This page is an expose of some of the more commonly mentioned anti-aspartame "experts". Some of these individuals have no direct experience performing any peer-reviewed scientific or medical research on the subject of aspartame, while others who have performed such research have either not passed the peer-review process or they've had their research shown as flawed. Some of these supposed experts include:

Dr. H.J. Roberts M.D., author of some popular anti-aspartame literature and "World Aspartame Expert".

Dr. Ralph G. Walton M.D., author of the much vaulted anti-aspartame "Walton Study" on The Aspartame Industry's supposed influence upon the medical & scientific communities.

Dr. John Olney M.D., medical researcher often referenced by anti-aspartamers as having found a relationship between the use of aspartame and the incidence of brain cancer.

Betty Martini, an anti-aspartame "super activist" and author of the infamous Markle email.

Dr. H.J. Roberts M.D. -- Dr. Roberts is one of the medical "experts" that the anti-aspartamers most often site for proof of their claims. However, a little investigating into the activities of Dr. Roberts reveals that he has no direct research experience with aspartame... all he's done is write popular books (which are NOT peer-reviewed medical research) and some letters-to-the-editor on the topic of aspartame.

Despite his supposed expertise, it seems that Dr. Roberts might be acting somewhat shifty when advertising his "credentials":

When advertising his books, Dr. Roberts claims that he "is a three-time Pulitzer prize nominee". However, the site mentioned above finds that this claim is untrue...

"The only occurrences of the name "Roberts" are:

1957 SPECIAL AWARDS AND CITATIONS - LETTERS [Winner - Special Award] Kenneth Roberts

A special citation is awarded to Kenneth Roberts for his historical novels which have long contributed to the creation of greater interest in our early American history.

1974 COMMENTARY [Winner] Edwin A. Roberts Jr. of National Observer

For his commentary on public affairs during 1973.

SPOT NEWS PHOTOGRAPHY [Winner] Anthony K. Roberts, a free-lance photographer of Beverly Hills, Calif.

For his picture series, "Fatal Hollywood Drama," in which an alleged kidnapper was killed.

2001 EDITORIAL WRITING [Nominated Finalist] - Laurie Roberts of Arizona Republic

For her persuasive editorial series urging reform of the process by which the state draws its legislative and congressional districts.

So - Dr Roberts lies about his knighthood and lies about his Pulitzer Prize nominations. What else does he say that is not true?"

In addition, his book "Aspartame (Nutrasweet): Is It Safe?" was reviewed by the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most respected scientific-medical journals there is, with some pretty damaging criticism. This is the full text of the book review in NEJM, 1990, vol. 323, no. 21, pp.1495-6:

"Aspartame (Nutrasweet): Is It Safe? by HJ Roberts, 315 pp. Philadelphia, Charles Press, 1990, \\$19.95.

The author, an internist from West Palm Beach, Florida, became suspicious that many of his patients' symptoms were caused by aspartame. He prepared a questionnaire for his patients that was later given to persons across the country who thought they were having reactions to this sugar substitute.

Headache, dizziness, fatigue, memory loss, mood swings, changes in vision, nausea, diarrhea, unexplained pains, sleep and personality disorders, and the like are nonspecific and very common complaints among persons consulting a physician. When frequent symptoms are matched with the use of a widely consumed product, it is very likely that a chance association will appear. For comparison, the same questionnaire should have been given to a control group not taking aspartame and to another group taking aspartame but without apparent complaints. Only unbiased comparisons of these groups would shed some light on the question of safety.

The author then asked patients who were already convinced that aspartame was the cause of their symptoms to stop using it. The results are predictably biased, because of the counterplacebo effect, but he presents them as scientific evidence. He writes that he is aware of "suggestibility" and "self-serving sensationalism." Nevertheless, he published this book for the general public, full of personal anecdotes of "severe" and "dramatic" reactions, along with the frequent diagnosis of "reactive hypoglycemia," causing "full blown convulsions," "precipitating migraine headaches," and "narcolepsy."

Dr. Roberts did not apply rigid scientific method to test his hypothesis, but presents it as fact to the general public without previous scrutiny by his peers. He quotes the Wall Street Journal and other newspapers as often as the scientific press. By the time he raises the question of a connection between aspartame and Alzheimer's disease, his credibility will be questioned even by lay readers. Roberts presents and then criticizes the way the Food and Drug Administration approved aspartame as a food additive, not as a drug. Some of his points are valid. The system, like democracy, is not perfect, but it is the best we have. The author positions himself as a lone crusader fighting industry, government, and the medical establishment ("organizations and individuals having a vested interest").

This type of book raises many questions for the medical community. Is it right for a physician with a hypothesis to write a book of this nature without first seeking scientific proof and presenting the data to a medical journal or society? I appreciate the concern and effort of the author, but my reaction to his book is as negative as it is strong. There is no place for a publication such as this one. It only adds to public misinformation, confusion and mistrust. There are many other medical and scientific avenues available. I hope the author will continue his effort using more rigid scientific methods, in order to present it to his peers. He has a right to write, but he also has a responsibility as a physician. Freedom of the press relies as much on the honesty and responsibility of the writer as on the government that supports it.

Arturo R. Rolla, M.D.
Harvard Medical School
Boston, MA 02115"

Just to note something pointed out by the reviewer:

"Dr. Roberts did not apply rigid scientific method to test his hypothesis, but presents it as fact to the general public without previous scrutiny by his peers."

This displays a glaring flaw (yet again) in the primary arguments of the anti-aspartamers. They repeatedly site Dr. Roberts' literature as "proof" that aspartame kills, causes cancer, gives people toxic poisoning, and so on, yet all they're really doing is making a classic pseudo-scientific argument from authority. That is, they would rather base their conclusions (i.e., aspartame kills!) on the words of a doctor who has done no peer-reviewed research on the matter simply because he is an M.D. who agrees with them. Never mind that the M.D.s and scientists who have done the peer-reviewed, rigorous medical research find that Dr. Roberts' assertions are unfounded.

Watch out, because apparently Dr. Roberts is going to be publishing another book -- "Aspartame: An Ignored Epidemic". Here's what a prominent anti-aspartamer in California has to say about the good doctor's most recent "medical research":

"I can honestly say I've waited 3 years, my entire tenure in the 'Diet Coke Wars', for Dr. H.J. Robert's book "Aspartame: An Ignored Epidemic"

What are 'they' (the medical hierarchy) going to say; what are 'they' going to do? Will the book and Dr. Roberts and the truth about aspartame burst into the main stream media as it did in 1996 when Dr. John Olney of Washington University proved the link between brain tumors and aspartame?

'They' media blitzed Dr. Olney and I cite the Dec. 31, 1996 air date of the '60 Minute' segment on aspartame and brain tumors as the end of truthful information about aspartame (Equal,NutraSweet) in the mainstream media.

The blitz to Mission Possible has been more like a 'media drip' with the same PR release about aspartame danger being an Internet Hoax well placed throughout the year, in USA, Time magazine, CNN and in the 'Health' column of the perfidious Jane E. Brody (of the NY Times) who in 1985 wrote an article for her newspaper, the Times, about aspartame danger. I wrote to Betty that Brody proved herself an industry nightwalker or she had lost her memory from aspartame in the ensuing 15 years between articles-- memory loss being No. 6 on the FDA list of aspartame symptoms.

Dr. Roberts is presenting the world medical profession with 1000 pages of medical expertise and evidence."

Okay, I see it now... Dr. Roberts is fighting the lonely battle to rid the world of the evil that is aspartame, and there are numerous conspiracies afoot among the scientific & medical communities, the media, the government, and so on aligned against his righteous cause. You know, this is just the kind of thing that might make it onto the FOX Network.

I also find the following quote revealing:

"Dr. Roberts is presenting the world medical profession with 1000 pages of medical expertise and evidence."

Oh really?! 1000 pages of evidence, eh? Never mind that such popular books are not considered by the professional medical & scientific communities to be valid peer-reviewed research. But then that is also conveniently explained... The Conspiracy again.

Despite the fact that he is a doctor, Dr. Roberts' opinion is not Gospel and shouldn't be treated as such; no one person's opinion is worth that much. The true test of whether or not a scientist's or doctor's opinion is accurate is rigorous scientific analysis, and under such scrutiny Dr. Roberts' claims are just nothing more than hot air...

... or he could be right and there really is a World Wide Aspartame Conspiracy! Hmmm, how's this for a conspiracy theory -- maybe Dr. Roberts makes a pretty good deal of money writing his books and quack "medical research"? What do you think?

Dr. Ralph G. Walton M.D. -- Dr. Walton has written a report entitled "SURVEY OF ASPARTAME STUDIES: CORRELATION OF OUTCOME AND FUNDING SOURCES" (the article can be referenced at this link). This report is often cited by anti-aspartame activists as being iron-clad proof that all of the studies that support the safety of aspartame are biased and therefore any research that absolves aspartame of the "Aspartame Kills!" claims cannot be trusted. At first glance, the Walton Study seems to lend some validity to the rampant conspiracy mongering about The Aspartame Industry, but upon closer scrutiny more and more flaws appear in this study. For a more detailed analysis of the Walton Study, see the following link to the Aspartame Truth Information Site:

Fundamental Flaws in the Walton Study

I'd just like to briefly summarize a few things about the Walton Study that the hardcore anti-aspartamers somehow overlook whenever they spout off about the dangers of aspartame...

Point #1. Of the 92 studies in the report, 37 are cited as "non-industry funded" and all 37 are also marked as "Adverse Reaction Identified". This is, at the very least, extremely misleading on the part of Dr. Walton, in my opinion. At this point I will quote Alan Raetz, author of the Aspartame Truth Information Site:

"Of the 37 entries, 10 are letters and 3 are reviews. We want to compare research to research. It doesn't take research to write a letter. This leaves 24 valid entries. Note that one of the letters was counted twice (Wurtman, 1983) and another (Blundell JE, et al., 1986) is on the subject of "appetite", which isn't relevant to human safety.

There were 11 experiments or clinical studies with abstracts included. 7 of them do not show obvious harmful effects even though they are marked as "adverse reaction identified"...

...Of the four experiments that do have negative effects, two are Olney's (1970,1980). These are the often cited experiments that showed that aspartame in large quantities can lead to brain damage in laboratory mice.

The third is Mahalik (1984). It shows damage to mouse neonates following maternal exposure to aspartame. Note that this experiment was duplicated by McAnulty (1989), but the McAnulty experiment showed that aspartame had no negative effects under the similar conditions.

The fourth is Bradstock (1986), which is a review of FDA consumer complaints. The abstract states: "We analyzed 231 consumer complaints associated with the food additive aspartame. Using this method, we found no clear symptom complex that suggests a widespread public health hazard associated with aspartame use; however, we identified some case reports in which the symptoms may be attributable to aspartame in commonly-consumed amounts." Yes, adverse reactions were identified, but only because the entire subject pool was composed of people who complained of these reactions. If we apply this same criteria to a number of the "Industry-Funded" studies, they would also fall under the "adverse reaction identified" category--but that would counter this studies conclusions, wouldn't it?"

Point #2. Dr. Walton gets a little hazy on just exactly what the wording "Adverse Reaction Identified" actually means. I mean, hey, the phrase does sound like bad news, but what does it really mean? Alan Raetz reveals some more interesting information about the criteria applied by Walton in his study:

"Notice the wording to the negative claims. It's labeled, "Adverse reaction identified". This is so broad it can include anything. If a group of subjects in both the placebo and experimental group have reactions, then an "adverse reaction was identified", right? If an experiment on laboratory rats found that seizures (induced by other means) were promoted with aspartame dosages a thousand times above the human equivelant safety level, then an "adverse reaction was identified", correct? From my actual analysis, I found studies that show changes in brain chemistry are marked "adverse reaction identified", even though the researchers themselves make no such claims anywhere within the study."

So what we're seeing here is that Dr. Walton labels the studies as having identified "adverse reactions" to aspartame when in fact the actual scientists who conducted the research drew no such conclusions! Hmmm, perhaps the good "Doctor" needs to go back to school and learn how to do real science, eh? At the very least, he needs to be more honest about how he reports scientific research and not put words into the mouths of other researchers.

Point #3. There are clearly numerous problems with the manner in which the Walton Study was conducted. The basic methodology is flawed on many counts, mostly due to the lack of conducting the study in a blinded manner; thus, researcher bias can easily creep in to skew the "results" of the study. Again, some more elaboration from Alaz Raetz's website:

==> The criteria for sorting the studies should be clearly stated so that ambiguity is minimized. It should apply to the conclusions stated by the authors, not later subjective readings (since funding will effect their conclusions, not ours).

==> The current categories represent a false dicotomy: it seems there are only two types of studies, those that support the safety of aspartame, and those that deny it. Clearly there is also an "other" category; studies that neither support nor deny that aspartame is safe.

==> These studies should have been sorted in a blinded fashion, by subjects educated in biochemistry and experimental methods, but who has have no exposure or predefined opinion to the aspartame debate. The sorting should have taken place without their knowledge of the funding source of each study, (or/and) without the knowledge that the studies would be later sorted into categories of funding. No method was stated, but I have I hard time believing this study sorted the research in a blinded fashion.

==> The method of obtaining the funding source information isn't included. "Funding source" is the main measure of this data, and without methodology, it may as well be heresay (ie, the results show aspartame is safe, therefore it was funded by Nutrasweet). Did the researcher of this study personally contact someone listed in the citation? Is it only a reflection of the funding statement in the study?

So, due to the sloppy manner in which the Walton Study was conducted, Dr. Walton could basically draw any conclusions he wanted while feeling justified in those conclusions. Of course, in scientific circles there is the much needed peer-review process that is critical to pointing out researcher errors and bias, which brings me to my next point...

Point #4. The Walton Study has not appeared in any peer-reviewed medical journal for distribution to the medical and scientific communities! This is a little known fact that Dr. Walton and other anti-aspartamers will not share with you. Gee, I wonder why not? Could it be that the Walton Study is considered by respected scientific & medical journals as not being well-conducted and objective research, and this is why the Walton Study doesn't show up in the literature? Or, could it be a result of...

THE ASPARTAME CONSPIRACY??!!!

Go figure, Dr. Walton's research is horribly flawed and his bias wrecks all credibility that he has as an objective researcher on this topic... so why do the anti-aspartamers keep on referencing his work? Hmmm, good question.

Dr. John Olney M.D. -- In 1996, a study conducted by Olney et al was released: "Increasing brain tumor rates: Is there a link to Aspartame?" This article may be referenced at this PubMed-Medline link. This article did pass the peer-review process, and so it is referenced quite often by anti-aspartamers as "proof" that aspartame causes brain cancer. However, Olney's research and the propoganda of the anti-aspartamers don't tell you the entire story (gee whiz, imagine that)...

For example, the National Cancer Institute performed a follow-up study based upon Olney's research. Interestingly enough, the anti-aspartamers neglect to show you what the NCI found:

"Aspartame, a third type of artificial sweetener, was approved in 1981 by the FDA after tests showed that it did not cause cancer in laboratory animals, although not all the laboratory experiments agreed. At present, aspartame is a common artificial sweetener and is distributed under the trade name of Nutrasweet or Equal. Interest in aspartame was renewed by a 1996 publication which suggests that an increase in the number of persons with brain tumors between 1975 and 1992 may be associated with the introduction and use of this sweetener in the United States. However, a recent analysis of NCI statistics on cancer incidence in the United States does not support an association between the use of aspartame and an increased incidence of brain tumors. These data show that the overall incidence of brain and central nervous system cancers began to rise in 1973, 8 years before the approval of aspartame, and continued to rise until 1985. Increases in overall brain cancer incidence have occurred primarily in the 70 and older age group, a group that has not been exposed to the highest doses of aspartame since its 1981 introduction. Since 1985, the incidence of these cancers has stabilized, and, in the last 2 years for which data are available (1991 to 1993), the incidence has, in fact, decreased slightly. Thus, at this time, there is no clear link, based on animal or human studies, between the use of aspartame and the development of brain tumors."

So upon further and deeper analysis, it appears that Dr. Olney found nothing more than a temporary correlation between aspartame usage and brain cancer incidence. It should also be noted now that correlation is not causation! To elaborate, here's an example of a similar bad argument:

"In the summertime, people consume more ice-cream. At the same time, there are more violent crimes committed in the summer. Therefore, the consumption of ice-cream causes people to become violent."

Of course, we know that eating ice-cream no more causes people to become violent than looking at the moon turns people into werewolves. It seems that not only the anti-aspartamers at large make this basic mistake (i.e., confusing correlation with causation), Olney seems to have made the same error. As a medical researcher, shouldn't Dr. Olney know better than to make this kind of mistake? Alas, this is the reason why he is held up to such scrutiny and ridicule in medical and scientific circles methinks.

In addition, there are other flaws in the Olney Study that appear to cast further doubt upon the validity of his research and conclusions. See what the Junkscience.com website has to say about Dr. Olney's research:

Nutrasweet and Brain Tumors

==> It is physiologically impossible for aspartame to be a carcinogen. Asparatame is metabolized by the body into comon dietary components, including amino acids. Aspartame never enters the blood stream.

==> No exposure data. Olney et al. have no data that show that any of the people who got brain cancer during the 1980s consumed any aspartame.

==> Faulty correlation between brain cancer incidence and aspartame consumption increase. The increase in brain cancer since 1973 has since been leveling off. In contrast, since 1981, consumption of aspartame has skyrocketed. (I had two Diet Cokes while writing this!).

==> Rats! The laboratory rats used to test aspartame were Sprague-Dawley rats — rats that are genetically programmed to get cancer just by living. According to Dr. Adalbert Koestner, an expert in brain tumor pathology from Ohio State University, the reported incidence in brain tumors among the rats was "well within the range of spontaneous brain tumors" normally experienced by Sprague-Dawley rats.

Well, so much for the full story on Dr. Olney's research -- again we see the biased and incomplete manner in which the anti-aspartamers and their "experts" report their illustrious medical research. If the work of Dr. Olney is the best that the anti-aspartamers can do in their misguided hysteria, then no wonder the scientific & medical communities don't take their claims seriously...

... which begs an interesting question: If the scientific & medical community doesn't take the "Aspartame Kills!" claims seriously, then why should you?

Betty Martini -- From what I can tell, she is somewhat like the leader or the "super-activist" of the anti-aspartame advocates. There is no doubt in my own mind that the anti-aspartamers look to her for guidance and leadership. Dave Emery, an Internet urban legend and hoax debunker at About.com discovered that it was Ms. Martini who had sent out the original email scare (the Markle email) concerning aspartame a few years back. Specifically, he states about Martini that:

"Ms. Martini, who is not a physician but says she has worked in the medical profession, has waged a single-minded battle for years against what she calls "the propaganda put out by industry and the FDA" regarding aspartame. To that end, she founded an organization called "Mission Possible International," represented on such Websites as Dave Rietz's http://www.dorway.com, which houses a vast archive of anti-aspartame literature."

In addition, some digging by other Internet pseudoscience debunkers has yielded even more revealing and embarassing information about Betty Martini:

"It is hard to wander around in the alternative medicine jungle of the Internet without coming across archloon Betty Martini and her insane campaign against Aspartame. It now seems that Betty has branched out into the cancer curing business and, according to a message she sent to a mailing list, she knows of "800 who were cured from colon cancer, to breast cancer to Hodgkin's lymphoma". She has been advised of the Cancer 100 Challenge but has yet to respond. Apparently, there are two magic formulas which cure cancer, #55 which contains powered rhubarb, spikenard, black snakeroot and lady slipper, and #99 which contains black cohosh roots, spikenard roots, wild cherry bark, mullein leaf, lady slipper powder, tincture of iron, quinine sulfate and oil of wintergreen. No quantities are given for the ingredients. Betty says that thousands of people know the recipe, so, while we are waiting for her to send me the papers so I can get her a Nobel Prize, I would appreciate it if someone who knows could tell me how to mix these things up."

It would appear that Betty Martini is the one who is the source for much of the conspiracy mongering and hysteria surrounding unsubstantiated fears of "aspartame poisoning". Note all of the assertions she makes despite her lack of medical training; now I know that she says that she has "worked in the medical profession", but in what capacity? Surely if she had real medical or scientific training she would let everyone know, wouldn't she? If she was an M.D. or an R.N. or an L.P.N., it'd be nice to know. However, the phrase "worked in the medical profession" is, in my opinion, just another misleading statement that is meant to make the reader of her emails think that she's got a shred of credibility. Of course, I would point out that if she worked as a secretary in a doctor's office, I suppose that would also qualify as having "worked in the medical profession", now wouldn't it? No offense to Ms. Martini, but I think that she puts on way more than she really knows.

In addition, Betty recently had an interesting rant on the email list for anti-aspartamers. In the post are some very interesting (to say the least) views that she has regarding cancer, aspartame, abortion, the FDA, and alternative medicine. As just a sample, here are some selected quotes:

"It took the tobacco people 50 years to confess. Aspartame besides embalming consumers damages DNA which can destroy a species (Trocho Study, Barcelona, l998). How long will it take the FDA/Searle/ Monsanto to confess. Its time you start, Jane Henney. We're facing probably the largest plague in world history. We had to build an extra room just to contain the records - proof positive of GENOCIDE!...

... Cancer is curable if the FDA would stop outlawing herbs they know can heal the body and cure it, and stop approving carcinogens for food they know can kill people."

Proof positive of genocide, eh? Well, even though I agree with her sentiments about tobacco, depsite her continuous rants and raves, there is still no conclusive clinical evidence supporting her claims. Of course, that's because of The Conspiracy, right?

Incidentally, Betty Martini's claims about herbs being able to cure cancer are more alternative medicine, homeopathic garbage. Check out this link to Quackwatch's Message for Cancer Patients to get more information on the bogus and highly dangerous claims made by too many proponants of "natural cancer cures".

Betty also has a habit of ranting at and accusing anyone who disagrees with her conclusions of being involved with The Conspiracy or in the pocket of Nutrasweet. She even claims that such individuals need to "get closer to God". Check out some of Betty's latest rants...

In addition, I recently (as of March 21st, 2005) discovered that Betty Martini is now being ostracized from other anti-aspartame advocates for "credibility problems"! It seems that her one-time allies at the Aspartame Victims Support Group are trying to distance themselves from her because they claim they "do not want our efforts to be tied to the negative publicity that she has received."

And, just in case those fine, upstanding folks at those above sites decide to get rid of their embarassing disclaimer regarding Betty, I will provide it in full (as of March 21st, 2005) here for you to read...

DISCLAIMER: The owners of the website, The Aspartame Victims Support Group, do not endorse any statements made by Betty Martini. Niether do we discount them on the the grounds that she might have disseminated them. We are not associated with her, and we will be re-doing this website in the future to clearly reflect that. We are aware that she has certain alleged credibility problems, and we do not want our efforts to be tied to the negative publicity that she has received. In any event, there is no question in our minds that aspartame is toxic, since we are all victims of aspartame ourselves, and when we stopped using it, in almost all cases our symptoms disappeared. In any event, the issue of aspartame, in spite of the impression given by public relations firms in the hire of aspartame sellers and the like, is not in any way tied to the person of Betty Martini. Her crediblity is not what determines whether aspartame is safe or not.

Okay then, Ms. Martini rants on and on about conspiracy theories (what's next, UFOs?), and she says that an herb can cure cancer where the medical community has failed -- and she has NO relevant scientific or medical training. No offense, although her original intentions may be good, it takes more than good intentions and caring to be a doctor or scientist; Betty Martini is neither.