Aspartame is consumed by over 200 million people around the world. Also known as NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Canderel, Benevia, and E951, the chemical sweetener is found in more than 6,000 products, including carbonated soft drinks, dessert mixes, puddings, frozen desserts, yogurt, low calorie beer, vitamins and sugar-free cough drops. James S. Turner, Esq., a consumer rights lawyer and aspartame educator for over 30 years, tells us the story behind this popular ingredient, and why so many consumers are choosing to avoid it.

The Man Who Changed Our Food

Arthur Hayes Jr., who led the Food and Drug Administration when it approved aspartame in 1981 (NutraSweet) and 1983 (Equal), died February 11, 2010 in Danbury, Connecticut.

According to the February 15 issue of the New York Times, Dr. Hayes granted approval for the use of the sugar substitute aspartame in dry foods and as a tabletop sweetener in 1981. “Research had found,” the Times said, “that aspartame was associated with high rates of cancers in rats that had been given large doses, starting at what would be the equivalent of four to five 20-ounce bottles of diet soda a day for a 150-pound person.”

The Times also said that “research done after Dr. Hayes’s time as commissioner indicated that aspartame can sometimes cause incapacitating headaches and even seizures.” Today, aspartame, which is marketed as NutraSweet (when used as a food additive) and Equal (the tabletop version), is now also used in over 5,000 products like soft drinks, breakfast cereals, pudding mixes and chewing gum.

Here we see a thumbnail sketch of aspartame’s story: a sweet-tasting chemical, in spite of having caused high rates of cancers in rats before approval, and subsequently causing incapacitating headaches and even seizures, receives an FDA go-ahead to be consumed by hundreds of millions of human beings. Clever marketing, creating the soothing names “NutraSweet” and “Equal,” spur sales of the chemical into the billions of dollars.

An even darker story lies behind these few troubling facts.

The First Approval: 1974

In 1965, G.D. Searle & Company chemist James M. Schlatter, working on an anti-ulcer drug, accidentally discovered that aspartame tasted sweet. As did the discoverers of saccharin and cyclamate before him, he licked his finger and for the first time a human tasted what would revolutionize the sweetener market. Searle launched an effort to market their wonder additive, finally succeeding in 1981.

The story leading up to that 1981 approval and the story following it make clear why prudent consumers avoid products containing aspartame. This sweetener consists of the natural amino acids L-aspartic acid and L-phenylalanine, as well as methyl alcohol. It creates byproducts such as free amino acids, methanol and formaldehyde. In certain markets, aspartame is manufactured using a genetically modified variation of E. coli.

Two hundred times sweeter than sugar with almost no calories, aspartame is popular in certain diets. However, in addition to many safety problems, it tastes different than sugar, breaks down in heat, fails in baking, degrades shortening shelf life and loses flavor in some products, leaving an odd aftertaste for some and non-flavor or watery aftertaste for others. Still, smooth marketing turned it into a giant money maker.

In October 1980 an FDA Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) found that aspartame caused an unacceptable level of brain tumors in animal testing and ruled that it should not be added to food. This ruling capped 15 years of regulatory deception by the FDA and Searle (acquired by Monsanto in 1985). Two decades of maneuvering, manipulating and dissembling by FDA, Searle and Monsanto followed the PBOI ruling.

Early tests of aspartame showed it produced microscopic holes and tumors in the brains of experimental mice, epileptic seizures in monkeys, and was converted by animals into dangerous substances, including formaldehyde. In 1974, however, in spite of the information in its files, the FDA approved aspartame as a dry-foods additive. The approval to market was short lived.

Blocking Aspartame/NutraSweet Approval for Seven Years

I, along with Dr. John Olney MD, a prominent brain researcher from Washington University in St. Louis, filed petitions with the FDA seeking a public hearing on the evidence. For the first and only time in its history, the FDA made public the data supporting its food-additive decision. Here was the evidence of monkey seizures, mouse brain cancers, eye damage, and very sloppy laboratory procedures at Searle.

Dr. Olney had already shown that one aspartic acid feeding caused microscopic holes in rat brains. Phenylalanine, aspartame’s second amino acid component, was known to lead to mental retardation, brain damage, and seizures in some susceptible children suffering from Phenylketonuria (PKU). Methanol, aspartame’s third ingredient, is highly toxic to humans and, in large amounts, is know to cause blindness.

Faced with this array of possible health dangers, the FDA granted the hearing requests in lieu of withdrawing its aspartame approval. The agency convinced Searle to refrain from marketing the sweetener until after completion of the hearing process. It then proposed that a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) review the matter. Backing and filling by the agency kept the PBOI from convening until January of 1980.

In July of 1975, while the FDA set up the PBOI, an FDA inspector conducting a routine review of Searle’s testing facilities found many deviations from proper procedures. Animals died and came back to life, aspartame feed got mixed with unsweetened feed, and results seemed fudged. This report spurred Congress to pass laboratory regulations and the FDA commissioner to empanel a Special Task Force to review Searle’s labs.

In December of 1975 the Task force reported serious problems with Searle’s research on a wide range of products, including aspartame. It found 11 pivotal aspartame studies conducted in a manner so flawed as to raise doubts about aspartame safety and create the possibility of serious criminal liability for Searle. Based on this report, the FDA stayed (suspended) aspartame’s approval, keeping the sweetener off the market.

Reviewing the Data

To review the questionable data, the FDA contracted, over serious internal objection, with a group of university pathologists (paid by Searle) to review reporting of the results of most of the studies, set up a task force to review the validity of three studies, and asked the U.S. Attorney for Chicago to seek a grand jury review of the monkey seizure study. Searle managed to thwart each of these efforts.

The pathologists paid by Searle only reviewed the failure to properly report data, while not reviewing the design or conduct of the pivotal studies. They found no serious reporting problems. The FDA task force found Searle’s key tumor safety study unreliable, but this was ignored. The U.S. attorney let the statute of limitations run out, then (along with two aides) proceeded to join Searle’s law firm.

While these committees met, the FDA organized the PBOI. Searle, petitioners Olney and myself, and the FDA Bureau of Foods each nominated three members for the board and the FDA commissioner selected one member from each list. Three world-class scientists made up the board, took evidence, and drafted and signed an unanimous report blocking the further marketing of aspartame.

The board, which convened in January of 1980, rejected the Olney/Turner request that the commissioner’s task force information contained in the Bureau of Drugs be included in its deliberations. Still, in October 1980, looking at only the evidence in Bureau of Foods files, the board blocked aspartame marketing until the tumor studies could be explained. The board said: “approval of aspartame for use in foods should be withheld at least until the question concerning its possible oncogenic (cancer) potential has been resolved by further experiments. The Board has not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive under its intended conditions of use.” Unless the commissioner overruled the board, the matter was closed.

The New Commissioner Intervenes: Politics Overrules the Board

In November 1980, one month after the aspartame PBOI report, the country elected Ronald Reagan President. Donald Rumsfeld (a former congressman from Skokie, Searle’s home town, White House chief of staff, secretary of defense and, since January 1977, Searle’s president) joined Reagan’s transition team. Rumsfeld began a full court press against the board decision, orchestrating aspartame’s approval from inside the administration.

In January 1981 Rumsfeld told a sales meeting (as one attendee reported) that he would call in his chips and get aspartame approved by the end of the year. On January 25th, the day the new president took office, the previous FDA commissioner’s authority was suspended. Three months later the commissioner’s job went to Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, who had done drug research on army recruits while Rumsfeld was defense secretary.

Transition records give no reason for the choice of Hayes, a professor with a defense department connection and no particular background in food and drug regulation. His Pentagon proximity to Rumsfeld seemed the primary explanation. In July, Hayes, defying FDA advisors, approved aspartame for dry foods: his first major decision. In November 1983 the FDA approved aspartame for soft drinks: the last decision on Hayes’s watch.

Also in November 1983, under fire for accepting corporate gifts, with the threat of an abuse of recruits charge from the Army inspector general looming, Hayes left the agency and went to Searle’s public relations firm as senior medical advisor. Later, Searle lawyer Robert Shapiro named aspartame “NutraSweet.” Monsanto purchased Searle. Rumsfeld received a $12 million bonus. Shapiro became Monsanto president.

Shortly after the FDA’s July 1983 soft-drink approval, Searle began test-marketing aspartame drinks, and complaints of dizziness, blurred vision, headaches, and seizures began arriving at the FDA. The complaints were more serious than the agency had ever received on any food additive. At the same time, scientists began looking more closely at this manufactured chemical sweetener.

The Record of Damage Piles Up

In 1985, the FDA asked the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to review the first 650 complaints (there are now over 10,000). The CDC found that the symptoms in approximately 25% of the complainants had stopped and then restarted, corresponding with their having stopped and then restarted aspartame consumption, either purposely or by accident. This finding suggests serious problems for some members of the population.

The FDA discounted the CDC’s report. The day that the FDA released the CDC report, Pepsi (with an advanced copy of the confidential CDC report) announced its switch to aspartame with a worldwide media blitz, drowning out the CDC reports of aspartame harm. The Pepsi announcement and aggressive marketing (millions of gumballs, a red and white swirl, tough contracts) made NutraSweet known in every home. Still the damage reports rolled in.

Data released in 1995 showed that human brain tumors in the general population, like those in the animal studies, had risen 10% and previously benign tumors turned virulent. Searle and the FDA’s deputy commissioner said the data posed no problem. Two years later this same FDA official became vice president of clinical research for Searle.

Current Cancer Science

In the early 21st century the European Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences “B. Ramazzini” in Bologna, Italy presented new animal data suggesting that aspartame was a generalized carcinogen, at the very least involving haemopoietic and lymphoid organs and tissues. At the highest dose level tested in the Ramazzini study, 25% of female rats bore lymphomas-leukemias compared with 8.7% in the controls.

The foundation said: “Because of the globalization of the industrialized diet and the ever-increasing use of artificial sweeteners among billions of people in both industrialized and developing countries, the European Ramazzini Foundation considers its work on sweeteners to be of the highest priority for the protection of public health, in particular the health of children and pregnant women who are among the most vulnerable populations.”

“In light of this goal,” it continued, “and given the inadequacy of most of the previous carcinogenicity studies on artificial sweeteners, we have planned and are conducting additional research, not only on aspartame, but also on other widely diffused artificial sweeteners and blends used in thousands of foods, beverages and pharmaceutical products.”

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the FDA in the U.S., the European Food Safety Authority’s Panel on Food Additives, Flavorings, Processing Aids and Materials (EFSA), and of course the NutraSweet Company all dismiss the new findings. Their most important claim is that human epidemiological studies do not show any difference in cancer rates between consumers and non-consumers of aspartame.

Increasing Demand

The Freedonia Group, a Cleveland-based research firm, reports that U.S. demand for alternative sweeteners in the past decade increased about 4 percent per year to $1.1 billion in 2009. Demand is projected to grow 3.4 percent annually through 2013.

Avoiding Aspartame/NutraSweet Makes Sense

Given the NIH conclusion, the danger warning of the experimental data was underlined by examination of studies done from 1985 to 1995. During that time researchers did about 400 aspartame studies, divided almost evenly between those that gave assurances and those that raised safety questions. Most instructively, Searle paid for 100% of those studies that found no problem. All studies paid for by non-industry sources raised questions.

NIH epidemiological studies are not laboratory studies. Populations are not individual people. The jury is still out on aspartame safety for various susceptible individuals. There is a pattern of potential harm in animal studies and human complaints that raise a red flag. Symptoms come and go as individuals use and stop using aspartame. If NutraSweet is harming people, it is doing so whether scientists know it or not.

Given this record, it is little wonder that many health-conscious people believe that avoiding NutraSweet improves their quality of life. If and when a scientific consensus concludes that aspartame puts some, if not all, of its consumers at risk, it will be much too late. The damage will have been done. The point is to eat safely now. There is no reason to risk the aspartame dangers complained about by so many individuals.

Read the Label

In the U.S. and Canada, foods and beverages that contain aspartame must include “contains phenylalanine” on the label. Be aware that products that contain MSG (monosodium glutamate) also bear a relationship to aspartic acid in aspartame. In the case of medications, look at both the active and inactive ingredients.

The Many Faces of Aspartame

Aspartame is also known as NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Canderel, Benevia, and E951.

Leading aspartame manufacturer Ajinomoto announced in November 2009 that it would be rebranding its artificial sweetener as “AminoSweet” in Europe, the CIS, the Middle East and Africa. Ajinomoto has also developed a vanilla-flavored version of aspartame, called “advantame.” Ajinomoto USA states that: “It is our expectation to obtain the U.S. approval [for the use of advantame in food from the FDA] within two years.” Ajinomoto USA also “intend[s] to apply for [approval in] Australia/New Zealand and Europe.”

Aspartame Alternatives

Alternatives to chemical or artificial sweeteners such as aspartame include: honey, maple syrup, turbinado sugar, fruit, fruit juice concentrates, and various forms of stevia (an herb).

Aspartame and Monsanto

NutraSweet made up an important part of the Monsanto Empire between 1985 and 2000. Here is a road map of how its ownership evolved:

The NutraSweet Company makes and sells NutraSweet, their trademarked brand name for the artificial sweetener aspartame, and Neotame.

Robert B. Shapiro, who worked as an attorney for the Illinois-based G.D. Searle & Company from 1979, became CEO and Chairman of its NutraSweet subsidiary in 1982 where he remained until 1990. Monsanto bought Searle in 1985. When Searle was acquired by Monsanto, Shapiro moved up the management chain in the latter, becoming Vice President in 1990, President in 1993 and CEO in 1995. He remained CEO of Monsanto until 2000. Shapiro oversaw a period of industrial expansion and consumer regulatory approval for the genetically-engineered foodstuff corporation. In 2000 Monsanto merged with the Swedish pharmaceutical company Pharmacia, and Shapiro became chair of this entity until he stepped down in February 2001. In March 2000, Monsanto sold NutraSweet to the private equity firm J.W. Childs.

An Activist’s Toolkit

How would you react if you discovered that most of the foods you ate every day contained hidden ingredients that could be slowly poisoning you?

Disbelief? Sadness? Fear? Anger? Retribution? All of the above? Well, surely the first thing you should do is: STOP EATING THEM! Genetically modified crops such as corn, canola and soy are being used in over 70% of the processed foods available in your local grocery store. So you might be forgiven for thinking that if genetically modified ingredients are so widespread, they must be safe to eat, right? Wrong. It’s just a shame the FDA and the corporate-controlled North American mainstream media persist in turning a blind eye. (See The Big GMO Cover-Up by Jeffrey M. Smith.)

Of course, the last thing that the pro-GM food companies want is for consumers to get informed and use their immense power to force change in the marketplace. This has already happened in Europe where genetically modified ingredients have to be labeled by law. As a result, food companies don’t use genetically modified ingredients! However, in the absence of equivalent labeling requirements in the US or Canada, North American consumers have been left in the dark for over 13 years and are unwittingly taking place in a huge human feeding experiment.

We asked Jeffrey M. Smith, international bestselling author of Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, to give us some practical steps on how to get GMOs out of our diet and off the face of the Earth, forever.

Would you choose genetically modified food if given a choice? Some animals won’t.

There’s a bowl of corn chips in front of you made from natural corn. Next to it are genetically modified (GM) corn chips. Which do you choose?

If you were a pig or cow, we know the answer—the natural corn. In 1998 and 1999, several farmers in Northwest Iowa repeatedly let pigs or cows into pens with troughs of GM corn and non-GM corn. The animals would head straight to the closer trough, filled with the genetically modified organisms (GMOs). They’d sniff, maybe take a nibble, then go over to the trough with the natural corn. After finishing off the last kernel, they’d stop by the GM corn one more time just to check it out, but quickly walk away.

An Iowa farmer who read about the finicky livestock decided to see if squirrels had similar dispositions. He nailed ears of GM corn and non-GM corn onto trees by his house. Sure enough, the squirrels ate only the natural stuff, over and over again. When the farmer stopped replacing the natural corn, the squirrels still refused to touch the GMO. After 10 cold winter days, they got up the courage to nibble a few kernels, but that was all they could handle.

Another curious farmer wanted to repeat this with the squirrels in his area. He bought a bag full of GM corn ears, and another of non-GM, and left it in his garage to wait for winter. He waited too long. Mice did the experiment for him. They broke into the natural corn bag and finished it. The GM cobs were untouched.

Farmers, gardeners, reporters, and scientists have noticed similar behavior on at least four continents. Chickens, elk, deer, and raccoons avoided GM corn, while geese, rats, and buffalo refused GM soy, tomatoes, and cottonseed, respectively. Why are animals put off by genetically engineered food? No one knows for sure, but let’s get back to the GM corn chips still sitting in front of you.

Dangerous side-effects

Genetic material from bacteria and viruses are forced into the corn’s DNA, which is then cloned into a plant. This process leads to substantial collateral damage, including changes in hundreds or thousands of natural corn genes, plus widespread mutations. Most of the side-effects are never tested for. We do know, for example, that an allergy-producing gene, normally silent, gets switched on in a Monsanto corn variety. Proteins change shape, which might be a serious health hazard. And a compound called lignin is significantly overproduced. Lignin on its own may not be so bad, but in the process of producing it, the plant also produces rotenone, a natural pesticide linked to Parkinson’s disease. No one has tested your chips to see they contain more rotenone.

Bayer’s Liberty Link corn have added genes that allow the corn to withstand high doses of Roundup or Liberty herbicide. These varieties, therefore, have more weedkiller residues. Other GM varieties have inserted genes from bacteria that produce an insect killing toxin in every cell (and in every bite).

In addition, genes inserted into GM crops don’t necessarily stay put. In the only human GM feeding experiment— done with Roundup Ready soy— functioning genes transferred into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines. This means that millions of Americans probably have Roundup Ready gut bacteria—unkillable with Roundup herbicide. No one has yet looked to see if GM corn genes also transfer. If they do, their insecticide-producing genes could turn your gut flora into living pesticide factories, continuously producing toxins inside you—long after you finish your bowl of chips.

Have you made your decision yet? If you still need encouragement, check out “The Big GMO Cover-Up” in UGM007 to find out why the American Academy of Environmental Medicine wants doctors across the country to prescribe non-GMO diets to everyone.

But aren’t GMOs supposed to feed the world?

If you’re feeling some moral imperative to support GMOs, that’s understandable. The biotech industry spent more than $250 million convincing you that its gene-spliced foods are the answer to the sick and starving. So don’t be embarrassed if you fell for it. Many leading US politicians have likewise been mesmerized by this long-running PR ploy. Clinton’s Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman spoke candidly to a St. Louis Post Dispatch reporter about the pro-GMO attitude embedded in the US government:

“It was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. … And if you’re against it, you’re Luddites, you’re stupid. … You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view.”

Glickman acknowledged that he too “spouted the rhetoric,” admitting, “it was written into my speeches.” The current Ag Secretary, Tom Vilsack, is the latest GMO cheerleader. As Iowa’s governor, he gave Monsanto an award in 2000, and the next year was anointed Biotech Governor of the Year by the biotech industry trade organization.

In October 2009, Vilsack tried to play the “feed the world” card at a conference sponsored by the Community Food Security Coalition. Bad move Tom. The people in the room were actually experts at feeding the world. Attendees included numerous PhDs and eminent scholars, such as the co-chairman and several leading authors of the authoritative IAASTD report, the world’s most comprehensive evaluation of agriculture.

This crowd knew that GMOs had no answers for world hunger. The IAASTD report, for example, concluded that the current generation of GMOs does not reduce hunger and poverty, does not improve nutrition, and does not facilitate social and environmental sustainability. A comprehensive analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that GMOs do not increase yield; in fact, on average they reduce yield. A USDA study showed that farmers’ income doesn’t increase, and in some cases, it decreases. And it doesn’t help the overall economy either. The federal government has been spending $3-5 billion per year to prop up the prices of the GM crops no one else wants.

Thus, when Secretary Vilsack invoked “the ever-increasing population of the globe and the capacity to be able to feed all of those people” as the excuse to promote GMOs, he was greeted by moans, groans, hisses, and even boos. That didn’t stop Vilsack from playing the same card two days later, but this time he was at the World Food Prize conference. That’s sponsored by the biotech industry, so they were overjoyed that the Ag Secretary was still supporting their myth.

How Do You Choose Non-GMO?

Are you now ready to choose the bowl of natural chips? If so, you’re not alone. Most Americans, according to a CBS/New York Times poll, would also choose foods made without genetically modified organisms (GMOs) if they knew which was which—if they were labeled. But unlike most other industrialized nations, GMOs don’t have to be labeled in the US or Canada. Therefore, avoiding GM foods here takes some doing.

Tip #1: Buy Organic

The best way is to buy organic foods, which don’t allow the use of GMOs. And you also benefit from organics’ higher average levels of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants, as well as lower pesticide residues.

Tip #2: Look for “non-GMO” labels

Some companies voluntarily label products as “non-GMO.” The best label is now the Non-GMO Project Verified seal. It’s the new uniform, third-party-verified standard for non-GMO claims that is spreading through the industry.

Tip #3: Consult the Non-GMO Shopping Guide

For a handy list of non-GMO brands by category, go to www. NonGMOShoppingGuide.com. View it online, download or order copies, and look for the Mobile Phone Application coming soon.

Tip #4: Avoid at-risk ingredients

If it’s not labeled organic or non- GMO, and the brand is not listed in the Guide, look at the ingredient panel to see if it contains any at-risk GMOs. The most pervasive GMOs are derivatives of corn and soy. Here are some common ones: (A more comprehensive list is available in the Non-GMO Shopping Guide.)

Corn: flour, meal, oil, starch, gluten, and syrups. Sweeteners such as fructose, dextrose, and glucose.

Soy: flour, oil, lecithin, protein, isolate, and isoflavones.

Oil from canola and cottonseed is genetically modified. Sugar from GM sugar beets was introduced in late 2008, but a recent ruling in a federal lawsuit may eventually drive it out of our food supply. For now, if the sugar doesn’t say pure cane, it’s likely blended with beet sugar.

Other than corn, there are only three items in the produce section that may be genetically modified. That includes papaya from Hawaii (yes, only Hawaii) and a small amount of zucchini and yellow squash. Mercifully, popcorn is not GMO.

Aspartame, the artificial sweetener also known as NutraSweet and Equal, is derived from GM microorganisms.

Meat, fish, eggs and dairy: FDA scientists had warned that animals fed GMOs might bioaccumulate toxins, which end up in milk, meat, or eggs. Their concerns were ignored and no safety studies have looked into this. Most US livestock, and even farmed fish, are fed GM soy or corn. To avoid GM-fed animal products, buy organic, wild caught, or 100% grass-fed. Fortunately, there are no genetically modified fish, fowl, or livestock yet approved for human consumption.

Dairy products also carry the risk that the cows were injected with genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbST or rbGH). The milk from drugged cows has more pus, antibiotics, bovine growth hormone, and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF- 1). IGF-1 is a powerful hormone and a high risk factor for cancer. That’s primarily why the American Public Health Association, American Nurses Association, and many other groups condemn the use of rbGH. Consumer concerns about rbGH have forced Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Dannon, Yoplait, and most of the major dairies in the US to stop using the hormone. Look for labels, consult the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, or buy organic dairy products.

How to Avoid GMOs in Restaurants

When eating at restaurants, it is not too hard to identify non-GMO options if your restaurant cooks from scratch. If they use processed foods, which is true of fast food places, they will have hidden GM ingredients.

For meals cooked from scratch, you will be able to easily identify most GMO food items. Corn products include tortillas, corn bread, corn on the cob, polenta, and corn chowder. Soy products include tofu, teriyaki and soy sauce.

The hidden ingredients are usually the oils used for cooking and salad dressing. Most restaurant cooking oil is from soy, corn, cottonseed, and canola—all GMOs. If they say vegetable oil or margarine, it means it is almost certainly one of these.

Therefore, your first question is, “What oil do you cook with?” If they use GMO oils, ask if they have anything that is cooked without oil, or if olive oil or some other oil can be used. If they have olive oil, be sure it’s not a blend. Many restaurants blend canola and olive.

Go through the same routine for the oil used in salad dressing, and for the shortening in desserts.

But for the sweet stuff, the GMO threats include sugar from beets, high fructose corn syrup, and aspartame. Since most processed foods contain GM derivatives (corn and soy, for example), ask what foods are freshly prepared. But check if packaged sauces are used.

Other potential sources of GM foods at restaurants include bread, crackers, and mayonnaise.

Moving GMOs out of the market

The declining fortunes of rbGH demonstrate the power of informed consumers. As more and more people linked the milk hormone to cancer, marketing executives realized that allowing their suppliers to use the controversial drug was bad for sales. Because the mainstream media has been pretty silent on the health effects, it took a few years of a concerted consumer education campaign to start the dominoes falling. If the hazards of rbGH had made headline news, the tipping point would have been swift.

The experience of GMOs in Europe shows us just how swift markets can move. In late January of 1999, biotech representatives predicted that 95% of all commercial seeds would be genetically engineered by 2004. But just a few weeks later, their plans to replace nature crashed. On February 16th, the gag order imposed on a scientist who had conducted GMO safety studies was lifted by order of the UK Parliament. When Dr. Arpad Pusztai, the top scientist in his field, discovered the extensive damage that a GMO diet can cause, he was fired after 35 years and silenced with threats of legal action. When he finally was able to speak, all hell broke loose.

Within the week, the European press reeled off 159 column feet of articles. Within the month, 750 articles on GMOs were circulating. According to one editor, the coverage divided society into two warring blocks. Within just 10 weeks, the tipping point of consumer rejection was achieved. GM ingredients had become a marketing liability. At the end of April, Unilever publicly committed to remove GMOs from its European brands. Within the week, so did nearly every other major food company.

These same companies continue to use GM ingredients in the US, where the Pusztai controversy was not reported. Here, only one in four people are even aware that they’ve ever eaten a genetically engineered food in their lives.

Engineering a North American tipping point

The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to achieve a tipping point of consumer rejection of GMOs in the US. Several indicators suggest that it’s not far off. A December 2009 issue of Supermarket News, for example, predicted: “The coming year promises to bring about a greater, more pervasive awareness” of the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food supply. This trade publication, which is used by food executives as a source of industry news and trends, attributed the coming uprising in part to the Campaign’s new Non-GMO Shopping Guide.

The article describes how food “culprits” such as fat, carbs, salt, and added sugar can “define the decade” for the food industry; companies scramble to create new low-culprit or culprit-free options. When the specter of GMO health dangers surfaces onto consumers’ radar screen, however, there will be a significant difference. Whereas traditional ingredient culprits offer some consumer appeal like better taste or texture, GM foods do not. Furthermore, companies can usually eliminate GMOs without even changing recipes. They can simply substitute the non-GMO soy or non-GM corn, without reformulating.

Therefore, when the industry gets hit with the anti-GMO tipping point, they won’t create separate brand options of low GMO or GMO-free. Instead, they will eliminate all GMOs from their brands and proudly proclaim that here as they do in Europe.

The number of shoppers rejecting GMOs need only be a tiny amount, perhaps 5% of Americans, in order to convince food companies to do a brand-wide GMO clean-out. But when you look at the numbers, no matter how you slice it, they add up to a coming non-GMO tidal wave.

More than 9% of Americans regularly buy organic. About 29% are strongly opposed to GM foods and believe they are unsafe. And 53% say they would avoid GMOs if labeled. While most people do not conscientiously avoid brands with GM ingredients, it’s usually because they don’t know how. Hence the importance of the Non-GMO Shopping Guide.

Time to take charge

There are so many people predisposed to reject GMOs, we can achieve a tipping point without ever having to convince those who are resistant. Just by educating the people who want to know why GMOs are unsafe and how to avoid them, we can kick GMOs out of the food supply. The Campaign offers educational tools that are easy to use and to pass onto others. There are right-brain books, left-brain books, videos for the visual learner, brochures, articles, podcasts, CDs, PowerPoints, and of course, shopping guides.

The Campaign also provides strategies and support materials designed specifically for the most receptive targeted groups: healthand environmentally-conscious shoppers, parents, healthcare professionals, chefs and food service professionals, and even religious groups. If you would like to lend a hand and help protect the health of those you care about, visit www.healthiereating.org and look at the action items and tools available.

Little did you know that a bowl of chips would turn you into an activist…

International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology (www. healthiereating.org). His first book, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating, is the world’s bestselling and #1 rated book on GMOs. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, documents 65 health risks of the GM foods Americans eat everyday. To help you choose healthier, non-GMO brands, use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide.