Watchman News

Aspartame, the artificial sweetener used in everything from diet soda to chewable vitamins, doesn’t just sweeten your food — it alters your genetic landscape and heightens your risk of glioblastoma, one of the deadliest forms of brain cancer, according to a new study.

What’s even more concerning is that these genetic shifts were traced back to disruptions in gut bacteria. If you still believe the claims that aspartame is “harmless,” these new findings will open your eyes to just how dangerous this widely used additive is.

Aspartame Activates Brain Cancer Genes, Study Finds

A recent animal study published in Scientific Reports investigated the effects of aspartame on gene expression and gut bacteria in mice with glioblastoma. Researchers assessed whether aspartame could influence tumor progression on a molecular level, even in the absence of visible tumor growth.1

• The mice used in the study had gliomas induced by transplanting cancerous cells — These test subjects were then split into two groups. One received aspartame in their drinking water, while the control group was given plain water.

• One of the most striking findings was the activation of cancer-linked genes — The researchers discovered dramatic internal changes — particularly at the genetic and microbial level — in the aspartame-exposed group. Specifically, they observed a significant upregulation of three key genes — myelocytomatosis (MYC), cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 1A (CDKN1A), and transforming growth factor-β (TGFB1).

• These three genes are well-established contributors to cancer progression — MYC is an oncogene, meaning it plays a direct role in driving uncontrolled cell growth, while TGFB1 is often associated with a poor prognosis in glioblastoma due to its ability to suppress immune function and promote tumor cell survival. CDKN1A is typically involved in controlling the cell cycle, but when dysregulated, it contributes to tumor aggressiveness.

• The most unsettling part? These changes happened without any measurable increase in tumor size. That means even if your tumor isn’t growing, it could still be genetically evolving into something far more dangerous.

Aspartame Alters Your Gut Microbiota by Affecting the Gut-Brain Axis

Aspartame was accidentally discovered in 1965 and had been used in consumer products since the 1980s. Being a low-calorie sweetener that’s 200 times sweeter than regular sugar, it became widely popular among people who want to cut back on their calorie consumption. It’s now used in over 6,000 different products worldwide, including diet soda, sugar-free gum and candy, and even condiments like ketchup and salad dressings.2

However, aspartame is not as safe as it seems — in fact, it has been associated with a long list of health problems, such as obesity, headaches, and depression.3 In 2023, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans4 — and now, this animal study provides stronger evidence backing up this classification.

• The changes in gene activity were traced to a powerful biological process called RNA methylation — These changes occurred specifically along the N6-methyladenosine (m6A) pathway. RNA methylation is a chemical modification of messenger RNA (mRNA), the molecule your body uses to translate DNA into proteins.
This modification acts like a dimmer switch — it fine-tunes how active a gene becomes. When aspartame exposure elevated this process, the dimmer switch turned all the way up on cancer-promoting genes.

• Aspartame increases glioblastoma risk by affecting the gut-brain axis — This is the bidirectional pathway by which your gut and brain communicate with each other. Your gut bacteria synthesize short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) like butyrate and metabolize dietary components like tryptophan into molecules that regulate the tumor microenvironment.
When these metabolites reach tumor sites, they improve immune surveillance mechanisms and alter cellular metabolic processes to inhibit tumor growth.

• Conversely, tumors also influence gut microbial composition — Certain gut bacteria that colonize tumor tissues contribute to carcinogenesis through multiple mechanisms — they induce DNA damage, suppress the immune system’s ability to recognize tumor antigens, and disrupt vital metabolic pathways. These create conditions conducive to tumor survival and proliferation.

To put it simply, some gut bacteria produce substances that help fight cancer, while others actually help tumors grow and spread; Aspartame alters your gut to increase the growth of tumor-spreading bacteria.

• Mice fed aspartame had a significant drop in bacteria from the Rikenellaceae family — Rikenellaceae are part of a group of microbes involved in producing SCFAs, which, as mentioned above, help inhibit cancer formation. According to the study authors:

“The composition and abundance of gut microbiota, particularly the Rikenellaceae family, are closely associated with the levels of volatile fatty acids, such as acetic acid, propionic acid, and butyric acid.
Numerous findings have provided compelling evidence of a robust connection between the abundance of the Rikenellaceae family in the gut and a diverse array of metabolic health conditions, including Parkinson’s disease and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

Our study concluded that although the aspartame diet did not significantly affect tumor growth, it did induce changes in the composition of the gut microbiota, particularly a decrease in the relative abundance of the Rikenellaceae family. We speculated that gut microbiota could influence the progression of glioblastoma multiforme by gut-brain axis.”5

Previous Studies Have Associated Artificial Sweeteners with a High Risk of Cancer

There’s no doubt in my mind that artificial sweeteners like aspartame are among the most pernicious ingredients to ever make into our food supply. On the outside, swapping sugar for aspartame seems beneficial for your health, but on the contrary, this is one of the worst decisions you can make, with damaging, life-long implications.

This featured study now adds to the growing list of research linking artificial sweeteners to cancer and tumor growth. Among the most notable ones are:

• A 2006 lifespan rat study published in Environmental Health Perspectives — The researchers note that aspartame “is a multipotential carcinogenic agent, even at a daily dose of … much less than the current acceptable daily intake.”6

• A 2010 study published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine — The research confirms that this artificial sweetener is “a carcinogenic agent in multiple sites in rodents, and that this effect is induced in two species, rats (males and females) and mice (males).”7

• A 2012 paper published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition — Conducted by researchers from Harvard University, the study found a positive link between aspartame intake and Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma (among males), and leukemia (in both males and females).8

• A 2022 study published in PLOS Medicine — The study found a link between aspartame and acesulfame-K, another artificial sweetener, and a higher risk of breast and obesity-related cancers.9

In 2024, the nonprofit organization U.S. Right to Know released a review highlighting multiple independent studies that linked aspartame not just to an increased risk of cancer, but to multiple health problems as well. The review notes:10

“Dozens of studies have linked the popular artificial sweetener aspartame to serious health problems, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s disease, seizures, stroke and dementia, as well as negative effects such as intestinal dysbiosis, mood disorders, headaches and migraines.

Evidence also links aspartame to weight gain, increased appetite and obesity-related diseases … This evidence raises questions about the legality of marketing aspartame-containing products as ‘diet’ drinks or weight-loss products.”

Artificial Sweeteners Disrupt Your Gut Health in Many Ways

Your gut microbiome is composed of trillions of good and bad bacteria that influence various factors, such as regulating digestion, metabolism, and immune function. However, when you consume artificial sweeteners, especially on a day-to-day basis, your gut microbiome changes. Studies have found that consuming artificial sweeteners disrupts your gut’s delicate balance, which leads to a cascade of health issues.

• Aspartame blocks a gut enzyme associated with weight management — An aspartame breakdown product called phenylalanine was found to inhibit the activity of a gut enzyme called alkaline phosphatase (IAP). Previous animal studies have associated IAP with the prevention of metabolic syndrome development, as well as reducing its symptoms in those with the condition.11

• Neotame causes serious damage to the intestines and overall gut health — A relatively new artificial sweetener that’s chemically similar to aspartame, neotame not only damaged bacteria commonly found in the gut, but also led to intestinal cell death, one study reported. This sweetener also disrupted the intestinal barrier, leading to increased leakage and decreased presence of claudin-3, a protein important for cell binding. According to the study authors:12

“The study is the first to show that neotame can cause previously healthy gut bacteria to become diseased and invade the gut wall — potentially leading to health issues including irritable bowel syndrome and sepsis — and also cause a breakdown of the epithelial barrier, which forms part of the gut wall.”13

• Consuming sucralose induces gut dysbiosis and alters glucose and insulin levels — A study published in Microorganisms found that ingesting this sweetener in amounts “far lower than the suggested ADI [acceptable daily intake]”14 — for just 10 weeks was enough to induce gut dysbiosis and alter glucose and insulin levels in healthy, young adults. The sweetener affects bacteria belonging to the phylum Firmicutes, which are involved in glucose and insulin metabolism.

If you truly value your overall health, tending to your gut health is key — and one of the most significant changes you can make is to avoid artificial sweeteners.

Eliminate Aspartame (and Other Artificial Sweeteners) from Your Life

The research is clear — Aspartame isn’t harmless. It disrupts your gut microbiome, activates genes tied to tumor aggressiveness, and hijacks your cellular energy machinery. If you want to protect your body from chronic diseases and avoid a glioblastoma diagnosis, I recommend following these strategies:

1. Cut aspartame and all artificial sweeteners from your daily intake — If you’re still drinking diet sodas or using sugar-free products like flavored waters, gum, or chewable vitamins, it’s time to stop. These are common sources of aspartame. Ideally, remove all ultraprocessed foods from your diet, as many are hidden sources of artificial sweeteners.

I also advise reading labels carefully. Aspartame and other sweeteners often hide behind other names, so make sure to closely check the label of the products you buy.

2. Switch to natural sweeteners — Raw Manuka honey, maple syrup, and coconut sugar, all consumed in moderation, are some of the best choices. If you’re trying to transition off sweeteners entirely, fresh fruit is an excellent way to satisfy your cravings while keeping your blood sugar balanced.

3. Restore your gut microbiome immediately — Focus on foods that help your body rebuild a healthy microbial balance. Start with whole fruits, well-cooked vegetables, and well-tolerated, cooked starches.

Fermented foods like sauerkraut, kefir, and kimchi provide natural probiotics that help rebalance your microbiome. Collagen-rich bone broth supports the gut lining, and dietary fiber from well-tolerated fruits helps feed beneficial bacteria (but make sure your gut is in optimal condition, so the fiber will feed your good bacteria instead of the bad bacteria).

4. Don’t skimp on targeted carbohydrates — Most adults need around 200 to 250 grams of carbs per day for proper mitochondrial function. That includes the brain. Restricting carbs starves your body of energy and leads to reductive stress, which only worsens the cellular chaos tied to glioblastoma. I recommend slowly reintroducing safe carbs based on your gut’s tolerance.

5. Remove other common triggers of cellular damage — If you’re serious about disrupting the root cause of glioblastoma progression, eliminate the other big offenders that compromise mitochondrial and microbiome health. That includes seed oils, electromagnetic (EMF) exposure, xenoestrogens from plastics, and processed foods.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Aspartame and Glioblastoma

Q: How does aspartame increase the risk of glioblastoma?
A: Aspartame alters gene activity tied to cancer progression by activating RNA methylation pathways, especially the N6-methyladenosine (m6A) pathway. This boosts the expression of genes like MYC, TGFB1, and CDKN1A, which are known to drive tumor growth and make glioblastoma more aggressive — even if the tumor itself doesn’t visibly enlarge.

Q: What role does the gut microbiome play in brain cancer development?
A: Your gut bacteria influence your brain through the gut-brain axis. Aspartame disrupts this by reducing bacteria like Rikenellaceae that help produce anticancer compounds. These microbial imbalances weaken immune surveillance and encourage tumor-supporting conditions in the brain.

Q: Are artificial sweeteners really worse than sugar?
A: Yes. While marketed as safer low-calorie options, artificial sweeteners like aspartame have been linked to cancer, metabolic dysfunction, gut damage, and disrupted gene regulation. The evidence shows these additives are not harmless alternatives and could cause long-term harm to your health.

Q: What should I do if I’ve been consuming aspartame regularly?
A: Start by eliminating all artificial sweeteners from your diet — this includes checking labels on diet sodas, flavored waters, gum, vitamins, and condiments. Then, support your gut with natural carbs, fermented foods, dextrose water, and collagen-rich broths to help rebalance your microbiome and restore gene regulation pathways.

Q: Is there a safer way to satisfy my sweet cravings?
A: Yes. Transition to moderate use of natural sweeteners like raw honey, maple syrup, or coconut sugar. Better yet, rely on whole fruits with fiber, which offer natural sweetness while supporting gut and brain health. Always prioritize food sources that feed your beneficial bacteria, not fuel disease.

Aspartame, a common artificial sweetener found in sugar-free sodas, protein bars and even chewing gum, is touted to be a “healthy” alternative to regular sugar, thus helping people satisfy their cravings for sweets without risking their health. While this is a popularly held belief among consumers, research shows that aspartame does the opposite — it actually endangers your health to a greater degree than sugar.

Aspartame Alters Insulin Response

A study published in Nutrients1 examined how artificial sweeteners, including aspartame, affect metabolic processes and gut microbiota composition. Researchers aimed to determine whether these sugar substitutes actually help regulate blood sugar or if they disrupt natural metabolic function.

Glucose intolerance occurs — Contrary to industry claims that artificial sweeteners are healthy, the study revealed the opposite — aspartame interferes with insulin signaling and contributes to glucose intolerance, making them hidden risk factors for metabolic disorders.2
Aspartame triggers unnatural insulin responses — Artificial sweeteners have long been marketed as a way to reduce sugar intake without affecting blood sugar levels. However, the study found that aspartame and similar sweeteners still stimulate an insulin response. This happens because the body detects sweetness and assumes sugar is coming, prompting the pancreas to release insulin even when no actual glucose is present.3
Increased risk of insulin resistance — The insulin spikes seem harmless at first, but over time, it leads to insulin resistance. When your body constantly releases insulin in response to non-caloric sweeteners, cells become less responsive to the hormone. This sets the stage for metabolic dysfunction, increasing your risk of obesity, Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.4

Gut Microbiota Composition Is Altered by Artificial Sweeteners

Beyond insulin, the study also found that aspartame disrupts the delicate balance of your gut bacteria, which consists of trillions of bacteria that regulate digestion, immune function and metabolism.

Increases glucose intolerance — Researchers discovered that aspartame consumption shifts this balance. In one published study that the researchers reviewed, “Mouse recipients of the saccharine-associated microbiome became glucose intolerant … In humans, saccharin (upper limit of the accepted daily intake) also promoted glucose intolerance and gut microbiome alterations.”5
Alterations increase weight gain — Gut bacteria play a direct role in regulating how the body processes the food you eat. A disrupted microbiome leads to improper digestion, increased fat storage and reduced energy efficiency. As noted in one of the reviewed studies by the researchers, “In Sprague-Dawley rats (7-week-old males), the ingestion of 0.05% aspartame significantly increased body weight and fat mass.”6

Aspartame’s Effects on Gut Function

Beyond insulin, aspartame also interferes with other hormonal systems that regulate metabolism.

Reduced GLP-1 function — The study noted aspartame causes changes in GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) secretion, a hormone that controls satiety and blood sugar balance. Reduced GLP-1 means that people who consume artificial sweeteners feel hungrier sooner, leading to increased food intake and weight gain over time.7
Compromised lipid metabolism — According to the researchers, an increased intake of aspartame or other artificial sweeteners “induced the loss of antioxidant capacity as well as increased atherogenic effects” of high-density lipoprotein (HDL), which is often referred as the “good” cholesterol.8

The study highlights an important point people need to know about artificial sweeteners — they do not function as proper sugar substitutes. They actively disrupt normal metabolic and hormonal processes, making it harder for your body to regulate blood sugar and maintain a healthy weight. While they look like an easy way to cut calories, their long-term effects create more significant health risks than the sugar they replace.9

Aspartame Fuels Inflammation and Artery Damage, Raising Heart Disease Risk

In a different study, published in Cell Metabolism,10 researchers investigated how aspartame consumption influences insulin levels and vascular inflammation.

Aspartame fuels artery damage — Researchers found that aspartame stimulates insulin release through your vagus nerve, leading to chronic inflammation in blood vessels. This inflammatory response directly worsens atherosclerosis, a condition in which arteries become narrowed and hardened due to plaque buildup.11
Inflammatory proteins are activated — Aspartame-induced insulin spikes are not just a metabolic issue — they drive damage inside your arteries. When insulin levels surge unnaturally, your body increases production of a specific inflammatory protein called CX3CL1. This protein acts as a signal that attracts immune cells to the blood vessel walls, leading to chronic inflammation and an increased risk of heart disease.12
Plaque buildup — In the reviewed animal models, aspartame consumption led to larger, more unstable plaques in the arteries compared to control groups. These plaques were more likely to rupture, which is a major cause of heart attacks and strokes. Even small doses of aspartame were enough to accelerate this process, making it clear that this artificial sweetener isn’t just an innocent sugar substitute — it’s actively harming your cardiovascular health.13

Aspartame Alters the Vagus Nerve’s Role in Insulin Regulation

Another shocking revelation from the study is that aspartame influences insulin levels in a completely different way than sugar. In addition, it changes the function of the vagus nerve, which acts as the information highway connecting your gut and brain.

Vagus nerve dysfunction — Instead of raising insulin through a natural glucose response, aspartame stimulates the vagus nerve, which then signals the pancreas to release insulin unnecessarily.14
Insulin sensitivity issues arise — By tricking your body into thinking sugar is present, aspartame creates a hormonal response that your body isn’t designed to handle. Over time, this disrupts insulin sensitivity and leads to metabolic dysfunction, contributing to insulin resistance and increased fat storage.15

Aspartame’s Breakdown Products Exacerbate Health Issues

Beyond its immediate effects on insulin and inflammation, aspartame also breaks down into smaller compounds that contribute to metabolic stress.

Aspartame produces methanol — Methanol, which is an industrial type of alcohol that is used to adulterate liquor,16 has been discovered to be a metabolic byproduct of aspartame digestion. According to a 2021 study, 11% of aspartame turns into pure methanol.17
The impact of methanol — When methanol is metabolized by your body, it turns into formaldehyde, which is known to impact DNA and RNA health. Specifically, formaldehyde interacts with basic proteins in the cytosols of your cells, inactivating them. According to the researchers, “such changes have been found in the brains of people suffering from autism.”18

The breakdown of aspartame contributes to long-term health issues by creating additional cellular stress. When combined with aspartame’s inflammatory effects on blood vessels, its overall impact on your body becomes even more apparent, necessitating strategies that repair your cellular health.

Eliminate Aspartame from Your Life to Protect Your Health

As I’ve mentioned in previous articles, aspartame, as well as other artificial sweeteners, will do no good for anyone’s health. It disrupts insulin function, fuels inflammation and even accelerates artery damage. To bring your health back on the right track, the first step is eliminating aspartame while also supporting your metabolism and vascular health. Here are my recommendations:

1. Remove artificial sweeteners from your diet immediately — Aspartame isn’t just in diet sodas. It hides in protein powders, flavored yogurts, sugar-free candies and even some medications. Read labels carefully — if you see products with the words “aspartame,” “acesulfame potassium” or “sucralose,” it’s time to throw them away. Familiarize yourself with other artificial sweeteners as well, such as neotame and sucralose.

Instead of artificial sweeteners, choose natural alternatives like raw Manuka honey, maple syrup or coconut sugar in moderation. If you’re trying to transition off sweeteners entirely, fresh fruit is an excellent way to satisfy your cravings while keeping your blood sugar balanced.

2. Heal your insulin sensitivity with targeted carbohydrate intake — If aspartame has already affected your insulin function, the best way to restore balance is to fuel your body with healthy carbohydrates in the right amounts. Aiming for 250 to 300 grams of quality carbs per day — more if you’re physically active — helps prevent the insulin spikes caused by aspartame.

Prioritize whole food sources like potatoes, white rice, ripe bananas, and well-cooked vegetables. If your gut health is compromised, start with simple, easily digestible carbs like white rice and whole fruit before introducing more complex starches.

3. Support your gut microbiome for better blood sugar control — Aspartame damages beneficial gut bacteria, which play a direct role in regulating insulin and metabolism. Restoring balance starts with removing harmful foods (vegetable oils, processed meats and artificial additives) and introducing gut-healing food.

Fermented foods like sauerkraut, kefir and kimchi provide natural probiotics that help rebalance your microbiome. Collagen-rich bone broth supports the gut lining, and dietary fiber from well-tolerated fruits helps feed beneficial bacteria. As noted in one study, fermented foods helped improve the metabolic health of the participants, including insulin sensitivity and glucose control.19

4. Reduce hidden sources of inflammation — Inflammation is the link between aspartame, insulin resistance and vascular disease. Cutting artificial sweeteners is just the beginning — you also need to eliminate the biggest dietary sources of inflammation, namely vegetable oils, as they’re high in linoleic acid (LA), an omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid.

LA drives oxidative stress and worsen insulin resistance. To minimize your intake, I recommend cooking your own food with tallow, grass fed butter and ghee.

5. Improve cellular energy production with sunlight — Artificial sweeteners disrupt cellular metabolism, but there are still other ways to restore energy production naturally, namely sun exposure. It stimulates mitochondrial function, helping your cells generate ATP (adenosine triphosphate) — the fuel your body runs on.

Aim for daily morning and midday sunlight, avoiding harsh UV exposure until you’ve been off vegetable oils for at least six months. That’s because when sunlight hits your skin, the LA embedded in it metabolizes, contributing to inflammation and DNA damage. For a more in-depth explanation on this topic, read my article “Vitamin D Deficiency Complicates Autoimmune Disease.”

Frequently Asked Questions About the Impact of Aspartame on Human Health

Q: How does aspartame affect metabolism if it has no calories?
A: Aspartame stimulates the vagus nerve, tricking your body into releasing insulin as if sugar were present. Over time, these unnecessary insulin surges lead to insulin resistance, making it harder for your body to regulate blood sugar and increasing the risk of metabolic dysfunction.

Q: Can aspartame cause inflammation in blood vessels?
A: Yes, research shows that aspartame-driven insulin spikes trigger the release of CX3CL1, an inflammatory protein that attracts immune cells to blood vessel walls. This leads to chronic inflammation, artery damage and an increased risk of atherosclerosis.

Q: What are some common foods and drinks that contain aspartame?
A: Aspartame is found in diet sodas, sugar-free gum, flavored yogurts, protein powders, sugar-free candies and even some over-the-counter medications. Checking ingredient labels for “aspartame,” “acesulfame potassium,” or “sucralose” is key to avoiding it. Beyond aspartame, be sure to avoid other products containing other artificial sweeteners.

Q: If I stop consuming aspartame, how long does it take for my metabolism to recover?
A: Your metabolism starts improving as soon as you remove artificial sweeteners, but full recovery depends on individual factors like the current state of your gut health and the diet you’re eating. Restoring insulin function with targeted carbohydrate intake and healing the gut microbiome with fermented foods will jumpstart the healing process.

Q: What is the best way to naturally regulate blood sugar without artificial sweeteners?
A: Focus on whole-food carbohydrates like potatoes, ripe fruit and white rice to provide steady energy without insulin spikes. Supporting gut health with bone broth and probiotic-rich foods also improves blood sugar control and overall metabolic health.

Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published December 6, 2016.

The allure of artificial sweeteners — zero calories and a sweet taste — is a strong one, such that up to 141.18 million Americans use them routinely.1 There have been concerns from the beginning, however, that consuming synthetic compounds with hyper-sweetness (200 times that of sugar in the case of aspartame) has some serious drawbacks.

One of the most appalling, especially to those consuming artificially sweetened, sugar-free and diet products in the hopes of losing weight, is their propensity to fuel weight gain. Researchers wrote in the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine:2

“Intuitively, people choose non-caloric artificial sweeteners over sugar to lose or maintain weight …

Whether due to a successful marketing effort on the part of the diet beverage industry or not, the weight conscious public often consider artificial sweeteners ‘health food.” But do artificial sweeteners actually help reduce weight?

Surprisingly, epidemiologic data suggest the contrary. Several large-scale prospective cohort studies found positive correlation between artificial sweetener use and weight gain.”

Although their reputation as a weight-loss aid has held strong since the beginning, it’s been known for years that they seem to have the opposite effect. A team of Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) investigators even revealed a potential reason why artificial sweeteners like aspartame prevent, rather than promote, weight loss.3

Aspartame Promotes Obesity by Blocking Gut Enzyme Activity

A study on mice revealed that animals fed aspartame-laced drinking water gained weight and developed symptoms of metabolic syndrome, while mice not fed the artificial sweetener did not. Further, the researchers revealed that phenylalanine, an aspartame breakdown product, blocks the activity of a gut enzyme called alkaline phosphatase (IAP).

In a previous study, IAP was found to prevent the development of metabolic syndrome (and reduce symptoms in those with the condition) when fed to mice.4 Study author Dr. Richard Hodin, of the MGH Department of Surgery, said in a press release:5

“We found that aspartame blocks a gut enzyme called intestinal alkaline phosphatase (IAP) that we previously showed can prevent obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome; so we think that aspartame might not work because, even as it is substituting for sugar, it blocks the beneficial aspects of IAP.”

Mice in the study were fed either plain water or water infused with the equivalent amount of aspartame found in two to three and a half cans of soda, along with a normal diet or a high-fat diet. Mice in the high-fat group that drank aspartame-infused water gained more weight than those eating the same diet without aspartame in their water.

Further, all the mice fed aspartame had higher blood sugar levels — an indicator of glucose intolerance — and higher levels of inflammatory protein TNF-alpha, which is suggestive of systemic inflammation. Given aspartame’s inhibition of IAP, the researchers suggested its use is counterproductive.

Artificial Sweeteners Linked to Weight Gain Since the 1980s

Artificial sweeteners are still viewed as a weight-loss aid in 2016 even though their hindrances to weight loss have been documented since at least the 1980s. Then, the San Antonio Heart Study, which involved nearly 4,000 adults, found drinkers of artificially sweetened beverages consistently had higher BMIs (body mass index) than non-drinkers.6

Again, in the early 1980s, a study of nearly 78,700 women found artificial sweetener usage increased with relative weight, and users were significantly more likely to gain weight compared to those who did not use artificial sweeteners.7

Such associations have only continued to grow over the passing decades. Artificially sweetened beverages, including diet soda, are among the key culprits, with intake associated with “striking” increases in waist circumference among older adults, according to one study.8

Research published in PLOS One also found regularly consuming artificially sweetened soft drinks is associated with several disorders of metabolic syndrome, including:9

Abdominal obesity
Insulin resistance
Impaired glucose intolerance
Abnormally elevated fats in the blood
High blood pressure

The study found drinking aspartame-sweetened diet soda daily increased the risk of Type 2 diabetes by 67% (regardless of whether they gained weight or not) and the risk of metabolic syndrome 36%.

One way artificial sweeteners increase your risk of weight gain, obesity and other related problems like Type 2 diabetes is by inducing “metabolic derangements,” according to a report published in the journal Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism:10

“… [A]ccumulating evidence suggests that frequent consumers of these sugar substitutes may also be at increased risk of excessive weight gain, metabolic syndrome, Type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

… [C]onsuming sweet-tasting but noncaloric or reduced-calorie food and beverages interferes with learned responses that normally contribute to glucose and energy homeostasis.

Because of this interference, frequent consumption of high-intensity sweeteners may have the counterintuitive effect of inducing metabolic derangements.”

Soda Industry Pledges to Cut Calories Off to Slow Start

The soda industry has pledged to cut the number of calories Americans consume via beverages by 20% over a decade, but they’re off to a slow start.11 In 2015, this caloric intake dropped by just 0.2%, according to a beverage industry report.

In addition to introducing smaller package sizes and reformulating products, a key strategy toward this goal is the promotion of artificially sweetened diet drinks, but the consumption of low- and no-calorie soda fell by nearly 6% last year.

Americans are growing increasingly wary of artificial sweeteners, and the soda industry is becoming increasingly desperate to hold on to its once-loyal customers. One of their ongoing strategies to appear like they care about your health is to promote their diet beverages as a healthy alternative.

In 2013, they rolled out an ad campaign encouraging people to unite in the fight against obesity, and then swiftly launched another campaign touting aspartame in its diet sodas.

According to the ad, aspartame is a “safe, high-quality alternative to sugar.” Clearly they’ve not reviewed the hundreds of studies on this artificial sweetener demonstrating its harmful effects or the risks of consuming diet sodas in general.

In one study, people who drank diet soda had a 70% greater increase in waist size in a 10-year period compared to non-diet soda drinkers. Those who drank two or more diet sodas a day had a 500% greater increase in waist size.

Research published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics also revealed that people who drink diet beverages end up compensating for their “saved” calories by eating more foods high in sugar, sodium and unhealthy fats.12

Obese adults had the highest incremental daily calorie intake from unhealthy foods associated with diet beverages. Researcher Ruopeng An, Ph.D., a former kinesiology and community health professor at the University of Illinois, noted:13

“It may be that people who consume diet beverages feel justified in eating more, so they reach for a muffin or a bag of chips … Or perhaps, in order to feel satisfied, they feel compelled to eat more of these high-calorie foods.”

For more on the detrimental effects of diet sodas, including in relation to aspartame and weight gain, check out our infographic below.

> > > > > Click Here

I’ve been sounding the alarm on artificial sweeteners — particularly aspartame — for many years, as I believe it is one of the most pernicious products ever to make its way into our food supply. Many people have been led to believe that swapping sugar for aspartame means they’re doing their health a favor. But on the contrary, this toxic sweetener is one of the worst food additives you can consume.

A recently published review1 investigates the long history of aspartame and the dozens of health problems associated with it. I guarantee that after reading the report, you’ll likely toss out all aspartame-containing products from your pantry.

Aspartame Has Been Wrecking People’s Health for Decades

Touted to be 200 times sweeter than sugar, aspartame is a low-calorie artificial sweetener primarily made up of aspartic acid and phenylalanine. It was first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to be used in foods and beverages in 1981.2

Today, it’s added to almost 6,000 consumer products.3 Many diet beverages, sugar-free gum and candy, condiments such as ketchup and dressings, and even children’s medicines and vitamins contain aspartame. Aspartame’s claim to fame is it provides the same sweet flavor without added calories, hence making it ideal for those looking to shed excess weight.

But aspartame’s existence has been rife with controversy, as it appears that the risks outweigh the benefits. A review4 published by the nonprofit organization U.S. Right to Know enumerates multiple independent studies conducted over the past few decades since aspartame’s approval, associating this artificial sweetener with a long list of health problems. According to the featured review:

“Dozens of studies have linked the popular artificial sweetener aspartame to serious health problems, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s disease, seizures, stroke and dementia, as well as negative effects such as intestinal dysbiosis, mood disorders, headaches and migraines.

Evidence also links aspartame to weight gain, increased appetite and obesity-related diseases … This evidence raises questions about the legality of marketing aspartame-containing products, such as Diet Coke, as ‘diet’ drinks or weight-loss products.”5

What Makes Aspartame So Toxic to Your Health?

To understand how aspartame wreaks havoc in your body, it’s important to understand its composition. As mentioned, aspartame is primarily composed of aspartic acid and phenylalanine. To provide its sweetness, the phenylalanine has been modified to carry a methyl group. However, this bond, called a methyl ester, is very weak. It easily breaks off and forms methanol.

It’s true that methanol naturally occurs in fruits and vegetables, however, in these foods, it’s firmly bonded to pectin, allowing it to be safely passed through your digestive tract. The methanol in aspartame is different — it’s not bonded to anything that can help remove it from your body.

Instead, methanol acts like a Trojan horse and is carried into susceptible tissues throughout your body, including your brain and bone marrow. Here, the alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) enzyme converts methanol into formaldehyde — this is what wreaks havoc on sensitive proteins and DNA.

What’s more, formaldehyde is a known carcinogen,6 which brings us to one of the most warned-about dangers of aspartame. Since formaldehyde is carcinogenic, then it makes sense that aspartame might be, too.

Aspartame Has Been Linked to an Increased Risk of Cancer

The U.S. Right to Know article7 highlights several studies linking aspartame to an increased risk of cancer. The most recent one is the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) monograph8 on aspartame, published earlier this year.

“As announced in January, IARC found aspartame is possibly carcinogenic. The monograph notes that a minority of the working group supported classifying aspartame as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans,’ based on ‘a combination of limited evidence for cancer in humans and sufficient evidence for cancer in experimental animals, supported by the limited mechanistic evidence …’” U.S. Right to Know reports.

A 2022 PLOS study9 also found a link between aspartame and acesulfame-K, another artificial sweetener, and a higher risk of breast and obesity-related cancers. The study authors note, “These findings provide important and novel insights for the ongoing re-evaluation of food additive sweeteners by the European Food Safety Authority and other health agencies globally.”

The featured article further lists several more studies that point to aspartame’s carcinogenic potential, such as:

A 2006 lifespan rat study10 published in Environmental Health Perspectives notes that aspartame “is a multipotential carcinogenic agent, even at a daily dose of … much less than the current acceptable daily intake.”
A 2010 study11 published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine confirms that this artificial sweetener is “a carcinogenic agent in multiple sites in rodents, and that this effect is induced in two species, rats (males and females) and mice (males).”
A 2012 Harvard paper12 published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found a positive link between aspartame intake and Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma (among males), and leukemia (in both males and females).

Early animal studies on aspartame dating to the 1970s have already shown evidence of causing brain tumors, yet no follow-up studies were conducted on this matter.13 What’s more, further attempts to shed light on this potential hazard were either dismissed or swept under the rug. An article published in Vice magazine notes:14

“In 1996, John Olney, a professor of pathology and immunology at Washington University Medical School, claimed to have found epidemiological evidence15 that the introduction of aspartame in the U.S. was connected to an increase in an aggressive form of brain tumor called glioblastomas. But this was criticized for just being a correlation and dismissed by the FDA.”

Aspartame Harms Your Brain

Aspartame’s unnatural structure causes it to produce amino acids that, instead of being used by your body, harm you. These amino acids attack your cells and even cross your blood-brain barrier, leading to a toxic cellular overstimulation known as excitotoxicity.

In addition, aspartic acid can lead to neural damage. While aspartate is used as a neurotransmitter, having too much of it in your brain can kill neurons as it allows too much calcium in the cells. This influx triggers excessive amounts of free radicals, which kill the cells. Hence, it isn’t surprising that aspartame has been linked to a wide array of brain-related health issues. The featured article notes:16

“Aspartame side effects may also include behavioral and cognitive problems such as learning deficits, headache, seizure, migraines, irritable moods, anxiety, depression, and insomnia, according to the researchers of a 2017 study in Nutritional Neuroscience.17 ‘Aspartame consumption needs to be approached with caution due to the possible effects on neurobehavioral health.’”

Alzheimer’s disease, a severe form of dementia, is now a leading cause of death. According to a 2024 report18 by the Alzheimer’s Association, an estimated 6.9 million Americans are living with this illness. Unfortunately, aspartame intake may play a factor because of the methanol in it.

According to a two-part animal study19,20 published in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease in 2014, chronic exposure to methanol may lead to memory loss and Alzheimer’s disease symptoms. A separate study21 published in 2017 also found that people who consume diet soda on a daily basis had a three times higher risk of developing dementia and stroke as opposed to those who consumed it weekly or less. According to the study authors:

“Artificially sweetened beverages are typically sweetened with non-nutritive sweeteners, such as saccharin, acesulfame, aspartame, neotame or sucralose … Collectively, these synthetic substances are much more potent than sucrose, with only trace amounts needed to generate the sensation of sweetness.

Because our study was observational, we are unable to determine whether artificially sweetened soft drink intake increased the risk of incident dementia through diabetes mellitus or whether people with diabetes mellitus were simply more likely to consume diet beverages. Some studies have provided evidence for the former.”22

Aspartame Doesn’t Help With Weight Loss — It Actually Makes You Fat

Aspartame-containing products are usually marketed as “diet aids” that can help you achieve weight loss, but nothing could be further from the truth. The featured article also mentions this,23 and questions the legality of marketing these products as weight loss aids, when the science clearly points otherwise.

For example, a study published in the International Journal of Obesity found that ingesting aspartame and saccharin on a long-term basis can actually lead to “greater volumes of visceral, intermuscular, and subcutaneous adipose tissue.”24 A separate animal study, published in the British Journal of Nutrition, also found that test subjects that were given aspartame for seven weeks experienced increased body weight, fat accumulation and reduced insulin sensitivity.25

In May 2023, the WHO released a report advising against the use of “nonsugar sweeteners (NSS)” to manage body weight or minimize the risk of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). The report also highlights that health problems may arise from these products, including Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and even increased risk of mortality.26 According to Francesco Branca, WHO director for nutrition and food safety:

“Replacing free sugars with NSS does not help with weight control in the long term. People need to consider other ways to reduce free sugars intake, such as consuming food with naturally occurring sugars, like fruit, or unsweetened food and beverages. NSS are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health.”27

The List of Health Problems Associated With Aspartame Is Extensive

The featured article mentions that many scientists have questioned aspartame’s approval, believing it was based on “suspect data and should be reconsidered.”28 I wholeheartedly agree with this, and no doubt you will too, once you see just how extensive the list of associated health problems is:

Cancer29
Brain tumors30
Anxiety31 and learning deficits32

Cardiovascular disease33
Stroke, dementia34 and Alzheimer’s disease35
Seizures36

Headaches and migraines37
Parkinson’s disease38
Autism39

Weight gain and obesity40
Increased appetite41
Diabetes and metabolic dysfunction42

Pregnancy complications (ex: preterm birth)43
Early menstruation44
Sperm damage45

Liver46 and kidney47 damage
Behavioral problems48 (irritability and depression)
Insomnia49

I encourage you to read the U.S. Right to Know article as it efficiently summarizes aspartame’s toxicity. It also provides links to investigative reports about the various health concerns, background information on how industry-funded research led to its approval, and the sordid ties between the FDA and the food industry that allowed this product to infiltrate our food supply.

Ditch Artificial Sweeteners and Control Your Sweet Cravings

Eliminating artificial sweeteners from your diet may be a challenge especially if you frequently crave sweet foods, but the good news is there are strategies to help you ditch them.

One strategy is to consume sour foods like fermented vegetables or water with lemon juice whenever you’re craving something sweet. You can also try drinking a glass of tea with citrus juice or eating a piece of fruit. Most fruits are naturally sweet and can be a great substitute for sweet cravings.

Being a smart shopper is also crucial — be vigilant about checking the ingredient lists on the packaging of foods and beverages. Take note that aspartame and other artificial sweeteners aren’t found in just “diet” products and other sugar-free products, but also in foods you might not expect like condiments, breakfast cereals and yogurt. Focus on consuming fresh, whole foods instead.

Finally, you can also try the Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) whenever you crave something sweet. This psychological acupressure tool will help you overcome the urge to consume unhealthy foods, and only involves tapping and voicing affirmations. The video above shows you how to do EFT to get rid of cravings.

Research1 published in the American Heart Association journal Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology found an association between drinking sweetened beverages and atrial fibrillation. Atrial fibrillation, also called AFib, is an abnormal and often rapid heartbeat that occurs when the upper chambers in the heart (atria) beat out of sync with the lower chambers (ventricles).2

It’s a common symptom in people with heart failure or heart disease and one of the most common arrhythmias (irregular heartbeats) that affects more than 2 million U.S. adults. AFib can sometimes go away on its own, but it also can become more frequent with longer-lasting episodes that can lead to serious complications like stroke and heart failure.

The symptoms of AFib can look like other health problems, which is why it is crucial to understand the condition and receive the correct diagnosis. For example, the declining ability to pump blood to the lungs and elsewhere in the body can lead to lightheadedness, dizziness and fatigue, which are symptoms that can be attributed to several other health conditions.

AFib may make you feel like your heart has skipped a beat or is fluttering or pounding. Your risk increases with age, but lifestyle and dietary factors can also increase your risk, which is exactly what researchers found when they sought to determine if there was an association between drinking sweetened beverages and AFib.

Diet and Regular Soda Raises Heart Risk

The researchers acknowledged3 that a past association between sweetened beverages and cardiometabolic disease has been reported, but an association with atrial fibrillation was unclear. The study enrolled 201,856 participants who did not have AFib at the time the study began, had completed a 24-hour diet questionnaire and had genetic data available.

Research has found a genetic component to AFib. Genome-wide studies identified 140 genetic loci that are linked to the development of AFib.4 However, while genetic implications put an individual at higher risk of developing the condition, it is not a guarantee that the condition will develop.

There was a median follow-up of 9.9 years, during which 9,362 incidents of AFib were documented.5 The researchers evaluated the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB), artificially sweetened beverages (ASB) and pure fruit juice. The data showed that people who drank greater than 2 liters per week of sugar-sweetened or artificially sweetened beverages increased their risk of AFib, with those who drank artificially sweetened beverages experiencing a higher risk.

The highest risk was observed in people who had a genetic risk and consumed more than 2 liters of artificially sweetened beverages, while the lowest risk was observed in those who had a low genetic risk and consumed less than 1 liter of pure juice per week.

The association between sweetened beverages and AFib persisted even after adjustments were made for genetic susceptibility to the heart condition. “This study does not demonstrate that consumption of SSB and ASB alters AF risk but rather that the consumption of SSB and ASB may predict AF risk beyond traditional risk factors,” the researchers concluded.6

Many people reach for an artificially sweetened beverage advertising zero calories and sugar because they know other sodas and juices contain an alarming amount of both. Drinking a beverage advertised with zero calories and sugar can feel like you’re making better choices but as these researchers have demonstrated, artificial sweeteners may cause more harm than good.

While the data from the current study demonstrates a higher risk of consuming ASB, a press release from the American Heart Association about the study also noted that people who drink 2 liters of SSB each week increase their risk of AFib by 10%.7 Kris-Etherton, an emeritus professor of nutritional sciences at Penn State University, commented on the results of the study from China, saying:

“This is the first study to report an association between no- and low-calorie sweeteners and also sugar-sweetened beverages and increased risk of atrial fibrillation.

While there is robust evidence about the adverse effects of sugar-sweetened beverages and cardiovascular disease risk, there is less evidence about adverse health consequences of artificial sweeteners. In the meantime, water is the best choice, and, based on this study, no- and low-calorie sweetened beverages should be limited or avoided.”

Sweeteners in Diet Soda Can Destroy Your Gut Microbiome

While refined sugar feeds harmful, disease-causing bacteria in the gut,8 artificial sweeteners cause DNA damage in, and interfere with, the normal activity in gut bacteria. The artificial sweeteners reviewed in one study9 included aspartame, sucralose, saccharin, neotame, advantame and acesulfame potassium-k.

The animal study was published in the journal Molecules, and as noted by Business Insider,10 all the sweeteners “had a toxic, stressing effect, making it difficult for gut microbes to grow and reproduce.” According to the researchers, this effect can in turn affect your body’s ability to process carbohydrates.

While, overall, all six artificial sweeteners were found to have toxic effects on gut bacteria, there were individual differences in the type and amount of damage they produced.

Saccharin caused the greatest, most widespread damage, exhibiting both cytotoxic and genotoxic effects, meaning it is toxic to cells and damages genetic information in the cell (which can cause mutations).
Neotame was found to cause metabolic disruption in mice, and raised concentrations of several fatty acids, lipids and cholesterol. Several gut genes were also decreased by this sweetener.
Aspartame and acesulfame potassium-k — The latter of which is commonly found in sports supplements — were both found to cause DNA damage.

In a carefully crafted message, Ariel Kushmaro, Ph.D., professor of microbial biotechnology at Ben-Gurion University and lead author, told Business Insider, “We are not claiming that it’s toxic to human beings. We’re claiming that it might be toxic to the gut bacteria, and by that, will influence us.”11

These data support previous research published in 2013,12 which concluded that sucralose reduces the number, and alters the composition of, gut bacteria. Animal research13 in 2008 showed sucralose could kill gut bacteria and appeared to target beneficial microorganisms to a greater extent than pathologic bacteria.

This is crucial since anytime you destroy healthy intestinal bacteria, it opens the door to increased growth of unfriendly microorganisms that can cause health problems. A 2021 study14 found three of the six commonly used artificial sweeteners impair your gut bacteria’s ability to communicate and the “effect of these artificial sweeteners on numerous molecular events that are at the core of intestinal microbial function, and by extension on the host metabolism.”

Artificial Sweetener Tricks Your Body into Storing Fat

Since the 1960s, researchers have known that your body metabolizes different types of carbohydrates in different ways, which causes hormonal and physiological responses that influence fat accumulation and metabolism.15

While the sugar industry wants you to believe that all calories are the same, you can’t undo the effects of soda by cutting back on calories in your diet since refined sugar itself wreaks havoc on your gut microbiome and your metabolism.

In late 2021,16 research showed women who consumed foods with artificial sweeteners felt hungrier and ate more food than those who simply drank a sugar-sweetened beverage. Contrary to industry claims, research shows that artificial sweeteners stimulate your appetite, increase cravings for carbohydrates and produce a variety of metabolic dysfunctions that promote fat storage and weight gain.

For a list of research supporting dysfunction in fat storage and weight gain associated with consuming artificial sweeteners see “Reconfirmed: Artificial Sweeteners Make You Sick.” There is also a mounting number of studies that have shown artificial sweeteners raise your risk of obesity and Type 2 diabetes, perhaps to an even greater degree than sugar.

One animal study17 presented at the annual Experimental Biology conference in San Diego confirmed these results while exploring how different sweeteners affect the way food is used and stored, including the effect on vascular function. The researchers concluded:18

“Overall, results of this study suggest that exposure to high glucose and artificial sweetener administration lead to unique mechanisms of vascular impairment and homeostatic alterations that may be important during the onset and progression of diabetes and obesity.”

Diet Soda Linked to Depression, Gout and More

A damaged gut microbiome, fat storage and an increased risk of obesity may help explain how diet soda is linked to so many health conditions. A 2024 study19 showed sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) and artificially sweetened beverages (ASB) increase your risk of cardiovascular disease as an adult regardless of your activity level.

The study evaluated 13,269 cardiovascular disease events and compared the results to those who never or rarely consume sweetened beverages against those who consumed two or more each day. They found a dose-dependent response, concluding:20

“Higher SSB intake was associated with CVD risk regardless of physical activity levels. These results support current recommendations to limit the intake of SSBs even for physically active individuals.”

Data have also linked sugar and artificially sweetened beverages with an increased risk of depression. Research21 showed that drinking four servings of soda a day increased the risk of depression by 30% compared to those who did not drink sweetened beverages of any kind.

People who drank primarily diet soda had a 31% increased risk of suffering depression, regular soda was associated with a 22% increased risk and those who drank diet fruit drinks had a 51% higher risk of depression. Regular fruit drinks were associated with a more modest 8% increased risk.

For a discussion of the potential pathways sugar impacts mental health, see “How Dietary Intervention Lifts Depression.” Soda and other SSBs are a leading source of added sugar, with 6 in 10 youths and 5 in 10 adults drinking at least one beverage on any given day.22 Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states:23

“Frequently drinking sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with weight gain/obesity, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, kidney diseases, nonalcoholic liver disease, tooth decay and cavities and gout, a type of arthritis.”

However, the CDC only suggests that “limiting the amount of SSB intake can help individuals maintain a healthy weight and have a healthy diet,” stopping far short of advising Americans to ditch these unhealthy drinks to avoid chronic disease.

Aspartame Has Been Linked to Many Health Problems

Aspartame is another powerful artificial sweetener that has been linked to a significant number of health conditions. A 2022 animal study24 found that at doses equivalent to 15% below the FDA-recommended maximum daily intake for humans, aspartame produced anxiety-type behavior and changes in genetic expression in areas of the brain that regulate anxiety and fear.

These changes in the amygdala occurred in the aspartame-exposed animals and in up to two generations that descended from aspartame-exposed males. The artificial sweetener is found in a long list of processed foods and beverages. In 2023, the World Health Organization’s International Research Agency on Cancer announced that aspartame is a possible carcinogen.25

Try Swapping Your Soda for Clean Water or Hibiscus Tea

If you’re drinking artificially sweetened, zero-calorie beverages it’s important to understand that they do not help if you’re overweight or have insulin resistance. Instead, they probably will make matters worse. I firmly believe ditching soda and other sweetened beverages is one of the most important steps you can take to improve your weight and your overall health.

Remember, pure water is zero calories, and you can easily add flavor by squeezing in fresh lemon or lime or a piece of frozen fruit. If you’re looking for something that’s more than water, consider swapping it for tea instead.

Drinking tea is flavorful and adds a healthy boost to your diet. Hibiscus tea has a pleasantly sharp flavor that’s like the tartness of cranberries and you can find it in liquid extract form, which allows you to add it to your glass of water. Hibiscus tea is rich in polyphenols and has other health benefits including protecting your liver and preventing metabolic syndrome.26

Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published November 25, 2017.

I am so pleased to post this video and I hope it gives you as much joy as it did me when I first viewed it on 60 Minutes. It is beyond extraordinary to have a glimpse into someone as exceptionally talented as 12-year-old Alma. My only regret is that there is no way to post this without exposing you to a minutelong drug commercial, which I’m sure you realize I don’t endorse. For some of you, it may be the only time you see these commercials so let them entertain you.

Most of us are gifted with some degree of natural talent — something we do better, or with greater ease, than the average person. And then, there’s the true prodigies; people with seemingly unnatural talent. Their gift is so profound, and comes from God-only-knows-where. Alma Deutscher, from Basingstoke, England, is a perfect example of the latter.1

There are a number of musical prodigies out there, but Alma has most of them beat. She was able to name notes on the piano at age 2 and began playing piano and violin at the tender age of 3. Within a year of tutoring, she was playing Handel sonatas on the violin.

She’s now considered a virtuoso of both instruments. By the age of 4, she’d already begun composing her own melodies, and by 6 she’d written her first piano sonata. This was followed by a violin and orchestra concerto at 9.

In December last year, her full-length opera, “Cinderella,” premiered at the Casino Baumgarten Theatre in Vienna,2 the city of music, performed by the Viennese opera group, Oh!pera — an unattainable dream even for many adult composers who’ve spent a lifetime perfecting their craft. Alma, who wrote the score for every single instrument, and the lyrics, was 11 years old. The 2.5-hour long opera, with a musical score running 237 pages, received standing ovations.

Cinderella Reinvented by 11-Year-Old Prodigy

Many were also wowed by her creative reinvention of the classical tale of Cinderella. Rather than being matched with her true love by the way of a lost glass slipper of a particularly minute size — an idea Alma found to be “quite silly” — Cinderella is a talented composer and the pining prince is a poet. The tale is set in an opera production company run by the evil stepmother. The two stepsisters are divas with little talent and much vile.

Cinderella, with a natural talent for composing, is not allowed to perform. Meanwhile, the prince writes a love poem that ends up in Cinderella’s hands. Not knowing the identity of the poet, she falls in love with the words and sets them to music. After having her composition stolen by her evil stepsisters, who do their best to sing it at the ball, Cinderella finally gets her chance to perform for the prince.

The prince is enthralled by the enchanting melody, and sets out to discover who wrote the music to his poem. As in the classical story, he travels the land searching for his soulmate, but instead of looking for the foot that fits into the slipper, he sings a portion of the melody, knowing only the true composer can properly finish the song.

So, the prince falls in love with Cinderella not because of her physical beauty or tiny feet, but because of her talent, and because “he understands her,” to use Alma’s explanation. In other words, he recognizes his soulmate as a talented equal.

“I didn’t want Cinderella just to be pretty. I wanted her to have her own mind and her own spirit. And to be a little bit like me. So, I decided that she would be a composer,” Alma explains.3 “Cinderella” made its American sold-out debut December 16 at the Opera San Jose.4

Where Does the Music Come From?

Most interviews with Alma include the same question: Where does her music come from? In a “60 Minutes” interview, Scott Pelley received the following answer:5

“I don’t really know, but it’s really very normal to me to … walk around and having melodies popping into my head. It’s the most normal thing in the world. For me, it’s strange to walk around and not to have melodies popping into my head. So, if I was interviewing you, I would say, ‘Well, tell me Scott, how does it feel not having melodies popping into your head?'”

Oftentimes, the music comes when she’s most relaxed, either playing outdoors with her younger sister, or skipping rope. Her father, Guy Deutscher, a linguistics professor and amateur musician, taught her to read musical notes, but questions the influence of his role in her immense ability to create music, including scores for instruments she does not play.

He tells Pelley, “I thought it was me [that taught her to read music]. I hardly had to say [any]thing — and, you know, her piano teacher once said ‘it’s a bit difficult with Alma; it’s difficult to teach her because one always has the sense she’d ‘been there’ before.'” Alma also says she has “lots of composers” inside her mind, in a special “country” she created in her imagination.

These imaginary friends provide her with the emotional juices her tender youth lacks. Each one has their own emotional style of composing. One of them, Antonin Yellowsink, helped her compose a “dark and dramatic” violin concerto. “[S]ometimes when I’m stuck with something, when I’m composing, I go to them and ask them for advice. And quite often, they come up with very interesting things,” she says.

Would Rather Be Original Alma Than Second Mozart

Many compare Alma to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791),6 one of the few childhood prodigies that can even compare to Alma’s talent. However, while flattered, Alma insists she would rather “prefer to be the first Alma than the second Mozart.” That said, she has a great affinity for the famed composer and musician, and “would have loved” to have him as a teacher.

The question is whether Alma wouldn’t have ended up teaching Mozart a thing or two. In a concerto in Israel, Alma performed one of Mozart’s piano concertos with a cadenza — a musical interlude where the orchestra goes silent, allowing the soloist to perform his or her own music. But in this case, Alma didn’t just perform Mozart’s solo. She created her own.

“It’s something that I composed because, you see, it’s a very early concerto of Mozart and the cadenza was very simple. It didn’t go to any different keys,” she tells Pelley. “And I composed quite a long one going to lots and lots of different keys doing lots of things in Mozart’s motifs,” Alma says. “So, you improved the cadenza of Mozart?” Pelley asks, to which she replies, “Well, yes.”

Robert Gjerdingen, a professor of music at Northwestern in Chicago who has acted as a “consultant to Alma’s education,” had the following to say about his star protégé:

“It’s kind of a comet that goes by and everybody looks up and just goes, ‘Wow.’ I sent her some assignments when she was six, seven, where I expected her to crash and burn, because they were very difficult.

It came back, it was like listening to a mid-18th century composer. She was a native speaker … It’s her first language — she speaks the Mozart-style. She speaks the style of Mendelssohn … She’s batting in the big leagues. And if you win the pennant, there’s immortality.”

The Many Benefits of Music

As for why she composes, Alma says her inspiration is to “make the world a better place,” and she believes beautiful music can do that. She is undoubtedly correct. Music is a form of emotional communication, an emotional protolanguage of sorts, and like emotions it can have a tremendous influence on psychological and even physical health. For example, music has been found to:

Help you exercise harder, while making it feel easier

Help Alzheimer’s patients reconnect with people around them, remember past life events and reduce agitation associated with dementia

Allow patients with Parkinson’s disease move more freely.7 The music appears to provide an external rhythm that bypasses the malfunctioning signals in the brain

Improve your mood; calm nerves; reduce stress and/or invigorate and energize

Facilitate connection and unification between people. Despite individual differences in musical preferences, classical music has been shown to elicit a very consistent pattern of brain activity in virtually all listeners. Areas activated include those involved in movement, planning, memory and attention. This brain activation creates a sort of unifying force that synchronizes and unifies people together8

What Happens in Your Brain When You Hear Music?

When you listen to music, much more is happening in your body than simple auditory processing. Research shows that music triggers activity in the nucleus accumbens, a part of your brain that releases the feel-good chemical dopamine and is involved in forming expectations. At the same time, the amygdala, which is involved in processing emotion, and the prefrontal cortex, which makes possible abstract decision-making, are also activated.9

Based on the brain activity in certain regions, especially the nucleus accumbens, captured by an fMRI imager while participants listened to music, the researchers could predict how much money the listeners were willing to spend on previously unheard music. As you might suspect, songs that triggered activity in the emotional and intellectual areas of the brain demanded a higher price.

Interestingly, the study’s lead author noted that your brain learns how to predict how different pieces of music will unfold using pattern recognition and prediction, skills that may have been key to our evolutionary progress. As reported by Time:10

“These predictions are culture-dependent and based on experience: someone raised on rock or Western classical music won’t be able to predict the course of an Indian raga, for example, and vice versa. But if a piece develops in a way that’s both slightly novel and still in line with our brain’s prediction, we tend to like it a lot. And that, says [lead researcher] Salimpoor, ‘is because we’ve made a kind of intellectual conquest.’

Music may, in other words, tap into a brain mechanism that was key to our evolutionary progress. The ability to recognize patterns and generalize from experience, to predict what’s likely to happen in the future — in short, the ability to imagine — is something humans do far better than any other animals. It’s what allowed us (aided by the far less glamorous opposable thumb) to take over the world.”

Alma’s future passion project is to write a book, turn it into a film and write the musical score. I hope you’ll take the time to view the featured 25-minute documentary about Alma Deutscher, and revel in her musical talent. You will not regret it. Then, if you’re eager for more, you can listen to some of the “Cinderella” performances in the 1.5-hour-long recording above. May she inspire you to help make the world a better place, every day.

Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published May 21, 2019.

I’ve written about the collusion between industry and the U.S. federal regulatory agencies on many occasions throughout the years, and how industry-funded research simply tends to promote and support the industry agenda rather than shed truthful light on the benefits or risks of any given product.

In recent years, the hidden influence of The Coca-Cola Company over health and sugar science has been highlighted several times and, according to recent findings, it appears the company has not changed its secretive and deceptive ways, despite public assurances of transparency.

Documents obtained via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests reveal Coca-Cola’s research agreements with certain universities give the company questionable rights over the research process, while other FOIA documents show Coca-Cola has an unreasonable amount of influence over the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Truly, having a public health organization that protects and supports industry rather than looking out for public health is worse than having no public health protection agency at all, and making health decisions on Coca-Cola funded research is bound to lead public health in the wrong direction — which is exactly what’s been happening.

Coke’s Research Agreements Allow It to Bury Unfavorable Findings

Big Soda’s core message has been that the obesity epidemic is driven by a lack of activity, as opposed to indulging in sugar-based foods and beverages, despite overwhelming scientific evidence you will never be able to out-exercise your diet.

Recent FOIA documents obtained by the nonprofit consumer and public health watchdog organization U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) offer an explanation as to how the company can influence research to support and promulgate this false idea.1,2,3,4 As noted in a commentary in The British Medical Journal:5

“The research team, from the University of Cambridge, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the University of Bocconi, and non-profit group US Right to Know, looked at five research agreements made with four universities: Louisiana State University, University of South Carolina, University of Toronto, and the University of Washington.

They found that, although the contracts show that Coca-Cola does not have day-to-day control of the research, it has various rights throughout the process … This is despite Coca-Cola’s website stating that ‘in no event does The Coca-Cola Company have the right to prevent the publication of research results’ …

The authors are now calling on corporate funders to publish lists of terminated studies and on scientists to publish industry agreements to show that their findings are free from influence.”

Just how much influence do the agreements grant Coca-Cola? According to the featured paper,6 published in the Journal of Public Health Policy, the research contract provisions give Coke:7

The right to review and comment on studies before publication

Intellectual property rights connected to the research8,9

Control over study data

Control over disclosure of results

Control over acknowledgment of Coca-Cola funding, meaning the company could prevent the researchers from disclosing that their funding came from Coke

Power to terminate studies early for any reason, including no reason

Coke-Funded Science Cannot Be Trusted

In a USRTK press release, Gary Ruskin, co-director of USRTK and co-author of the paper, commented:10

“These contracts suggest that Coke wanted the power to bury research it funded that might detract from its image or profits. With the power to trumpet positive findings and bury negative ones, Coke-funded ‘science’ seems somewhat less than science and more like an exercise in public relations.”

Marion Nestle, Ph.D.,11 professor of nutrition and public health at New York University and author of “Soda Politics,” in which she dissects the many ways in which funding from the food and beverage industry influences scientific results, calls the USRTK findings “jaw-dropping.” She told Inverse:12

“It demonstrates what we have all long suspected. Companies that sponsor research make sure that they get what they pay for. The study documents the involvement of Coca-Cola in many aspects of developing research projects.

It is no surprise that its funded research typically comes out with results that are useful for Coca-Cola marketing purposes. Industry funded research is marketing research, not scientific research.”

High Time for All Branches of Science to Mandate Preregistration of Studies

Since September 27, 2007, Section 801 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act requires any clinical trial being undertaken to be registered, and summary results must be submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov13 regardless of the outcome of the study. The reason for this is to help prevent publication bias where only positive findings see the light of day.

Unfortunately, this law only applies to certain clinical trials of drugs, biological products and medical devices,14 and while researchers in many other fields have taken to preregistering their studies,15,16 which means they must also publish their results, it’s not a blanket requirement across the board.

As of yet, preregistration of trials is not a requirement for nutritional research, although there’s a movement toward it. As noted in the 2015 editorial “Goals in Nutrition Science 2015-2020,” published in Frontiers of Nutrition:17

“[T]here is a general movement in science for ‘Transparency and Openness Promotion,’ formalized in ‘The TOP Guidelines.’18 The guidelines recognize eight standards: citation, data transparency, analytic methods (code) transparency, research materials transparency, design and analysis transparency, preregistration of studies, preregistration of analysis plans, and replication.

These standards aim to improve the communication of science, allowing improved understanding and replicability of results. Because the TOP Guidelines are being adopted across fields of science, the field of nutrition will not have to act in isolation to improve its scientific practices. Instead, we can build on and work with the minds and resources coming from a spectrum of scientific inquiry.”

Another paper,19 “Best Practices in Nutrition Science to Earn and Keep the Public’s Trust,” published in January 2019, also highlights the TOP (transparency and openness promotion) guidelines that call for preregistration of studies.

On a quick side note, the first analysis20 of preregistered studies reveals there’s been a sharp increase in null findings, suggesting the practice is working as intended.

As reported by Nature, “Studies that preregister their protocols publish more negative findings that don’t support their hypothesis, than those that don’t.”21 This is important, because when mainly positive studies are published, it can easily create the false appearance that the evidence for a particular treatment is far stronger than it actually is.

CDC Colludes With Coca-Cola to Deceive You

Earlier this year, another batch of emails obtained via FOIA requests (after USRTK sued the CDC to get a response) revealed Coca-Cola was actively lobbying the CDC “to advance corporate objectives rather than health, including to influence the World Health Organization,” USRTK said in a post on its website,22 adding that the documentation demonstrates “a need for clearer policies on avoiding partnerships with manufacturers of harmful products.”

These documents, featuring correspondence between Coca-Cola executives and the CDC, can be found in the USCF Food Industry Documents online archive.23,24 A paper25,26,27,28 detailing the connections between Coke and the CDC based on the email cache was published in The Milbank Quarterly in January 2019. In a press release announcing the publication of the paper, USRTK said:29

“Coca-Cola’s contact with the CDC shows the company’s interest in gaining access to CDC employees, to lobby policymakers, and to frame the obesity debate by shifting attention and blame away from sugar-sweetened beverages …

‘It is not the proper role of the CDC to abet companies that manufacture harmful products,’ said Gary Ruskin, co-director of U.S. Right to Know. ‘Congress should investigate whether Coca-Cola and other companies that harm public health are unethically influencing the CDC, and subverting its efforts to protect the health of all Americans.’

‘Once again we see the grave risks that arise when public health organisations [sic] partner with manufacturers of products that pose a threat to health,’ said Martin McKee, professor of European public health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

‘Sadly, as this example, and more recent ones in the United Kingdom show, these risks are not always appreciated by those who should know better.’”

CDC Official Helped Coke Influence World Health Organization

In March 2015, WHO published a new sugar guideline that specifically targeted sugary beverages, calling them out as a primary cause for childhood obesity around the world, especially in developing nations, where the soda industry is now aggressively expanding its reach.

WHOs recommendation to limit soda consumption was a huge blow to an already beleaguered soda industry, struggling to maintain a declining market share amid mounting evidence identifying sweetened drinks as a primary contributor to the obesity and diabetes epidemics.

Email correspondence between Alex Malaspina, a former Coca-Cola scientific and regulatory affairs leader and the founder of the food industry-funded group International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), and Barbara Bowman, Ph.D., then-director of the CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, revealed Bowman repeatedly tried to help Malaspina get an audience with WHO officials, with the aim to talk them into relaxing the sugar limits.30,31

As noted by the USRTK,32 while Bowman’s job was to prevent obesity and related health problems, she “appeared happy to help the beverage industry cultivate political sway with the World Health Organization.”

Bowman left the agency at the end of June 2016, just two days after the initial reports about her cozy relationship with Coke were made public,33 which suggests she understood full well how inappropriate her behavior was.

This case also highlights the reality of corporate loyalty. As reported by the Huffington Post,34 early in her career, Bowman worked as a senior nutritionist for Coca-Cola. She also co-wrote one of the editions of a nutritional book published by ILSI.35

It’s human nature to remain loyal to former employers and colleagues, which is why the revolving door between industry and the agencies that regulate them is so problematic. People don’t shed their corporate mindset just because they get a government title and a new set of responsibilities.

Latest Coca-Cola Funded Study Again Blames Inactivity for Childhood Obesity

Coca-Cola and other soda makers have invested a lot of money in research and PR efforts aimed at protecting sales through misdirection. Coca-Cola in particular has worked hard to make it seem as though they’re concerned about public health while secretly undermining real efforts to improve it.

For example, a historical analysis36 published in 2016 found the sugar industry funded research that identified dietary fat as the culprit in heart disease, not sugar, and didn’t disclose that funding.

A 2017 study37 revealed that while sponsoring 95 U.S. health organizations, Coke was lobbying against public health bills aimed at reducing soda consumption through taxing, sugar limits and other strategies.

Coca-Cola and many other junk food manufacturers are also notorious for funding — and thus influencing — food and nutrition conferences and education.38

Most recently, a Coke-funded study39 published in the International Journal of Obesity January 31, 2019, evaluated “the single and joint associations of objectively measured moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and sedentary time on week and weekend days with obesity in children from 12 countries …”

They concluded the odds of obesity were highest among those who got the least amount of physical activity on both weekdays and weekends. Children with the lowest odds of obesity were the most active throughout the whole week. As noted by Nestle in her Food Politics blog:40

“This is another paper from the ISCOLE study funded by Coca-Cola, that seems to be aimed at casting doubt on the idea that sugary beverages might promote weight gain. Instead, these results suggest that physical activity is a more important factor.

Of course physical activity is important for health, but doesn’t expend nearly as many calories as is usually needed to compensate for soft drink intake. I learned about this study from a Weighty Matters blog post41 by Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, who runs a weight management center in Ottawa.

In his view, the ISCOLE study ignores evidence42 that childhood obesity is a determinant of physical activity, ‘not the other way around.’ He also questions the ‘no influence’ statement in the funding disclosure, on the basis of emails43 between ISCOLE investigators and Coca-Cola that not surprisingly suggests that these relationships have the very real potential to influence the framing of results even if funders [are] not involved in study design.

As I discuss in ‘Unsavory Truth,’ the influence of food-industry funders appears to occur at an unconscious level; investigators do not recognize the influence and typically deny it.”

Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published June 23, 2019.

Zen Honeycutt, founder of Moms Across America, is nothing if not committed to action. In this inspiring interview, we discuss her book, “Unstoppable: Transforming Sickness and Struggle Into Triumph, Empowerment and a Celebration of Community,” which delves into the state of the world’s food supply, how to navigate through the many hazards of the standard American diet, and how you can become a powerful change agent yourself.

Like so many other parents, Honeycutt struggled to identify the roots of her children’s many health issues, which included allergies, autoimmune problems and symptoms of autism.

“I was completely confused and baffled,” she says. “Why was this happening? My kids had 19, 20 and 22 food allergies [respectively]. My husband and I had none of them. What was going on with the food supply? Thanks to Robyn O’Brien, Jeffrey Smith and all the scientists who started exposing information, I found out about genetically modified organisms (GMOs).”

She also discovered the disturbing truth about glyphosate, and how this pernicious weed killer, used on a wide variety of foods, whether they’re GMO or not, decimates your gut microbiome and contributes to a host of health problems, some of which plagued her own children.

“The problem is glyphosate’s so prevalent. This is the declared active chemical ingredient in Roundup that 80% of GMOs are engineered to withstand. It’s sprayed on all kinds of crops as a drying agent. It’s in most of our food.

And then you combine that with all the other toxins in our environment, in our vaccines, in our pajamas, in our sofas and baby bottles and all of that — you’ve got all these chemicals and toxins coming at our kids. That’s just a recipe for disaster.

Our kids are sick. One out of 2 children have a chronic illness; 1 in 2 males and 1 in 3 females are expected to get cancer in America today. That’s not OK with me. That was the impetus for me starting Moms Across America. It was to raise awareness about GMOs and toxic chemicals in our food supply.”

Standing Up to Monsanto

On January 30, 2015, Honeycutt was given the opportunity to speak at a Monsanto shareholders meeting1 as a proxy for the John Harrington Investment Group. You can read her presentation here. The referendum she presented was passed, causing Monsanto’s stock to significantly drop in the aftermath.

“I think a lot of the shareholders in that room probably were uncomfortable with owning Monsanto’s stock after that meeting,” she says. “That was probably one of the most terrifying and significant moments of my life, because I had the opportunity to speak on behalf of parents … with sick children.

I got to stand up in front of the entire shareholders meeting and basically hold them to account, to say how their products are harming our children. I got to meet Hugh Grant … the former chief executive officer (CEO) of Monsanto.

I looked him in the eye and said, ‘You know, Mr. Grant, it takes a big man to make a big and powerful company. But it takes an even bigger man to acknowledge when something’s not working and to go in a new direction … Moms Across America is looking forward to the day when Monsanto makes products that no longer harm our children.’

He said, ‘We’re always looking forward to have progress. We’ve got science on our side.’ I said, ‘Well, we actually have science on our side too, [and it shows] that your products harm our children … Just consider, what if you’re wrong? What are the consequences?’ … There’s … global consequence.’

He said, ‘If you’re wrong, you’re worrying an awful lot of people.’ I said, ‘But if I’m wrong, the consequence is only that people are eating organic. There’s nothing wrong with organic’ …

So many of us get concerned about … ‘What if trolls come after me? What if I get attacked?’ People are actually concerned for their physical safety in this climate right now. But … we cannot be stopped … We need to be unstoppable … We cannot let fear interfere with our commitment. We need to take action … Chemical companies should not be involved in our food supply. That’s all there is to it.”

As noted by Honeycutt, it’s important to realize that the science Monsanto (now Bayer) claims is on their side was bought and paid for by them. Some studies have even been shown to have been ghostwritten by the company itself. Such facts have come out during the discovery process of some of the lawsuits against Monsanto, which now number well over 11,000.

Meanwhile, many peer-reviewed, independent studies have found glyphosate-based herbicides to be carcinogenic.2 Glyphosate has also been shown to be a DNA mutagen, a chelator of important minerals,3 an antibiotic,4 an endocrine disruptor5,6 and more.7,8,9,10,11

Research12 even found that among children born of women with high exposure to glyphosate during pregnancy the rate of autism spectrum disorder with intellectual disability was 30% higher than among those born of mothers who lived further from highly-sprayed areas. Children who on top of that were exposed to pesticides during their first year were at 50% increased risk.

As noted by Honeycutt, while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s review13 found glyphosate was not a carcinogen, its conclusion was based on industry-funded science, not independent science. In fact, according to some of the members on the scientific advisory panel convened to evaluate the strength of the EPA’s decision, the agency violated its own guidelines by discounting and downplaying data from studies linking glyphosate to cancer.14

Turning Devastation Into Triumph

More often than not, people who stand up to big industry end up paying a high price. Many lose their careers in the process. A similar situation, although impossible to prove, happened to the Honeycutts. Two weeks after Honeycutt attended Monsanto’s shareholders meeting, an outside consultant came into and reorganized her husband’s company.

“My husband was the only one fired,” Honeycutt says. “Now, I can’t say that it was definitely connected to Monsanto, but Monsanto was one of their clients. My husband was in the information technology (IT) division. He had nothing to do with Monsanto. He had nothing to do with sales. I don’t even think he knew that they were a client for a very long time, not until I got into this.

He lost his job. At first we thought it was devastating … But … everything that seems devastating can actually be the best thing that ever happened to you … We made this into the best thing that ever happened to us. My husband got search engine optimization training. He became a consultant. His company is called Organic Results.

He now does consulting for companies that we believe in, to improve the traffic to their websites. He’s a consultant for Moms Across America. He runs our marketing. He … helps us with our Health Solutions Store … He’s been an integral part of Moms Across America, and part of the reason why we’re able to still stay around.

The cool thing is we get to work together every day. He gets to be with our sons who are 16, 13 and 10 now. They get to have their dad around. It’s just phenomenal. I just absolutely love that we get to do what we’re doing.”

Eating Organic Can Make a World of Difference

As mentioned, all three of Honeycutt’s children struggled with food allergies. Her oldest son had a severe allergic reaction at 18 months after eating a nut. At the age of 5, he nearly died on Thanksgiving due to a pecan in the stuffing.

“One day, when he was about 8 years old, he had this rash around his mouth that had been going on and off for about seven months. It would last for about two weeks at a time. We didn’t know what it was. He looked at me really forlornly. He said, ‘Mom, I wish all my allergies would go away.’ I said, ‘Me too, buddy.’ But in my head, I was thinking, ‘That’s never going to happen.’

Then I realized what I was saying in my head. I was like, ‘Wait a second. That’s not what I’m committed to. I’m committed to empowerment. What if there was something we could do?’ I remembered my cousin, Sara, who had gone gluten-free for a long time and then was able to eat gluten about a year later.

I said, ‘Ben, would you like to be able to eat a slice of pizza or have a piece of birthday cake at a birthday party like a year from now?’ I painted that picture; that future. He said yes. I said, ‘Well then, would you be my partner in your health? Would you drink green drinks and go to alternative doctors?’ He said yes … We made a deal, and he did.

I did the research. He took the actions. He drank the green drinks. We took care of his gut bacteria. Within four months of going GMO-free, the rash was dramatically better. You could barely see it. It was a faint pink line under his lip if he was exposed to the allergen, which we figured out was carrageenan, by going to an alternative doctor.

And then within about a year or two of going organic … his allergies to walnuts and pecans went from a 19 down to 0.2. He no longer has a life-threatening food allergy. The peace of mind that I have as a mother that my son won’t die from food is priceless. It’s enormous. Our doctors’ bills, by the way, are dramatically lower.

We used to spend $12,000 to $15,000 with good health insurance. Now it’s maybe a couple hundred. It’s nothing. That’s just for checkups or whatever. We haven’t had to go for a sick doctor visit in three and a half years. He’s dramatically better.”

Autism Symptoms Linked to Glyphosate Exposure

Honeycutt’s second child developed a sudden onset of autism symptoms. “He was basically like an 8-year-old who was acting like a 3- or 4-year old. He was having tantrums. His grades went from As to Ds in math … His behavior was very erratic. He was trying to hit us … He was not being himself.” Honeycutt says.

A medical checkup revealed he had gut dysbiosis caused by C. difficile. According to the doctor, who specialized in autism, the inflammation in his gut was also causing inflammation in his brain. Glyphosate is known to do this, which prompted the Honeycutt’s to have him tested for glyphosate exposure.

“My son was the first one to be tested in America for glyphosate in his urine. We had finally initiated that. Moms Across America had put out the word to everybody. You can get your urine, your tap water and your breast milk tested for glyphosate.

His levels were eight times higher than was ever found in Europe, when Friends of the Earth did testing in Europe. I was furious that Roundup was in my son. We went 100% organic. Within six weeks, we retested him. His glyphosate levels were no longer detectable, and his autism symptoms were gone.

All we did was take care of his gut. We did give him an antifungal. We didn’t have to do a probiotic in there, but we gave him lots of sauerkraut, organic food. He ate no sugar from Thanksgiving to New Year’s, so he didn’t feed the bad gut bacteria. He recovered. He has not had a single autism symptom [in] five years now.”

Glyphosate Found in Vaccines

Now, food is not the only source of glyphosate exposure. Years ago, Honeycutt came across a Facebook post listing vaccine ingredients. Among them: polysorbate 80 — which like glyphosate can break down the blood-brain barrier and let toxins in — aluminum, bovine serum (blood) and egg.

Honeycutt realized some of these ingredients are likely GMO, or have been fed GMOs, and if so, they’re likely contaminated with glyphosate since glyphosate cannot be washed off. When an animal eats glyphosate-contaminated feed, their body parts become contaminated as well. Moms Across America sent five childhood vaccines to be tested for glyphosate, and every single one of them came back positive.

“The measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine came back 25 times higher than the other vaccines. Another scientist independently tested 14 more vaccines, and they also came back and confirmed our results,” Honeycutt says.

“His MMR vaccine came back 35 times higher. We all know that the problem around the MMR vaccine is that … it causes gut dysbiosis. [Andrew Wakefield] didn’t say it causes autism. He said it causes gut dysbiosis. Incidentally, practically every child who has autism has gut dysbiosis.

This, to me, was huge, because what I’m thinking is, ‘What if glyphosate in vaccines is one of the major contributing factors to vaccine damage?’ If you think about it, mercury was in vaccines back in 1929, but it wasn’t until the late ’90s when GMOs and glyphosate came on the scene that there was a huge spike in autism.

Now, to be fair, there was also a huge spike in the numbers of vaccines given. Our children are now getting 49 doses by age 12 and 69 doses by age 18. The numbers of vaccines our children are getting are also extremely high. But there are children who get one vaccine and they’re damaged after that. You have to look at what changed in the ingredients.”

Another variable that happened in the late ’90s was the dramatic increase in exposure to wireless radiation, and this too may be a significant contributor. There may even be a toxic synergy between the two that is contributing to the health deterioration we now see in so many children. The good news is that you have the ability to make a difference.

More Information

Aside from reading Honeycutt’s book, “Unstoppable: Transforming Sickness and Struggle Into Triumph, Empowerment and a Celebration of Community,” you can also learn more by visiting MomsAcrossAmerica.org and signing up for their newsletter. When you sign up, you’ll receive a free mini e-book of “Unstoppable.” Under the Action tab, you can also sign up to volunteer and post events.

“When you have that event, we know you’re serious about getting the word out, so we send you free materials,” Honeycutt says. “You only have to pay for shipping … We have some great flyers, ‘Why Eat Organic?’ ‘What’s Going on With Toxins in Our Food Supply?’ … We don’t make it a scary situation. It’s just informative. We always bring solutions …

You give them a stack of 100 flyers and you say, ‘Could you leave this at your school? Or your library? Or your community center?’ … Just get the word out about what’s happening in our food supply … That’s a great way to get involved … You can also join in the 4th of July parades. It costs anywhere from nothing to maybe 30 to 50 dollars, if you want to buy a banner and also pass out flyers.

You can have movie nights. There are some great movies you can show over an organic potluck. That’s my favorite thing to do. We’ll also connect you with other moms on our Monday Moms Connect Calls at 5 p.m., Pacific time. If you sign up to our newsletter, you’ll get an invitation to that.

We’ve expanded our mission to ‘We educate and inspire mothers and others to transform the food industry and environment, creating healthy communities together.’ By environment, we include anything that’s coming at our kids. If that’s a vaccine, if it’s drugs, if it’s pollution, if it’s EMFs — no matter what it is that’s coming at our kids that’s going to overwhelm them [or] increase the toxic burden — we will address that …

To opt out of this toxic system, we need to not only eat organic food or grow our own organic food. We need to also learn how to take care of ourselves through herbs and plants and opt out of that whole Big Pharma system.”

Moms Across America is also looking for more advisers, including moms who want to help educate others on these topics. If you’re interested, please contact them.

Get Involved!

As noted by Honeycutt, everyone has a moment when they decide to take action. For her, the realization that she had the power to make a difference came early. Her father was a great supporter from an early age and when, at the age of 12, Honeycutt came home saying class president elections were coming up, he suggested she should run.

“I said, ‘Me? Why me?’ He said, ‘Why not?’ I was like, ‘Oh. OK. Why not?’ I ran and won,” she says. “If there’s something you want to do or you’re interested in doing, something you want to take on, [ask yourself] why not you? That quote from Lilly Tomlin: ‘I always thought someone should do something about that, and then I realized I am somebody’ — that’s it.

I want everybody to believe that they are somebody; that they are, in fact … amazing … My personal commitment now is to empower community leaders to be global game changers, because that’s what it’s going to take …

Moms who are watching us right now … say, ‘You know what? I’m the one who’s going to get Roundup out of my town. I’m the one who’s going to stop this vaccine mandate in my city. I’m the one who’s going to get my school to have GMO-free food.’

When you do that, you — us, all of us collectively — we change the game around the world … So, sign up to Moms Across America and see where you can start taking action. Because when you do, it’s incredibly fulfilling.”

Thousands of popular foods and drinks are made artificially sweet with chemical sweeteners. Long claimed to be a healthy choice because they contain no calories or sugar, evidence continues to emerge that consuming artificial sweeteners is a good way to wreck your health.

It doesn’t matter if you choose aspartame (Equal), sucralose (Splenda) or another artificial sweetener. Consuming these products is putting your health at risk, so much so that even the World Health Organization warned people not to consume them.

WHO Warns Against Non-Sugar Sweeteners for Weight Loss

Diet foods and drinks are among the most common products that contain artificial sweeteners. Marketed as tools for weight loss, this deceptive practice lures people into thinking they’re a smart way to shed extra pounds.

Yet, a systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by the World Health Organization revealed “there is no clear consensus on whether non-sugar sweeteners are effective for long-term weight loss or maintenance, or if they are linked to other long-term health effects at intakes within the ADI.”1

In May 2023, WHO released a new guideline, advising not to use non-sugar sweeteners (NSS) for weight control because they don’t offer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children.2

What’s more, the systematic review suggests “potential undesirable effects from long-term use of NSS, such as an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and mortality in adults.” In a news release, Francesco Branca, WHO director for nutrition and food safety, said:

“Replacing free sugars with NSS does not help with weight control in the long term. People need to consider other ways to reduce free sugars intake, such as consuming food with naturally occurring sugars, like fruit, or unsweetened food and beverages. NSS are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health.”

The WHO guidance to avoid artificial sweeteners applies to all categories of the chemicals, including acesulfame K, aspartame, advantame, cyclamates, neotame, saccharin and sucralose. The systematic review and meta-analysis included 283 studies, which revealed artificial sweeteners are linked to an increased risk of:3

Obesity
Type 2 diabetes

High fasting glucose
All-cause mortality

Cardiovascular events
Death from cardiovascular disease

Stroke
High blood pressure

Bladder cancer
Preterm birth and possible adiposity in offspring later in life

According to the WHO study:

“Mechanisms by which NSS as a class of molecules might exert effects that increase risk for obesity and certain NCDs [non-communicable diseases] have been reviewed extensively and include interaction with extra-oral taste receptors, possibly with alteration of the gut microbiome.

Because sugars and all known NSS presumably elicit sweet taste through the TAS1R heterodimeric sweet-taste receptor, which has been identified not just in the oral cavity but in other glucose-sensing tissues, it is not surprising that such a group of vastly different chemical entities could be responsible for similar effects on health.”

Reasons To Be Wary of Sucralose

In the U.S., sucralose is the most commonly used artificial sweetener. It’s found in more than 6,000 food products, including many diet beverages. When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved sucralose in 1998, none of the studies it reviewed involved humans.4

One of sucralose’s key marketing claims has long been that it neither metabolizes nor bioaccumulates in the human body, thus making it a basically inert substance. In 2018, however, an animal study found sucralose was metabolized in the gastrointestinal tract and accumulated in fat tissue.

This was “not part of the original regulatory decision process for this agent and indicate that it now may be time to revisit the safety and regulatory status of this organochlorine artificial sweetener,” the researchers wrote at the time.5

Based on these findings, consumer group U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate whether sucralose’s marketing claims are deceptive. According to USRTK:6

“Sucralose is 600 times sweeter than sugar and itself contains no calories. Although it has been marketed as a healthy product that can help fend off obesity and diabetes, sucralose consumption has been linked to leukemia, weight gain, obesity, diabetes, liver inflammation, metabolic dysfunction and other illnesses.”

In 2022, a study published in Microorganisms also revealed that consuming sucralose — in “amounts, far lower than the suggested ADI”7 — for just 10 weeks was enough to induce gut dysbiosis and altered glucose and insulin levels in healthy, young adults.

The bacteria most affected by sucralose appeared to belong primarily to the phylum Firmicutes, which are centrally involved in glucose and insulin metabolism. However, it doesn’t end there. Animal studies suggest the sucralose-altered gut microbiome could be involved in inflammation of the gut and liver, as well as cancer.

Additionally, a new study published May 29, 2023, in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health found that a chemical broken down in the body when you consume sucralose is genotoxic and breaks up your DNA.8 The fat soluble compound, sucralose-6-acetate, is produced in your gut during digestion at a threshold exceeding the European Food Safety Authority’s maximum allowance for a single sucralose-sweetened drink in one day.

In their abstract,9 study authors noted the DNA-damaging implications of such toxicity: “Sucralose-6-acetate significantly increased the expression of genes associated with inflammation, oxidative stress and cancer … Overall, the toxicological and pharmacokinetic findings for sucralose-6-acetate raise significant health concerns regarding the safety and regulatory status of sucralose itself.”

A Warning About Sucralose Intake During Pregnancy

A 2023 study published in Biomedicines also raised red flags about consuming sucralose during pregnancy.10 Animal studies have previously found that sucralose intake during pregnancy may increase the risk of weight gain, metabolic disturbances and low-grade systemic inflammation in offspring. The research team found similar effects in humans.

The study evaluated newborns from women who had heavy sucralose intake — defined as more than 36 milligrams (mg) of sucralose a day during pregnancy — or light sucralose ingestion, defined as less than 60 mg a week. Newborns from mothers with heavy sucralose intake experienced a number of negative metabolic and inflammatory effects compared to newborns of light intake women, including:

Significant increases in birth weight and insulin
Substantial increase in the percentage of inflammatory nonclassical monocytes
Higher IL-1 beta and TNF-alpha with lower IL-10 expression

From 2000 to 2010, the consumption of artificial sweeteners increased 54% in adults and 200% in children. The researchers called for urgent investigation into the effects of artificial sweetener intake during pregnancy, which could significantly increase chronic disease burden in adulthood:

“Together with numerous studies in animal models, present results expand on the notion that sucralose and other NNS [non-nutritive sweeteners] may act as obesogenic factors during fetal development, influencing the onset of obesity and metabolic disease in childhood.

We encourage other research teams to conduct prospective cohort studies to follow up on newborns intrauterinally exposed to sucralose across the years to draw significant conclusions regarding the possible role of NNS in programming obesity and metabolic disease later in life.

The urgent need for additional investigation in this field is justified when considering that up to 50% of obese children become obese in adulthood with a 4-fold increased risk of developing chronic non-communicable diseases such as T2D.”

Is Aspartame Making You Anxious?

Artificial sweeteners’ detrimental effects aren’t limited to the physical realm. Mental health effects have also been reported, including for aspartame. Approved by the FDA in 1981, aspartame can be found in close to 5,000 food and beverage products. Worldwide, 3,000 to 5,000 metric tons of aspartame are produced annually, and, like sucralose, it’s widely consumed by adults, including pregnant women, and children.11

When you consume aspartame, it’s broken down into aspartic acid, phenylalanine — a precursor of monoamine neurotransmitters — and methanol, which may have “potent” effects on your central nervous system, Florida State University (FSU) College of Medicine researchers noted.

Their study, published in PNAS, linked aspartame consumption to anxiety and found the mental health changes were passed on to future generations. The FDA’s recommended maximum daily intake value for aspartame is 50 milligrams per kilogram.

The FSU study involved mice drinking water that contained aspartame at a dosage of approximately 15% of the FDA’s maximum daily intake for humans. The dose was equivalent to a human drinking six to eight 8-ounce cans of diet soda daily.12

The mice consumed the aspartame-laced water for 12 weeks, which led to “robust, dose-dependent anxiety.”13 “It was such a robust anxiety-like trait that I don’t think any of us were anticipating we would see,” study author Sara Jones said. “It was completely unexpected. Usually you see subtle changes.”14

The study came about after the research team looked at the transgenerational effects of nicotine, revealing epigenetic changes in sperm cells. Similar effects may be occurring from artificial sweeteners. Study co-author Pradeep Bhide, the Jim and Betty Ann Rodgers Eminent Scholar Chair of Developmental Neuroscience in the Department of Biomedical Sciences, explained:15

“What this study is showing is we need to look back at the environmental factors, because what we see today is not only what’s happening today, but what happened two generations ago and maybe even longer.”

Mice exposed to aspartame had changes in the expression of genes that regulate excitation-inhibition balance in the amygdala, a region of the brain involved in regulating anxiety and fear. The changes were also seen in up to two generations from the aspartame-exposed mice.16

Aspartame Linked to Cancer, Weight Gain

There’s no reason to consume aspartame if you value your health. Like sucralose, it’s linked to a number of serious health problems, including:17

Cancer
Cardiovascular disease
Alzheimer’s disease

Seizures
Stroke and dementia
Intestinal dysbiosis

Mood disorders
Headaches
Migraines

Adding insult to injury, since many people consume aspartame thinking it will help them “diet,” it’s also linked to weight gain, increased appetite and obesity-related diseases.

In a 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis18 published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, consuming artificial sweeteners was associated with increases in weight and waist circumference along with increased incidence of obesity, high blood pressure, metabolic syndrome, Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular events.

Regarding cancer, a 2022 population-based cohort study published in PLOS Medicine, which involved 102,865 adults, revealed artificial sweeteners — especially aspartame and acesulfame-K — were associated with increased cancer risk, including breast cancer and obesity-related cancers.19

Are You Ready to Ditch Artificial Sweeteners?

It’s clear that artificial sweeteners have no place in a healthy diet. Fortunately, as you work to eliminate ultraprocessed foods from your meals, you’ll naturally consume less artificial sweeteners, which are primarily found in products like diet drinks, desserts, candies, snacks and flavored yogurts. Be aware, however, that they’re also hidden in condiments, salad dressing and medications, so you’ll need to read labels to ensure you avoid them.

If cravings are stopping you from giving up these toxic sweeteners, the video above shows how to use the Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT), a psychological acupressure tool, when you feel a craving coming on. It can help you overcome the urge to consume a poisonous artificial sweetener.

Other natural craving-busters include sour foods like fermented vegetables or water with lemon juice. When you feel the urge to eat something artificially sweet, grab a glass of water or tea with citrus juice added for a much healthier treat.

Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published October 16, 2018.

Recent research into the health effects of artificial sweeteners deliver yet another blow to safety claims. The animal study,1,2,3,4,5 published in the journal Molecules, found all artificial sweeteners currently approved and deemed safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration cause DNA damage in, and interfere with the normal and healthy activity of gut bacteria. The artificial sweeteners included in this study included:

Artificial sweetener
Brand name(s)

Aspartame
NutraSweet, Spoonful, Canderel, Equal, NatraTaste Blue

Sucralose
Splenda, Zerocal, Sukrana, SucraPlus, Candys, Cukren and Nevella

Saccharin
Sweet ‘N Low, Sweet Twin, Sugar Twin, Necta Sweet

Neotame
Newtame

Advantame
(No brand names)

Acesulfame potassium-k
Sunnette, Sweet One, ACE, ACE K, Sweet ‘N Safe

All Artificial Sweeteners Are Toxic to Gut Bacteria

As reported by Business Insider,6 the research team concluded that all of these sweeteners “had a toxic, stressing effect, making it difficult for gut microbes to grow and reproduce.” While the authors do not directly refer to them as having antibiotic effects, when something is killing bacteria, that’s essentially what’s happening.

According to the researchers, the effects on your gut health may in turn affect your body’s ability to process regular sugar and other carbohydrates. According to this study, the toxic limit for these artificial sweeteners appears to be around 1 milligram per milliliter (mg/mL).

Ariel Kushmaro, Ph.D., professor of microbial biotechnology at Ben-Gurion University and lead author, told Business Insider, “We are not claiming that it’s toxic to human beings. We’re claiming that it might be toxic to the gut bacteria, and by that, will influence us.”

Sweetener-Specific Effects

While, overall, all six artificial sweeteners were found to have toxic effects on gut bacteria, there were individual differences in the type and amount of damage they produced. For example:

Saccharin caused the greatest, most widespread damage, exhibiting both cytotoxic and genotoxic effects, meaning it is toxic to cells and damages genetic information in the cell (which can cause mutations).
Neotame was found to cause metabolic disruption in mice, and raised concentrations of several fatty acids, lipids and cholesterol. Several gut genes were also decreased by this sweetener.
Aspartame and acesulfame potassium-k — The latter of which is commonly found in sports supplements — were both found to cause DNA damage.

Hazards of Sucralose

Previous studies have also revealed an extensive list of safety concerns for sucralose (a synthetic organochlorine sweetener), some of which are very similar to those found in the featured study, including:7

Genotoxicity (DNA damage) and potentially adverse epigenetic effects

The generation of toxic compounds (chloropropanols) when heated

Destruction of gut bacteria;8 one study9 found it can kill as much as 50% of your microbiome, and appears to target beneficial microorganisms

Alterations in glucose, insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 levels and responses,10 which raises the risk for diabetes

Decreased red blood cells, a sign of anemia, at levels above 1,500 mg per kilo per day

Increased male infertility by interfering with sperm production and vitality, as well as brain lesions at higher doses

Kidney enlargement and calcification

Significantly increased risk for miscarriage (in rabbits, spontaneous abortions affected nearly half the rabbit population given sucralose, compared to zero aborted pregnancies in the control group)

Significantly increased death rate (a 23% death rate in rabbits, compared to a 6% in the control group)

Bioaccumulation11

Potential drug interactions12

Artificial Sweeteners Linked to Diabetes and CVD

Other recent research13,14 adds to the ever-growing evidence pile showing that artificial sweeteners raise your risk of obesity and Type 2 diabetes to the same or greater degree as sugar. The study in question explored how different sweeteners — including glucose, fructose, aspartame and acesulfame potassium-k — affect energy usage, energy storage and vascular functioning.

According to the authors, both high amounts of sugar and artificial sweeteners caused vascular impairment and other cardiovascular disease (CVD) effects “that may be important during the onset and progression of diabetes and obesity.” The artificial sweeteners, however, accumulated in the blood, thereby harming the blood vessel lining to a greater degree.

Of the two artificial sweeteners included in this study, acesulfame potassium appeared to be the worst. As noted by lead author Brian Hoffmann, Ph.D., assistant professor in the department of biomedical engineering at the Marquette University and Medical College of Wisconsin:15

“Sweeteners kind of trick the body. And then when your body’s not getting the energy it needs — because it does need some sugar to function properly — it potentially finds that source elsewhere,” Hoffman says.16

One alternative sugar source is muscle and, indeed, evidence of protein break down was found in the animals’ blood. Essentially, the rats were burning muscle as a source of energy when given artificial sweeteners. Hoffman also notes that this research is different from previous attempts to conclusively tie artificial sweeteners to health problems:

“Most of these sweeteners were approved well before we had the technology to perform studies like my lab is doing. So they weren’t able to look as in-depth at some of the potential effects being caused.

By knowing what biochemical changes these are causing through these large-scale studies, we can take an unbiased approach and see what’s changing to give us a better direction. What I like to tell people is that most things in moderation are going to be fine …

It’s when people start to chronically consume these [drinks] — say, a person drinks two, three, four … every day — that we should start to be concerned. Because you’re starting to introduce these biochemical changes and the body has no time to recover.”

Artificial Sweeteners Associated With Many Health Problems

Research published over the last three decades has also convincingly shown that artificial sweeteners stimulate appetite, increase cravings for carbs, and produce a variety of metabolic dysfunctions that promote fat storage and weight gain.

As early as 1986, a study17 that examined nearly 78,700 women for one year found women who used artificial sweeteners were significantly more likely to gain weight compared to those who did not use them, regardless of their initial weight.

According to the researchers, the results “were not explicable by differences in food consumption patterns. The data do not support the hypothesis that long-term artificial sweetener use either helps weight loss or prevents weight gain.”

Similarly, the 25-yearslong San Antonio Heart Study,18 published in 2005, found those who drank diet soda were significantly more likely to gain weight compared to those who drank regular soda. On average, for each diet soft drink the participants drank per day, they were 65% more likely to become overweight during the next seven to eight years, and 41% more likely to become obese.

In 2010, an important scientific review19 was published in the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine. It summarized the epidemiological and experimental evidence available on artificial sweeteners’ effects on weight, and explained those effects in light of the neurobiology of food reward.

More than 11,650 children aged 9 to 14 were included in this study. Each daily serving of diet beverage was associated with a BMI increase of 0.16 kg/m2. It also showed the correlation between increased usage of artificial sweeteners in food and drinks, and the corresponding rise in obesity. According to the authors:

“[F]indings suggest that the calorie contained in natural sweeteners may trigger a response to keep the overall energy consumption constant … Increasing evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners do not activate the food reward pathways in the same fashion as natural sweeteners … [A]rtificial sweeteners, precisely because they are sweet, encourage sugar craving and sugar dependence.”

Three years later, a report20 published in the journal Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism highlighted the fact that diet soda drinkers suffer the same exact health problems as those who opt for regular soda, including excessive weight gain, Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and stroke. The researchers proposed that frequent consumption of artificial sweeteners may induce metabolic derangements.

Your Body Is Not Fooled by Zero-Calorie Sweetness

Right around 2013, research started emerging detailing some of the reasons for why zero calorie sweeteners can make you gain weight. A study in the Journal of Physiology21,22 showed that when you eat something sweet, your brain releases dopamine, which activates your brain’s reward center.

The appetite-regulating hormone leptin is also released, which eventually informs your brain that you are “full” once a certain amount of calories has been ingested. When you consume something that tastes sweet but doesn’t contain any calories, your brain’s pleasure pathway still gets activated by the sweet taste, but there’s nothing to deactivate it, since the calories never arrive.

Artificial sweeteners basically trick your body into thinking that it’s going to receive calories, but when the calories fail to arrive, your body continues to signal that it needs more, which results in carb cravings.

The following year, 2014, another important study23 was published in the journal Nature. It was, for the first time, able to clearly show causality, revealing there’s a direct cause and effect relationship between consuming artificial sweeteners and developing elevated blood sugar levels.

People who consumed high amounts of artificial sweeteners were found to have higher levels of HbA1C — a long-term measure of blood sugar — compared to nonusers or occasional users of artificial sweeteners.

Seven volunteers who did not use artificial sweeteners were then recruited, and asked to consume the equivalent of 10 to 12 single-dose packets of artificial sweeteners daily for one week. Four of the seven people developed “significant disturbances in their blood glucose,” according to the researchers.

Some became prediabetic within just a few days! The reason for this dramatic shift was traced back to alterations in gut bacteria. Some bacteria were killed off, while others started proliferating. Which brings us back full circle to the featured study in the journal Molecules, which showed that all artificial sweeteners currently on the U.S. market have the ability to impair and/or kill gut bacteria.

Considering what we now know about the gut microbiome and its influence on health and disease, it’s becoming easier to see how and why artificial sweeteners are able to wreak havoc on your health.

To Improve Your Health, Ditch the Artificial Sweeteners

If you’re overweight and/or have insulin resistance or Type 2 diabetes, it’s really important to understand that artificial sweeteners are not going to help matters. They’re probably only going to make it worse.

If you have to choose between two evils, regularly-sweetened beverages are likely less hazardous in the long run, since your body at least knows how to metabolize fructose, even if it is processed.

That said, I firmly believe ditching soda and other sweetened beverages is one of the most important steps you can take to improve your weight and health. Remember, pure water is a zero-calorie drink. You cannot find a beverage that contains fewer calories.

If you want some flavor, just squeeze a little bit of fresh lemon or lime into mineral water. In instances where your cooking, baking or beverage needs a little sweetener, be mindful of your choice. For more information, see “Sugar Substitutes — What’s Safe and What’s Not.”

Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1981, aspartame can now be found in close to 5,000 food and beverage products. Worldwide, 3,000 to 5,000 metric tons of aspartame are produced annually, and it’s widely consumed by adults, including pregnant women, and children.1

When you consume aspartame, it’s broken down into aspartic acid, phenylalanine — a precursor of monoamine neurotransmitters — and methanol, which may have “potent” effects on your central nervous system,2 Florida State University (FSU) College of Medicine researchers noted.

Their study, published in PNAS,3 raises more red flags about this synthetic sweetener. It not only linked aspartame to anxiety but suggests the mental health changes may be passed on to future generations.

Aspartame Induced Anxiety for Generations

The FDA’s recommended maximum daily intake value for aspartame is 50 milligrams per kilogram. The FSU study involved mice drinking water that contained aspartame at a dosage of approximately 15% of the FDA’s maximum daily intake for humans. The dose was equivalent to a human drinking six to eight 8-ounce cans of diet soda daily.4

The mice consumed the aspartame-laced water for 12 weeks, which led to “robust, dose-dependent anxiety.”5 “It was such a robust anxiety-like trait that I don’t think any of us were anticipating we would see,” study author Sara Jones said. “It was completely unexpected. Usually you see subtle changes.”6

The anxiety-like behaviors were evidenced during maze tests, and they persisted across multiple generations — passed down from male mice exposed to aspartame. When the mice were treated with the human anxiety drug diazepam, the anxiety-like behaviors disappeared. According to the study:7

“The anxiety was alleviated by a single administration of diazepam, a positive allosteric modulator of the GABA-A receptor, consistent with the key role of GABA-A receptors in the regulation of anxiety. RNA sequencing demonstrated significant changes in expression of genes associated with glutamatergic and GABA receptor signaling in the amygdala, a brain region associated with regulation of anxiety.

Perhaps even more strikingly, the anxiety phenotype, its response to diazepam, and changes in amygdala gene expression were transmitted from the aspartame-exposed male founders to their descendants.”

Aspartame Disrupts Gene Expression in the Brain

The study shows that exposure to aspartame disrupts gene expression in the amygdala brain region, which plays a role in the regulation of anxiety and fear responses.8 The disruptions persisted for at least two generations.

“What this study is showing is we need to look back at the environmental factors, because what we see today is not only what’s happening today, but what happened two generations ago and maybe even longer,” study co-author Pradeep Bhide, with FSU’s department of biomedical sciences, explained.9

Aspartame’s effects on the brain have been questioned for years. In 2018, researchers with Universiti Sains Malaysia found a connection between neurophysiological symptoms and aspartame, which can elevate levels of phenylalanine and aspartic acid in the brain.10

Elevated levels of these compounds may inhibit the release and synthesis of a number of regulators of neurophysiological activity, including neurotransmitters, dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin. The researchers explained:11

“Aspartame acts as a chemical stressor by elevating plasma cortisol levels and causing the production of excess free radicals. High cortisol levels and excess free radicals may increase the brains vulnerability to oxidative stress which may have adverse effects on neurobehavioral health.

… We reviewed studies linking neurophysiological symptoms to aspartame usage and conclude that aspartame may be responsible for adverse neurobehavioral health outcomes. Aspartame consumption needs to be approached with caution due to the possible effects on neurobehavioral health.”

Neurophysiological symptoms that may be linked to aspartame consumption include:12

Learning problems
Headache
Seizure

Migraines
Irritable mood
Anxiety

Depression
Insomnia

Aspartic acid, which aspartame is broken down into, is also thought to act as an excitatory neurotransmitter in the central nervous system. Researchers have proposed since at least 2008 that consuming too much aspartame may cause certain mental disorders and result in “compromised learning and emotional functioning.”13

Caution may be especially warranted during pregnancy. In a study on newborn rats, those that consumed aspartame — via their lactating mothers that had been fed aspartame — experienced problems with development (weight loss) and behavioral changes suggestive of anxiety.14

Industry Spreads Myth That Artificial Sweeteners Are Safe

If you listen to industry front group the International Sweeteners Association, you’ll come away believing artificial sweeteners are not only safe but beneficial for weight management, diabetes and oral health.15 Even health officials and government groups have adopted the rhetoric that swapping sugar for artificial sweeteners is a good thing. As The Guardian reported:16

“Public health organizations around the world have largely accepted the sweetener industry’s claims, particularly when it comes to managing diabetes. One article on the NHS website quotes a dietitian who describes sweeteners as “a really useful alternative for people with diabetes who need to watch their blood sugar levels while still enjoying their favorite foods.””

Yet, a systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by the World Health Organization revealed, “there is no clear consensus on whether non-sugar sweeteners are effective for long-term weight loss or maintenance, or if they are linked to other long-term health effects at intakes within the ADI.”17

In fact, their study found, “There is suggestion of negative health effects with long-term use …”18 Cohort/case-control studies included in WHO’s systematic review revealed a range of concerning effects with artificial sweetener consumption, including increased:19

Obesity and body mass index
Type 2 diabetes

High fasting glucose
All-cause mortality

Cardiovascular disease mortality
Cardiovascular events

Stroke
High blood pressure

Bladder cancer
Premature birth

“In a startling turnaround,” The Guardian noted, “the WHO’s draft guidance stated that non-sugar sweeteners should ‘not be used as a means of achieving weight control or reducing risk of non-communicable diseases’ such as diabetes or heart disease. Suddenly, the whole rationale for sweeteners as a ‘healthy’ alternative looked much shakier.”20

Meanwhile, industry group The Calorie Control Council, whose members include Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Cargill, said it was “disappointed” in WHO’s findings and continued to insist that artificial sweeteners are useful for managing body weight and blood sugar levels.21

Heart Disease, Stroke Among the Risks

Along with risks to brain health, consuming aspartame (Equal), acesulfame potassium and sucralose (Splenda) puts your heart health at risk as well. In a nine-year study involving 103,388 people, researchers linked the products to cardiovascular disease and stroke.22

Researchers from France studied the detailed dietary records of adults with an average age of 42.23 Specifically, three non-consecutive days (two weekdays and one weekend day) of 24-hour dietary records were assigned at the study’s start and again every six months thereafter. Participants detailed all foods and beverages they consumed during that time, including quantities, brand names and even photographs to validate the recordings.24

The dietary records were further validated using blood and urinary biomarkers. Then, the researchers looked for any associations with cardiovascular diseases, including coronary heart disease and cerebrovascular disease, which refers to disorders that affect blood flow in the brain, such as stroke, aneurysms and vascular malformations.

Total artificial sweetener intake was associated with increased risk of overall cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cerebrovascular disease, the study found. Among the specific artificial sweeteners, aspartame was associated with an increased risk of stroke (defined in the study as cerebrovascular events), while acesulfame potassium and sucralose were associated with increased coronary heart disease risk.25

“Our results suggest no benefit from substituting artificial sweeteners for added sugar on CVD outcomes,” the study found.26 “The findings from this large-scale prospective cohort study suggest a potential direct association between higher artificial sweetener consumption (especially aspartame, acesulfame potassium, and sucralose) and increased cardiovascular disease risk.”27

Liver Damage, Disturbances to Gut Microbes and More

It’s time to reexamine the widely parroted myth that artificial sweeteners can be part of a “healthy” diet. Their consumption can cause disturbances throughout your body. In research presented at the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 2022 annual meeting it was revealed that artificial sweeteners — specifically acesulfame potassium and sucralose — may interfere with your liver’s delicate detoxification process.

The study found that acesulfame potassium and sucralose inhibited the activity of P-glycoprotein, a “defense protein” that’s important for protecting organisms against environmental toxins.28 For comparison, the toxin DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) has also been found to inhibit P-glycoprotein (PGP), which is one reason why researchers have stated, “Even in small amounts, these contaminants could interfere with the human body’s natural ability to defend itself.”29

Artificial sweeteners including saccharine, sucralose, aspartame and acesulfame potassium may also lead to shifts in gut microbiota similar to those caused by antibiotics.30 Artificial sweeteners have also been shown to induce glucose intolerance by altering gut microbiota.31 Disruption of gut microbiota, in turn, has been linked to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and artificial sweeteners may also have a role to play in this condition.32

Make the Choice to Avoid Artificial Sweeteners

Video Link

To protect your health, avoiding artificial sweeteners is important. In addition to diet beverages, they’re found in thousands of other ultraprocessed products, including flavored yogurts, desserts, snacks and tabletop sweeteners. Even ketchup, salad dressing and medications often contain them.

Once you’ve decided to eliminate artificial sweeteners from your diet, read labels of any processed foods you buy to be sure they’re not hidden inside. If you’re tempted by a sweet craving, try eating something sour, like water with lemon juice or fermented vegetables. Sour taste may help diminish your desire for sweets.

I also recommend learning to use the psychological acupressure technique called the Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT). When you feel a craving coming on, use EFT to release the unhealthy urge. It’s an excellent tool to overcome the emotional component of food cravings, helping you say goodbye to artificial sweeteners for good.

By Dr. Mercola
Over the years, I’ve written a number of articles outing industry front groups1 such as the Genetic Literacy Project, the American Council for Science and Health (ACSH),2 Science 2.0, GMO Answers, Independent Women’s Forum, Science Codex, Center for Consumer Freedom and the Center for Inquiry.
Once you start to investigate these front groups, you’ll find the same names appearing again and again, cowriting articles, interviewing each other and referring to each other’s work in a closed loop.
I’ve also written about academics and journalists who, while presenting themselves as independent experts, are actually shills for industry. This is a fairly close-knit group of individuals, so the worst actors are not hard to identify based on their associations.
Well-established actors include Forbes contributor Kavin Senapathy,3 Henry Miller, Steven Salzberg,4 Bruce Chassy, Jon Entine,5,6 Kevin Folta, Keith Kloor7 and Mark Lynas.
Learn to Recognize Astroturfing When You See It

In the TED Talk above, award-winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson discusses strategies used by industry to manipulate public opinion and steer online discussion.
A strategy that has become phenomenally popular with the advent of social media is astroturfing, which is when a special interests group creates a fake grassroots campaign for or against a particular agenda. You might think it’s a group of moms devoted to children’s health that is touting the benefits of GMOs or vaccines, for example, when in fact the campaign is run by industry.
Increasingly over the past year or so you may have seen a number of articles simultaneously criticizing both the “anti-vaxxers” and “anti-GMO movement,” making contemptuous and sometimes wildly insulting comments about people who question the safety of either of these industries and their wares.
While GMOs and vaccines may seem like strange bedfellows, the cross-linking of these two industries in propaganda material is neither accidental nor haphazard.
Industry Messaging Example

In a May 18, 2017 Forbes article,8 Senapathy (one well-known mouthpiece for the GMO industry) took aim at the “anti-vaccine and anti-GMO movements,” saying they’re “inextricably linked and cause preventable suffering.”

“The thoroughly answered question of whether vaccines cause autism isn’t really a question outside of conspiracy-theorist circles,” Senapathy writes.

“The body of evidence shows that vaccination has … vastly reduced suffering and death … and that vaccines don’t cause autism, cancer, dementia or long term health problems, and that any minute risk is vastly outweighed by benefits to individuals and society.

Yet with the backing of prominent leaders like Robert DeNiro and Robert Kennedy Jr., anti-vaccine groups fuel common narratives that keep herd immunity down, directly leading to suffering and death.

Now with Donald Trump embracing vaccine skeptics, the anti-vaccine movement has earned a hallowed place on the shelf next to other tinfoil hat clad schools of thought.

The question of the safety of genetically engineered crops (GMOs) has been answered just as thoroughly, and the anti-GMO movement deserves its own place on the same shelf, not just for being wrong but for its role in unconscionable suffering …

She goes on to point out how similar the communication tactics are between vaccine and GMO detractors. Ironically, her article reveals just as much if not more about the biotech and vaccine industries’ messaging tactics. You can go through her article and check off numerous boxes for how to spot a piece of industry propaganda.
That includes the claim that the science is settled (which automatically precludes the need for further discussion), citing a fellow industry shill (in this case Kloor), using strong, derogatory language when describing those who disagree with industry talking points, making ample references to “conspiracy theories” and “other tinfoil hat clad schools of thought.”
Seven Classic Propaganda Techniques

Whenever you hear or read that someone is a “quack,” and that “the science has been settled,” or that something is “science-based,” it’s probably a smear campaign created by an astroturf group, industry front group or paid shill. In fact, the seven techniques of propaganda have been clearly delineated and are used without exception by most industries. As noted by writer Morgan Crouch in his article, “What Are the Seven Techniques of Propaganda?” these include:9

Name calling — Derogatory terms or discriminatory words used to arouse suspicion and prejudice
Glittering generalities — Slogans, catchphrases and highly generalized statements that sound good but mean little and prove nothing (such as “the science is settled”)
Transfer — The linking of a company/industry idea with a revered symbol
Testimonial — Testimony by a respected authority, similar to celebrity endorsement
Plain folks — Corporate material presented by someone who appears to be “just like you” — someone who shares your concerns and ideals
Bandwagon — Creating the illusion that there’s a consensus, which capitalizes on people’s inherent desire to be on the “right” side
Card stacking — Using only those facts that support the company’s/industry’s ideas, with the aim of making you assume these facts are conclusive. As noted by Crouch, “By ‘stacking cards against the truth,’ propagandists can control the beliefs of their audience”

Pesticide and Vaccine Partnerships Revealed
While Senapathy tries to show how those who question the safety of either GMOs or vaccines are all alike — that is, tinfoil hat-wearing lunatics who follow flat earth theories in their spare time — what she ultimately achieves is a perfect example of industry PR.
This systematic messaging strategy has been carefully developed, and is known to have a penetrating psychological effect. Both the vaccine and biotechnology industries use the same terminology and the same psychological assault strategies to make you feel like you’re in the wrong — or worse.

In her article, Senapathy basically accuses all vaccine and GMO safety advocates of being killers, merely for asking questions and not settling for non-answers, and doing what they think is right for their own health and that of their children.
Another article10 that connects the vaccine and chemical technology industries was recently published by The Feed.
In it, Ashleigh Morse, Ph.D., whose training centers on psychology and the influence of environmental cues on decision-making, and who says she works as a consultant to “a range of clients” in the field of science communication and public health,11 argues that juries are incapable of assessing the validity of scientific evidence presented in court, or the validity of the scientific methods used.
Specifically, Morse — whose professional credits include a single published research paper listed on her LinkedIN bio on the role of opioid processes in reward and decision-making — is referring to the recent jury verdict against Monsanto, but she goes on to link that to vaccine science. “When juries decide on the science, we get autism linked to vaccines and the Monsanto verdict,” she writes.
When In Doubt, Blame the Russians

Then there’s the curious claim that the Russians are to blame for Americans’ lack of faith in vaccine safety.12 According to a recent paper13 published in the American Journal of Public Health, Russian trolls and Soviet-directed Twitter bots promoted anti-vaccine information on social media to “amplify the vaccine debate” and create dissent in the U.S.
According to the authors, “Accounts masquerading as legitimate users create false equivalency, eroding public consensus on vaccination,” and “Directly confronting vaccine skeptics enables bots to legitimize the vaccine debate.” Those two sentences are interesting and revealing indeed.
In a nutshell, they’re saying that by providing anti-vaccine content, these bots made it seem as though there was actually something to discuss when, in the opinion of the authors, no discussion about vaccine safety should occur at all.
Apparently, it is their view that the vaccine debate is “illegitimate,” since there’s “public consensus” on vaccines (refer back to the bandwagon strategy, No. 6 in the propaganda list above).
In other words, everyone knows vaccines are safe; the science is settled, so there’s no valid reason to question it. Summing up the alleged Russian bots’ efforts to sway public opinion against vaccination, the authors referred to it as “weaponized health communication.”
The Russians Did It Again

Coincidentally, the vaccine paper above was submitted for publication shortly after news stories began circulating claiming the Russians were behind anti-GMO rhetoric.14 Minnesota Farm Living writes:15

“Researchers from Iowa State University (Shawn Dorius and Carolyn Lawrence-Dill) wanted to better understand the controversy around genetically engineered food.16 The issue is with the overwhelming belief in the science community is that GMOs are safe, consumers still question their safety. Dorius and Lawrence-Dill wanted to find out why.

What they found was surprising. The ISU researchers looked at not only how U.S. publications portrayed GMOs but also looked at the American versions of RT and Sputknik, two Russian publications. They counted how many times the term ‘GMO’ was used in different publications …

They went a step further and analyzed the tone of each article. What they found is the Russian publications were overwhelming anti-GMO. The articles talked negatively about environmental risks, nutrition concerns, and health risks of GMOs.”

Here, the author links to the “Are GMOs Safe?” page on the Genetic Literacy Project’s website as evidence to support GMO safety. But, the Genetic Literacy Project is a well-known front group for the GMO industry and hardly a reliable source of impartial information.
As for why the Russians would want to spread anti-GMO rhetoric in the U.S., the study authors note Russia has an interest in creating division among the American people to weaken the country as a whole, and to promote their own agricultural exports, as Russia banned GMOs in 2016 and is trying to increase its exports of organic food.
Claim of Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety Is Patently False
In the Minnesota Farm Living article cited above, you can see the telltale industry rhetoric in the sentence, “the overwhelming belief in the science community is that GMOs are safe, [yet] consumers still question their safety.” The reality is there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs.
That is in fact the title of a scientific statement17 published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe, January 24, 2015. The statement, aptly titled “No Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety,” was signed by 300 scientists, researchers, physicians and scholars.
What’s more, the paper states that the claim of scientific consensus on GMO safety is in actuality “an artificial construct that has been falsely perpetuated,” and that such a claim “is misleading and misrepresents or outright ignores the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of scientific opinions among scientists on this issue.”
In addition, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration still does not possess any evidence demonstrating safety because they do not do scientific reviews. And even if they did, hundreds of scientists say there’s no evidence demonstrating that genetically engineered foods are safe, and a number of independent studies have raised serious health concerns.
To learn more about how GMOs were introduced into the food supply without safety testing, see my two-part interview with attorney Steven Druker, author of “Altered Genes, Twisted Truth.” (Part 1, Part 2.)
GMO-Vaccine Convergence
The reason for the joining of PR forces between the vaccine and biotech industries becomes clearer when you take into account the fact that GMOs are moving into the vaccine industry. The 2016 article,18 “GMOs Lead the Fight Against Zika, Ebola and the Next Unknown Pandemic,” published in The Conversation, asserts that GMOs play a “vital role” in medicine, adding:

“Most modern biomedical advances, especially the vaccines used to eradicate disease and protect against pandemics … rely on the same molecular biology tools that are used to create genetically modified organisms.

To protect the public, scientists have embraced GMO technology to quickly study new health threats, manufacture enough protective vaccines, and monitor and even predict new outbreaks.”

Additionally, scientists are also exploring the possibility of vaccinating plants against pests as an alternative to using pesticides.19 In other words, it’s really quite crucial for these two bedfellows, strange as their joining may seem at first, to get people to embrace both genetic engineering and vaccines.
That’s why we’re now seeing more and more articles deriding both vaccine and GMO safety advocates in the same piece, whether it necessarily makes sense to do so or not.
Both of these industries are using the exact same messaging strategies — because so far they have worked — to achieve the same aim: Shame those who dare question the safety of either, and make them feel like ignorant outcasts and social misfits, thereby shutting down the conversation.
Preempting Your Rights
In my five-part “Ghost in the Machine” series, I discuss the many ways in which big industries manipulate science, and how they’ve captured our regulatory agencies and manipulate our political system. Here’s a listing of the series, in case you missed any of them:

“Introduction to Ghost in the Machine — A New Article Series That Exposes How Puppet Masters Control the Planet for Their Benefit”

“Ghost in the Machine, Part 1 — Drug Safety and Media Shaped by Big Pharma”

“Ghost in the Machine, Part 2 — Success Breeds Greed That Gets in the Way of Ethics, Common Sense and Caution”

“Ghost in the Machine, Part 3 — Pride and the Politics of Vaccines”

“Ghost in the Machine, Part 4 — The War on Supplements, Essential Oils and Homeopathy”

“Ghost in the Machine, Part 5 — Lies, Denial, Deceit and Manipulative ‘Research'”

A feature common to both the vaccine industry and the biotech industry is the use of legislation to preempt your rights and force you to use their products whether you want to or not, and without regard for the health consequences.
In recent years, I’ve written extensively about the vaccine industry’s attempts to mandate vaccines and eliminate personal belief exemptions across the U.S. In some cases, they’ve succeeded. In others, they’ve lost, but efforts to strip every American of their right to informed consent and medical freedom is ongoing.
The chemical technology industry is following the same agenda. One of the latest infringements on your rights is a provision in the Farm Bill that would block local governments from regulating pesticide use. The U.S. House committee approved the draft back in April. As noted by Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides:20

“This is really a backdoor attempt to interfere with state governments and local governments. I think the trend is for local governments to engage on this issue. This would undermine that.”

Monsanto Ghostwriting Shill Attempts to Tie USRTK to Russian Troll Efforts
A common corporate tactic is to use “third-party experts” to bring the industry’s message to the public under the cloak of independent opinion or expertise (No. 4, “Testimonial”). The idea is that academic types are far more credible than industry employees when it comes to defending the industry’s position.
A well-known spokesperson for the GMO industry is Henry Miller, who was thoroughly outed as a Monsanto shill during the 2012 Proposition 37 GMO labeling campaign in California. A “No on 37” advertisement had to be pulled off the air because Miller was fraudulently identified as being part of the Stanford University faculty.
Last year, Miller was outed yet again — this time as a ghostwriter for Monsanto. Forbes fired Miller when it became clear he had submitted ghostwritten material. On a relevant side note, Senapathy has cowritten articles with Miller, which is why some of her Forbes articles ended up being deleted as well,21 and the foreword for her book “Fear Babe” was written by Folta, a University of Florida professor who hid his financial ties to Monsanto.
The Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) discovery against Monsanto was led by U.S. Right to Know (USRTK). Proving he’s still working on Monsanto’s behalf, Miller penned a two-part article22,23 for Investor’s Business Daily this past summer, in which he tries — quite unsuccessfully — to tie USRTK to the alleged Russian GMO disinformation campaign.
The fact that they’re still turning to Miller is probably a sign of just how desperate Monsanto (now Bayer) has become. Other discovery documents obtained by USRTK included email correspondence revealing Monsanto has been quite desperate for a number of years already.
In an email dated February 26, 2015, Daniel Goldstein, senior science lead of medical sciences and outreach for Monsanto, tells Monsanto’s food safety scientific affairs lead, John Vicini, Ph.D.:24

In this email, Goldstein admits two pearls: First, the list of supporters willing to do their dirty work is short — which is why we keep seeing the same names pop up in pro-GMO propaganda pieces — and ACSH is a most valuable front group for the biotech industry.
Another Undercover Ambassador for GMO Industry Wants You to Think the Russians Are Responsible for ‘Anti-Vaccine Myths’

So, who else wants you to think that “the Russians did it”? Mark Lynas, a long-term shill for the GMO industry, just published: “Opinion: Russian Campaign to Spread Anti-Vaccine Myths Part of a Wider War on Science and Truth”25 on the Alliance for Science website.
As the other examples cited above, Lynas — normally a pro-GMO advocate — is now cross-linking GMOs and vaccines, closely mimicking the core message of Senapathy’s article, which is that “Many anti-GMO groups and anti-vaxxers are closely linked.”
Again, what we’re seeing is a crossover or merging of the GMO and vaccine industries in terms of messaging and propaganda angles. Rather than fighting public doubt separately, the shills for these industries are now putting out a single joint message that anyone who doubts the science presented by either of them is an anti-science nut job.
The take-home message here is that these tactics are nothing but a PR ploy. Yes, they’re trying to make you feel like an outsider, an outcast. They’re trying to make you feel ashamed of your “ignorance,” or worse, as if you’ve fallen for false propaganda propagated by evil Russians in an effort to divide and conquer.
But all you really need to do is look for the hallmarks of astroturfing, and you’ll quickly see through their ruse. You are not wrong for questioning flawed and biased science. You are not ignorant for questioning whether vaccines and GMOs might be unsafe when there’s a clear lack of evidence to support safety claims.
You are not a danger to the public for looking at the evidence and making your own decisions about whether or not you want your family to receive a particular vaccine or eat a certain food. Your inquiries and thought processes are only dangerous to the industries in question which, by the way, are willing to go to just about any lengths to hide the dangers of their products in order to maintain their profits. Stand your ground. It’s solid.

By Dr. Mercola

If you’ve ever had qualms about eating genetically modified (GM) foods, you’d likely be deeply concerned about receiving a GM vaccine as well.
Such vaccines are already being produced – some are even on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommended vaccine schedule – even though, as is the case with GM foods, we know very little about their long-term effects.
In the interview above, Vicky Debold, PhD, RN, director of research and patient safety with the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), spoke with me about the many reasons to be very wary of this new technology, which is far more intertwined with other biotech “innovations,” like GM food, than you might think.

Nobody Knows What Happens When You Inject People with GM Vaccines

There have been some fair warnings, though. In 2006, researchers wrote in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health:1

“Genetically modified (GM) viruses and genetically engineered virus-vector vaccines possess significant unpredictability and a number of inherent harmful potential hazards… Horizontal transfer of genes… is well established. New hybrid virus progenies resulting from genetic recombination between genetically engineered vaccine viruses and their naturally occurring relatives may possess totally unpredictable characteristics with regard to host preferences and disease-causing potentials.
…There is inadequate knowledge to define either the probability of unintended events or the consequences of genetic modifications.”

Though this was six years ago, little has changed even as the technology has advanced. Today we have several different types of GM vaccines in production, development or research phases, such as:

DNA vaccines: DNA for a microbe’s antigens are introduced into the body, with the expectation that your cells will take up that DNA, which then instructs your cells to make antigen molecules. As the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (a division of the National Institutes of Health) put it, “In other words, the body’s own cells become vaccine-making factories.”2
Naked DNA vaccines: A type of DNA vaccine in which microscopic particles coated with DNA are administered directly into your cells.
Recombinant Vector vaccines: Similar to DNA vaccines, but they use a virus or bacteria to act as a vector (or “carrier) to introduce microbial DNA into your cells.

There are experimental GM vaccines being developed that use tumorigenic cancer cells and cells from humans, dogs, monkeys, cows, pigs, rodents, birds and insects. What happens when foreign DNA is inserted into the human body is a mystery. Will it trigger undesirable changes in human cells or tissues? Will it combine or exchange genetic material with human DNA? Will it transfer to future generations? No one knows…

“We don’t know what portion of the [GM] DNA can be incorporated into our own genome, we don’t know what portion could be inheritable to our children, we also don’t know what happens when the immune system is exposed to DNA that has been recombined in lots of ways that the human body, through the course of time, has never had any exposure to… what diseases of the immune system may occur because of these exposures,” Debold said.
“Use of foreign DNA in various forms has the potential to cause a great deal of trouble, not only because there is the potential for it to recombine with our own DNA, there is the potential for it to turn the DNA ‘switches,’ the epigenetic parts of the DNA, on and off.”

Vaccine Adjuvants Used in GM Vaccines May be Even More Toxic Than Usual

An adjuvant is added to a vaccine in order to boost the body’s immune reaction to the viral or bacterial antigen contained in a vaccine. Under ideal circumstances, the antigen is what your body responds to and makes antibodies against (e.g. the lab altered viral or bacterial organisms being injected). By boosting your body’s immune response in this artificial way, the vaccine manufacturer can use a smaller amount of antigen, which makes production less expensive and the product more profitable (although definitely not safer, as adjuvants are usually foreign substances, metals or chemicals which can cause the immune system to overreact and attack the host body.)
Aluminum is a common vaccine adjuvant and also a well-known neurotoxin that can cause chronic inflammation in the body, including the brain. Although aluminum adjuvants have been added to inactivated vaccines used for decades in the U.S., aluminum-based adjuvants are not strong enough for GM vaccines, according to Debold, so drug companies are primarily interested in using oil-based adjuvants, like squalene, and other substances that can hyper-stimulate the body’s immune response.
While oil-based vaccine adjuvants like squalene have been proven to generate powerful acute inflammatory immune responses that stimulate increased production of antibodies, they have also been associated with unresolved, chronic inflammation in the body that can cause brain and immune system dysfunction, including autoimmune diseases.3 While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has so far not licensed any vaccines distributed in the U.S. that contain squalene as an adjuvant, squalene adjuvants are used in some vaccines sold in Europe and other countries.

GM Vaccines You May Have Given to Your Kids…

Many are unaware that, despite the completely unknown long-term health consequences, GM vaccines are already in use and have been administered to American infants, children and adults for many years. Among them:

Hepatitis B vaccine: An inactivated recombinant DNA vaccine licensed for newborn infants and children in 1991, in which parts of the hepatitis B virus gene are cloned into yeast
Rotavirus vaccine: Live attenuated vaccines first licensed for infants and children licensed in 2006, which either contain genetically engineered human rotavirus strains or human-bovine hybridized reassortment rotavirus strains4
HPV vaccine (Gardasil or Cervarix): A recombinant vaccine licensed in 2006, which is prepared from virus-like particles (VLP’s) and may also include use of an insect-cell Baculovirus expression vector system for production

Then there are those “hybrid” vaccines that cross the (very narrow) threshold into the GM food realm… for instance, goats are being genetically engineered to become “pharm animals” that carry vaccines in their milk. If the experiments being conducted by researchers from Texas A&M are successful, they will produce an “edible” malaria vaccine, with the ultimate goal being that children drinking the milk will become vaccinated in the process. If vaccines in your milk sounds a bit to “out there,” it shouldn’t, as there are many connections between the companies that make GM food and those that make GM vaccines.

The Close Ties Between GM Foods and GM Vaccines

The companies that make vaccines and GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are deeply intertwined, only recently spinning off or merging to specialize in one or the other. Most vaccine revenues are earned by five companies that together held nearly 80 percent of the market in 2010:5

Sanofi Pasteur
GlaxoSmithKline
Merck & Co.
Pfizer
Novartis

These companies, which use genetic engineering to produce vaccines, are also primarily responsible for the introduction of genetic engineering into the food supply. For instance:

Genetic engineering giant Syngenta (third in total sales in the commercial agricultural seeds market) is the progeny of parent companies Novartis and AstraZeneca.
In 2001, Bayer CropScience became a leading genetically engineered crop producer with its purchase of Aventis’ agribusiness division.6
In 2004, Aventis merged with and into Sanofi. The new Sanofi-Aventis Group became the world’s 3rd largest pharmaceutical company. Aventis Pasteur, the vaccine division of Sanofi-Aventis Group, changed its name to Sanofi Pasteur. Sanofi Pasteur is the vaccines division of Sanofi Group. It is the largest company in the world devoted entirely to vaccines.
Prior to splitting its genetically engineered crop business from its vaccine business, Aventis was known primarily for the StarLink corn debacle (a type of GM corn grown for use in animal feed that contaminated the U.S. food supply in 2000). Bayer now sells Aventis’s Liberty Link crops, engineered to tolerate high doses of the company’s toxic herbicide called Liberty (glufosinate).7
Stauffer Seeds was a spin-off of Stauffer Chemical, formerly a division of Novartis.8 Stauffer Seeds and Prodigene conducted clinical trials on pigs using an edible vaccine for transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV) expressed in corn.9
Prodigene was caught contaminating the food supply with its edible vaccine and the company went out of business, but not before it received a $6-million investment from the Governors Biotechnology Partnership, chaired by Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. Vilsack, now the Obama Administration’s USDA Secretary, didn’t want any restrictions placed on experimental pharma crops. In reaction to suggestions that pharma crops should be kept away from food crops, Vilsack argued that ‘we should not overreact and hamstring this industry.’10
Prior to 1997, Monsanto (the world leader in GM crops) operated under three parts, the Ag Business (for agricultural products), the Chemicals Business, and the Pharmaceuticals Business, which is now Pharmacia, a subsidiary of Pfizer, the biggest pharmaceutical company in the world and the largest manufacturer of vaccines for food animals.11, 12
GlaxoSmithKline, while producing few products for food or agriculture, has been genetically engineering plants, animals and microorganisms for use in vaccines, pharmaceuticals and medical research.13

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet Supporting Propagation of Both Vaccines and GMOs

The most influential, and, of course, richest advocates for genetic engineering and vaccines are Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. They have business as well as philanthropic interests in these technologies and their Gates Foundation (Buffet has donated over $1.5 billion to the Foundation) allows them to mix business with philanthropy.
They – and the corporations they invite to join them – use the tax shelter of a non-profit organization to invest in for-profit enterprises. Gates & Buffet get tax write-offs for putting money in their foundation, but their foundation can give money (both as grants & investments) directly to for-profit corporations creating for-profit products.
This, obviously, creates huge conflict of interests.
For instance, Monsanto and other biotech companies have collaborated with the Gates Foundation via the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) to promote the use of genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa. The Gates Foundation has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to AGRA, and in 2006 Robert Horsch was hired for the AGRA project. Horsch was a Monsanto executive for 25 years. In a nutshell, the project may be sold under the banner of altruism and ‘sustainability,’ but in reality it’s anything but. It’s just a multi-billion dollar enterprise to transform Africa into a GM-crop-friendly continent. The Foundation has also invested heavily in Monsanto stock, purchasing over $23 million worth in 2010.14
The Gates Foundation is also closely partnered with Big Pharma, to whom Bill Gates pledged $10 billion to distribute and administer multiple vaccines to children around the world. This, too, is billed as a humanitarian effort to save lives, but what children living in poverty in developing countries need most is healthy, plentiful food, clean water, better sanitation and improved living conditions. These are the keys to preventing the spread of infectious disease, and they appear to be wholly ignored by Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and non-profit organizations with financial ties to Big Pharma – at the children’s expense.
The Gates Foundation is even funding surveillance of anti-vaccine groups, and the following vaccine companies are supported by the Foundation through both investments and philanthropic projects:

Sanofi
GlaxoSmithKline
Merck
Pfizer
Novartis

Important Movements on the Horizon for Both GM Foods and Vaccines

It’s important to get all the facts before making your decision about vaccination; and to understand that in many state public health laws you still have the legal right to opt out of using a vaccine that you or your child do not want to receive. At present, all 50 states allow a medical exemption to vaccination (medical exemptions must be approved by an M.D. or D.O.); 48 states allow a religious exemption to vaccination; and 17 states allow a personal, philosophical or conscientious belief exemption to vaccination.
However, Washington state now requires parents to obtain the signature of a medical doctor or state-designated medical worker to obtain a philosophical exemption to vaccination. That is because non-medical vaccine exemptions have been restricted in Washington and Vermont and are under attack in California and New Jersey, while there is evidence that medical trade association lobbyists will be working to eliminate or severely restrict vaccine exemptions in Arizona, Connecticut, New York, Colorado and many other states.
Health liberty in America is being threatened by forced vaccination proponents employed by federal and state health departments, who are working with pharmaceutical companies and with Pharma-funded non-profit organizations to encourage government-enforced implementation of “no exceptions” one-size-fits-all vaccine laws. If you want to protect YOUR freedom to make informed, voluntary vaccination decisions in America, you need to take action today. (National vaccination policies are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level, and it is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights will have the greatest impact).
Signing up to be a user of NVIC’s free online Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you access to practical, useful information to help you communicate with your elected state legislators and become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community. You will get real-time Action Alerts about what you can do if there are threats to vaccine exemptions in your state. With the click of a mouse or one touch on a Smartphone screen, you will be put in contact with YOUR elected representatives so you can let them know how you feel and what you want them to do. Plus, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have all the information you need to make sure your voice is heard.
I also recommend that you join NVIC on facebook, and if you can contribute monetarily, doing so at NVIC.org.
As for GM foods, you can help to pass the United States’ first GMO labeling law – Proposition 37 – that will require labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods and food ingredients – and ban the routine industry practice of labeling and marketing such foods as “natural.” Prop 37 is the best chance we have of defeating the corporate agri-giants, and of forcing food manufacturers to stop hiding dangerous ingredients in our food, without our knowledge.

By Dr. Mercola

Goats are being genetically engineered to become “pharm animals” that carry vaccines in their milk.
Current experiments being conducted by researchers from Texas A&M are geared toward producing an “edible” malaria vaccine, with the ultimate goal being that children drinking the milk will become vaccinated in the process.
While claiming that bioengineered animals could be “life-savers” for people in third-world countries, the researchers ignore the glaring issue that such biotechnology often produces unknown, and unintended, health consequences that prove tragic for individuals and the environment.

Vaccines in Your Milk?

Transmogrifying farm animals into “pharm” animals to act as living and breathing pharmaceutical factories is not new.
In 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first drug produced by livestock that had been bioengineered to express a human gene.
In that case, the protein was extracted from the milk of genetically engineered (GE) goats.
In the latest instance, researchers introduced DNA coding for the malaria parasite into the goat genome linked to milk production.
The DNA is supposed to “switch on” only in the mammary gland when the goat produces milk.
As we’ve seen in the past with genetically modified plants, genetically engineered vaccine-producing animals might enter the food supply unexpectedly — exposing unintended recipients to the vaccine. Or the animals might escape and breed with others, passing these bioengineered genes on with unpredictable consequences. Even the technology itself is risky at best, because when animals are exposed to foreign DNA, literally anything can happen.
Take, for instance, milk from cows treated with a synthetic, genetically engineered growth hormone called rBGH. rBGH milk differs from natural milk nutritionally, pharmacologically, immunologically, and hormonally, and along with causing health problems in the cows, it is linked to cancer in humans. What does ingesting the DNA from the malaria parasite in your milk cause? No one knows.

Vaccine Makers See Dollar Signs When They See Third-World Countries

Malaria is caused by a parasite of the species Plasmodium, which is spread from person to person by infected mosquitoes. Every year, it results in about 1 million deaths, the majority of which are in third-world countries. We are certainly in need of a solution, and while it sounds good in theory that a child could be protected from malaria just by drinking a glass of milk, remember that vaccines often weaken and confuse children’s immune systems, which ultimately increases their susceptibility to the very infectious diseases vaccines are designed to prevent.
The most vulnerable of the world’s children are those in the poorest countries where death and disease is often a result of malnutrition, and where children are often battling some sort of infection 200 days out of the year. Vaccines can be devastating to these already immunosuppressed children, as well as to adults.
However, emerging vaccine markets like third-world countries will soon outgrow developed markets by hundreds of billions of dollars. Emerging markets are areas of the world that are beginning to show promise as a profitable venture for many products, including vaccines. And emerging markets – primarily in developing countries in Southeast and Central Asia, and Africa – have been on vaccine makers’ radar for quite some time.

Giving Immune-Compromised Children Vaccines May Create Illness, Not Cure It

One reason that vaccine makers are interested in these parts of the world is that that’s where most of the world’s deaths from major infectious diseases occur. The only problem has been that, until recently, making vaccines for undeveloped countries with no money to pay for them, was not exactly a profitable goal for vaccine makers.
Concerned that developed countries would have little or no resources for addressing serious infectious diseases if vaccine makers continued their pull-out, the World Health Organization and the G8 – the top developed countries in the world – responded with a plan for inducing vaccine companies to stay in the business.
That plan was called Advance Market Commitments (AMCs). Under AMCs, developed countries make legal, binding agreements to purchase vaccines that are needed in low-income countries. The purchase guarantees a bottom line for the manufacturers. In return, the manufacturers promise to sell those vaccines at reduced prices in the countries where they are most needed.
Unfortunately, legally binding, advance market commitments to purchase vaccines that are mostly needed in third world countries could backfire on developed countries that don’t need – or want – certain vaccines. Malaria is one of the top neglected diseases that world health leaders want to address with AMCs, so the GM vaccine-producing goat milk might already be on their radar.
The ability to resist diseases like malaria requires a strong immune system, and for that, you require good nutrition, clean drinking water, and sanitation. If we want to help people in other countries to lower their malaria rates, it would be wise to focus on these basics first. In order to eradicate infectious disease from a nation, you have to first address compromised immune systems. If you hit immune suppressed children with a potent, adjuvant-loaded vaccine, you’re far more likely to create new disease, not eradicate it.
It’s similar to the corporations seeking to plant genetically modified golden rice in the developing world to purportedly alleviate vitamin A deficiency. What people in the developing world need to receive ample dietary vitamin A are the basics like access to a diverse range of nutritious foods — including animal products like eggs, cheese and meat and vegetables such as dark leafy greens and sweet potatoes. This is the type of diet that is attained from biodiverse farming — the opposite of what will occur if golden rice is planted on a large scale. So in the end it appears the golden rice will do little to improve vitamin A levels in the poor — and may actually make vitamin A deficiency worse.

Fertility Problems, DNA Damage Among the Serious Health Problems Linked to GM Foods

The vaccine-producing GM goats are a double-edged sword because while no one knows for sure what consuming GM vaccine-containing milk will do to humans, there’s very convincing evidence that genetically modified foods spell nothing but trouble for your health.
In one review of genetically modified organisms (GMO) — an analysis of 19 animal studies — it was revealed that nearly 10 percent of blood, urine, organ and other parameters tested were significantly influenced by GMOs, with the liver and kidneys faring the worst.
In the only human feeding study ever published on genetically modified foods, seven volunteers ate Roundup-ready soybeans. These are soybeans that have herbicide-resistant genes inserted into them in order to survive being sprayed with otherwise deadly doses of Roundup herbicide. In three of the seven volunteers, the gene inserted into the soy transferred into the DNA of their intestinal bacteria, and continued to function long after they stopped eating the GM soy!
So, exposing children in third world countries to these potential risks needs to be carefully considered before a malaria vaccine is distributed in GM milk especially when there are other innovative ways of fighting malaria available. In addition, Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology, has documented at least 65 serious health risks from GM products of all kinds. Among them:

Offspring of rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce
Male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells
The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioning
Several US farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed on GM corn varieties
Investigators in India have documented fertility problems, abortions, premature births, and other serious health issues, including deaths, among buffaloes fed GM cottonseed products

Why We MUST Insist on Mandatory Labeling of GM Foods

Mandatory labeling may be the only way to stop the proliferation of GM foods in the US because while GM seeds are banned in several European countries, in the U.S., certain states are actually passing legislation that protects the use of GM seeds and allows for unabated expansion! At present, no less than 14 states have passed such legislation. Michigan’s Senate Bill 7771, if passed, would make that 15. The Michigan bill would prevent anti-GMO laws, and would remove “any authority local governments may have to adopt and enforce ordinances that prohibit or regulate the labeling, sale, storage, transportation, distribution, use, or planting of agricultural, vegetable, flower or forest tree seeds.”
While legislation like this sounds like crazy nonsense to most people, such bills are essentially bought and paid for through the millions of dollars Monsanto and other biotech companies spend lobbying the US government each year. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, Monsanto spent $1.4 million on lobbying the federal government — a drop from a year earlier, when they spent $2.5 million during the same quarter.
Their efforts of persuasion are also made infinitely easier by the fact that an ever growing list of former Monsanto employees are now in positions of power within the federal government.

Proof Positive that GMO Labeling WILL Change the Food Industry

Many don’t fully appreciate the strategy of seeking to have genetically engineered foods labeled in California. The belief is that large companies would refuse to have dual labeling; one for California and another for the rest of the country. It would be very expensive and a logistical nightmare. So rather than have two labels, they would simply not carry the product, especially if the new label would be the equivalent of a skull and crossbones. This is why we are so committed to this initiative as victory here will likely eliminate genetically engineered foods from the US.
Powerful confirmation of this belief occurred in early 2012 when both Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo Inc. chose to alter one of their soda ingredients as a result of California’s labeling requirements for carcinogens2:

“Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc. are changing the way they make the caramel coloring used in their sodas as a result of a California law that mandates drinks containing a certain level of carcinogens bear a cancer warning label. The companies said the changes will be expanded nationally to streamline their manufacturing processes. They’ve already been made for drinks sold in California.”

This is a PERFECT example of the national impact a California GMO labeling mandate can, and no doubt WILL, have. While California is the only state requiring the label to state that the product contains the offending ingredient, these companies are switching their formula for the entire US market, rather than have two different labels. According to USA Today:

“A representative for Coca-Cola, Diana Garza Ciarlante, said the company directed its caramel suppliers to modify their manufacturing processes to reduce the levels of the chemical 4-methylimidazole, which can be formed during the cooking process and as a result may be found in trace amounts in many foods. “While we believe that there is no public health risk that justifies any such change, we did ask our caramel suppliers to take this step so that our products would not be subject to the requirement of a scientifically unfounded warning,” Garza-Giarlante said in an email.”

Learn More about Genetically Modified (GM) Foods

Due to lack of labeling, many Americans are still unfamiliar with what GM foods are. We have a plan to change that, and I urge you to participate and to continue learning more about GM foods and helping your friends and family do the same.
To start, please print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. You can also download a free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
Your BEST strategy, however, is to simply buy USDA 100% Organic products whenever possible, (as these do not permit GM ingredients) or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers. The majority of the GMO’s you’re exposed to are via processed foods, so by cooking from scratch with whole foods, you can be sure you’re not inadvertently consuming something laced with GM ingredients. When you do purchase processed food, avoid products containing anything related to corn or soy that are not 100 percent organic, as any foods containing these two non-organic ingredients are virtually guaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, as well as toxic herbicide residues.
To learn more about GM foods, I highly recommend the following films and lectures:

Hidden Dangers in Kid’s Meals
Your Milk on Drugs – Just Say No!
Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods

Many have long suspected that U.S. policy on genetically modified (GM) organisms was being influenced by the multinational corporations that profit from genetic engineering and the export-oriented agribusiness. However, recently released Wikileaks cables document just how close that relationship has become.
The U.S. Department of State has virtually become an agency for promoting the private interests of the Monsanto Corporation.
As European social movements pressure their governments for an ongoing moratorium on GM seeds and foods, Monsanto and other biotech corporations have been pushing to find new market footholds, using hybrids even in impoverished Haiti following the January 12, 2010 earthquake. They have been pursuing such goals in collaboration with USAID, the U.S. State Department and the Gates Foundation Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA).
According to Netline:

“The collusion of the Gates Foundation with Monsanto corporation is no accident, as high level officials leading AGRA are former Monsanto executives. The recent purchase by AGRA of $500,000 worth in Monsanto stocks was vivid proof of that close relationship. Despite many words by Gates officials since the inception of the AGRA agenda denying that GMO seeds would be used as part of AGRA, their close relationship with Monsanto has now been revealed to be a key element in their agronomic ‘new green revolution’ strategy.”

In the video above, you can also see Gates’ wrong-headed ideas about vaccines.
Microsoft founder Bill Gates was recently interviewed by CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Sanjay Gupta. Gates was attending the World Economic Forum to push his mission of eradicating polio by 2012. Gates, through his foundation, has pledged $10 billion to provide vaccinations to children around the world .
In the course of the interview, in regards to the vaccine-autism connection, Gates said:

“… [I]t’s an absolute lie that has killed thousands of kids. Because the mothers who heard that lie, many of them didn’t have their kids take either pertussis or measles vaccine, and their children are dead today. And so the people who go and engage in those anti-vaccine efforts — you know, they, they kill children. It’s a very sad thing, because these vaccines are important.”

How can someone so smart also be so confused about this issue? Unfortunately, that may actually be part of the problem.
Bill Gates may be one of the most destructive “do-gooders” on the planet because he is rich enough to get what he wants and he has a high opinion of his own intelligence. It is hard enough fighting Big Pharma, Big Government and Big Medicine on vaccines, but when another opponent is one of the wealthiest and most influential philanthropists in the world, it is even harder.
Fortunately, truth is more powerful than money. It is the only reason that the voices of parents and vaccine injured children continue to be heard above the relentless promotion of lies by the wealthy and powerful.