case after the trial judge construed the "no nasties" labelling to "not mean that aspartame was potentially harmful or unhealthy." the decision was reversed in june 2010, upon appeal, and was settled in 2011 with asda removing references to aspartame from its packaging. in 2009, the south african retailer woolworths announced it was removing aspartame-containing foods from its own-brand range. in 2010, the british food standards agency funded a clinical study of people who claimed to experience side-effects after consuming aspartame. the double blind controlled study has been concluded and found no evidence of safety issues or side effects even amongst those volunteers who had previously claimed sensitivity. the fsa's committee on toxicity evaluated the results at its meeting in october 2013, and determined that "the results presented did not indicate any need for action to protect the health of the public." the european food safety authority (efsa) commenced a re-evaluation of aspartame as part of the systematic re-evaluation of all food additives authorized in the eu prior to 20 january 2009. in may 2011, efsa was asked by the european commission to bring forward the full re-evaluation of the safety of aspartame (e 951), which was previously planned for completion by 2020. in september 2011, the efsa made all 600 datasets it is using in its full re-evaluation available publicly. this includes previously unpublished scientific data, "including the 112 original studies on aspartame which were submitted to support the request for authorization of aspartame in europe in the early 1980s." on january 8, 2013, the efsa released its draft report, which found that aspartame and its metabolites "pose no toxicity concern for consumers at current levels of exposure. the current acceptable daily intake (adi) is considered to be safe for the general population and consumer exposure to aspartame is below this adi." ramazzini studies 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. an open letter from the center for science in the public interest (cspi) to the fda endorsed by thirteen occupational safety and health experts expressed the erf studies merited reevaluation of aspartame's safety in humans. after reviewing the foundation's claims, the efsa and the fda discounted the study results finding significant methodological issues as reason to retain their previously established acceptable daily intake levels for aspartame. incomplete release of all data, including pathology slides, by the erf restricted fda and efsa review. based upon the data provided, the erf's published conclusions were not supportable. the regulatory agencies health canada and the british committee on carcinogenicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment likewise found the methodological problems in the research justified rejecting the claims and retaining established policy. contemporaneous with the fda and esfa reviews, the ajinomoto company, inc.—a developer of aspartame—commissioned a review through the safety and regulatory consulting firm, burdock group. 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. these included unspecified composition of the "corticella" diet and method of adding aspartame, leading to possible nutritional deficiencies; a contamination issue from unspecified aspartame storage conditions and handling; ignoring several industry standards—lack of animal randomization, use of the institute's randomly bred lines that remained pathogen carriers as opposed to readily available pathogen-free animals, use of full-life animals resulting in age variation at death and comparing those animals to younger controls, and both high-density housing and housing of different animal groups in different conditions; an unusually high incidence of confounding infections known to cause lymphoid neoplasmas and other lesions earlier and at greater rates in the test species; pooling of tumors (lymphomas and leukemias) from different tissue types despite standing research that induced tumors "can and should be differentiated from naturally occurring tumors";: 667 insufficient/incomplete/conflicting methodology and data collection/reporting in multiple areas; and the u.s. national toxicology program's finding that the erf had misdiagnosed hyperplasias as malignancies. finding comprehensive contradiction in the research literature of any reasonable danger, in combination with the erf's design and implementation issues, magnuson concluded the research did not constitute credible evidence for the carcinogenicity of aspartame. another review criticized the erf for relying on "science by press conference" with its release of results through the media before being published in a proper peer-reviewed journal, thus helping fuel the controversy and publicity about the study in the media. 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.