In the early 2020s, a group of activist scientists in the Collegium Ramazzini released several papers suggesting that the artificial sweetener, aspartame, is a carcinogen. They then pushed IARC to produce (another) monograph linking the sweetener to cancer while US tort law firms were already trolling for victims, NGOs began attacking soft drink companies and journalists were leaking results on orders from NGOs pulling their strings. This Predatort Playbook was recognised early and the Risk-Monger was taking his shots at the opportunists in real time while digging deeper into corruption within the world of Ramazzini science. In the end, IARC, faced with internal pressure from the WHO via JECFA and member states, had to tone down their conclusions and delay its publication, yielding their hazard assessment findings to the more complete JECFA risk assessment that showed no significant risk.

SlimeGate 3.1.1 AsparTort Introduction

The introduction sets the scene for the chapters to follow and provides information about aspartame and the history of artificial sweeteners. It highlights the Predatort Playbook: how US tort law firms are again funding a group of ethically-challenged scientists from the Ramazzini cabal to produce jury-ready scientific doubt via an IARC hazard assessment. They then follow the playbook to pay off groups of anti-corporate NGOs to create public fear and outrage over substance X and its connection to cancer Y. This Playbook is about sweeteners.

SlimeGate 3.1.2 AsparTort: The Corruption of Bernardino Ramazzini

To understand the aspartame campaign and the activist fear campaigns that have been ongoing for more than two decades, we need to go to the Ramazzini Institute, their studies, motives and media manipulation. What is this organisation, who is using it and for what opportunities? How is it tied to IARC, the US government and to American tort law firms?

SlimeGate 3.1.2.1 AsparTort: Ramazzini Rites

Following the article on the relentless activism directed by Collegium Ramazzini fellows, I received an outpouring of emails from scientists sharing more details and expressing their annoyance with the transgressions of scientific integrity by a large number of these fellows. I wove these case studies into a satire of a day in the life of a Ramazzini scientist.

SlimeGate 3.1.3 AsparTort: IARC Behaving Badly

Within the WHO, there is a specific scientific body tasked with assessing and monitoring food additives like aspartame known as JECFA (The Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives). They are responsible for conducting a risk assessment for aspartame. So why did IARC try to muscle in on their terrain? And why did IARC refuse to listen to WHO members who complained about this? To understand that, we would have to look at the activist scientists sitting on the IARC Aspartame Monograph Panel.

SlimeGate 3.1.4 AsparTort: How NGOs Sweetened the Aspartame Media

I had an exchange with a journalist from the Washington Post who was merely acting out the Center for Science in the Public Interest checklist on aspartame. It seems that she had covered seven articles in the last year sticking to the activist NGO’s song sheet. This article reveals our email exchange and questions why the media refuses to be at all critical of the Predatort Playbook.

SlimeGate 3.1.5 AsparTort: 12 Observations on the WHO-JECFA-IARC Aspartame Findings

Watching the WHO-JECFA-IARC press conference announcing the joint findings on aspartame, I published 12 important points the publications had concluded about the artificial sweetener. And while there were already Predatort ads being released looking for diet soda cancer victims, the conclusions were not strong enough to hold up in court. In a word, aspartame was deemed safe. A rare victory for science.