[2][5] The irregularities fueled a conspiracy theory, which the "Nancy Markle" email hoax circulated, along with claims—counter to the weight of medical evidence—that numerous health conditions (such as multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus, methanol toxicity, blindness, spasms, shooting pains, seizures, headaches, depression, anxiety, memory loss, birth defects, and death)[6] are caused by the consumption of aspartame in normal doses.
In 1996, the controversy reached a wider audience with a 60 Minutes report[1] that discussed criticisms of the FDA approval process and concerns that aspartame could cause brain tumors in humans.
"[1] Around the same time, a Usenet post was widely circulated under the pen name "Nancy Markle", creating the basis for a misleading and unverifiable hoax chain letter that was spread through the Internet.
[12] Numerous websites have spread the email's claims, which were not supported by scientific evidence, about safety issues purportedly linked to aspartame, including Gulf War Syndrome and lupus.
[2]: 21 Soon afterwards, John Olney, a professor of psychiatry and prominent critic of MSG, along with James Turner, a public-interest lawyer and author of an anti-food-additive book, filed a petition for a public hearing, citing safety concerns.
[2]: 4 In 1980, a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) heard testimony from Olney and disagreed with his claims that aspartame could cause brain damage, including in the developing fetus.
[2]: 13 In November 1983, about a year after approving aspartame, Hayes left the FDA and joined the public-relations firm Burson-Marsteller, Searle's public relations agency at the time, as a senior medical adviser.
[2]: 16, 76–81 Food additive safety evaluations by many countries have led to approval of aspartame, citing the general lack of adverse effects following consumption in reasonable quantities.
[20] Based on government research reviews and recommendations from advisory bodies such as those listed above, aspartame has been found to be safe for human consumption by more than ninety countries worldwide.
Despite complaints and urging from DOJ in Washington, neither the interim U.S. attorney for Chicago, William Conlon, nor Skinner's successor, Thomas Sullivan, convened a grand jury.
"[12][26][29] Specifically, the hoax websites allege that aspartame is responsible for multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus, and methanol toxicity, causing "blindness, spasms, shooting pains, seizures, headaches, depression, anxiety, memory loss, birth defects" and death.
[12][32] Although most of the allegations of this theory contradict the bulk of medical evidence,[26] the misinformation has spread around the world as chain emails since mid-December 1998,[12] influencing many websites[32] as an urban legend that continues to scare consumers.
[34] In the Philippines, the small political party Alliance for Rural Concerns introduced House Bill 4747 in 2008 with the aim of having aspartame banned from the food supply.
[43][44] In July 2009, Asda initially won the legal case after the trial judge construed the "no nasties" labelling to "not mean that aspartame was potentially harmful or unhealthy.
"[52][56] The Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences (ERF) published studies claiming aspartame increases several malignancies in rodents, concluding it a potential carcinogen at normal dietary doses.
[59][60][61] After reviewing the foundation's claims, the EFSA[62] and the FDA[63] discounted the study results finding significant methodological issues as reason to retain their previously established acceptable daily intake levels for aspartame.
The regulatory agencies Health Canada[65] and the British Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment[66] likewise found the methodological problems in the research justified rejecting the claims and retaining established policy.
A blind safety review by a ten-member, international panel of experts (Magnuson) of the scientific literature concurred with the regulatory agency evaluations finding many flaws in the study's design, implementation, and conclusions.
[67] The EFSA evaluated other studies published by the ERF in 2010, finding continued multiple, significant design flaws prohibiting interpretation and being insufficient to influence reconsideration of the aspartame controversy.