Aspartame Liver Cancer Lawsuit Lawyers

Aspartame Classified as ‘Potential Carcinogen’ by Global Health Agency, Daily Usage Limit Unaltered

Our Aspartame Liver Cancer Lawsuit Lawyers report that aspartame, one of the most frequently used and extensively researched artificial sweeteners, has been deemed a ‘potential carcinogen.’ Still, daily consumption guidelines remain untouched.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a research division of the World Health Organization (WHO), has tagged aspartame as a “potential carcinogen,” igniting renewed concerns about the safety of this commonly used artificial sweetener.

Recent research suggests an increased risk of liver cancer due to aspartame. However, another WHO sub-agency refused to alter its daily consumption recommendations, arguing that aspartame does not appear to enter the bloodstream.

The contradicting statements from the IARC and the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), both under the umbrella of the United Nations health authority, are likely to heighten concerns about aspartame’s safety. This sweetener is present in a wide range of products, from Diet Coke and toothpaste to low-calorie fruit yogurts and cough drops.

Aspartame’s usage has been greenlighted in over 90 countries. The safety of this sweetener has been reassessed five times by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration since its initial approval in 1981. Yet, concerns over its potential carcinogenic properties persist.

Government agencies and the food industry are already voicing their objections.

The FDA released a statement expressing disagreement with IARC’s verdict on aspartame as a potential carcinogen. The statement pointed out the flaws in the studies that the IARC based its conclusions on and emphasized that aspartame is one of the most thoroughly researched food additives available.

Recognizing the difficulty consumers may face when dealing with conflicting health information, the FDA reminded the public that some people depend on aspartame and similar sweeteners to help decrease their sugar intake.

The IARC’s announcement was criticized as “misleading, inaccurate, and fearmongering” by Robert Rankin, the president of the Calorie Control Council. This body represents the low- and reduced-calorie food and beverage industry and is particularly concerned about the nearly 540 million people worldwide living with diabetes.

Critics have previously challenged the IARC’s credibility, highlighting that it has previously labeled night shifts, aloe vera, and processed meat as carcinogenic.

Technically, IARC and JECFA’s findings do not clash, as they serve different functions. IARC evaluates potential cancer-causing elements, while JECFA assesses whether these elements pose a genuine risk to humans. While IARC has indicated that aspartame could be carcinogenic, JECFA maintains there’s no evidence it poses harm if used correctly.

Francesco Branca, the director of the WHO’s Department of Nutrition and Food Safety, advised at a press conference this week that research hasn’t shown long-term weight loss due to artificial sweeteners. He suggested that consumers limit sugar and sweeteners and opt for water instead.

JECFA reiterated its stance on the acceptable daily intake of aspartame. According to the American Cancer Society, their set limit—40 milligrams per kilogram of body weight—is roughly equivalent to 36 cans of diet soda for a 132-pound adult.

Branca raised concerns that many consumers may exceed the daily intake because aspartame and other sweeteners are increasingly found in various foods as people try to reduce added sugars. Critics responded that his advice overstepped the existing evidence.

Kevin Keane, the interim president of the American Beverage Association, argued that Branca’s recommendations are personal and not rooted in science. Keane added that the collective scientific consensus consistently asserts the safety of these products when consumed as part of a balanced diet.

Approximately 95% of sweetened carbonated drinks and at least 90% of ready-to-drink teas contain aspartame. Keane defended its use, pointing to numerous randomized controlled trials that endorse sweeteners as safe tools for weight management. He criticized the WHO for disregarding these trials in its guidelines.

Two studies form the basis of IARC’s announcement: a comprehensive French observational study conducted last year and an animal study by Italy’s Ramazzini Institute in 2006-2007. Both have been heavily criticized for their methodology.

The French study tracked over 100,000 adults and discovered a slightly elevated cancer risk in those who consumed larger amounts of artificial sweeteners, particularly aspartame and acesulfame-K. The Italian study reported multiple tumor sites in rats and mice due to aspartame.

The IARC working group highlighted several recent studies showing a correlation between artificially sweetened beverage consumption and certain types of liver cancer in humans. Additionally, an increased incidence of tumors in male and female mice and rats was documented in three published studies. However, the group couldn’t entirely dismiss chance, bias, or confounding as potential explanations for their findings.

Certain experts interpret IARC’s warning as an alert, given the increasing consumption of highly processed foods worldwide.

Neena Prasad, who heads the food policy program at Bloomberg Philanthropies, suggests this should provoke individuals to question why they consume these chemicals at all.

“The FDA should contemplate action, and the food industry should consider safer alternatives,” suggests Thomas Galligan, the principal scientist for food additives and supplements at the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest. He believes the burden of understanding these findings shouldn’t rest solely on consumers.

The 1958 Food Additives Amendment mandates banning food additives that cause or induce cancer in humans or animals.

William Dahut, chief scientific officer at the American Cancer Society, says the science is still progressing. While the IARC report should make people reconsider their aspartame usage, it also presents an opportunity to reevaluate overall dietary intake, including consumption of known carcinogens such as processed meat and alcohol.

Reasons to File a Product Liability Lawsuit if Diagnosed with Aspartame-Linked Liver Cancer

If individuals have been diagnosed with liver cancer and suspect that aspartame is the cause, filing a product liability lawsuit can be a prudent course of action for several reasons:

1. Compensation for Damages: Filing a product liability lawsuit can help plaintiffs secure compensation for various types of damages, including medical expenses, lost wages due to inability to work, pain and suffering, and loss of quality of life.
2. Holding Manufacturers Accountable: A product liability lawsuit can hold the manufacturer accountable for any negligence or misrepresentation regarding the safety of their product. If aspartame is proven to cause liver cancer, the manufacturers should have known about it and warned consumers.
3. Creating Awareness: Product liability lawsuits can raise public awareness about the potential risks associated with aspartame. They can force regulatory agencies and manufacturers to provide clearer information about potential health hazards, leading to more informed consumer choices.
4. Catalyzing Regulatory Changes: A successful lawsuit could lead to regulatory changes, pushing authorities to reassess the safety guidelines for aspartame. It might even compel manufacturers to reformulate their products with safer alternatives.
5. Potential Class Action Status: If a significant number of people have been similarly affected, the lawsuit could become a class action, amplifying its impact.
6. Preventing Future Harm: If the lawsuit is successful, it could lead to changes that prevent similar harm to others in the future. This could include stricter safety testing, clearer labeling, or even product withdrawal.

However, to succeed in a product liability lawsuit related to aspartame, plaintiffs must be able to convincingly establish a link between aspartame and their liver cancer. This generally requires solid scientific evidence, which can be challenging to gather. Therefore, potential plaintiffs should discuss their situation with a legal professional experienced in product liability lawsuits to evaluate the strength of their case.

The Product Liability Lawsuit Process

Filing a product liability lawsuit follows a series of steps that navigate the complex landscape of legal proceedings. Here’s an outline of the typical process:

1. Initial Consultation: This is the first step where potential plaintiffs meet with a lawyer to discuss their case. During this consultation, the attorney assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the claim, potential defendants, and the general feasibility of the lawsuit.
2. Investigation: This step involves gathering evidence to substantiate the claim. This may include medical records, expert opinions, scientific studies, and other relevant documents that can prove the product (in this case, aspartame) caused harm (liver cancer).
3. Filing the Complaint: Once the attorney determines there’s a viable case, they will file a complaint with the court. This document identifies the parties involved, outlines the plaintiff’s claims, and details the legal basis for the lawsuit.
4. Discovery Process: During the discovery phase, both sides exchange information related to the case. This can include interrogatories (written questions), depositions (oral testimonies under oath), and requests for documents. Expert witnesses may also be engaged at this stage.
5. Negotiation and Settlement: Many product liability cases are settled out of court. Lawyers from both sides will negotiate a potential settlement based on the strength of the plaintiff’s case and the potential risks of proceeding to trial. If an agreement is reached, the case concludes without going to court.
6. Trial: If a settlement isn’t reached, the case proceeds to trial. During the trial, both sides will present their case, calling witnesses and presenting evidence. Ultimately, a judge or jury will decide the outcome of the case.

The specific steps and timeline can vary depending on the circumstances of the case, the court’s schedule, and other factors. It’s important to discuss these aspects with your attorney to understand the potential length and complexity of the lawsuit.

Why is Parker Waichman LLP considered a top-rated product liability law firm?

Parker Waichman LLP has built a reputation as a top-rated product liability law firm for several reasons:

1. Extensive Experience: The firm has years of experience handling product liability cases, which contributes to its comprehensive understanding of this complex area of law. The firm has been involved in numerous high-profile cases, often achieving significant verdicts and settlements.
2. Skilled Attorneys: The firm employs highly skilled and experienced attorneys who specialize in product liability law. They are proficient in investigating claims, negotiating with companies, and litigating cases in court.
3. Client-Centered Approach: Parker Waichman LLP places a strong emphasis on the needs and experiences of their clients. They maintain clear and open lines of communication, ensuring clients are kept informed about the progress of their case.
4. Proven Track Record: The firm has a proven track record of achieving successful outcomes for their clients. They have secured millions of dollars in compensation for people harmed by defective or unsafe products.
5. Resources and Network: The firm has extensive resources and a vast network of experts to consult on cases, which can provide essential support in technical or scientific aspects of product liability claims.
6. No Fees Unless You Win: Parker Waichman LLP typically operates on a contingency fee basis, meaning clients do not pay unless the firm successfully secures a settlement or verdict on their behalf. This demonstrates the firm’s confidence in their ability to win cases, and also reduces the financial risk for clients.
7. Recognition in the Industry: The firm has received numerous awards and recognitions for its work in the field of product liability law. These recognitions further cement their standing as a top-rated firm.

Remember, while these aspects highlight why Parker Waichman LLP is considered a top-rated product liability firm, it’s important to do your own research and consider your personal circumstances when choosing a lawyer or law firm.

Parker Waichman LLP has been recognized for its legal expertise and client service by various industry standards and rankings, including:

1. AV Preeminent Rating from Martindale-Hubbell: This is the highest rating achievable by any law firm for legal ability and ethical standards. The AV Preeminent designation indicates that a lawyer’s peers rank them at the highest level of professional excellence.
2. Best Lawyers in America: This prestigious recognition is given only to top-rated lawyers who have garnered the respect of their peers and the judiciary for their legal skills, professionalism, and integrity.
3. Super Lawyers: This rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas recognizes those who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.
4. Top Rated on Avvo: Avvo is an online legal services marketplace that provides lawyer referrals and access to a database of legal information. A top rating on Avvo suggests excellent client reviews and strong professional conduct.
5. And many others.

Parker Waichman LLP has earned its reputation as a top-rated product liability law firm through years of experience, highly skilled attorneys, a client-centered approach, and a proven track record of successful verdicts and settlements. The firm’s numerous industry recognitions, including an AV Preeminent Rating from Martindale-Hubbell and high ratings on Avvo and Super Lawyers, further attest to their excellence in the field. Whether navigating product liability issues or any other legal matter, engaging a law firm with relevant expertise, clear communication, and a strong commitment to client success can significantly impact the outcome of a case.

CONTACT PARKER WAICHMAN LLP FOR A FREE CASE REVIEW

Parker Waichman LLP helps families recover monetary compensation for harm caused by dangerous products like aspartame. For your free consultation, contact our national aspartame liver cancer lawsuit law firm today by using our live chat or calling 1-800-YOUR-LAWYER (1-800-968-7529).