If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Personal perspective: new era of consumer protection possible in USA, if legislature acts on aspartame ban, Stephen Fox, 49 citizen comments, Leland Lehrman: Murray 2006.01.21
************************************************** *****
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1287 Personal perspective: new era of consumer protection possible in USA, if legislature acts on aspartame ban, Stephen Fox, 49 citizen comments, Leland Lehrman: Murray 2006.01.21 From: "Mother Media" To: Subject: Aspartame Ban Secures 14 Sponsors Needs Governor's Message Date: Saturday, January 21, 2006 1:08 PM What to include when you email Governor Richardson this weekend asking for an Executive Message on Ban Aspartame Bill -- this is essential for the Bill to proceed. This weekend, please write to the Honorable Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico [in care of his Chief of Staff, Dave Contarino )], asking that the Governor issue an Executive Message soon to allow the Senate Aspartame bill to proceed, so it will not languish in the Committee's Committee and perhaps die there. Please note in your letter that the bill was signed by these Senators as Co-sponsors: 1. Chairman of Senate Judiciary, Cisco McSorley (D-Albuquerque) 2. Vice Chairman of Judiciary, Richard Martinez (D-Espanola) 3. Chairman of Finance, Joseph Fidel (D-Grants) 4. Chairman of Conservation, Carlos Cisneros (D-Taos) 5. Majority Whip, Vice Chair of Public Affairs, Mary Jane Garcia (D-Dona Ana) 6. Chairman of Indian Affairs, John Pinto (D-Tohatchi) 7. Chairman of Senate Rules, Linda Lopez (D-Albuquerque) 8. Chair of Mortgage Finance, Nancy Rodriguez (D-Santa Fe) 9. Vice Chair of Senate Corporations, Bernadette Sanchez (D-Albuquerque) 10. Vice Chair of Rules, John Grubesic (D-Santa Fe) 11. Rod Adair (R-Roswell) 12. Leonard Tsosie (D-Crownpoint) 13. Pete Campos Las Vegas) 14. Gerald Ortiz y Pino, Sponsor (D-Albuquerque) Please point out in your letter to Governor Richardson that the concurrence of the Judiciary Committee Chair and Vice Chair should reclarify that the bill is legally sound, despite the usual industry cries from Ajinomoto and other industries and toxic corporations that such matters are preempted by the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause, arguments they have used to bludgeon the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board into silence, causing it to postpone for one year its 5 day hearings on Aspartame. To capitulate and cave into these legal theories has resulted in a complete collapse of the regulatory authority of the state of New Mexico, necessary to protect the health of New Mexicans. Explain that to *not* give an Executive Message at this time on this bill closes the door on not only the aspartame initiative, but also closes the door on many other Consumer Protection bills in New Mexico's future, and gives a green light to all toxic corporate efforts to continue to add neurotoxic carcinogens to 6000 food products consumed by 70% of Americans. That would be reprehensible, and of course, for Governor Richardson, is entirely avoidable, just by issuing an Executive Message on Monday morning. Please also send a copy to: Amanda Cooper, Director of Political Affairs Personal Secretary and Scheduler Secretary of Chief of Staff Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications Health Reporter Medical Reporter Capitol Bureau Chief, Associated Press Founder, Mother Media Electronic Newsletter Bill Du Puy, News Director After you send your letter to Governor Richardson, please post your letter as a comment at the Santa Fe New Mexican on-line newspaper: http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/38198.html News: From readers, Health, 2006 Legislature Personal perspective: new era of consumer protection possible in USA, if legislature acts on aspartame ban (49 comments; last comment posted Today 04:40 pm) Stephen Fox January 20, 2006 Bills to ban neurotoxic sweetener aspartame in New Mexico legislature will result in a new era of consumer protection in the USA, but their survival and further progress in the short session depends entirely on Gov. Richardson and Senate President Pro Tem Ben Altamirano. Aspartame's days may be numbered, given the implications of this national precedent for a state legislature to consider prohibiting specifically this FDA approved product. Aspartame, sometimes called NutraSweet, is a proven neurotoxin and carcinogen found in 6000 food products and in over 500 pharmaceutical preparations, despite clear proof of its toxicity. For example, the Ramazzini Foundation Report is posted on the website of the USA National Institute of Health. As a result there are just the beginnings of Congressional inquiries to the FDA Commissioner as to why the FDA has not rescinded its approval for aspartame. New Mexico need not wait for the cumbersome corrupt and underinformed FDA bureaucracy to even start to get into gear. Albuquerque Democrat, Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino, and Gallup Navajo Democrat, Representative Irvin Harrison, have introduced legislation that clearly moves New Mexico forward in terms of protecting citizens' health from this neurodegenerative sweetener, resulting from the complete breakdown in sound approval functions at the US FDA, going back to 1981 and 1983, no more clearly exemplified than in the case of the artificial sweetener, aspartame. Harrison introduced House Bill 202, and the Senate version, Senate Bill 250, was introduced by the Honorable Gerald Ortiz y Pino. Regulatory mechanisms at the state level have largely failed, been postponed and even ignored, due to corporate pressure and manipulation, largely by Ajinomoto of Japan, the world's largest aspartame and monosodium glutamate manufacturer. The eventual and inevitable New Mexico ban through legislative means is a vital international precedent, one that could precipitate a new era of consumer protection in the United States and in other nations. The bills' author and sponsors believe that these bills are within the conceptual matrix not only of Governor Richardson's Year of the Child and Healthy Kids legislative initiatives, but also that they are consistent within the Governor's views that because the FDA "isn't doing anything," every state needs to take back and to exercise some of the power ceded earlier to the Federal level, going back to the creation of the Food and Drug Administration in the Roosevelt era. New Mexico statutes on protecting Health, particularly statutes regarding poisonous and deleterious food additives in the New Mexico Food Act are completely consistent with the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as numerous US Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals decisions in related matters. Many recent U.S. Court of Appeals decisions confirm that in health matters, federal and state jurisdictions need not be competitive or exclusionary, given that the goal of both is to protect health. Soft drink companies would be smarter not to fight efforts to achieve freedom from neurotoxic multi-potentially carcinogenic sweetener additives. Why not immediately switch to a non-toxic harmless natural sweetener like Stevia? Indeed, conversations between Coca Cola's lobbyist and Vice President of New Mexico operations and the bill's author occurred January 17, in which the bill's author recommended precisely such a course of action to the CEO, President, and Chairman of the Board of Coca Cola, presumably by now relayed by the lobbyist to them. We could (but won't) write the predictable Coca Cola advertisement: "America, we have been listening to your concerns for health, and for those reasons, we are switching the sweetener in our 'diet' products to Stevia, which will take ten years to build new factories, starting in 2009." By doing so, Coca Cola (or whichever manufacturer implements this bright idea first) would make billions of dollars and win millions of new patrons. The inevitability of soft drink companies to get rid of aspartame, acesulfame K, and sucralose by the world's largest soft drink manufacturers, of course, does nothing to remove, obviate or conceal some other forgotten neurotoxicities in that product, like that of Coke's major ingredient, phosphoric acid, which is also used to prime unfinished steel before it is painted. New Mexicans might wonder "What does phosphoric acid do to one's chromosomes, if it can do that to raw steel?" Hoping to hide behind their product's FDA approval, industry lobbyists and corporate lawyers will bitterly complain to legislative committees that any state action to ban an incontrovertibly proven neurotoxic multi-potential carcinogen like aspartame is automatically preempted by the Supremacy Clause and the Interstate Commerce Clause in the Constitution. They would like the Legislature to accept the corporate vantage point that such a preemptive protective action by the state of New Mexico is therefore impossible. This argument, accompanied by non-credible threats of litigation, worked in 2005 to postpone the EIB's scheduled 5-day hearings on aspartame in July 2006 until January 2007. Such considerations are incorporated in the Legislative intent sections of the two bills. Corporate lobbyists are already working against these bills, even having contacted numerous members of the NM Senate to ask them to not sign the bill as co-sponsors! We expect these same corporate minions to bring fat stacks of legal arguments to committee members similar to those already submitted to Mr. Trigg, Chief of Administrative Division in the Attorney General's office, by one of several lawyers working for the world's largest aspartame and monosodium glutamate manufacturer, Ajinomoto of Japan, with the hope of overwhelming and intimidating committee members, as they have so far successfully done in many other states. Perhaps Mr. Trigg would be happy to forward to you this document, if you call him and leave a polite message. Those corporate legal theories theories cannot be superimposed on New Mexico's urgent need to protect the health of its citizens, and they will be soundly refuted by more compelling stacks of medical commentaries by leading physicians, and of legal arguments by, for example, Jim Turner of the Washington D.C. law firm of Swankin and Turner, the consumer lawyer whose efforts precipitated President Nixon's 1969 order to the Commissioner of the FDA to rescind the approval for CYCLAMATES, yet another neurotoxic carcinogenic artificial sweetener. [Did you ever think for a moment that you would miss Nixon?] Turner with Ralph Nader is co-author of The Chemical Feast (1970) -- the Santa Fe Library has one copy. For Molecular Biologist Professor at University of Chicago's comments on aspartame: http://www.wnho.net/molecular_biolog...commentary.htm Lobbyists will fight this legislation right up to the ink drying as (we hope) they are signed by Governor Richardson. For much more detailed information on corporate efforts to ruin pro child health and nutrition legislation that cites specific examples of what lobbyists have done and where and when, revealing their vicious tactics in toto, please read the extraordinary compilations thereof by Hastings College of Health Policy Law Professor Michele Simon, for example: http://www.organicconsumers.org/school/coke.cfm http://www.organicconsumers.org/school/coke.cfm http://www.wnho.net/consumer_protection_advocates.htm http://www.wnho.net/megacorporate_interests.htm Some of Coca Cola's actions have resulted in their products being banned by Universities in New York and in Michigan: http://www.killercoke.org/crimes.htm For the very best analysis on how aspartame violates both federal and state statutes on adulteration, by Dr. Betty Martini, Honorary Doctor of Humanities, please go to: http://www.rense.com/general67/aspar.htm http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2005/8711/abstract. html [full text version is available free in PDF format] For more information on the Ramazzini Foundation for Oncology study proving carcinogenicity, go to the website for the United States National Institute of Health, where it has been posted since mid-November 2005, with seemingly little comprehension of this in any branch of government. If you don't do Internet, call the office of Senator Bingaman and Congressman Udall. Other key documents are located at the extensive website for the World Natural Health Organization, http://www.wnho.net , click on aspartame. Particularly noteworthy are the medical texts and commentaries by H.J.Roberts, M.D., author of Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic, as well as his later article, Aspartame Disease: An FDA Approved Epidemic. If you have ingested aspartame in "diet" beverages, "sugarless" gum, blue packet of Equal, "low-fat" yogurt, and at least 6000 other food products, or in hundreds of pharmaceutical preparations, vitamins, aspirin, and if you want to begin the long process of detoxifying, at the http://www.wnho.net site, read Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock's article "What to do if you have used Aspartame," found at http://www.wnho.net , click on aspartame. Blaylock is also author of Excitotoxins: the Taste that Kills. To learn more of Governor Richardson's thinking on these consumer matters, please contact his Director of Consumer Protection Affairs. To learn about possible Congressional action regarding the FDA rescinding its approval of aspartame, not only in food, but also in hundreds of pharmaceutical preparations for children and for adults, and particularly inquiries into the fact that Gulf War Syndrome could be a euphemism for neurodegenerative effects from diketopiperazine, one of the chemicals released when diet beverages are left in the sun in Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, and drunk in large quantities by U.S. soldiers, please contact: U.S. Congressman Tom Udall, (202) 225-6190 U.S. Congressman Lane Evans, Chairman of House Veterans Committee (202) 225-5905 U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman Toll-free (in NM): 1-800-443-8658 DC: (202) 224-5521 Attention Trudy Vincent and Jill Harrelson [Congressman Evans has Parkinson's Disease and has been rather incensed recently about the fact that one of the prime Parkinson's medications, Parcopa, manufactured by Schwartz Pharmaceutical, contains lots of aspartame, enough to give a Parkinson's patient severe headaches. A mutual friend in Missouri asked me to explain her headaches after seeing the warning "Contains Phenylalanine" on the wrapper for her meds. I realized immediately that it must come from Aspartame. She told the Congressman, and maybe the Congressman will tell the Congress, and maybe the Congress will tell the FDA Commissioner to immediately rescind aspartame's approval.] Governor Richardson should initiate a bill regarding pharmaceutical products containing this horrible neurotoxin. I will be posting this shortly to the New Mexican, and then on my way to his office to ask that this be done. Another dreadful omission thus far in the Legislative session is the lack of a comprehensive bill to ban Thimerosal, the mercury additive/filler sometimes called antibiotic and preservative, used in most vaccines. Santa Fe Pediatrician Ken Stoller and I talked briefly with the Governor in his office on December 23, about the need for such a ban, particularly in light of the 2600% increase in autism statistics for New Mexico children. The bill was supposed to have been drafted for Santa Fe's Peter Wirth and Nancy Rodriguez in the House and Senate, but the Secretary of Health, Michelle Lujan Grisham has been "working with" the drafter and it has become such a weak ban, for some unknown reasons, that I recommended to Senator Rodriguez that she not introduce such a watered down version. The main problem with this bill, which we still have yet to see, is that the ban on Thimerosal only goes up to 8 years of age. If you are 9? TOO BAD, TOUGH LUCK! You still get shot up with one of the most poisonous substances on earth, which is found in a majority of flu shots. 7 other states have banned this, including California, New York, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, and Delaware, so what can you do? Send an email, write a letter by snail mail, send a fax, and then make some calls to Governor Richardson's office to his Chief of Staff and his Legislative Affairs Director and his General Counsel and his Political Director and anyone else who they will write down your message for, and say this: Give New Mexico the strongest thimerosal/mercury ban in the United States, and let us get this done in the 30 day session, because we shouldnt have to wait till 2007 to remove these deadly neurotoxins, like aspartame/formaldehyde and thimerosal/mercury. Since this is to be the Year of the Child in New Mexico, how about adding a bill that regulates the prescription drugs given to 7% of the children in New Mexico at the schools? That should be a good one to write since there isn't any such regulation and it is all being done under the auspices of the Americans with Disabilities Act! So remember back to when you were in 2nd grade. It is a beautiful day, lots of clouds, windy, trees moving around outside, and you want to look out the window. The teacher gets mad because you aren't paying attention. She calls the school nurse and says that you have "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder." The nurse calls your parents and says that you have been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder. The school then arranges for a prescription for you to have to take Ritalin, an amphetamine based drug, or worse, Pemoline [Abbott Laboratories], one that was so bad that 17 kids had to have emergency liver transplants, and 13 of those 17 died. Woops! Collateral damage by Big Pharm in the schools. How did this happen? Because staring out the window instead of listening to the teacher "falls under" the Americans with Disabilities Act. Quite a stretch, isn't it? I was horrified to learn of this, and took my concerns to the entire Legislature, especially the Education Committee. Even gave a 4 minute speech. To no avail.... the only response was that my friend, the President Pro Tem, Ben Altamirano, said that he and Michael Sanchez, the Majority Leader in Senate, thought that a bill should be created to protect the interests of the child. I put together a plan in which the parents, the child, the nurse, the principal, the teacher, a pediatrician, and maybe even a pediatric neurotoxicologist would all have to sign off on the medications before it could be administered. Zero response from the Department of Education, and all of state government, except for one enormous email from a DOH physician, Steve Adelsheim, M.D. So since it is supposed to be the Year of the Child in New Mexico, how about one final bill initiated by the Governor's office to implement such a beneficent plan? It couldn't fail with Bill Richardson's backing, but I must warn y'all that almost every single similar bill across the USA in the past 8 years has been hamstrung and eviscerated by lobbyists from pharmaceutical corporations. That's 2 more bills I hope you would see materialize in this session: one to ban thimerosal/mercury in all vaccines and biologics, for all ages, not just up to 8 or 18, but for everyone.... mercury is no less a toxin if you are 42 or 29 or 80! And the other to create a system that protects children from such idiotic conclusions as the attention deficit disorder, and drugging kids up with amphetamines! That is what the year of the Child should be about. Don't waste any time either: 30 days is going to go by very quickly, but the Governor could have both of those bills drafted, introduced, and signed by one more than half the Senate or half of the House within 48 hours. Toxicology requires such a rapid response, and I know that Bill Richardson will agree, if you take the time to call and write and fax and email him, and then ask your friends and neighbors to do so also. __________________________________________________ __________ [We owe Senator Ortiz y Pino and Representative Irvin Harrison a tremendous debt of gratitude for their insights and courage. Irvin was the sponsor of last year's Nutrition Council bill in the House, as House Bill 721, which was also President Pro Tem Senator Ben Altamirano's Senate Bill 525.] USE THIS ENTIRE SEARCH TERM, to read the identical text in both House and Senate versions at the website for the New Mexico Legislatu http://legis.state.nm.us/lcs/_sessio... earch&year=06 Media Inquiries: Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino District 12 County: Bernalillo Capitol Phone: 986-4380 ___________________________________________ Representative Irvin Harrison District 5 Counties: McKinley & San Juan Capitol Office Phone: 986-4464 __________________________________________ Stephen Fox Stephen Fox is a Santa Fe gallery owner with keen interests in landscapes, Native American art, and nutrition related legislation. He and Tom Udall's mother, Lee, now deceased, and Tom's daughter, Amanda Cooper, laid out the concept of a New Mexico Nutrition Council one wintry evening in 1997 while stuffing envelopes early in Tom's first Congressional campaign. He believes that all of these initiatives are entirely consistent with Governor Richardson's Year of the Child and Healthy Kids efforts. Until the Nutrition Council legislation is passed and signed by Richardson, Fox describes it as an Acting Nutrition Council. Comment on this story Register now to start posting comments immediately. If you have already registered, log in to your existing account By posting, you agree to abide by our Forum Rules. Comments By Michael Tincher (Submitted: 01/21/2006 4:40 pm ) Mr. Aamodt: It was not my intention to "tell you" what to do, but to suggest. I was only trying to calm the waters.... Sir Gumby, it was not represented that the sponsors were FDA scientists. Why would you twist things like that; are you really Bill Green writing from the left? By STEPHEN FOX (Submitted: 01/21/2006 2:42 pm ) I would like to encourage all of the critics of this New Mexico aspartame legislation to really sharpen their focus, shift gears for 10 minutes, and see what is brewing in Washington D.C. in the form of Senator Bill Frist's and Senator Burr's bill, SB 1873, regarding vaccines. You speak so blithely of your freedom to buy diet beverages and guzzle your formaldehyde, but you haven't the slightest idea of how many of your freedoms and rights will be taken away if Senator Frist's and Senator Burr's bill is passed and signed. It will destroy the sanctity of protecting your own health and modern medicine in general. $7.1 billion for a new vaccine agency; no Freedom of Information access as to what is in the vaccines; $1.35 billion for vaccinating 90 million Americans who will not be able to say no, nor to find out what is in the vaccine, nor to be able to do anything about it if the vaccine goes wrong, because the bill exempts vaccine manufacturers from any product liability suits, and finally, the central fact that no one really knows if the vaccine for avian flu even works! Do remember that Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense in the mid 1970's said that every man, woman, and child in America should be vaccinated against the Swine Flu back in the 1970's. 52 people died from the vaccine, but nobody died from the Swine Flu. Do you like those statistics? Rummy is now a major share holder in Gilead, to the tune of $25 million investment, which will increase immensely if the bill goes through regarding the new name for all of this nonsense: Tamiflu vaccine. The bill would spend approximately $18 for each person's dose of the vaccine, and I repeat: they are not even sure if it will work. Is this what you want in Frist, a cardiologist who has become Majority Leader in the United States Senate? There were dozens of FDA scientists on the side of not approving aspartame back in 1981; they were all ignored and overruled when Rummy as President of G.D.Searle got his own guy picked as head of FDA who then approved aspartame. Read their Board of Inquiry report on Aspartame in which they wanted to indict Searle for fraud. Then Searle hired the ones doing the indictment as part of their defense team! Rummy selected his own Doctor to head FDA and although I wasn't there when they made the deal, that Dr. overruled the Board of Inquiry and approved aspartame. And who was that guy? Dr.Arthur Hull Hayes. Why don't you google him and see what he did before he came to the FDA? (He left the FDA in disgrace for accepting corporate gifts soon after coming to the FDA, but what he did before the FDA will be really interesting to all of you who feel that this aspartame legislation is somehow taking away your freedom to poison yourself). Do a little homework and study the features of Senate Bill 1873 in the United States Senate, and perhaps you can begin to understand why states need to defend themselves, yes, perhaps with a mini FDA. If that means a "patchwork" of jurisdictions or a "balkanization" of regulatory efforts, so be it. Otherwise, the USA is in for a terrible ride in the medical sense, and our slot as the 29th highest in the world for longevity statistics is going to tumble much further. After the critics educate themselves, they perhaps will understand the larger context of medicine's decline under seige from corporate manipulation. Stephen Fox By ELDON HOWELL (Submitted: 01/21/2006 1:36 pm ) gumby, you can be wicked, sometimes. Can you believe how organized and persistent these private menu managers are? Gumby, I'd bet most, if not nearly all of these "mouthpieces", are not even in New Mexico. I sometimes wish it could be revealed where posters are from, because on issues like this, scientifically and pragmatically challenged people from elsewhere really have no business impersonating concerned state citizens. I don't know for a fact that is what is happening here, but I strongly suspect so. By David Lopez (Submitted: 01/21/2006 1:23 pm ) Here some advice for these legislators: Cisco McSorley, Richard Martinez, Joseph Fidel, Carlos Cisneros, Mary Jane Garcia, John Pinto, Linda Lopez, Nancy Rodriguez, Bernadette Sanchez, Pete Campos, Rod Adair, Leonard Tsosie, John Grubesic, Gerald Ortiz y Pino. Skip the red wine with your dinners tonight. It contains that poison you are trying to ban here in New Mexico. Settle for a good Vodka martini instead By David Lopez (Submitted: 01/21/2006 1:12 pm ) Here are some possible side effects of aspartame consumption and the associated Methanol. Again, Methanol is Methanol, regardless of the source. Factors other than alcohol also may contribute to a hangover. These factors include the following possibilities. Congeners. Among other reasons, people consume alcoholic beverages for their ethanol content. Most alcoholic beverages contain smaller amounts of other biologically active compounds, however, including other alcohols. These compounds, known as congeners, contribute to the taste, smell, and appearance of alcoholic beverages. Congeners may be produced along with ethanol during fermentation, generated during aging or processing through the degradation of the beverage's organic components, or added to the beverage during the production process. Investigators now believe that congeners may contribute to a beverage's intoxicating effects and to a subsequent hangover. Research has shown that beverages composed of more pure ethanol, such as gin or vodka, induce fewer hangover effects than do beverages containing a large number of congeners, such as whiskey, brandy, or red wine. A hangover also may occur when pure ethanol is administered, however. One specific congener implicated in hangover effects is methanol, which is an alcohol compound found in alcoholic beverages along with ethanol. The two compounds differ slightly in chemical structure in that methanol contains one less carbon atom and two fewer hydrogen atoms than ethanol. The same enzymes that metabolize ethanol, alcohol dehydrogenase, and aldehyde dehydrogenase also metabolize methanol; however, the products of methanol metabolism (i.e., formaldehyde and formic acid) are extremely toxic and in high concentrations may cause blindness and death. Support for methanol's contribution to hangovers comes from several sources. For example, distilled spirits that are more frequently associated with the development of a hangover, such as brandies and whiskeys, contain the highest concentrations of methanol. Moreover, in an experimental study with four subjects who consumed red wine containing 100 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of methanol, it was found that elevated blood levels of methanol persisted for several hours after ethanol was metabolized, which corresponded to the time course of hangover symptoms. Methanol lingers after ethanol levels drop, because ethanol competitively inhibits methanol metabolism. The fact that ethanol readministration fends off hangover effects may be further evidence of methanol's contribution to the hangover condition, given ethanol's ability to block methanol metabolism and thereby slow the production of formaldehyde and formic acid. Certain people develop headaches soon after drinking red wine but not after drinking white wine or vodka. Recent research finds that red wine, but not white wine or vodka, can increase plasma serotonin and plasma histamine levels. The specific agents in wine responsible for these increased levels are not known. Increased plasma serotonin and histamine can trigger headaches in susceptible people. By "gumby" mil (Submitted: 01/21/2006 1:01 pm ) thanks stephen for that list of sponsors... i didn't realize how many FDA scientists you had on your side... oh by the way.. isn't john grubesic that guy that keeps driving too fast endangering peoples lives because he drinks too much and then mouths off obscenities to sherriffs once they are out of sight from him? he sure adds credibility here. and look, there's nancy rodriguez.. isn't she a molecular biologist for a pharmecutical company? oh no.. i must be thinking of someone else.. this nancy rodriguez is in mortgage finance. yup. that one sounds qualified to speak on chemical composition as well... sorry stephen.. i look at your list, and see chairs of mortgage, finance, conservation, and indian affairs, and then of course, senators like john grubesic. but i don't think they are qualified to be making decisions for us. like i said before.. you should take up a cause for a REAL PROBLEM alcohol. ban that. (if you can! LOL) but if you attack alcohol and push for prohibition, you will lose all 14 of those co-sponsors listed here.. (not to mention you will lose yourself because you probably enjoy a glass of wine now and then as well. probably even as much as that guy that loves his 10 gin 'n tonics at the bar before driving home). hypocrisy is such an evil trait, isn't it mister fox? By David Lopez (Submitted: 01/21/2006 12:54 pm ) Peter, thank you for the remarks. Regarding red wine, that comparison must be made. Sure 18 year olds can't buy a glass of wine like they can buy a diet soda. The Methanol content is equal and the effect on their bodies should also be equal. If the amounts of Methanol are equal in the glass of red wine and the diet soda and a large portion of the population drink red wine, where are those red wine drinker's horror stories? By ELDON HOWELL (Submitted: 01/21/2006 11:15 am ) Jim, I think they caught on, it's hard to do that outside of a face to face conversation and without google just a click away. This will sure be good for tourism, too. "No, dear, let's not stay in Santa Fe tonight. We can make it to the state line where I can get a diet coke." He says, "No, let's just drink beer, must be better for you at high altitudes." By Mike Jorgensen (Submitted: 01/21/2006 10:43 am ) For all of you who are interested in science, freedom of choice, and free markets, instead of quackery, hyperbolic pseduo-science, and government controlling all your life choices, you should write to the list here, and just say "no". By STEPHEN FOX (Submitted: 01/21/2006 10:03 am ) Asking Governor Richardson for an Executive Message on Ban Aspartame Bill This weekend, please write to the Honorable Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico asking that the Governor issue an Executive Message soon to allow the Senate Aspartame bill to proceed, so it will not languish in the Committee's Committee. Please note in your letter that the bill was signed by all of these as Co-sponsors: 1. the Chairman of Senate Judiciary, Cisco McSorley 2. the Vice Chairman of Judiciary, Richard Martinez 3. the Chairman of Finance, Joseph Fidel 4. the Chairman of Conservation, Carlos Cisneros 5. the Majority Whip and Vice Chair of Public Affairs, Mary Jane Garcia 6. the Chairman of Indian Affairs, John Pinto 7. the Chairman of Senate Rules, Linda Lopez 8. the Chair of Mortgage Finance, Nancy Rodriguez 9. the Vice Chair of Senate Corporations, Bernadette Sanchez, 10. Pete Campos (D-Las Vegas) 11. Rod Adair (R-Roswell) 12. Leonard Tsosie (D-Crownpoint) 13. John Grubesic (D-Santa Fe) 14. the Sponsor, Gerald Ortiz y Pino (D-Santa Fe) Please point out that the concurrence of the Judiciary Committee Chair and Vice Chair should reclarify that the bill is legally sound, despite the usual industry cries from Ajinomoto and other industries and toxic corporations that such matters are preempted by the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause. In legal support of this bill, we have the 10th Amendment, the clear precedent of Nixon having rescinded cyclamates' FDA approval, the very clear New Mexico statutes prohibiting poisonous food additives and harmful adulterants, the Delaney Amendment (1958) to the law that created the FDA, the Ramazzini report proving carcinogenicity posted on the website for the National Institute of Health, Tom Udall's very strong support, numerous Federal statutes preventing adulterants added to food, numerous Supreme Court decisions, and hundreds of physicians' clinical reports to back up the Aspartame Bill. Explain that to NOT give an Executive Message at this time on this bill closes the door on not only the aspartame initiative, but also closes the door on many other Consumer Protection bills in New Mexico's future, and give a green light to all toxic corporate efforts to continue to add neurotoxic carcinogens to 6000 food products consumed by 70% of Americans. That would be reprehensible, as well as entirely avoidable, just by the Governor's issuing an Executive Message on Monday morning. You are most welcome to post your letter to the Governor as a comment on this article. Thank you. We can win this; we have to win this! New Mexicans who don't know what "carcinogenicity" and "neurotoxicity" are -- these are the folks who need our help most of all, the ones who fill up shopping carts full of harmful food products without even comprehending what they are doing -- these are the New Mexicans who need our help. Stephen Fox By ELDON HOWELL (Submitted: 01/21/2006 9:40 am ) I suggest in view of this very organized hysteria that you NM folks that believe you should have the choice or not had better do some writing and calling yourselves. If not, the hystrionics will prevail and I will have a roadside stand at the state line to serve your needs and another war on drugs will be needed. I can see the State Troopers pulling you over now, for illegal aspartame possession. By Jim Aamodt (Submitted: 01/21/2006 9:06 am ) I tried to bring up DHMO a few days ago and the only repsonse I got was got was from Michael Tincher who told me to give it a rest. I think Michael might have actually made a good point the more I think about it. By Khalil Spencer (Submitted: 01/21/2006 8:18 am ) Thanks to David Lopez for posting a very reasonable discussion of aspartame here. Eldon, here are a couple links on dihydrogen monoxide: Another hint: it is a crucial chemical found in most (if not all) of our commercial nuclear power reactors in the U.S., and what's worse, you consume it on a daily basis! Betcha the government didn't ever tell you that, eh? http://www.dhmo.org/ http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html By STEPHEN FOX (Submitted: 01/21/2006 8:17 am ) Our Aspartame bill is going to succeed if you take the time this weekend to write a note to Governor Richardson asking him to give the bill an Executive Message. This allows it to be heard in committees, and to not get such a Message clearly dooms it to failure by what we believe will not be the Governor's inaction. Please send him an email through the email function posted on his site! Happy to report that the aspartame bill was on the Headlines on KOAT TV last night, and should stil be posted on their site. Dr. Peter Tylee's comments: I appreciate the support from Australia on this effort. For those of you who don't know, Dr. Peter Tylee and his wife are the best known medical columnists in Australia; perhaps they are too humble to mention that and the Ph.D.'s in their posting, so I must make that clear; to read their commentaries on many other issues, and I quote from their front page: http://The-Health-Gazette.com is a site developed by Drs Peter and Jenny Tylee. We are both health care professionals who actually: are passionate about health and wellbeing, understand health is not just absence of disease, actively promote health, love empowering others through health education. We are committed to health education that provides significant empowerment to individuals who can achieve, regain or extend control of their own health care and management to achieve full enjoyment from life. We have decades of professional experience in multiple health disciplines, including nursing, psychology and natural medicine. We were also senior academics who spent almost 15 years teaching in Australian universities. We each have several degrees including PhD. from Dr. Peter Tylee. Stephen Fox By ELDON HOWELL (Submitted: 01/21/2006 7:55 am ) Yeah, David...I was a chem minor in school. Nice way of pointing out the scaremonger tactics! I guarantee this thing would not get far in the Lone Star State where we place a value on keeping the government out of the pantry as much as possible. By ELDON HOWELL (Submitted: 01/21/2006 7:48 am ) Yet another diatribe by the very organized minority trying to remove choices from the remainder. And Peter Tylee, the forum is indeed a venue for substantive debate, it just seems your definition of substance only includes the comments that resonate with your point of view. By Peter Tylee (Submitted: 01/21/2006 5:15 am ) I commend Govenor Bill Richardson, Senator Ortiz y Pino and Representative Irvin Harrison for their demonstration of principled leadership and commitment to protecting the health and welfare of New Mexicans. Stephen Fox and his closest supporters have clearly worked tirelessly on the carriage of this important matter and while it is to be expected that many will fail to appreciate those efforts and some will even resent them, they represent something that is good and important in this country. I hope the efforts pay off and that New Mexico redresses the FDA's error in approving aspartame. This would certainly be no small achievement. It would cascade through other states and if successful in ultimately persuading the FDA to rescind its approval, would ultimately impact other countries that by then have not already banned aspartame. This forum is clearly not a venue for substantive debate, though its importance in providing for public comment should not be overlooked of course. It appears that among contributors not overtly supportive of the moves described in the above article, only one person demonstrates an educated and thoughtful response, namely David Lopez. While David's brief biochemistry lesson is essentially sound, any inference that aspartame cannot be all that dangerous would be an error of logic and denial of clinical reality. Biochemistry can look safe in textbooks and appear harmless tested invitro and in some biomodels. In people though, in the wilds of every day reality, biochemistry is nowhere near as stable, predictable and controllable. People consume a vast array of different substances, rendering a virtual chemical soup within, to which responses vary widely. It is this clinical reality that seems to be conveniently forgotten by those respectable researchers who do support aspartame. Don't be fooled by the misguided views such as one can find at http://www.aspartame.net , the site representing the views promoted by the aspartame manufacturers and marketers. How selective is your memory? Do you recall that for decades scores of eminent scientists and even the AMA pronounced smoking to be safe? The AMA even stated that it was beneficial for health! Or what about Erin Brockovich (maybe you saw the movie)? Supporters of aspartame, whatever their credentials, are similar to those who supported tobacco. Unfortunately David was less thoughtful in his throw away remark about targetting red wine. Most people would know that wines, along with beers and spirits, are controlled. Age of access is stipulated, venues serving or selling it are licensed, and labels carry warnings. Rightly so too, because alcohol abuse is indeed dangerous. Most of the other comments against the thrust of the above article follow the freedom of choice theme. To be quite blunt, this is ignorance or folly. Your freedom is a benefit of citizenship and it is not free. It carries associated duties and obligations. Among these are acceptance of governance overseen by elected representatives and agreement to abide by the laws and myriad authorized constraints that are part of society. Now, look around pro choice people. You will observe constraints everywhere; from requirements to use a specified form when dealing with bureaucracy to traffic speed limits and countless others. If you aren't happy with them, if you believe them to be wrong, then mount a case and follow due process to have things changed. If you invest enough effort and overcome inevitable resistance and your efforts will help enough people, you may just be successful. That, essentially, is what Stephen Fox and his associates are doing. They are exercising their right to invoke change through due process. If you don't agree with them, that's your prerogative, but if you genuinely value freedom as you suggest, you may care to show a little more respect to your fellow citizen. I assume you are indeed a free citizen and not an anarchist. Further, allowing the FDA's error to stand and continuing to subject millions of people to aspartame is not, ethically speaking, good freedom. Even if large numbers of people could be shown to have no adverse effects from exposure to the chemical, evidence shows that vast numbers of people have already and will in future suffer harm as a result of consuming aspartame. Though granted some will deliberately choose aspartame in an effort to avoid sugar, most of these people did not and will not make an informed choice to consume a toxic substance, they will merely eat or drink some widely available and freely marketed consumer product or take a prescribed approved medication. Is this choice? It is certainly not choice to consume aspartame in most cases. Their choice was the assumed one that regulators could be trusted to ensure toxic substances were not placed in their consumable products. Of those who do deliberately consume aspartame, how many are really informed about the risks it poses? I suspect most of the support would quickly abate when a safe alternative was offered instead. Do remember, no one is suggesting you cannot have a sugar substitute. It is just wiser to have a safe one rather than a dangerous one. By christena parisoff (Submitted: 01/21/2006 4:40 am ) Certain words are used in labeling a drug, when it is poison - "A WARNING must be placed on that product - "Warning contains poison - do not consume" and this is germane to the fact - That a pharmaceutical company is using the toxic poison aspartame in Parkinson's patients medicine- namely Parcopa, Also that this same poison is literally in hundreds of foods and drugs all eaten or given to innocent children - which makes this matter a far greater crime - That a human life is being poisoned - Why is poisoning allowed by the FDA? ________________ Murder: When someone knowingly causes the death, or injuries resulting in death, of another person. Manslaughter: When someone causes the death of another through extreme indifference to human life. If you self poison it would be called: Suicide: The deliberate taking of one's own life. _______________ Aspartame is Poison Poison is a substance that causes injury, illness, or death, especially by chemical means. Something destructive or fatal. Chemistry & Physics says a poison is a substance that inhibits another substance or a reaction: a catalyst poison. in the true story - The Poisonous Life of a Female Serial Killer - It describes how Ms.Toppan ingratiated herself as an "angel of mercy," got hired as a private nurse, and went to work on her own secret passion -watching people die from poison. Far from using this murder weapon as a means to get ahead - the common assumption about female poisoners - she appeared to derive an erotic thrill from her work. Caught in 1901 after four members of the Alden Davis family had died in quick succession, Toppan was exposed as a killer. An autopsy indicated lethal doses of morphine and atropine in one of the victims. Investigators looked into her past, discovering a history of mental instability in Toppan's family and a long list of past patients who had died. She admitted to her attorney that she had killed 31 people, a 1938 New York Times report of her dark legacy have quoted a victim count up to 100. Knowingly companies such as Searle/ Monsanto etc.- have committed these same atrocities on much larger scale making poison for ~ the world ~ to consume. Death without a Warning Label. By David Lopez (Submitted: 01/21/2006 12:07 am ) Eldon, do you know what Dihydrogen monoxide is? Just a hint: It killed over 100,000 people around Christmas, 2004. In its solid form it can paralyze cities the size of New York. In its gas form, it helped spawn the Industrial Revolution. It will harm more people this week than aspartame will harm in a decade. The kicker is this: It is essential for life on this Earth. We need it, we hate it, we fear it, ... By David Lopez (Submitted: 01/20/2006 11:42 pm ) Steve, my point is that there is a recognized cardiovasular benefit received from the consumption of red wine, the methanol content notwithstanding. That benefit probably outweights the risk of taking in the methanol. If aspartame was really as toxic as this crowd wants us to believe, I would expect to see piles of bodies everywhere, like at a Jim Jones party. Well, I think most people can tolerate samll amounts of aspartame. If you are one that is sensitive to methanol, akin to being prone to hangovers, stay away from the stuff. I do agree that warning labels are the way to go. Think about what hangovers feel like, These are what the warning should be like. Warning, it has been determined that some people get headaches after consuming products that contain aspartame: Warning, a dripping faucet may sound like a cannon after consuming products that contain aspartame, etc. By ELDON HOWELL (Submitted: 01/20/2006 11:31 pm ) Kahlil, we are not always on the same page, but is this not ridiculous? Whatever that dihydrogen monoxide post stuff is, light it up! Anything is better than this trash. Expect them to be burning stores, soon. Ban photosynthetically produced food unless produced under winds destined for power stations! That work? Night, Khalil. By Steve van Dresser (Submitted: 01/20/2006 10:13 pm ) David, there are plenty of restrictions on who can buy a glass of red wine. Maybe if asparteme was restricted to adults only, with warnings on the labels that adults could read. I think there are warnings on red wine just as there are on cigarettes. That might be a good compromise. By "gumby" mil (Submitted: 01/20/2006 9:57 pm ) david lopez wrote; "There is as much Methanol in a glass of red wine as there is in a diet soda. Why is red wine not a target of this crusade against people poisoning themselves?" absolutely! why don't these CRUSADERS go against LIQUOR??? there are a BILLION times more DEATHS, ACCIDENTS, BROKEN FAMILES, MONETARY COSTS TO SOCIETY because of LIQUOR than ANY OTHER DRUG, EVEN HEROIN! and yet.. these dorks posting on this board want to front A CAUSE.. or some such rubbish. if these people want to do society a FAVOR.. they need to petition AGAINST ALCOHOL SALES! but they won't do that.. why? because they drink themselves. sounds like a bunch of hypocrits to me. peeps against aspartame? DON'T BUY IT. understand you little pinheads? AND LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE. I'LL PUT WHATEVER THE F* I WANT IN MY BODY. IT'S MINE. NOT YOURS. go find a cause for your venting... this is not it. By ELDON HOWELL (Submitted: 01/20/2006 9:38 pm ) Another boring, organized attempt to take use of a useful product from us. May your insane and selfish attempts fail. But, this, the land of enchantment and wierdness..perhaps a state tourist attraction. Check your aspartame and your guns at the state line. By ELDON HOWELL (Submitted: 01/20/2006 9:20 pm ) May common sense prevail. Pro choice!!! By Karen Ulehla (Submitted: 01/20/2006 9:03 pm ) by Karen Ulehla, MSLS medical Regarding statement posted 5:43 PM: You say, "if you don't like it, don't buy it." It is not so simple. Who will protect the children, the pregnant and nursing mothers, the elderly, the sensitive... who unknowingly consume the product? Let's look at another popular product, the drug Vioxx. The drug giant Merck -- desiring to keep a very profitable Vioxx on the market, ignored mounting evidence that the drug was dangerous to humans. However, when an estimated 140,000 Americans developed heart and vascular disease from Vioxx -- the top-selling painkiller was pulled from the market in 2004, after results from a clinical study showed that Vioxx doubled the risk of stroke and heart attack in humans. I am sure that many consumers enjoyed the pain relief of Vioxx. I am also certain that many people enjoy using aspartame. Why did the Executive Director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Dr. Michael Jacobson recently state that consumers should avoid using aspartame in view of the research study published in November 2005 -- National Institutes of Health's publication, Environmental Health Perspectives? Why did Member of Parliament Roger Williams of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Food and the Environment call for emergency action to ban aspartame, the artificial sweetener used in food, drink and medicinal products on December 15, 2005? These intelligent leaders are calling for action "in the public interest". Perhaps, as you say, New Mexico is leading the world in these posts -- for a very good reason. Perhaps the intelligent citizens of New Mexico have the wisdom to speak and to act in "the public interest". By David Lopez (Submitted: 01/20/2006 9:01 pm ) There is as much methanol in a glass of red wine as there is in a diet soda. Why is red wine not a target of this crusade against people poisoning themselves? By Khalil Spencer (Submitted: 01/20/2006 8:36 pm ) I think its time to fire up the dihydrogen monoxide posts... By Nancy Hokkanen (Submitted: 01/20/2006 8:31 pm ) Three comments: (1) Few children under 5 can read product labels. (2) Xylitol is an alternative. (3) Proper spelling enhances credibility. By ELDON HOWELL (Submitted: 01/20/2006 8:27 pm ) This is CLEARLY an organized, probably at a national level, effort by chemical parinoids to subvert the right to use safe chemical substitutes for sugar. They have apparently targted New Mexico because of the legislation pending, and are swarming you en mass. What I've seen on the forum in the last two weeks or so indicates to me that you are not wanting to subvert your rights to use or not to use this product. You'd better weigh in with your legislators on this, or you will once again, lose a freedom of choice.!!!! Aspartame, buy it or not. PRO CHOICE??? How's that? By David Lopez (Submitted: 01/20/2006 8:06 pm ) Aspartame is an artificial sweetener made up of two amino acids, phenylalanine and aspartic acid, and an alcohol, methanol. Aspartame is used because it's about 200 times sweeter than table sugar. Since 1 gram of aspartame (with essentially no calories) can replace 2 teaspoons of sugar (at 16 calories per teaspoon), foods made with aspartame have many fewer calories than they would if sugar was used. Unlike other food substitutes such as the artificial fat olestra, aspartame is digested by your body. Equal is one sweetener made with aspartame. The fact that aspartame is digested by your body is what makes it so controversial. After you eat or drink an aspartame-sweetened product, aspartame breaks down into its starting components: phenylalanine, aspartate, and methanol. Methanol accounts for about 10 percent of this. Methanol itself is not harmful, but enzymes in your liver break it down into two very toxic compounds. The big debate is whether there's enough of these toxins produced from the methanol in aspartame to damage your body. What is methanol, and why is it even in a sweetener? Methanol is one of a host of alcohols normally produced during the fermentation of carbon-based compounds. An alcohol is basically a water atom (H20) with one of the hydrogen atoms replaced by a chain of carbons and their attached hydrogen atoms. Methanol (CH 3OH) is the simplest alcohol with a chain consisting of a carbon atom with three hydrogen atoms attached. Ethanol (CH3 CH2OH), the intoxicating ingredient in beer and other alcoholic beverages, has a chain that's twice as long. Methanol can be distilled from fermented wood, so you may know it as wood alcohol. It's an ingredient in commercial products like antifreeze, glass cleaner, and paint thinners, but many people regularly drink other, more innocuous products that contain methanol. Methanol is found naturally in fruit juice and distilled spirits such as whiskey, wine, and beer. A typical glass of wine contains a small amount of methanol, from 0.0041 to 0.02 percent by volume. In comparison, the same glass will have about 10-15 percent ethanol. Methanol is much sweeter than ethanol, and even a small amount adds flavor to these beverages. This sweetness is what makes methanol attractive to use in an artificial sweetener. All alcohols are toxic to some degree, but the dark side of methanol lies in the metabolites produced during its breakdown in the body. The same set of enzymes digest both methanol and ethanol. This stepwise degradation eventually yields the final products of carbon dioxide and water. The process prevents ethanol from building up to toxic levels in the body. But the small difference in the structures of the ethanol and methanol molecules means that the intermediate steps of the same process turn methanol into compounds that are far more dangerous than methanol itself! In the first enzymatic reaction, methanol is broken down into formaldehyde. If you've ever dissected a frog in biology class, you may have witnessed one of the many uses of this chemical. Formaldehyde reacts with the amino acids in proteins. Proteins are chains of amino acids that fold to form very unique structures. The way these chains fold gives proteins the proper shape and the flexibility to interact with other molecules. Formaldehyde diffuses into tissues and cells where it forms crosslinks between different amino acids. The protein is stuck rigidly in whatever conformation it was in and is no longer able to carry out any reactions! This property makes formaldehyde useful for a number of chemical processes that fix things in a particular state. Some examples a * embalming * leather tanning * corrosion prevention * wood finishing Formaldehyde may also cause cancer in humans, but this requires long-term exposure. Formaldehyde doesn't stick around long in your body because it is so rapidly metabolized to formic acid by the second enzyme in this metabolic pathway. Formic acid is also extremely toxic to humans. It disrupts the function of a cell's mitochondria. Mitochondria normally serve as the "powerhouse of the cell" (for more information on mitochondria, see How Cells Work) and disrupting their function is like abruptly shutting down a nuclear reactor. Not only do all the cellular processes stop for lack of energy, but the cells themselves are blown apart by a massive accumulation of different molecules involved in energy production. The cells that make up the optic nerve are exquisitely sensitive to formic acid, which is why blindness is so closely associated with methanol poisoning. Does aspartame produce enough methanol to harm people? The short answer is, "there is a lot of controversy around this question". Most people regularly consume up to 10 mg of methanol per day as part of their normal diet. One 12-ounce can of aspartame-sweetened soda contains about 200 milligrams of aspartame. You'd add a tenth of this amount to your diet as methanol following digestion (20 mg). Here are some interesting links: * How Cells Work * How does olestra (fat-substitute) work? * How Food Works * How Dieting Works * How Calories Work * Aspartame, the bad news * Aspartame's patent information By Kenneth Stoller (Submitted: 01/20/2006 7:51 pm ) To all those who keep repeating, "I like it, I buy it, don't mess with my Aspartame addiction, etc." Understand, that we are supposed to be living under the rule of the laws we have created including the Constitution. Now, obviously the real situation is we live under rules, and those with the money make the rules, but that is not what is supposed to be taking place. Coporate Feudalism was not supposed to be the law of the land. Obviously, from the top man on down, we have people who think they can just make rules up on the fly and the law be damned, so it is no wonder we see this at the micro level as well. While aspartame itself is a complex issue, and likely to be fraught with the perils of dealing with threatened corporations, the fundamental issue here is the concept that we deal on a daily basis with the threat of hidden toxins in our foods and drinks, as well as in many other items we use on a daily or even less frequent basis (mercury in flu shots is an example of that). What is needed, and may arise from a successful outcome to the banning of aspartame, is to bring attention to the issue of hidden toxins and the hidden agendas of those willing to break the laws of this country to line their pockets. Once people become conscious of that, as they did with the hidden toxins in cigarette smoke, then the people of New Mexico and the USA, will work hard to solve the problem. There is a problem. The question to ask is do you want to be part of it? No one will take that right away from you! K Paul Stoller, MD, FAAP Former member of the Environmental Hazards Committee American Acadamy of Pediatrics By Maria Leyba (Submitted: 01/20/2006 6:39 pm ) oh groan..... By Kate Stone (Submitted: 01/20/2006 6:08 pm ) I don't read these posts because they are far too long. I scroll right through them as I suspect most here do. I do read labels, though, and try valiantly to avoid certain chemicals. It is hard to do and I figure my tissues are full of crap from years of eating whatever and I am never going to be pure without going the nuts and seeds route which isn't going to happen. Having said that, I try to avoid aspartame like I try to avoid MSG. Both give me a headache. So do these long posts. By ELDON HOWELL (Submitted: 01/20/2006 5:43 pm ) Karen U...per your last statement, New Mexico is leading the WORLD in outrageously long-winded and misguided posts about this subject. Someone has fanned the grassroots flames to make it seem as if the small minority on this issue are roaring like the masses. I say, if you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple. Don't abridge my right to use it. I like it, I buy it. By Karen Ulehla (Submitted: 01/20/2006 5:36 pm ) medical Regarding Aspartame: Should the State of New Mexico get involved in consumer protection? The FDA, the federal agency tasked with human health protection, has failed to do its job resulting in serious loss of credibility. Senator Ted Kennedy recently stated, "The credibility of the FDA has been questioned due to recent serious controversies". The problem with pharmaceutical companies: the recent issue of Good Medicine [Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine] points out that "more than 100,000 Americans die each year from adverse reactions to approved drugs. This is the fifth leading cause of death in the US. More than 90 percent of drugs that appear safe in animal tests fail in human studies. And more than half of all approved drugs will be withdrawn or relabled for serious or lethal effects in humans." Aspartame is just another product that examplifies of how a pharmaceutical company works to protect profits. The safety of GD Searle Pharmaceuticals' aspartame has been questioned for years. In 1986, Senator Howard Metzenbaum wrote: "We cannot rely upon the tests sponsored by the manufacturer of Nutrasweet, S.D. Searle, and ignore the concerns being raised by independent studies. We don't need the company which is making hundreds of millions of dollars on this product telling us it's "safe", particularly when the credibility of that company's testing on Nutrasweet has been severely undermined." That was 1986. Since that time, thousands of complaints regarding aspartame have poured into the FDA -- with no response. Now, as consumers, we are concerned to learn that in new research published in November 2005 in the National Institutes of Health's Environmental Health Perspectives, the authors demonstrated the multipotential carcinogenic effects of aspartame and they call for "urgent reevaluation of the current guidelines for the use and consumption of this compound." http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2005/8711/abstract. html [full text version is available free in PDF format] The evidence is clear. Doctor of Law and Member of Parliament Roger Williams called for emergency action to ban aspartame in the UK on December 15, 2005 because there is "compelling and reliable evidence for this carcinogenic substance to be banned from the UK food and drinks market altogether. In licensing aspartame for use, regulators around the world had failed in their main task of protecting the public." Who is going to protect the consumer if the FDA is understaffed and underfunded? In a PBS interview of Raymond Woosley, a top candidate to become FDA commissioner in 2002 and former Chairman of Georgetown University's Department of Phamacology for twelve years reflected on one reason for the current serious concerns about the FDA . He told FRONTLINE that the FDA's safety efforts were underfunded and understaffed, and he stressed that our country needs independent analysis of safety and effectiveness. "The market," says Woosley, "is only going to find out what's good about medicines. It's never going to ask all the questions about what could be wrong." Industry has vested interests as exemplified by the present actions of the aspartame lawyers and lobbyists. Former Director of NIEHS/NTP reports that FDA discouraged testing: David Rall, who was former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and overseer the NIH National Toxicology Program for 19 years, commented on aspartame: "The FDA that helped fund the Toxicology Program repeatedly opposed further studies of aspartame. It's a wonderful way to ensure that aspartame isn't tested. Discourage the testing group from testing it and then say it's safe." Suppression of critically important research facts and inaccurate information have been exploited by the food and pharmaceutical industries to manipulate and wield influence over federal agencies. An excellent example of industry manipulation and control of research regarding aspartame follows: in April 2005, I received a letter from an eminent research scientist who stated: "We carried out the experiments that provided a solid basis for the explanation of the toxicity of aspartame. Unfortunately, high politics, extremely powerful and aggressive commercial interests and other no less menacing actions convinced us that the continuity of our research had to be outside the concrete study of aspartame. Thus we left the field due to the brute force of lawyering and constant references to FDA authority. I truly cannot understand how it was authorized in the first place and how it can continue being authorized when there is so much evidence against it. This case demonstrates that a given laboratory needs to have friends in high places and aggressive lawyers instead of thorough scientists in order to get high money." States must protect their citizens since the FDA is clearly unable to do so. New Mexico is leading the nation in this landmark consumer protection issue. By Sarah Seiderman (Submitted: 01/20/2006 4:58 pm ) To all of you who are doubtful of the danger of aspartame, you are apparently unaware of the thousands of Americans who have filed complaints about this ingredient, listing symptoms that range from headaches and indigestion to weight gain, mental instability, birth defects, tumors, cancers and heart failure! If this reaction had occurred in ten or twelve people, I could understand your doubt. But so many of us have had our health ruined by aspartame that it is no longer a matter of what you or I choose to do -- it is out of your control now, as YOU may be poisoned by a product that contains aspartame and you will be unaware of its presence, unless you happen to read the label closely. We were led -- by putting our faith in the Federal Drug Administration -- to believe that we were drinking or eating a product that would do us no harm which is, after all, THEIR DUTY. Instead of protecting the public's health, the FDA has accepted the coercion (the nicest way of putting it) of the large pharmaceutical companies and their manufacturers. Millions of dollars have been made on the popularization of these sugar-substitutes. Thousands of Americans have been injured or killed, due to this greed for money. I have lost most of my eyesight, I had a false reading of diabetes for seven years, I have permanent damage to my heart and countless other health problems... all because I trusted my government, my FDA, to protect me from allowing poison to be sold to the public. Thank God I found out in time and am returning to wonderful health, but without my eyesight, sadly. Thank God that Stephen Fox and Betty Martini and all their associates have had the courage to present this to a caring Governor Richardson, and a legislature that is willing to set a precedent, and that they are beginning to show signs of succeeding. There is no excuse -- legal, moral or of conscience -- for the action of the FDA in this matter. Please give your support to those who are showing their deep interest in protecting the health and safety of Americans, and the world. Help us to ban aspartame in New Mexico. Be the first state to do this, and earn the gratitude of all America! Sarah Seiderman By Stephanie DuBois (Submitted: 01/20/2006 4:27 pm ) regarding the aspartame issue. I think we must be vigilant about what we consume. We don't want to wait like we did with vioxx. My hats off to those legislators who support removing this toxin from over 6,000 items including baby food. Just because the FDA approves something doesn't necessarily make it good. it is usually approved because lobbyists with big bucks make it happen. I hope our legislators in new Mexico will put their constituents health ahead of campaign contributions. Stephanie DuBois, Tularosa By R. Pino (Submitted: 01/20/2006 3:20 pm ) How did an unqualified local gallery owner who is not even remotely qualified as a scientist manage to get such a soapbox to get his wild assertions such a high priority? At least I worked in the sweeteners business for 3 years. I can actually back up with science what I know. And it is not even in any "interest" for me to do so. Mansanto was a competitor of ours. By STEPHEN FOX (Submitted: 01/20/2006 3:11 pm ) How did Mr.Pino ever get the bizarre idea that a person with an underfunctioning pancreas not producing enough insulin should be ingesting a product that turns to formaldehyde? Diabetics are the last folks who should be drinking formaldehyde: I just wonder which corporation started such a destructive medically absurd and illogical idea, just to sell their product? I do know that the Aspartame manufacturers like Monsanto gave huge sums as "gifts" to the American Diabetes Association, and then the Association said it was fine to use aspartame. Is that not a form of bribe? All of the diabetics I know who quit aspartame usually observe a lessening of their symptoms; logical, eh? no formaldehyde and the system begins to heal itself. Stephen Fox By R. Pino (Submitted: 01/20/2006 2:24 pm ) If I want to go out and eat a bottleful of draino there is no legislation in the world that can stop me. If the US won't sell it, I can order it from France and will eat it if I want to.......... Nanny, nanny boo-boo. By R. Pino (Submitted: 01/20/2006 2:19 pm ) Kenneth, Your left-wing rhetoric is no better or prettier than your right-wing nut job counterparts. I represent what remains left of our free society and not a Communist country. No one will listen to you even if you DO bold your crap. Your law is Unconstitutional and Discriminatory. Your facts are junk science as I've just pointed out from the link I just posted. Nanny, nanny boo-boo. People have the free will to eat whatever they want to. By Khalil Spencer (Submitted: 01/20/2006 2:15 pm ) I doubt that Pino is the lackey of The Great Corporate Plutocracy, Mr. Stoller. He just disagrees with you. Save us the poorly veiled ad hominem attacks. By Kenneth Stoller (Submitted: 01/20/2006 2:09 pm ) R. Pino represents the many who are under the influence of our coporate plutocracy. Few understand that Aspartame actually causes one to crave carbohydrates, and negatively impact on insulin resistence. This isn't just about making a personal health/dietary decision. Carcinogenic food adulterants are against the law. The role of Government is to protect and defend its citizenry, even those with aspartame induced brain damage. By R. Pino (Submitted: 01/20/2006 2:05 pm ) Web Editor: You know that a great portion of what this gentleman is stating regarding aspartame is completely unsubstantiated, right? I've posted an alternative dispute with information he http://www.aspartame.net/ By R. Pino (Submitted: 01/20/2006 1:58 pm ) Actually, this law is SUCH a failure and Unconstitutional. To all you diabetics out there that need your aspartame sweetener, give these people your big middle finger if this law passes. Go out to http://Amazon.com or any online vendor and order all the products that you need that contain aspartame just despite them. Your mail cannot be tampered with or denied you without it being a federal felony. By R. Pino (Submitted: 01/20/2006 1:39 pm ) Absolutely NOT!!! To both of you. I refuse to help you discriminate against folks like diabetics that need a sweetener alternative. If you don't like aspartame the SIMPLE solution is to buy products that don't contain it. No one is twisting your arm to ingest it. By Barbara Metzler (Submitted: 01/20/2006 1:31 pm ) Everyone in New Mexico should immediately and loudly beg the members of the New Mexico Legislature to quickly pass bills to ban the artificial sweetener called aspartame. Aspartame is marketed under names such as NutraSweet, Equal, Equal Measure, Spoonful, Naturataste, Canderal, Benevia, E951, Nutrataste, Joe Sweet, Indulge, Hermesetas Gold, Sanecta, and Tri-Sweet. (Crystal-Lite is a beverage mix that contains aspartame.) My own daughter's life was nearly destroyed by aspartame-sweetened diet soda 18 years ago. She had epileptic-type seizures, depression, and she began to lose her vision in both eyes. Aspartame gives me immediate migraines, so that is why I suspected aspartame was harming my daughter. We live in New Jersey, but to follow up, we took her to Boston for special studies on her brain, and the doctors confirmed that it was the NutraSweet (aspartame) that had made her so ill. When she stopped drinking sodas containing aspartame, she had a complete recovery and has had an excellent and demanding job since then as a computer programmer and financial analyst. She saw many physicians when she first became ill. She first went to a neurologist who decided that she had temporal lobe epilepsy and treated her for it -- without success -- because she didn't have temporal lobe epilepsy. She had to see an opthalmologist because she was losing her vision. She saw a second neurologist. She even went to a psychologist. And, she ended up in Boston. What an awful waste of time and money -- from something as avoidable as diet soda. And, why did it take so long to help her? Because most physicians and their patients are clueless when it comes to connecting the myriad of bizarre symptoms of aspartame poisoning with the consumption of what is supposedly a safe substance - approved by the FDA! Since the FDA says aspartame is "safe," doctors don't notice "side-effects" when they are staring them in the eye. Obviously, obesity is a serious problem!!! However, what upsets me even more is that people turn to artificial sweeteners in an attempt to lose weight or prevent weight gain. And, studies show that typically, aspartame contributes to weight gain!!! People who lose weight while consuming aspartame are losing only because they have the determination to make proper food choices and to exercise. Some people react quickly to aspartame consumption and others don't realize they have a problem for years. Other people recognize problems, but they have no idea that aspartame was the cause. Most students realize that illegal drugs and smoking are bad for them, but many don't know anything about the hazards of aspartame. The FDA should be protecting all families from a deadly neurotoxin that destroys brains, nervous systems and optic nerves. What's done should be "un" done. The FDA has new employees who need to protect Americans from the mistakes of the former FDA employees!!! Please, contact your governor and legislators now! By Kenneth Stoller (Submitted: 01/20/2006 12:39 pm ) The information about just how poisonous some of the neurotoxins we have been getting fed and injected with by corporations that do not have our best interests at heart is both new and disturbing to most who just find out about it. Many may not believe this is really true. While the FDA is an agency fraught with problems, the original approval of aspartame wasn't even a gross error. It was only through deliberate manipulation, obfuscation, and prevarication, with a healthy dose of political pressure and payouts that brought aspartame to market. This known carcinogen was only approved because of individual human and governmental corruption. The carcinogenicity of aspartame was known in the 1970s, but it is found in thousands of products consumed today because of the insanity of corporate cruelty and greed, because of the amorality and misanthropy of individuals who care nothing for the man or woman on the street. And so it comes to the individual states to protect their citizens, and I echo our Governor's words on this matter. We can not allow ourselves to be intimidated by those who want to continue to feed a toxin to New Mexicans. K Paul Stoller, MD, FAAP President, International Hyperbaric Medical Association Santa Fe ************************************************** ***** http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1286 methanol products (formaldehyde and formic acid) are main cause of alcohol hangover symptoms [same as from similar amounts of methanol, the 11% part of aspartame]: YS Woo et al, 2005 Dec: Murray 2006.01.20 Addict Biol. 2005 Dec;10(4): 351-5. Concentration changes of methanol in blood samples during an experimentally induced alcohol hangover state. Woo YS, Yoon SJ, Lee HK, Lee CU, Chae JH, Lee CT, Kim DJ. Chuncheon National Hospital, Department of Psychiatry, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea. http://www.cuk.ac.kr/eng/ Songsin Campus: 02-740-9714 Songsim Campus: 02-2164-4116 Songeui Campus: 02-2164-4114 http://www.cuk.ac.kr/eng/sub055.htm eight hospitals [ Han-Kyu Lee ] A hangover is characterized by the unpleasant physical and mental symptoms that occur between 8 and 16 hours after drinking alcohol. After inducing experimental hangover in normal individuals, we measured the methanol concentration prior to and after alcohol consumption and we assessed the association between the hangover condition and the blood methanol level. A total of 18 normal adult males participated in this study. They did not have any previous histories of psychiatric or medical disorders. The blood ethanol concentration prior to the alcohol intake (2.26+/-2.08) was not significantly different from that 13 hours after the alcohol consumption (3.12+/-2.38). However, the difference of methanol concentration between the day of experiment (prior to the alcohol intake) and the next day (13 hours after the alcohol intake) was significant (2.62+/-1.33/l vs. 3.88+/-2.10/l, respectively). A significant positive correlation was observed between the changes of blood methanol concentration and hangover subjective scale score increment when covarying for the changes of blood ethanol level (r=0.498, p0.05). This result suggests the possible correlation of methanol as well as its toxic metabolite to hangover. PMID: 16318957 [ The toxic metabolite of methanol is formaldehyde, which in turn partially becomes formic acid -- both potent cumulative toxins that are the actual cause of the toxicity of methanol.] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1106 hangover research relevant to toxicity of 11% methanol in aspartame (formaldehyde, formic acid): Calder I (full text): Jones AW: Murray 2004.08.05 rmforall Since no adaquate data has ever been published on the exact disposition of toxic metabolites in specific tissues in humans of the 11% methanol component of aspartame, the many studies on morning-after hangover from the methanol impurity in alcohol drinks are the main available resource to date. Jones AW (1987) found next-morning hangover from red wine with 100 to 150 mg methanol (9.5% w/v ethanol, 100 mg/l methanol, 0.01%, one part in ten thousand). Fully 11% of aspartame is methanol -- 1,120 mg aspartame in 2 L diet soda, almost six 12-oz cans, gives 123 mg methanol (wood alcohol) -- the same amount that produces hangover from red wine. The expert review by Monte WC (1984) states: "An alcoholic consuming 1500 calories a day from alcoholic sources alone may consume between 0 and 600 mg of methanol each day depending on his choice of beverages (Table 1)...." Table 1 lists red wine as having 128 mg/l methanol, about one part in ten thousand. An editorial review by Ian Calder, F.R.C.A., "Hangovers: not the ethanol-- perhaps the methanol", British Medical Journal 1997 Jan 4; 314(7073): 2 [Tel/Fax: 0171 720 9279 Consultant Anaesthetist at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London WCIN 3BG, UK] http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/search.dtl search to get free full text ], states: "In fact, ethanol itself may play only a minor part in producing the thirst, headache, fatigue, nausea, sweating, tremor, remorse, and anxiety that hangover sufferers report.... [ Also, dizziness is common. ] "Between a quarter and a half of drinkers claim not to experience hangover symptoms despite having been intoxicated. (three citations)" The symptom list is similar to reports by aspartame reactors. If only a fraction of aspartame users happen to be vulnerable to the methanol, that would account well for the disbelief by those who are not aspartame reactors, as well as the scientific difficulty in proving aspartame toxicity in the general population. Research can study whether the hangover prone are also vulnerable to aspartame, methanol, formaldehyde, and formic acid, and determine the specific biochemistry for different groups. Hangover treatments may help aspartame reactors. For instance, adaquate folic acid (folate) helps humans eliminate the toxic products from methanol. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/search.dtl search to get free full text British Medical Journal 1997 (4 January); 314(7073): 2. Ian Calder, F.R.C.A. [ Tel/Fax: 0171 720 9279 Consultant Anaesthetist at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London WCIN 3BG, UK ] Editorials Hangovers: Not the ethanol - perhaps the methanol ************************************************** ***** "Of course, everyone chooses, as a natural priority, to actively find, quickly share, and act upon the facts about healthy and safe food, drink, and environment." Rich Murray, MA Room For All 505-501-2298 1943 Otowi Road Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages group with 151 members, 1,287 posts in a public, searchable archive http://RmForAll.blogspot.com http://AspartameNM.blogspot.com Dark wines and liquors, as well as aspartame, provide similar levels of methanol, above 100 mg daily, for long-term heavy users, 2 L daily, about 6 cans. Methanol is inevitably largely turned into formaldehyde, and thence largely into formic acid. It is the major cause of the dreaded symptoms of "next morning" hangover. Fully 11% of aspartame is methanol -- 1,120 mg aspartame in 2 L diet soda, almost six 12-oz cans, gives 123 mg methanol (wood alcohol). If 30% of the methanol is turned into formaldehyde, the amount of formaldehyde, 37 mg, is 18.5 times the USA EPA limit for daily formaldehyde in drinking water, 2.0 mg in 2 L average daily drinking water. ************************************************** ***** |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
great problems are opportunities for service -- aspartame (methanol, formaldehyde) toxicity: Rawlings: Murray 2005.10.10 | Rich Murray | Kids Health | 1 | October 10th 05 11:43 AM |
GLOBAL RELEASE - ASPARTAME TOXICITY | Jeff | Kids Health | 3 | September 20th 04 02:28 PM |
Breastfeeding and aspartame | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 1 | April 15th 04 12:53 PM |
aspartame (methanol, formaldehyde) toxicity: Murray 10.15.3 rmforall | Rich Murray | Pregnancy | 0 | October 17th 03 04:58 AM |