Medical Forum / General / General / October 2005
Aspartame Industry Seeks To Block New Mexico Hearings
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Quintal - 11 Oct 2005 00:53 GMT alt.conspiracy,sci.med,fr.bio.medecine,fr.soc.complots
http://www.rbnlive.com/aspartame.html
Aspartame Industry Seeks To Block New Mexico Hearings
By Jackie Jadrnak, Albuquerque Journal Staff Writer 10-6-05 Aspartame And Donald Rumsfeld (Video)
SANTA FE - Gov. Bill Richardson doesn't think the federal government is doing enough to protect the public from possible dangers of aspartame.
He said Wednesday that he supports a decision this week by the Environmental Improvement Board to hold hearings next summer on the safety of the sugar substitute, commonly known as Equal or NutraSweet. It is an ingredient in about 6,000 products.
Asked if he is concerned aspartame may be harmful, Richardson answered, "Yes, from what I've learned." Critics of the sweetener have claimed it causes cancers and other health problems, despite the fact that it has been approved as safe in countries around the world.
T. J. Trujillo, Santa Fe attorney for a low calorie products industry group, said Wednesday he and his clients are still exploring whether they have any grounds for an immediate appeal to block the hearing. In the meantime, industry representatives will reach out to New Mexico government officials and policy advisers, he said. "We want to figure out their positions and work for a resolution."
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for determining the safety of food additives, approved aspartame in l981. Richardson said he doesn't want New Mexico to overstep its bounds.
But "I'm not saying we can't do anything about it," he added. Hearings next July might give some idea of what steps New Mexico should and could take, he said.
FDA spokeswoman Kimberly Rawlings said officials there are aware of the New Mexico board's action and are keeping an eye on what happens next.
__end of article
Note From Betty Martini -
People interested in banning aspartame from your state you need to check on statutes on poisonous substances and adulteration. I would suspect they are the same in other states and countries. You have a precedent set. Let's get aspartame off this planet. I think its of interest that attorneys for Calorie Control Council, the aspartame industry front group, said they are exploring whether they have grounds for appeal to block the hearing. Since they push this toxin as safe, they should embrace this hearing. What are they afraid of? Perhaps the thousands and thousands of victims who are invited to New Mexico to testify? Or maybe because now Italian researchers who declared malignant brain tumors, lymphoma and leukemia after a three year study have now added kidney cancer among other cancers. They call aspartame a "multipotential carcinogen".
This goes along with what the FDA's own toxicologist, the late Dr. Adrian Gross, told Congress. He said aspartame violated the Delaney Amendment which forbid putting anything in food you know will cause cancer because without a shadow of a doubt aspartame can cause brain tumors and brain cancer. However, in original studies it also caused mammary, ovarian, testicular, pancreatic and thyroid tumors, for starters!
As we know, the Governor of California has outlawed pop in schools there. We hope Governor Richardson will now do the same in New Mexico, including any product with aspartame.
Join the Aspartame Information List on www.wnho.net, click on aspartame for more information and also www.dorway.com Aspartame Toxicity Center, www.holisticmed.com/aspartame Also www.aspartamekills.com
Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum. Founder, Mission Possible Intl 9270 River Club Parkway Duluth, Georgia 30097 770 242-2599
Quintal - 11 Oct 2005 01:05 GMT >Aspartame And Donald Rumsfeld (Video) http://www.soundandfury.tv/media/Rumsfeld.wmv
dcholiman@ev1.net - 11 Oct 2005 04:01 GMT Quintal my good fellow,
Where are the victims ? Where are the damages for aspartame toxicity ? Seen any big multimillion dollar awards for aspartame death, injury, maiming, crippling, paralysis, mental distress and carcinogenicity ?
Quintal, be 4 real.
David H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quintal - 11 Oct 2005 10:23 GMT >Quintal my good fellow, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >crippling, paralysis, mental distress >and carcinogenicity ? no idea, you look it up.
>Quintal, be 4 real. get up from your a.s and do some research and free thinking, will ya? you're just rationalizing your trust in big business advertising with this present argument of yours.
>David H >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ goozlefotz - 11 Oct 2005 04:36 GMT > He said Wednesday that he supports a decision this week by the > Environmental Improvement Board to hold hearings next summer on the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > claimed it causes cancers and other health problems, despite the fact > that it has been approved as safe in countries around the world. I avoid aspartame as much as possible. I prefer Splenda, but will use saccharin in preference to aspartame. What ever happened to stevia? Much of the world uses this inexpensive plant as the artificial sweetener of choice.
@club-internet.fr - 11 Oct 2005 09:00 GMT Il faut arrêter de bouffer de la merde comme ça ! Si vous voulez manger sucré, mettez du saccharose, c'est à dire le sucre naturel des fruits, ou du miel. De toute façon, c'est une grossière erreur de penser que remplacer le sucre par l'aspartame vous fera maigrir. La seule utilisation que je peux concevoir est pour les diabétiques. Et encore...
C.L.
> > He said Wednesday that he supports a decision this week by the > > Environmental Improvement Board to hold hearings next summer on the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Much of the world uses this inexpensive plant as the artificial > sweetener of choice. Quintal - 11 Oct 2005 10:22 GMT >> He said Wednesday that he supports a decision this week by the >> Environmental Improvement Board to hold hearings next summer on the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I avoid aspartame as much as possible. I prefer Splenda, but will use >saccharin in preference to aspartame. What ever happened to stevia? stevia is hunted down and prohibited wherever the industry can pull it. It got illegal in many countries. Just because it is natural, safe, and is a sweetener. It also has the advantage of being a medicinal herb, helping regulating the pancreating functions (perfect for a sweet isnt it).
>Much of the world uses this inexpensive plant as the artificial >sweetener of choice. in france where i live you got to order it from foreign countries, and illegally, whereas a few years ago it was free to sell.
anyway one can do without sugar and stevia. there are natural sugars everywhere, honey, vegetal sirups, fruits, whatever. There is also non-refined sugar that is useable for those who just dont want the refined industrialized one.
Quintal - 11 Oct 2005 11:15 GMT > the pancreating functions I meant pancreatic ;-)
cdang - 11 Oct 2005 11:50 GMT > I avoid aspartame as much as possible. I prefer Splenda, but will use > saccharin in preference to aspartame. What ever happened to stevia? What about drinking water instead of soda ? Drinking coffea or thea without sugar (or drinking stronger coffea so you only drink 2 or 3 in the day) ?
What about eating fresh fruits instead of cakes and chips ?
If you don't eat or drink sweet stuff, you don't need to replace the sugar.
-- Christophe Dang Ngoc Chan (cdang@wanadoo.fr) secouriste bénévole, moniteur
PAP - 11 Oct 2005 13:11 GMT >> I avoid aspartame as much as possible. I prefer Splenda, but will use >> saccharin in preference to aspartame. What ever happened to stevia? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If you don't eat or drink sweet stuff, you don't need to replace the > sugar. Hé Ho, là... vous vous égarez, les enfants !
ici, c'est un "newsgroup" francophone, hein...
 Signature PAP my tailor is rich
dcholiman@ev1.net - 12 Oct 2005 20:00 GMT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It is not necessary to get glucose from grains, starches and sweets because your vegetables contain 7% to 15% sugar and starch which the body converts to glucose. David H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PAP - 12 Oct 2005 23:17 GMT > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > It is not necessary to get glucose from grains, starches > and sweets because your vegetables contain 7% to 15% > sugar and starch which the body converts to glucose. > David H > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ bon, incurable...
PLONK
|
|
|