balance, ultimately leading to tumor growth and cancer. In 1981, an FDA statistician stated the brain tumor data on aspartame was “so worrisome" that he could not recommend approval of aspartame (NutraSweet).
•Leukemia and lymphoma: Two major studies have now confirmed this risk.
•Birth defects: A study funded by Monsanto to look at possible birth defects caused by aspartame was cut
 off after preliminary data revealed fetal damage.
•A variety of diseases including diabetes, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, lupus, arthritis,
  fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue
•Emotional disorders like depression[ii], panic attacks, bipolar disorder, and other mental symptoms[iii]: A
 study from Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine concluded, “individuals with mood disorders
 are particularly sensitive to this artificial sweetener” and should not use it.
•Epilepsy/seizures: Numerous studies indicate that aspartame makes epilepsy/seizures worse[iv]
•Migraines: 18 million people suffer from migraines, and aspartame may be one of the biggest culprits.
  Headaches are the most common complaint of aspartame users.
•Numbness
•Hearing loss and tinnitus (ringing in the ears)
•Blindness, blurred vision and other eye problems: More about this in the film “Sweet Misery”—take the time
  to watch it!
•Stomach disorders
•Heart disease
•Impaired kidney function: A 2009 study found a two-fold increased risk of a decline in kidney function
 among women who drank two or more artificially sweetened beverages per day.
•Weight gain: Aspartame actually causes you to consume MORE food by tricking your brain into “expecting”
  some calories, which aren’t forthcoming. This results in more cravings and more consumption after you eat
  or drink aspartame...bad news for your weight loss program!

If you aren't familiar with all the potential health hazards you could be at risk for by consuming this deadly sweetener, "Sweet Misery" will indeed open your eyes to a biomedical genocide that has been covered up for far too long.

If you want more information on aspartame, please check out the collection of articles listed on my aspartame page.

Here are some key people, organizations and links mentioned in the film:
•Barbara Martini, Mission Possible World Health International
•Russell L. Blaylock, M.D. (neurosurgeon)
•Arthur M. Evangelista, PhD. (former FDA Investigator)
•David Oliver Rietz, DORway to Discovery
•Cori Brackett, blog and website
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] Calorie Control Council
[ii] Walton RG, Hudak R, and Green-Waite RJ. “Adverse reactions to aspartame: Double-blind challenge in
     patients from a vulnerable population” Biol Psychiatry 1993 Jul 1-15;34(1-2):13-7
[iii] Martini B. Letter to the editor of TIME Magazine
[iv] “Summary of aspartame-induced seizures issue,” Holisticmed.com

Related Links:

One Woman’s Astonishing Experiment With Aspartame

Latest “Healthy” Soda Swindle—Pepsi Raw

New Study of Splenda Reveals Shocking Information About Potential Harmful Effects

Nano-Products Are Everywhere

by Andrew Schneider
(March 24) -- It is almost impossible to determine how many products on the market today actually contain nanomaterials because advertisers, marketers and even manufacturers themselves are often less than truthful.

Distortions are found coming and going.

Some companies believe that adding "nano-something" to their brand name or marketing efforts will entice a certain demographic, even if their product doesn't contain the engineered particles.

On the other hand, there are manufacturers who use nanomaterial to increase the strength, versatility, value or taste of a product, but appear to have no interest in letting the public know what's in the goods they're buying.

Nanomaterialism

The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies' inventory of nano-containing products has grown nearly 400 percent since its 2006 launch. Cosmetics and personal care items are among the types that appear most frequently among its more than 1,000 items.

New York-based Stuart Consumer Products Lab, for instance, sells something called Nano Coffee Energy tablets. But none of its online ads say what nanomaterial, if any, is in the product. Several e-mails to the company's office asking for that information didn't generate an answer.

Most nano-policy wonks parrot the latest numbers of commercially available products from an inventory maintained by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. As of this month, PEN -- a partnership between the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Pew Charitable Trusts -- lists more than 1,100 nano-products in the marketplace. But director David Rejeski says that's probably only a fraction of what is really being sold.

PEN has just released an iPhone app called findNano, which urges users to photograph and submit information on a possible nanotech product for inclusion in its inventory. Rejeski says new items are being sent in every day.

The Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit public health and environmental research organization, has done its own comprehensive count of creams, lotions, sprays, washes, cosmetics, sundry personal care products and nutritional supplements on the market in the U.S. The organization says it has found close to 10,000 that contain nanoparticles. Although it has repeatedly relayed that information to the Food and Drug Administration, none of them has been tested for safety.

You can also buy nanoparticles off the shelf. Google ads teases an offer for 216 Carbon-60 nano Bucky Balls for $29.96, free shipping included. And if you want to make your own odor-killing socks, you can buy gallon jugs of potentially hazardous nanosilver from a New Jersey firm for $217.

Rejeski and other safety advocates worry as well about the burgeoning number of nano-containing products arriving in U.S. ports from manufacturers around the world. Venture capitalists say that while the U.S. leads in production of nano-products, followed by Japan, Germany, South Korea, China and other European Union states, that order may soon change.

A U.S. Commerce Department researcher who recently returned from a series of conferences in China says the country is "rushing like mad to capture its place in the nano market."

"They're using nano in hundreds and hundreds of consumer products, almost all for export, from electronics, animal feed and veterinary medication to nutritional supplements and people food," said the veteran Asia analyst, who asked that his name be withheld because he is not authorized to speak to the press.

It doesn't appear that there are any safeguards to ensure the safety of imported nano products, according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Office of International Trade. "CBP is not aware of any regulations that we enforce for other agencies on this matter," says agency spokeswoman Erlinda Byrd.

Despite Denials, Nano-Food Is Here

(March 24) -- For centuries, it was the cook and the heat of the fire that cajoled taste, texture, flavor and aroma from the pot. Today, that culinary voodoo is being crafted by white-coated scientists toiling in pristine labs, rearranging atoms into chemical particles never before seen.

At last year's Institute of Food Technologists international conference, nanotechnology was the topic that generated the most buzz among the 14,000 food-scientists, chefs and manufacturers crammed into an Anaheim, Calif., hall. Though it's a word that has probably never been printed on any menu, and probably never will, there was so much interest in the potential uses of nanotechnology for food that a separate daylong session focused just on that subject was packed to overflowing.
In one corner of the convention center, a chemist, a flavorist and two food-marketing specialists clustered around a large chart of the Periodic Table of Elements (think back to high school science class). The food chemist, from China, ran her hands over the chart, pausing at different chemicals just long enough to say how a nano-ized version of each would improve existing flavors or create new ones.

Nano treated Apples sold at your Supermarket

One of the marketing guys questioned what would happen if the consumer found out.
The flavorist asked whether the Food and Drug Administration would even allow nanoingredients.
Posed a variation of the latter question, Dr. Jesse Goodman, the agency's chief scientist and deputy commissioner for science and public health, gave a revealing answer. He said he wasn't involved enough with how the FDA was handling nanomaterials in food to discuss that issue. And the agency wouldn't provide anyone else to talk about it.

This despite the fact that hundreds of peer-reviewed studies have shown that nanoparticles pose potential risks to human health -- and, more specifically, that when ingested can cause DNA damage that can prefigure cancer and heart and brain disease.

Despite Denials, Nano-Food Is Here

Officially, the FDA says there aren't any nano-containing food products currently sold in the U.S.
Not true, say some of the agency's own safety experts, pointing to scientific studies published in food science journals, reports from foreign safety agencies and discussions in gatherings like the Institute of Food Technologists conference.

In fact, the arrival of nanomaterial onto the food scene is already causing some big-chain safety managers to demand greater scrutiny of what they're being offered, especially with imported food and beverages. At a conference in Seattle last year hosted by leading food safety attorney Bill Marler, presenters raised the issue of how hard it is for large supermarket companies to know precisely what they are purchasing, especially with nanomaterials, because of the volume and variety they deal in.

According to a USDA scientist, some Latin American packers spray U.S.-bound produce with a wax-like nanocoating to extend shelf-life. "We found no indication that the nanocoating ... has ever been tested for health effects," the researcher says.

Nanotoxic Vegtables imported from South America

Craig Wilson, assistant vice president for safety for Costco, says his chain does not test for nanomaterial in the food products it is offered by manufacturers. But, he adds, Costco is looking "far more carefully at everything we buy. ... We have to rely on the accuracy of the labels and the integrity of our vendors. Our buyers know that if they find nanomaterial or anything else they might consider unsafe, the vendors either remove it, or we don't buy it."
Another government scientist says nanoparticles can be found today in produce sections in some large grocery chains and vegetable wholesalers. This scientist, a researcher with the USDA's Agricultural Research Service, was part of a group that examined Central and South American farms and packers that ship fruits and vegetables into the U.S. and Canada. According to the USDA researcher -- who asked that his name not be used because he's not authorized to speak for the agency -- apples, pears, peppers, cucumbers and other fruit and vegetables are being coated with a thin, wax-like nanocoating to extend shelf-life. The edible nanomaterial skin will also protect the color and flavor of the fruit longer.

"We found no indication that the nanocoating, which is manufactured in Asia, has ever been tested for health effects," said the researcher.

A science committee of the British House of Lords has found that nanomaterials are already appearing in numerous products, among them salad dressings and sauces. Jaydee Hanson, policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety, says that they're also being added to ice cream to make it "look richer and better textured."

Some foreign governments, apparently more worried about the influx of nano-related products to their grocery shelves, are gathering their own research. In January, a science committee of the British House of Lords issued a lengthy study on nanotechnology and food. Scores of scientific groups and consumer activists and even several international food manufactures told the committee investigators that engineered particles were already being sold in salad dressings; sauces; diet beverages; and boxed cake, muffin and pancakes mixes, to which they're added to ensure easy pouring.

Other researchers responding to the committee's request for information talked about hundreds more items that could be in stores by year's end.

For example, a team in Munich has used nano-nonstick coatings to end the worldwide frustration of having to endlessly shake an upturned mustard or ketchup bottle to get at the last bit clinging to the bottom. Another person told the investigators that Nestlé and Unilever have about completed developing a nano-emulsion-based ice cream that has a lower fat content but retains its texture and flavor.

The Ultimate Secret Ingredient

Nearly 20 of the world's largest food manufacturers -- among them Nestlé, as well as Hershey, Cargill, Campbell Soup, Sara Lee, and H.J. Heinz -- have their own in-house nano-labs, or have contracted with major universities to do nano-related food product development. But they are not eager to broadcast those efforts.

A team in Munich, the House of Lords investigators also learned, is using nano-nonstick coatings to make it easier to get the last drops of ketchup out of the bottle.

Kraft was the first major food company to hoist the banner of nanotechnology. Spokesman Richard Buino, however, now says that while "we have sponsored nanotech research at various universities and research institutions in the past," Kraft has no labs focusing on it today.

The stance is in stark contrast to the one Kraft struck in late 2000, when it loudly and repeatedly proclaimed that it had formed the Nanotek Consortium with engineers, molecular chemists and physicists from 15 universities in the U.S. and abroad. The mission of the team was to show how nanotechnology would completely revolutionize the food manufacturing industry, or so said its then-director, Kraft research chemist Manuel Marquez.
But by the end of 2004, the much-touted operation seemed to vanish. All mentions of Nanotek Consortium disappeared from Kraft's news releases and corporate reports.
"We have not nor are we currently using nanotechnology in our products or packaging," Buino added in another e-mail.

Industry Tactics Thwart Risk Awareness

The British government investigation into nanofood strongly criticized the U.K.'s food industry for "failing to be transparent about its research into the uses of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials." On this side of the Atlantic, corporate secrecy isn't a problem, as some FDA officials tell it.
Investigators on Capitol Hill say the FDA's congressional liaisons have repeatedly assured them -- from George W. Bush's administration through President Barack Obama's first year -- that the big U.S. food companies have been upfront and open about their plans and progress in using nanomaterial in food.

But FDA and USDA food safety specialists interviewed over the past three months stressed that based on past performance, industry cannot be relied on to voluntarily advance safety efforts.
These government scientists, who are actively attempting to evaluate the risk of introducing nanotechnology to food, say that only a handful of corporations are candid about what they're doing and collaborating with the FDA and USDA to help develop regulations that will both protect the public and permit their products to reach market. Most companies, the government scientists add, submit little or no information unless forced. Even then, much of the information crucial to evaluating hazards -- such as the chemicals used and results of company health studies -- is withheld, with corporate lawyers claiming it constitutes confidential business information.

Both regulators and some industry consultants say the evasiveness from food manufacturers could blow up in their faces. As precedent, they point to what happened in the mid-'90s with genetically modified food, the last major scientific innovation that was, in many cases, force-fed to consumers. "There was a lack of transparency on what companies were doing. So promoting genetically modified foods was perceived by some of the public as being just profit-driven," says Professor Rickey Yada of the Department of Food Science at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada.

"In retrospect, food manufacturers should have highlighted the benefits that the technology could bring as well as discussing the potential concerns."

Eating Nanomaterials Could Increase Underlying Risks

The House of Lords' study identified "severe shortfalls" in research into the dangers of nanotechnology in food. Its authors called for funding studies that address the behavior of nanomaterials within the digestive system. Similar recommendations are being made in the U.S., where the majority of research on nanomaterial focuses on it entering the body via inhalation and absorption.

The food industry is very competitive, with thin profit margins. And safety evaluations are very expensive, notes Bernadene Magnuson, senior scientific and regulatory consultant with risk-assessment firm Cantox Health Sciences International. "You need to be pretty sure you've got something that's likely to benefit you and your product in some way before you're going to start launching into safety evaluations," she explains. Magnuson believes that additional studies must be done on chronic exposure to and ingestion of nanomaterials.
One of the few ingestion studies recently completed was a two-year-long examination of nano-titanium dioxide at UCLA, which showed that the compound caused DNA and chromosome damage after lab animals drank large quantities of the particles in their water.

Nanotoxic treated to keep Meat fresh longer

Sono-Tek, a company based in Milton, N.Y., employs nanotechnology in its industrial sprayers. "One new application for us is spraying nanomaterial suspensions onto biodegradable plastic food wrapping materials to preserve the freshness of food products," says its chairman and CEO.

It is widely known that nano-titanium dioxide is used as filler in hundreds of medicines and cosmetics and as a blocking agent in sunscreens. But Jaydee Hanson, policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety, worries that the danger is greater "when the nano-titanium dioxide is used in food."

Ice cream companies, Hanson says, are using nanomaterials to make their products "look richer and better textured." Bread makers are spraying nanomaterials on their loaves "to make them shinier and help them keep microbe-free longer."

Nanotoxin in your Ice Cream and Salad Dressings

While AOL News was unable to identify a company pursuing the latter practice, it did find Sono-Tek of Milton, N.Y., which uses nanotechnology in its industrial sprayers. "One new application for us is spraying nanomaterial suspensions onto biodegradable plastic food wrapping materials to preserve the freshness of food products," says Christopher Coccio, chairman and CEO. He said the development of this nano-wrap was partially funded by New York State's Energy Research and Development Authority.

"This is happening," Hanson says. He calls on the FDA to "immediately seek a ban on any products that contain these nanoparticles, especially those in products that are likely to be ingested by children."

"The UCLA study means we need to research the health effects of these products before people get sick, not after," Hanson says.
There is nothing to mandate that such safety research take place.

The FDA's Blind Spot

The FDA includes titanium dioxide among the food additives it classifies under the designation "generally recognized as safe," or GRAS. New additives with that label can bypass extensive and costly health testing that is otherwise required of items bound for grocery shelves.
A report issued last month by the Government Accountability Office denounced the enormous loophole that the FDA has permitted through the GRAS classification. And the GAO investigators also echoed the concerns of consumer and food safety activists who argue that giving nanomaterials the GRAS free pass is perilous.
Food safety agencies in Canada and the European Union require all ingredients that incorporate engineered nanomaterials to be submitted to regulators before they can be put on the market, the GAO noted. No so with the FDA.

"Because GRAS notification is voluntary and companies are not required to identify nanomaterials in their GRAS substances, FDA has no way of knowing the full extent to which engineered nanomaterials have entered the U.S. food supply," the GAO told Congress.

Amid that uncertainty, calls for safety analysis are growing.

"Testing must always be done," says food regulatory consultant George Burdock, a toxicologist and the head of the Burdock Group. "Because if it's nanosized, its chemical properties will most assuredly be different and so might the biological impact."

Will Consumers Swallow What Science Serves Up Next?

Interviews with more than a dozen food scientists revealed strikingly similar predictions on how the food industry will employ nanoscale technology. They say firms are creating nanostructures to enhance flavor, shelf life and appearance. They even foresee using encapsulated or engineered nanoscale particles to create foods from scratch.

Experts agreed that the first widespread use of nanotechnology to hit the U.S. food market would be nanoscale packing materials and nanosensors for food safety, bacteria detection and traceability.

While acknowledging that many more nano-related food products are on the way, Magnuson, the industry risk consultant, says the greatest degree of research right now is directed at food safety and quality. "Using nanotechnology to improve the sensitivity and speed of detection of food-borne pathogens in the food itself or in the supply chain or in the processing equipment could be lifesaving," she says.

For example, researchers at Clemson University, according to USDA, have used nanoparticles to identify campylobacter, a sometimes-lethal food-borne pathogen, in poultry intestinal tracts prior to processing.

At the University of Massachusetts Amherst, food scientist Julian McClements and his colleagues have developed time-release nanolaminated coatings to add bioactive components to food to enhance delivery of ingredients to help prevent diseases such as cancer, osteoporosis, heart disease and hypertension.
But if the medical benefits of such an application are something to cheer, the prospect of eating them in the first place isn't viewed as enthusiastically.

Advertising and marketing consultants for food and beverage makers are still apprehensive about a study done two years ago by the German Federal Institute of Risk Assessment, which commissioned pollsters to measure public acceptance of nanomaterials in food. The study showed that only 20 percent of respondents would buy nanotechnology-enhanced food products.

To provide feedback on this series, please write to us at nanotechreport@aolnews.com