Judgment Overturned in Aspartame “Nasty” Case

The judge who presided at the preliminary hearing, held last year in the High Court, decided that describing aspartame as a "nasty" would be understood by a substantial number of people to mean that aspartame was potentially harmful or unhealthy.

4 Jun 2010 ---- The Court of Appeal in London has handed down a judgment in the case brought by Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe SAS against ASDA Stores Ltd, which will enable Ajinomoto to “pursue its case to protect the reputation of aspartame.”

The judge who presided at the preliminary hearing, held last year in the High Court, decided that describing aspartame as a "nasty" would be understood by a substantial number of people to mean that aspartame was potentially harmful or unhealthy. He did, however, also find a second, less damaging meaning that was not actionable. The judge then entered a series of complex legal arguments through which he concluded that the less damaging meaning was the one that counted. Today's judgment effectively reverses that position. ASDA can no longer deny that describing aspartame as a "nasty" denigrates a safe and beneficial food ingredient.

“It is important to note that this case is not about the safety of aspartame, which is very well established. Throughout the case, ASDA has continued to sell branded products and own-label vitamins, minerals and supplements sweetened with aspartame. ASDA's court submissions did not claim that aspartame was unsafe”, according to Ajinomoto.

The company stated that legal action is not a step it has taken lightly. Ajinomoto considers, however, that it is important to defend the reputation of aspartame and of the many products that use the ingredient.

In documents laid before the court, ASDA stated that "consumers generally prefer the sweetening flavour of aspartame." Ajinomoto believes that denigration of aspartame is not in the interest of consumers' health.