Mary Nash Stoddard and attorney Jim Turner won the first stevia war against the FDA, and started Aspartame Consumer Safety Network and Pilot Hotline in1987: Murray 2007.05.19

Mary Nash Stoddard and attorney Jim Turner won the first stevia war
against the FDA, and started Aspartame Consumer Safety Network and
Pilot Hotline in1987: Murray 2007.05.19
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1431

From: Mary Nash Stoddard 3:37 pm 2007.05.19

I've worked with Oscar Rodes, owner of Arlington, Texas, Stevita Co.,
father in law of James Kirkland ,
who wrote the stevia cookbooks we sell, since the late eighties.

I'm friends with all their family and have interviewed all many times
on radio over the years.

His daughter Tanya had an aspartame reaction in college and called
me.
She was on the staff of her college newspaper and did a story with
me.

That's how we got to know about stevia first.
I even wrote the Stevia/Aspartame Fact Sheet "A Tale of Two
Sweeteners,"
published in our book and all over the Internet for years -- written
in July, 1998.

I was the publicist who got their story told in the national media,
with the book banning incident and stevia embargo earlier.

Turner was their attorney and we got the FDA to back down finally.

The Rodes family said they would no longer be in business,
if it were not for our making a big deal out of it in the media!

It was a huge victory -- not surprisingly, we were never acknowledged
by Murray or Martini for our part in the stevia battle,
which they make sound like their own campaign.

Martini publishes our press release under her name. Funny, huh.

Mary Nash Stoddard
Toxicology Sourcebook: "Deadly Deception Story of Aspartame"
Aspartame Consumer Safety Network and Pilot Hotline [since 1987]
P.O. Box 2001 Frisco, Texas 75034 U.S. [ North of Dallas ]
Phone/FAX: 214.387.4001
http://www.aspartamesafety.com
http://www.aspartamesafety.com/en_espanol.htm

www.stevitastevia.com/
Stevita Co
7650 US Hwy 287 #100 Arlington, Texas USA 76001
1-800-337-5561 1-817-478-8891

Recently, Oscar Rodes, President of Stevita Co, an international
expert on Stevia
spoke at the 2nd International Scientific Stevia Symposium
held in Assuncion, Paraguay in November, 2006.

Among the many plants of the Compositae family, the Stevia Rebaudiana
Bertoni is the only one that produces intensively sweet tasting
active substances called "steviosides".

The Stevia Rebaudiana Bertoni is a perennial plant that can reach 4
ft tall and is native of the highlands of central southeast South
America covering portions of Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina.

For centuries the Stevia Rebaudiana Bertoni has been used by the
local natives and first settlers of the area, as a traditional
medicine for diabetics and also as a source of sweetener for their
drinks and teas.

Our dedication to excellence in quality begins with our combined
practices of respect for the environment , the use of natural methods
to cultivate the plants, and a proprietary natural water extraction
process to naturally extract the active principles from the leaves of
the stevia plant. No chemicals, solvents or enzymes are used in the
process.

Our proprietary extraction process yields a stevia extract with at
least 95% steviosides. ( the 5% balance is composed of pigments,
essential oils and moisture - all natural components of the leaves).

Stevita is the brand name used by Steviafarma S.A. of Brazil to
market its stevia products worldwide.

It was first introduced in the Brazilian market in 1988 and was
introduced in the US market in 1997.

Steviafarma is a fully vertically integrated stevia producer with a
long history of farming the stevia plant, starting from the seeds and
including cultivation, harvesting, extraction, formulation of stevia
based products and marketing of the final products. Its technical
staff is composed of agronomists, chemists, researchers, food
scientists, technicians , all entirely devoted to the stevia
business.

www.stevita.com.br/
Endereço da Empresa: Steviafarma Industrial S/A.
Rua Stevia, 300 CEP: 87070-140 - Maringá, PR



On May 19, 2007, at 11:30 AM, wrote:

stevia, balanced factual detailed review in Wikipedia: Murray
2007.05.19
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1430

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1215
Edward M. Johnson, J.D. Attorney, Texas, supports legality and
necessity of
Fox petition for New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board
to ban aspartame: Fox: Murray 2005.09.15


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1220
legal and factual basis for NM EIB to ban aspartame (methanol,
formaldehyde), final paragraph from James S. Turner, Esq, letters from
Kenneth P. Stoller MD (Pediatrics), C. Grant La Farge, MD (Pediatric
Cardiology), Karen Ulehla, MSLS, Medical Librarian: Murray 2005.09.27

Letters to the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board
concerning New Mexico statutes NM 25-2-13 and 25-2-15

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SWANKIN & TURNER

David A. Swankin
James S. Turner, P.C.
Betsy E. Lehrfeld, P.C.
Christopher B. Turner, P.C.
Suite 101 1400 16th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
202-462-8800 fax 202-265-6564

September 20, 2005

Dear Secretary Curry:

I am sending the enclosed REVISED letter in hopes that it will benefit
your
effort to evaluate aspartame in New Mexico. My prior letter was
inadvertently sent before it was completed. Please forward the
enclosed to
Barbara Claire before 5 PM today.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, James S. Turner, Esq.

[ Here is the added final paragraph: ]

Your statutory powers to consider these matters are explicitly set
forth in
the New Mexico Food Act (25-2-1 through 25-2-19).

Poisonous and deleterious food adulteration is the province of the
Environmental Improvement Board to delineate;
your powers in that regard are very precise.

This statute provides, "A food shall be deemed to be adulterated
(1) if it contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may
render
it injurious,
(2) if it contains any added poisonous or added deleterious substance
which
is unsafe, and
(3) if it consists in whole or in part of ....a decomposed substance,
or if
it is otherwise unfit."

The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Act, the act that created the
Environmental Improvement Board, in Section 74-1-2, gives you much
broader
powers to promulgate rules"...in order to ensure an environment that
in the
greatest possible measure will confer optimum health, safety, comfort
and
economic and social well-being on its inhabitants; (and ) will protect
this
generation as well as those yet unborn from health threats posed by
the
environment..."

Section 74-1-8A (1) created the EIB" "The Board is responsible for
environmental management and consumer protection.

In that respect the Board shall promulgate rules and standards in the
following areas: (1) food protection..."

Sincerely, James S. Turner, Esq.


To The Honorable Gay Dillingham
Madame Chair, New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board

Dear Ms. Dillingham and Members of the EIB:

I spoke, along with Dr. Grant LaFarge, to the EIB previously about
Aspartame.

I understand you now have to consider the legal issue of whether the
EIB has
the authority to regulate this neurotoxin based on the current
statutes that
are in place.

I am a physician, not a legal scholar, but I have reviewed the
statutes and
it is very clear that the EIB has this regulatory authority.

I dare say the decision you reach on October 4th will be a very
important
one and I will leave my comment on the subject at that, but I want to
tell
you a very relevant personal story.

I knew Arthur Hayes, Jr, M.D., the FDA Commissioner who approved
aspartame
back in 1981, over all of the objections of the internal boards of the
FDA.
Dr. Hayes flew out to San Francisco to interview me when I was
applying to
medical school, and it was because of Dr. Hayes that I went to Penn
State
where he was teaching in the mid-'70s.

I remember when Dr. Hayes was chosen to be the head of the FDA, when
he
green lighted Nutrasweet, despite evidence that it was an extremely
harmful
and neurotoxic, and I remember that he resigned in 1983 when it was
discovered he had been, in effect, taking bribes from pharmaceutical
companies. Then he went off to work at the PR firm for the very
company that
owned the patent for, manufactured, and sold aspartame! As a former
student
of his, it was clear to me that his entire medical career was
disgraced, and
to this day, he refuses to even talk about his role in getting
aspartame
approved.

The system is broken... those governmental organizations, such as the
FDA,
that should be working for the people of our country, have been turned
into
corrupt trade organizations for the very corporations they have been
mandated to regulate. This has been going on for decades now. We are
ruled,
in a sense, by a corporate plutocracy at the Federal level. Only the
individual states have the ability, at this eleventh hour in our
democracy,
to act in accordance with the principles of our founding fathers.

I am not waxing poetic here, but I must point out very clearly to all
of you
as members of the New Mexico Environmental Board that your decision on
the
4th is that important, and that the very nature of a government of the
people, for the people, and by the people, is in your hands. Please do
not
cave in to pressures being brought down about you so that corporations
can
continue to sell a poison!

I have testified in front of a Congressional hearing, but the hearing
that I
attended that made the biggest impression on me was the one I attended
as a
boy. Congress was deciding whether to put warning labels on cigarette
boxes.
The year was 1965!

I bring this up because the influence of the tobacco industry on our
government is still pervasive and endemic. We have given away our
federal
government first to the tobacco industry and then to all those that
have
followed in the tobacco industry's footsteps. They have done well
because we
let them profit by poisoning us by not demanding our rights and
sovereignty
in these areas.

But this is about to change and you have the duty and solemn joyful
obligation to do the right thing and be the vehicle of this change by
prohibiting the sale of this neurotoxic food additive henceforth in
New
Mexico.
This will bring great benefits to all New Mexicans, especially to
young
children.
I speak as a parent, and as a pediatrician.

Kenneth P Stoller, MD
Assistant Clinical Professor, Pediatrics
UNM, School of Medicine
Medical Director, Hyperbaric Medical Center of New Mexico
President, International Hyperbaric Medical Association



C. Grant La Farge, MD, FACC, FACP, FAPS

Santa Fe Pediatric Cardiology
Congenital Heart Disease: Children & Adults
P. O. Box 4760 Santa Fe, NM 87502
Telephone 505-982-7661 Fax 505-988-5196

Madam Chair Gay Dillingham
New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board
POB 26110 1190 St Francis Dr., Runnels Bldg Santa Fe, NM 87502

Honorable Madam Chair,

My heartfelt thanks go to the New Mexico Environmental Improvement
Board
(EIB) for providing an opportunity to comment on the upcoming
discussion of
the EIB's power to regulate food additives and toxins, especially as
they
relate to aspartame.

As you know from my previous letters, I have a considerable interest,
as a
Pediatric and Adult Cardiologist, and Cardiac Physiologist, in the
issue of
nutrition. Specifically, my interest lies in the effects of food
additives
on children, and adults of all ages. This pertains especially to their
roles in causing obesity (sugars) and damage to the entire spectrum of
human
organs (toxins such as aspartame, and many others). Their toxic
effects on
the whole spectrum of human organs (heart, brain, liver, kidneys,
pancreas,
thyroid, and genitals, to name a few) are well known now, and
well-documented.

You have received, or will be receiving many letters from experts in
the
field of neuro-toxins and organo-toxins, and I will not repeat the
tremendous body of evidence here. I am not an expert in that research,
though as a physician I see and treat the effects on the heart and
vascular
system almost on a daily basis.

Rather, I would like to emphasize what those of us who are fighting
for the
creation of a Nutrition Council for New Mexico see as your power:
the Statutes (NM 25-2-6. 25-2-7, 25-2-10, and 25-2-13) give the EIB
the
power -- and the opportunity and obligation -- to examine the evidence
supporting the dangers of certain food additives and foods.
The EIB also has the opportunity to control their use and distribution
to
the uninformed and unsuspecting consumer, a consumer that is often a
child!

In this morning's New Mexican, there was a report from California on
Governor Schwarzenegger's new ruling controlling food additives,
especially
for school children.

One writer in another paper said, "What we don't like a lot, to put it
mildly, are people who mess with our food."

Another description of proposition 65 said,
"Proposition 65 imposes certain requirements that apply to chemicals
that
appear on this list.
These requirements are designed to protect California's drinking water
sources
from contamination by thesechemicals,
to allow California consumers to make informed choices
about the products they purchase, and
to enable residents or workers to take whatever action they deem
appropriate
to protect themselves from exposures to harmful chemicals.

"The list contains a wide range of chemicals, including dyes,
solvents,
pesticides, drugs, food additives, and by-products of certain
processes.
These chemicals may be naturally occurring or synthetic.
Some of them are ingredients of common household products,
others are specialty chemicals used in very specific industrial
applications."

Thus, you, the Environmental Improvement Board, have statutorily-
established
power, the opportunity, and the responsibility to see to it that our
children -- in fact, all our New Mexican citizens -- are protected
from toxins
and adulterants that often appear in food and drink under
unrecognizable
names.

In that guise, they go about their deadly work, while the consumer,
who has
been falsely led to believe they are safe, is slowly intoxicated (in
the
literal sense of that word) to the point not only of developing
significant
medical ailments, but also at times affecting the genetics in ways
that are
transmitted to the next generation.'

Further, when the Nutrition Council becomes a reality, we will then
have a
mechanism whereby the Council can supplement your regulatory efforts
in its
proposed role in the education of the consuming public about the
dangerous
additives that we face in our foods and drinks, never mind about our
bad
habits!

Thank you for considering my opinion and support of your efforts.
Unfortunately, I will be working in Guatemala at the time of your
October
meeting, but my prayers and my spiritual support will be with you.

Sincerely, C. Grant La Farge, MD
Fellow, American College of Cardiology
Fellow, American College of Physicians
Fellow, American Physiological Society
Santa Fe Pediatric Cardiology,
Children & Adults with Congenital & Acquired Heart disease
Clinical Professor, Cardiology, UNM,
Internal Medicine, Pediatrics



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1218
James S. Turner, Esq. letter on improper approval of aspartame by FDA
in
1981, to New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board 2005.09.20, plain
text:
Murray 2005.09.23

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SWANKIN & TURNER

DAVID A. SWANKIN
JAMES S. TURNER, P. C.
BETSY E. LEHRFELD, P. C.
CHRISTOPHER B. TURNER, P.C.

SUITE 101 1400 16TH STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 TEL. 202
462-8800 FAX 202 265-6564

BY FAX: 505-827-2836

September 20, 2005

The Honorable Ron Curry
New Mexico Secretary of Environment

Dear Secretary Curry:

I am sending the enclosed letter in hopes that it will benefit your
effort
to evaluate aspartame in New Mexico. Please forward to Barbara Claire
before
5:00 pm today.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, James S. Turner, Esq.

Page 1

September 20, 2005

To The Honorable Gay Dillingham
Madame Chair, New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board

Dear Ms. Dillingham and Members of the EIB:

I first became aware of the dangers of Aspartame in 1970. During that
year I
worked closely with the United States Senate Select Committee on
Nutrition
and Human Needs, to which I subsequently served as special counsel.
Dr. John
Olney of Washington University in St. Louis, whose information
presented to
that committee played a key role in the elimination of Mono Sodium
Glutamate
(MSG) from baby food, informed me that the aspartic acid component of
aspartame created the same kind of lesions (holes) in the brains of
mice
that MSG did. Dr. Olney's information caused me to investigate
aspartame
further.

In 1969 I was the lawyer in charge of a team of 20 law and medical
students
investigating, under the direction of Ralph Nader, food safety
regulation at
the US Food and Drug Administration. The Chemical Feast: The Nader
Report on
Food Protection and the FDA, published in 1970, and which I authored,
reported the results of that investigation. The student team gathered
proof
that led President Nixon's Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare
to
effectively ban marketing the artificial sweetener Cyclamate by
removing its
Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) designation. President Nixon had a
strong interest in food safety and quality.

Dr. Olney's information about the harm caused to mice brains by a
component
of aspartame -- an anti-ulcer drug turned into a new artificial
sweeter --
looked to me strikingly like the information on cyclamate and other
food
chemicals that the student team had found unacted upon in FDA files.
The
new, Nixon-appointed, FDA Commissioner had welcomed the student
investigation, given each team member an official FDA identification
badge
and instructed FDA employees to cooperate with the study. The
officials we
knew to be responsible for reviewing aspartame informed me that FDA
scientists had serious concerns about its safety.

These concerns included several animal studies showing a significant
number
of brain tumors in aspartame treated animals but not in controls.
Breakdown
products created by the digestion of aspartame included known cancer-
causing
substances. In a study of approximately 20 monkeys, all high dose
animals
experienced grand mal (epileptic) seizures. Finally, when the
scientific
documents were made public -- the first and only time FDA made trade-
secret
food additive evidence public -- scientists advising me found also
that
aspartame-fed animals suffered measurable eye damage and women users
experienced statistically significant weight gain.

This information seemed enough to require FDA to reject aspartame
approval.
However, our Nader FDA study, fueled by despairing stories from FDA
scientists, acted as a red flag against relying on FDA. Most
particularly,
I learned that Dr. Olney's information on aspartame brain [ page 2 ]
lesions in mice was not part of the record.

In spite of Dr. Olney's having briefed Searle scientists on the
lesions and
watching them find lesions in experiments they did jointly, Searle had
not -- in spite of its legal obligations -- reported the lesions to
FDA. The
senior FDA food safety official arranged for me to meet Searle
representatives to discuss this problem.

My meeting with Searle took place during an era when President Nixon
took an
interest in food safety and the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition
was
investigating food additives. The President convened a White House
Conference on Food, Nutrition and Health with a Food Safety Panel
(chaired
by Pepsi's president and on which I served) mildly critical of food
additives. The President ordered a (decade long) review of all GRAS
listed
food chemicals, which found ten percent of the several hundred listed
items
of dubious safety and raised questions about many others. In this
context my
meeting with Searle was cordial but nonproductive.

Searle swore that its new sweetener would be approved. I said it would
not
reach the market. FDA did approve aspartame in July 1974. In fact it
was the
only significant food additive approved during the 1970's. Dr. Olney
and I
immediately filed petitions to stay the approval until a public
hearing
could be convened to review the science that we -- and FDA
scientists� said
prohibited FDA from approving aspartame. FDA accepted our petitions,
ordered that a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) be convened to review
our
scientific claims and prevailed on Searle to voluntarily refrain from
marketing
the chemical until the hearing on its legality concluded. The PEOI
convened in the
last week of January 1980.

Between 1974 and 1980 evidence against aspartame safety piled up. A
routine
FDA Bureau of Drugs, inspection of Searle's Chicago area laboratories
found
massive violations of sound scientific practice. The FDA Commissioner
appointed a task force to rigorously inspect Searle's labs. It found
dozens
of studies on many products -- drugs, the copper wire IUD and 11
pivotal
studies on aspartame -- that violated both sound scientific practice
and
food safety law. FDA officially stayed the marketing of aspartame, got
a
grand jury appointed to investigate Searle's criminal behavior, set up
two
committees to review Searle science and supported legislation to
require
registration of research labs.

By 1977 Seale was in financial chaos. At this point it reached out to
its
former home town (Skokie) Congressman and Ford White House Chief of
Staff
and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to work his (political) magic to
pull
the company out of its free fall toward bankruptcy. I met with
Rumsfeld in
1977 to see if there was a way that the ruined studies could be redone
and
studies that had not been done but should have (at this time FDA did
not
require studies to rule out possible brain damage from food additives)
could
be undertaken. Some of Searle's customers and their own legal and
policy
advisors supported such an effort.

One Searle reviewer of its aspartame submission told me that he had
never
seen such a poor food additive petition. Six months after my Rumsfeld
meeting, the company responded with a robust campaign to win aspartame
approval
based on the original flawed studies. Searle's law firm approached the
US
attorney with arguments for aspartame. The official let the statute of
limitations run on the grand jury. He and one or two deputies went to
work for the law
firm. Eventually they renamed the substance NutraSweet -- the first
branded
food additive. They offered (FDA accepted) to pay for the FDA convened
pathologists committee to review the studies. Not surprisingly, the
committee
whitewashed the effort, saying it could not evaluate the study design:
they
would only report on whether Searle misreported the data. They said it
had not.

page 3

This last point underscores why we are still debating aspartame safety
today, when every study conducted by scientists not paid for by Searle
has
found safety problems. One of the first FDA inspector's concerns about
the
Searle laboratories was the failure to be sure that animals intended
to
receive aspartame and only those animals received it. That fact is
currently
unknown for most, probably all, of the studies done in Searle's labs,
the
studies on which current assertions of aspartame safety rest. This was
a
question that the Searle-paid-for FDA pathology committee did not
address
because the question, it said, was outside its purview.

An in-house -- paid for by FDA -- FDA committee looked at three
studies
that the Searle-paid committee did not. The FDA in-house committee
found
that at least one of the studies could not be relied upon because it
could
not be ascertained with certainty that animals received the aspartame
they
were supposed to be fed. For this reason the results were
inconclusive.

Five independent pathologists looking at the tumor data in several
animal
studies found a statistically significant higher number of tumors in
the
aspartame than in the control group. A sixth found no statistical
significance -- one tumor had moved from the treated to the control
group.
The study slides disappeared from an FDA sealed file. They turned up
in the
drawer of a Searle consultant.

When the PBOI -- three members, one each from Searle, the FDA and one
from
myself and Dr. Olney -- convened, the scientific record against
aspartame
was powerful. However, because the PBOI hearing was the responsibility
of
the FDA Bureau of Foods and the scathing data against safety was in
the
Bureau of Drugs (Searle was a drug company), the data from the FDA
Searle
Task Force investigations was not a part of the review. I moved to
have it
admitted but the board ruled against me. I appealed. The Commissioner
denied
my appea1. Nonetheless, even on the limited evidence before it, the
PBOI
ruled unanimously that aspartame should not be allowed to be marketed
because the possibility that it caused brain tumors could not be ruled
out.

The PBOI released its ruling the first week of October 1980. The FDA
Commissioner appointed an in-house FDA committee to review the PBOI
findings
to determine if he should let them stand or overturn them. In the
first week
of November 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected President. Republican
political
activist and Searle president Don Rumsfeld played a prominent role on
the
Reagan transition team. That team selected, and President Regan
appointed, a
relatively unknown Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes as FDA commissioner. His
primary
qualification appeared to be his service as a contract research
physician at
the Defense Department while Donald Rumsfeld served as Secretary of
Defense.

The FDA Commissioner's review committee told the Commissioner that the
PBOI
findings were supported by the data and that he should not overturn
its
ruling. The Commissioner was blocked from taking any actions until his
successor took office. The new Commissioner, Dr. Hayes, overturned the
board's decision in July of 1981 and approved aspartame for dry foods.
Two
years later, in July of 1983, the FDA approved NutraSweet for liquid
-- diet
soda -- uses and Dr. Hayes left FDA, becoming senior medical advisor
to
Searle's advertising agency.

In the early 1990's National Cancer Institute data showed that there
had
been a ten percent rise in humans of the same kind of brain tumor that
most
pathologists found in the aspartame animal studies. Dr. Olney and I,
this
time accompanied by Mike Wallace of "Sixty Minutes," approached FDA to
see
if it would support doing the new brain studies we had sought in 1977.
The
FDA official in charge said no, and two years later became Vice
President of
Clinical Research for Searle. Over the years, several other key
decision
makers for the FDA have taken [ page 4 ] jobs with the soft drink
industry
association, food companies or others with ah economic interest in
NutraSweet.

During these past 35 years I have met with, spoken to or corresponded
with
hundreds of aspartame uses who feel that the chemical has caused them
great
harm -- seizures, blindness, migraines and other problems. With over
10,000
consumer complaints filed with FDA, it is the most complained-of food
additive. In 1985 FDA asked the Centers for Disease Control to review
the
first 650 complaints. The agency did, and reported that between 25 and
30
percent of the female users could bring on the symptoms by using
NutraSweet
and turn them off by stopping. So my standard advice to all
complainers has
been that if they feel NutraSweet is causing them a problem go
scrupulously
off it for three to six weeks and see if the symptoms go away.
Unfortunately
this is not information that's readily available to the average
aspartame user.

Given this entire record, I think the citizens of New Mexico would be
best
served if this board banned the sale of NutraSweet in New Mexico.

Sincerely, James S. Turner, Esq.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1427
more from The Independent,UK, Martin Hickman, re ASDA (unit of Wal-
Mart Stores) and Marks & Spencer ban of aspartame, MSG, artificial
chemical additives and dyes to prevent ADHD in kids: Murray 2007.05.16

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1426
ASDA (unit of Wal-Mart Stores WMT.N) and Marks & Spencer
will join Tesco and also Sainsbury to ban and limit aspartame,
MSG, artificial flavors dyes preservatives additives, trans fats,
salt "nasties" to protect kids from ADHD: leading UK media:
Murray 2007.05.15

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1271
combining aspartame and quinoline yellow, or MSG and
brilliant blue, harms nerve cells, eminent C. Vyvyan
Howard et al, 2005 education.guardian.co.uk,
Felicity Lawrence: Murray 2005.12.21

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1277
50% UK baby food is now organic -- aspartame or MSG
with food dyes harm nerve cells, CV Howard 3 year study
funded by Lizzy Vann, CEO, Organix Brands,
Children's Food Advisory Service: Murray 2006.01.13


http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle2548747.ece


aspartame (methanol, formaldehyde) toxicity research summary: Rich
Murray 2007.05.19
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1404

One liter aspartame diet soda, about 3 12-oz cans,
gives 61.5 mg methanol,
so if 30% is turned into formaldehyde, the formaldehyde
dose of 18.5 mg is 37 times the recent EPA limit of
0.5 mg per liter daily drinking water for a 10-kg child:
http://www.epa.gov/teach/chem_summ/F...de_summary.pdf
2007.01.05 [ does not discuss formaldehyde from methanol
or aspartame ]
http://www.epa.gov/teach/teachsurvey.html comments



"Of course, everyone chooses, as a natural priority,
to actively find, quickly share, and positively 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 74 members, 1,431 posts in a public, searchable archive
http://RMForAll.blogspot.com

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1340
aspartame groups and books: updated research review of
2004.07.16: Murray 2006.05.11


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1395
Aspartame Controversy, in Wikipedia democratic
encyclopedia, 72 references (including AspartameNM # 864
and 1173 by Murray), brief fair summary of much more
research: Murray 2007.01.01


Dark wines and liquors, as well as aspartame, provide
similar levels of methanol, above 120 mg daily, for
long-term heavy users, 2 L daily, about 6 cans.

Within hours, methanol is inevitably largely turned into
formaldehyde, and thence largely into formic acid -- the
major causes 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.

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


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1143
methanol (formaldehyde, formic acid) disposition:
Bouchard M et al, full plain text, 2001: substantial
sources are degradation of fruit pectins, liquors,
aspartame, smoke: Murray 2005.04.02
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////