|
pesticides
and food additives
Email from Rich Murray, Aspartame,
Yahoo, Groups
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/988>
aspartame classified as a "food additive", no GRAS status: Stoddard:
Wurtman: Gold: Murray 4.10.3 rmforall
April 10 2003 Hello Mary Nash Stoddard, Good question!
Here is the key information: "food additives" are not required to be
tested or monitored for safety.
GRAS means "Generally Regarded as Safe."
"Compounds that do
affect physiological systems are classified as drugs by the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), and are subject to considerably more
demanding regulatory procedures than food constituents. Moreover,
because food additives must be shown to be physiologically inert in
order to win initial FDA approval, once they have obtained this approval
they are exempted from the requirement, imposed on all drugs, that their
safety be continuously monitored: Companies that manufacture and use
approved food additives are not obligated to monitor adverse reactions
associated with consumption of their product, nor to submit to the FDA
reports of such adverse reactions; they also are not required to carry
out further government-mandated research programs to affirm their
product's safety."
<http://www.dorway.com/wurtman1.html
Possible Neurologic Effects of Aspartame, a Widely Used Food Additive
-- by Timothy J. Maher (Department of Pharmacology, Massachusetts
College of Pharmacy, 179 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115) and Richard
J. Wurtman (Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139). <dick@mit.edu>
Introduction: Food Additives as Neuroactive Environmental Constituents
For the very great majority of Americans, i.e., those who elect to
eat processed foods, food additives are a ubiquitous constituent of the
environment, and one with potentially important health effects. The laws
governing the sale of these compounds require that their addition to
foods fulfill a specific purpose, such as improving flavor, retarding
spoilage, or enhancing nutritional quality, and that such use be risk-
free. Implicit in this latter requirement is the expectation that the
food additive not be found to affect physiological processes other than
the nutritional or sensory ones underlying its use: Compounds that do
affect physiological systems are classified as drugs by the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), and are subject to considerably more
demanding regulatory procedures than food constituents. Moreover,
because food additives must be shown to be physiologically inert in
order to win initial FDA approval, once they have obtained this approval
they are exempted from the requirement, imposed on all drugs, that their
safety be continuously monitored: Companies that manufacture and use
approved food additives are not obligated to monitor adverse reactions
associated with consumption of their product, nor to submit to the FDA
reports of such adverse reactions; they also are not required to carry
out further government-mandated research programs to affirm their
product's safety.
However, the consumption of a number of food additives can cause
physiological effects which include, for some, modification of the
chemical composition and functional activities of the nervous system (1
,2). These effects may generate health risks for some people. Moreover,
in the case of one such compound, the artificial sweetener aspartame
(L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanyl-methyl ester), these neural effects were
largely unexplored prior to the compound's addition to the food supply,
and were not a factor in calculating the quantities that individuals can
safely consume (the ADI, or acceptable daily intake, currently set for
aspartame at 50 mg/kg) (3). The effects of aspartame, and of certain
other food additives, like caffeine, on the nervous system are sometimes
not of such a nature as to allow their detection by the standard
neurotoxicological tests used to assess the safety of food additives,
inasmuch as these effects need not be associated with cell death, nor
with other visible manifestations of neuronal damage. Rather, they
involve more subtle biochemical changes, as well as functional
consequences that are demonstrable only in specially treated animals (4)
(and possibly, by extrapolation, only in especially vulnerable people).
Although these physiological effects are unrelated to the reason that
the additive was placed in the food, they may have important health
implications just the same, given the very large number of Americans who
are routinely exposed to environmental constituents added to the food
supply. If only 1% of the 100,000,000 Americans thought to consume
aspartame ever exceed the sweetener's ADI, and if only 1% of this group
happen coincidentally to have an underlying disease that makes their
brains vulnerable to the effects of an aspartame-induced rise in brain
phenylalanine levels, then the number of people who might manifest
adverse brain reactions attributable to aspartame would still be about
10,000, a number on the same order as the number of neurally related
consumer complaints already registered with the FDA and other federal
agencies (5,6).
A Google search on "aspartame, GRAS" gives 3,100 links.
<http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk3/1977/7702/770207.PDF
Cancer Testing Technology and Saccharin (Part 7 of 13)
FDA approved aspartame as a food additive for a number of foods in July
1974,...
<http://www.doh.state.fl.us/chdpasco/DI_Web/2000abstracts%5Caspartame.htm
What is Aspartame? What is It Used For? by Rebecca Granda
The FDA is the primary regulatory body that oversees the safety and
truthfulness in labeling of food and drug products in the United States.
Aspartame was approved for use in tabletop sweeteners, various foods,
and dry beverage mixes in 1981. It was approved for use in carbonated
beverages in 1983. Aspartame was awarded Generally Regarded As Safe
(GRAS) Affirmation. The FDA evaluates, affirms, and regularly
monitors intakes of GRAS status products.
<http://www.parkinson.org/aspartame.htm>
Food and Drug Administration, FDA Consumer November - December 1999
by John Henkel
While questions about saccharin may persist, the safety of another
artificial sweetener, aspartame, is clear cut, say FDA officials. FDA
calls aspartame, sold under trade names such as NutraSweet and Equal,
one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency
has ever approved. The agency says the more than 100 toxicological and
clinical studies it has reviewed confirm that aspartame is safe for the
general population.
<http://www.nzhealth.net.nz/poisons/aspartame.html>
H.J. Roberts
DOES ASPARTAME CAUSE HUMAN BRAIN CANCER?
Journal of Advancement in Medicine
Volume 4, Number 4, Winter 1991
Aspartame (NutraSweet) was licensed for use as an additive in the
Generally Regarded as Safe (GRAS) category by the Federal Drug
Administration (FDA), first as a tabletop sweetener in July 1981, and
then for “wet” use in beverages in July 1983.
But this link
<http://www.eatright.org/adap0598.html>
Use of nutritive and nonnutritive sweeteners-- Position of ADA
J Am Diet Assoc. 1998;98:580-587.
lists the GRAS status of most sweeteners, but lists aspartame as:
"Approved as a general-purpose sweetener"
So, I and others seem to have been mistaken in believing that aspartame
had specific GRAS status, but it clearly was classified as a food
additive, not a drug, and is therefore rather exempt from rigorous
safety testing and monitoring.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/262>
Gordon: UPI: aspartame toxicity Part 1/3 Oct 1987:
Murray 7.10.0 rmforall [Gregory Gordon, UPI investigative reporter]
Dr. Gary Flamm, the FDA’s top toxicologist overseeing food additives,
said that beyond labeling, once a food additive such as NutraSweet has
won approval, it is far more difficult to restrict its marketing.
"If...our approval of it was a mistake, we couldn't rectify that without
data showing that aspartame was unsafe," said Flamm, an aspartame
defender.
Even then, he said, the agency would face a new regulatory thicket
unless it could be shown NutraSweet posed "an imminent hazard."
Consumer
lawyer James Turner, who has campaigned for more than a decade for a
NutraSweet ban, assailed the FDA’s treatment of such safety issues.
"Once a product is on the market, whether there by nefarious or honest
means," he said, "it is impossible to get it off the market until it
has caused severe, undeniable damage that has probably lasted over many
years."
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/56>
Gold: aspartame history 1979-1999: Murray 11.6.99 rmforall
Community Nutrition Institute (CNI) filed suit against the FDA in
District Court claiming that the FDA did not follow proper procedure
in approving aspartame for beverages and that they should have held a
public hearing before giving final approval (Farber 1989, page 39).
After the District Court dismissed their suit and the D.C. Circuit
Court of Appeals denied their request for a hearing stating that they
failed to "raise any material issues of fact that require the FDA to
grant a hearing," CNI stated:
...where the holding of a public hearing is no longer a
responsible part of the food additive process, the F.D.A. and the
appeals court have increased the likelihood that unsafe food
additives will reach the market.
<http://www.HolisticMed.com/aspartame>
603-225-2100
Aspartame Toxicity Information Center Mark D. Gold
mgold@shelltown.net 12 East Side Drive #2-18 Concord, NH 03301
<http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/abuse/methanol.html>
"Scientific Abuse in Aspartame Research"
***********************************************************
Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall@att.net
1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 USA 505-986-9103
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/984>
aspartame review: methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid toxicity:
Murray 4.10.3 rmforall
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/983>
aspartame & formaldehyde toxicity: Murray 4.10.3 rmforall
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages>
for 988 posts in a public searchable archive
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartame/>
633 member group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/985>
details on EU Environment Committee vote 2.19.3 to reevaluate aspartame
and stevia and limit cyclamate-- EU vote April 9: Murray 4.8.3 rmforall
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/968>
EU MEPs vote to re-evaluate aspartame and stevia:
Martini: Murray 2.21.3 rmforall
<http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/scf2002-response.htm>
Mark Gold exhaustively critiques European Commission Scientific
Committee on Food re aspartame (12.4.2): 59 pages, 230 references
***************************************************
Aspartame Consumer Safety Network and Pilot Hotline [1987-2001]
Mary Nash Stoddard, Founder & President
P.O. Box 780634 Dallas, TX 75378 .
214-352-4268 marystod@airmail.net
<http://web2.airmail.net/marystod/index.html>
<http://web2.airmail.net/marystod/espanol.htm>
Toxicology Sourcebook: "Deadly Deception: Story of Aspartame"
Subject: GRAS substance?
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 17:34:16 -0500
From: Mary Stoddard <marystod@airmail.net>
To: rmforall@att.net
Dear Rich:
Thank you for keeping us on your mailing list for updates.
In a recent mailing, you wrote:
Also, the potent effects of aspartame clearly vitiates the industry's
claim that it is a "food additive", Generally Regarded As Safe (GRAS),
not a "drug", which should be vetted for safety by stringent and
thorough studies.
It is our understanding that aspartame has not yet been officially
classified by FDA as a GRAS [generally recognized as safe] substance.
I asked that specific question, on my last meeting with them in their
Washington D.C. headquarters, and their top officials assured
A.C.S.N. co-founder, James Turner, Esq. and me that it was not
officially GRAS. Do you have information from them that says
something different?
Best regards, Mary
Hon. Mary Nash Stoddard, Founder and President
Aspartame Consumer Safety Network & Pilot Hotline [1987-2003]
P.O. Box 780634 - Dallas TX 75378-0634 U.S.
*************************************************************
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
PLEASE TRY AND RECRUIT MEMBERS - SEND THEM TO
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartame/>
PRINT OUT THIS FLIER AND HAND IT OUT TO PEOPLE:
<http://www.ojinaga.com/aspartame/>
CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE!! <http://presidiotex.com/aspartame>
FREE ASPARTAME BUMPER STICKER
<http://ojinaga.com/bumperstickers/freesticker/>
to unsubscribe from this list, send a blank e-mail to: aspartame-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Our chat room is at
<http://pub43.bravenet.com/chat/show.php/3648148879>
phenyllalanine, excitotoxins, MSG, fibromyalgia, chronic
fatigue, depletes serotonin, rosacea, binds to calcium in teeth problems,
Monsanto sold aspartame to Ajinomoto, an investment firm made
up of Monsanto managers, Michael Dell's investment firm, and Childs of Boston,
Sandra Cabot M.D. not a diet product, but drug to make you
crave carbs
FDA,
Recall Aspartame as a Neurotoxic Drug, Docket # 02P-0317 independent
research, causes Formaldehyde accumulation, brain tumors, Fibromyalgia
symptoms
|
Jury rules against Monsanto
By Elizabeth Bluemink
Star Environmental Correspondent
02-23-2002
|
GADSDEN
Plaintiffs in the Monsanto trial achieved an
initial victory against the company and its spinoff, Solutia,
Friday.
After five hours of deliberation in two days, the
Monsanto trial jury reached a verdict shortly after 9 a.m. Friday
that Monsanto and Solutia are legally responsible for polluting the
Anniston area and people's blood with PCBs.
The Bowie v. Monsanto case, begun in 1996, is far
from over, with approximately 3,500 individual claims left to be
presented to the Gadsden jury. Several hundred plaintiffs say they
are sick from Monsanto's PCBs, but their injury claims will not be
presented for at least a month. Moreover, the jury will not award
monetary damages to the plaintiffs until the entire trial is over,
and that could be several months from now, Calhoun County Circuit
Judge Joel Laird told The Star Friday afternoon.
Yet, the jury's verdict on liability resulted in
immediate rejoicing among the plaintiffs and their attorneys, who
hugged and cried in the Etowah County courthouse Friday morning.
Tears rolled down western Anniston plaintiff Peggy
Moore's face as she explained, "For seven years, we've been
hollering and finally somebody heard us. This is release; it's
justice."
The response from Solutia officials was one of
disappointment.
In a prepared statement, the chairman and CEO of
Solutia, John Hunter, said "We are extremely disappointed with
the jury's verdict handed down today … While we recognize and
appreciate the jury's time and effort, it's important to note that
this is an interim step in a long process. There has been no
decision reached with regard to damages."
Hunter also said Solutia has made "solid
progress" in investigating and cleaning up PCBs in the Anniston
area.
Tommy Abernathy, who lives with his family near
the former Monsanto plant, said, "Monsanto got exactly what was
coming to them." He said he would not have raised a family in
western Anniston if the company had given full disclosure to
residents about the spread of the PCB contamination from its plant.
Plaintiff attorney Donald Stewart said he is
"gratified about the verdict. We're looking forward to putting
on the rest of our case."
Solutia's Anniston plant manager, David Cain, said
he was disappointed with the verdict and he said he didn't feel it
reflected the company's conduct in Anniston in the past or present.
He noted, "It is not going to change how we feel about this
community. We are going to continue to strive to be good neighbors
in Anniston."
The jury members filed into the courtroom at
approximately 10 a.m. Friday, and their foreman, Christy Lewis, a
health worker in Etowah County, gave the bailiff the document
containing the jury's unanimous ruling on six counts - negligence,
wantonness, fraud, trespass, nuisance and outrage.
Several of the jurors turned to look directly at
the lawyers and plaintiffs sitting in the benches before Lewis
handed their letter to the bailiff, who then gave it to Laird to
open and read.
As Laird read the rulings on each count, some of
the plaintiffs made muted exclamations and others cried.
The judge then asked the jury to return to court
Monday for continued proceedings in the case.
Laird said his discussion with the jurors on
Monday will help him decide what to do about the plaintiffs' request
for injunctive relief - in which they ask Laird to order
comprehensive PCB cleanups of landfills and waterways. He said he
will begin to consider the injunctive relief request next week.
Meanwhile, the Monsanto legal team has asked Laird
to dismiss the non-property damage claims of 2,042 plaintiffs in the
case - either because they have no detectable PCBs in their blood or
because they have not been tested. In a Feb. 12 filing to the court,
the defense claimed "these plaintiffs have no evidence to
support their claimed exposure to PCBs."
Monsanto attorney Adam Peck said Solutia
"looks forward to the next step in the (trial) process."
He added that Solutia will continue to work on PCB cleanup issues
with state and federal agencies no matter what happens in the
Gadsden courtroom.
Solutia previously has settled two PCB-related
cases in the Anniston area. The company gave Choccolocco Creek and
Logan Martin Lake property owners $40 million for contaminating the
waterways and committed $21 million to a waterway investigation of
PCBs.
Solutia also settled with 1,600 plaintiffs who had
property and personal injury claims in western Anniston, giving them
$45 million.
Currently, more than 25,000 people have sued or
are suing Solutia and Monsanto in regards to PCB pollution in the
Anniston area, including an approximate 15,000 who are now suing in
Birmingham federal court.
The initial phase of the Bowie v. Monsanto case
includes property damage claims and emotional distress for the 15
plaintiffs who had elevated levels of PCBs in their blood.
PCBs are a group of chemicals first manufactured
in Anniston by the Swann Chemical Company in the early 1920s.
Swann's Anniston plant was purchased by Monsanto
in 1935, and the Missouri-based chemical company continued to
produce PCBs in Anniston until 1971.
PCBs are known to cause cancer in rats and mice
and are linked to human neurological and developmental problems,
skin rashes, thyroid dysfunction and other diseases. The
Environmental Protection Agency lists PCBs as suspected human
carcinogens
|
|
