http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1014
Prenatal exposures and disease: rachel.org: Murray 7.22.3 rmforall

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org
http://www.protectingourhealth.org/newest.htm
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/New/newstuff.htm

Subject: [OEM] RACHEL: Prenatal Exposures & Disease
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 03:15:04 -0400
From: Gary Greenberg <Gary.Greenberg@...>
To: Occ-Env-Med-L@...

Environmental Research Foundation http://www.rachel.org

(Moderator Note: ERF is an advocacy organization, routinely alarmed
about potential new claims of environmental health dangers. Their
well-written editorials are presented to the OEM-L forum in an effort to
provoke intellectual discussion, not as an endorsed point of view. For
contrast, see the newsletters posted from ACSH. -G)

=======================Electronic Edition========================
. .
. RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS #769 .
. ---May 15, 2003--- .
. (Published July 17, 2003) .
. HEADLINES: .
. PRENATAL EXPOSURES AND DISEASE .
. ========== .
. Environmental Research Foundation .
. P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903 .
. Fax (732) 791-4603; E-mail: erf@... .
. ========== .
. All back issues are on the web at: http://www.rachel.org .
. in text and PDF formats. To subscribe (free), send E-mail .
. to listserv@... with the words .
. SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-NEWS YOUR FULL NAME in the message. .
. The Rachel newsletter is also available in Spanish; .
. to learn how to subscribe in Spanish, send the word .
. AYUDA in an E-mail message to info@.... .
=================================================================

PRENATAL EXPOSURES AND DISEASE

At last, an ancient problem has been solved.

More than 2000 years ago people knew that the quality of the natural
environment affected their health. During the first century B.C., the
ancient Roman architect, Vitruvius, highlighted the relationship of
environment to disease in his book "De Architectura."[1] However,
getting hold of reliable information on the subject remained impossible
for more than 2000 years.

Even with the rise of modern science and medicine over the past 600
years, reliable information on environment and disease remained
difficult or impossible to lay hands on. Published in obscure journals
or books, stored in relatively few libraries, and written in jargon that
the public could not understand, good information about environment and
disease remained under wraps -- accessible only to a privileged few with
special training and special access.

Now the situation is rapidly improving because of two developments:

(1) A "scientific information movement" begun in the 1950s by Barry
Commoner and Margaret Mead and their colleagues within the American
Association for the Advancement of Science became a broader "public
interest science" movement in the 1970s thanks to Ralph Nader and his
co-workers.[2] Those pioneering efforts have now engendered two
generations of scientists who conduct studies that serve public needs
and who translate scientific findings into terms that people can
understand so that citizens can make informed decisions; and

(2) The world wide web now allows people almost anywhere to get their
hands on reliable plain-language descriptions of scientific and medical
studies that link the environment to human disease. Today almost anyone
with access to a public library (or a $500 home computer and a
telephone) can tap into a vast body of plain-language information
explaining how environmental contamination causes human disease. The
most exciting developments in web-based information are evolving as we
speak.

In particular, three related web sites now offer daily updates of news
stories, scientific studies, and medical reports linking environmental
contamination to human disease. See
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org and
http://www.protectingourhealth.org/newest.htm and
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/New/newstuff.htm .

When you dive into these three web sites, you may find yourself
thinking, as I did, "This is why everyone needs access the world wide
web!" There is simply no substitute for what these web sites offer.
Breaking news stories and current reports, with pictures, and with
hyperlinks to background information, provide real depth of
understanding. Current-awareness information doesn't get any better than
this.

These three web sites are related, but different, so it's good to check
each of them often.

The newest of the three is http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org. This
one provides breaking news. Every day, seven days a week, you'll find
more than a dozen current news stories from around the nation and the
world. Furthermore, the site is interactive -- citizens can add their
own news, and their own reports. This site is still in the test phase,
but it already contains a wealth of information on environment and
health.

The other two sites, somewhat older, are truly rich sources of
information. The "Our Stolen Future" site,
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/New/newstuff.htm , is focused on studies
of hormone-disrupting chemicals and their effects on plants and animals.
Using hyperlinks, the site provides explanatory materials that will give
you all the depth you could want as you learn about the role of hormones
and other biological signaling systems, which can be disrupted by a
growing list of industrial chemicals. My description does not do justice
to the depth of this site -- to appreciate it, you will need to spend
some time there yourself.

The third web site, maintained by CHE (the Collaborative on Health and
the Environment) -- http://www.protectingourhealth.org -- offers a
unique resource: peer-reviewed overviews that evaluate the medical
literature linking environmental contamination to asthma, brain cancer,
breast cancer, childhood leukemia, endometriosis, infertility,
learning/behavior disorders, prostate cancer, and testicular cancer.
Other overviews of other diseases are in the works. CHE's "peer-reviewed
overviews" project has been guided by physician Ted Schettler, whose
books have provided convincing evidence that children's mental
development can be derailed by exposure to low levels of chemicals in
the environment.[3]

Together these web sites represent a phenomenal -- and phenomenally
useful -- intellectual tour de force. Many people contribute to these
web sites, but the chief architect and driving energy behind all three
is John Peterson ("Pete") Myers, Ph.D., biologist and co-author of Our
Stolen Future -- the book that propelled the scientific community onto
its successful search for industrial poisons that can disrupt the
fundamental signaling systems that control growth, development, and
behavior in plants and animals.[4]

When important new scientific studies appear, Pete Myers often describes
them in considerable detail -- how the study was conducted, what it
found, its relationship to previous studies and hypotheses, and its
scientific limitations. For non-experts concerned about environment and
health, this is a unique trove of real treasure.

The web also provides a unique perspective. Browsing a paper library can
be slow and tedious. The web is fast and smooth. When you browse a web
library, new patterns jump out at you. Recently, as I was scanning the
archives of these three web sites, I noticed that many recent studies
have now confirmed that much human disease is linked to prenatal
exposures -- exposures that occur in the womb. It's as if a gun goes off
later in life, but the trigger is pulled before birth. This is a
chilling new picture of human disease. To cite but four recent examples:

** A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association
(JAMA) revealed that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has
a real physical basis, and that the disease may well begin in the
womb.[5] F.X. Castellanos and colleagues found that children with ADHD
have brains that are significantly smaller than the brains of children
without ADHD. Furthermore, they concluded that the events initiating
ADHD are likely to occur in the womb.

** Lennart Hardell and his colleagues reported in Environmental Health
Perspectives in June that there is a strong association between young
men who get testicular cancer and the levels of long-lived
organochlorine pesticides measurable in their mother's blood (but,
importantly, not in the blood of the men themselves).[6] Exposure in the
womb seems crucial in the development of many testicular cancers.

** In April, Linda Birnbaum and Suzanne Fenton reviewed a wide array of
animal and human studies, concluding that exposure to hormone-disrupting
chemicals in early development can cause cancer and/or increase
sensitivity to cancer-causing agents later in life.[7] They point out
that the danger of prenatal exposures is firmly established in the
medical literature, yet few human studies have made use of the
information. For example, most breast cancer studies have measured
chemicals in the blood of women at the time they were diagnosed with
cancer -- probably the wrong time to be looking for a connection between
chemicals and cancer, Birnbaum and Fenton suggest. The critical exposure
likely occurred many years earlier. If you look for answers during the
wrong time-period, you will get wrong answers. (This important study is
available in PDF at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=182 .)

** In January, research in two New York City neighborhoods found a
correlation between environmental contamination and babies born with low
birth weight and small head circumference. Dr. Frederica Perera, the
lead author of the study, told the New York Times that the results were
particularly troubling because these birth outcomes are predictors of
"poor health and mental problems later in life."[8]

If prenatal exposures to environmental chemicals really do give rise to
lifelong disease, it means that the present systems for medical care,
public health, and environmental protection can never achieve their
goals. This should be a profound wake-up call.

If certain chronic diseases (some cancers, some immune disorders, and
some diseases of the nervous system, for example) -- many of which are
increasing today -- are being caused by run-of-the-mill prenatal
exposures, then people must be protected from exposure to
disease-producing chemicals even before they are born. Present-day
public-health systems are not remotely capable of achieving such a goal.
This is a powerful argument against business as usual, an argument that
is unlikely to fade any time soon.

In recent years, corporations that manufacture or use large quantities
of industrial poisons have devised two responses to this
distinctly-unwelcome new picture of disease.

In the past decade, corporations have spent tens of billions of dollars
to inject doubt and uncertainty into the debate about low-level
environmental exposures causing disease. Under the present risk-based
system, scientific uncertainty creates a "green light" for chemical
contamination. So long as the link between exposure and disease has not
been proven to a scientific certainty, exposures can continue.

This is why corporate/governmental leaders created our present
regulatory system, based on "risk assessment." The risk-based system
assumes that we can determine "safe" (or "acceptable") levels of all
industrial poisons if we simply study the problem long enough. And until
we have completed such studies, contamination can continue because that
is what "individual liberty" combined with "free markets" would dictate.
(Never mind that corporations are nothing like individuals and therefore
should never be accorded the liberties that individuals enjoy -- an
argument seldom heard in polite company.[9])

This risk-based approach has allowed the entire planet to become
contaminated with potent industrial poisons -- with grievous
consequences for wild creatures -- and has allowed chronic human disease
to proliferate.

If you want to be reminded of the terrible consequences of this
risk-based approach, check daily at
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org .

If you sit in a quiet place to read these daily reports of contamination
and disease, you can hear the hum of the industrial system grinding up
the biosphere, day by day. You hear the self-assured voices of corporate
officials denying their personal responsibility, claiming there is no
alternative, explaining that jobs will be lost if they behave any other
way (subtly shifting blame to working people for management's refusal to
innovate). In the background, you can hear the monotone murmur of
government officials doing their jobs, deflecting public concern with
the language of risk assessment: "No immediate threat to health."
"Acceptable risk." "Well within the guidelines." And the grinding
continues day after day after day.

In recent years, it has become indisputably clear that low-level
environmental exposures DO matter, and so a new rationale for
business-as-usual was needed. The newest corporate/governmental answer
to these problems is "genes." Billions of dollars are now being poured
into genetic studies to show that it is our individual susceptibility to
disease that must be fixed -- not the industrial poisons that attack our
genes to cause disease.

The fundamental idea behind this genetic approach is that we can
continue to flood the environment with exotic disease-producing
chemicals because we will be immunized against harm by expensive
improvements to our genetic heritage.

Or, alternatively, we will be cured of disease after it occurs -- again,
by expensive rearrangement of our genes.

The very latest corporate "solution" is nanotechnology, whose advocates
assure us that environment-related diseases such as cancer will one day
be cured by tiny "nanobots" -- infinitessimally small machines designed
to motor through our arteries and identify (and then zap) diseased
cells.[10] So we should spend billions on nanobot research and forget
about the traditional basis of public health -- primary prevention.
There is simply no money in prevention.

All these new approaches like genes and nanobots share one common
feature: they will all increase our dependence on corporate "experts"
who will hold our lives in their hands, for which we will, no doubt, be
required to pay dearly. (Those who cannot afford to pay are presumably
lazy good-for-nothings whom we can profitably allow to expire,
preferably somewhere out of public view.)

But sooner or later the ancient wisdom of prevention seems sure to
prevail because the facts are driving us relentlessly toward that
necessity. Prevention is really the only affordable (and feasible)
solution to medical, public health and environmental problems.
Therefore, sooner or later, prevention must prevail.

The European Union is currently trying to institutionalize prevention of
harm in its proposed new policy toward industrial chemicals.[11] The
E.U. has made the audacious proposal that chemicals should actually be
tested to discover their effects on health and the environment BEFORE
they are marketed. This precautionary approach is captured in the
phrase, "No information, no market."

In response to this common-sense E.U. proposal, chemical corporations
world-wide have joined forces to declare all-out war on the E.U.'s
environmental ministry, and they have the full force and power of the
U.S. government behind them.

The National Journal recently described the U.S. vs. E.U struggle this
way:

"The conflict over the chemicals legislation goes deeper than the usual
arguments over dollars and cents. The root cause is the E.U.'s use of
the so-called precautionary principle. This is a concept, codified in
the European Union charter, that government can and should make policy
based on the significant possibility of risk, even before all data is
compiled. It is on the opposite end of the spectrum from the way policy
is usually set in Washington, where the government does not usually pass
broad reforms until there is concrete evidence of harm.

"By contrast, the European chemicals policy is pre-emptive, requiring a
massive amount of testing in the hope of reducing harm before it occurs.

"Although the costs involved with the chemicals legislation will not be
cheap, the European Union argues that the change will pay off in the
long run. According to E.U. estimates, the indirect costs of higher
chemical prices to European manufacturers and consumers over 15 years
would be as high as $29.3 billion. But on the benefits side, the E.U.
estimates that in 30 years, there will be 2,200 to 4,300 fewer cases of
cancer, and savings of $20.3 billion to $61 billion in occupational
health expenditures."[12]

The chemical industry and the U.S. government are allies in a titanic
struggle for their right to continue poisoning people and the planet
unabated. Nevertheless, sooner or later, I believe, common sense will
prevail and a preventive approach will be adopted everywhere.

I do not think for a minute that it will be easy. Millions -- perhaps
many millions -- more people (not to mention wild creatures) will have
to live and die with birth defects, cancers, attention deficits, asthma,
diabetes, and low IQ before corporations are brought to heel.

Corporations have captured control of our publicly-owned airwaves,
harnessed our public universities to satisfy a corporate agenda, seized
direction of our federal government's research budget, defiled
scientific advisory committees worldwide by packing them with corporate
shills, dumbed down our public schools, corrupted our federal courts,
and bribed the executive and legislative branches of our government
through the simple device of funding election campaigns.

About the only feature of our democracy that corporations have not yet
entirely debauched is our right of free speech. And of course they are
working on that one, too. Slapp suits and veggie libel laws are intended
to silence critics of corporate violence. The best-known veggie libel
lawsuit is that of TV star Oprah Winfrey, who was hauled into court by
Texas meat mavens, charged with defaming red meat, a crime under Texas
law. Winfrey won the lawsuit but it reportedly cost her upwards of $3
million to do so. No doubt, many a reporter and editor now thinks twice
before publishing new information about the many dreadful diseases
linked to excessive red meat in our diet. And just last week, Monsanto,
the St. Louis chemical bully, sued dairy farmers in Maine who had the
temerity to advertise to their customers that their milk contains none
of Monsanto's patent-medicine artificial hormones.[13]

No doubt, the assault on our right of free speech is a purposeful,
coordinated, long-term corporate strategy, and extremely dangerous.

Yet despite this bleak picture of a world corrupted and intimidated by
corporate power, the ancient truth about environment and disease
continues to leak out through the cracks in the system. Indeed, on the
web, the truth fairly gushes out. This alone is powerful reason for
hope. With the creation of new web sites like those maintained by Pete
Myers, it IS possible to arm ourselves with information, to resist
tyranny. The truth shall set you free.
========================================================================

[1] Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, "de Architectura libri decem." Much of the
Vitruvius text is available at
http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Roman/
Texts/Vitruvius/ .

In Book 1, Vitruvius wrote,

"Skill in physic enables him [the architect] to ascertain the salubrity
of different tracts of country, and to determine the variation of
climates, which the Greeks call klivmata: for the air and water of
different situations, being matters of the highest importance, no
building will be healthy without attention to those points."

And in Book 2:

"7. Natural consistency arises from the choice of such situations for
temples as possess the advantages of salubrious air and water; more
especially in the case of temples erected to sculapius, to the Goddess
of Health, and such other divinities as possess the power of curing
diseases. For thus the sick, changing the unwholesome air and water to
which they have been accustomed for those that are healthy, sooner
convalesce; and a reliance upon the divinity will be therefore increased
by proper choice of situation."

[2] Peter Montague, "Ralph Nader and Barry Commoner: Strategies for
Public Interest Research, with Three Original Case Studies" unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of New Mexico, 1971. Available from
University Microfilms, Inc. (www.umi.com). The "Introduction" is
available at: http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=184 .

[3] Ted Schettler and others, In Harm's Way; Toxic Threats to Child
Development (Boston: Greater Boston Physicians for Social
Responsibility, May, 2000). Available at:
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=183 .

[4] Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski, and John Peterson Myers, Our Stolen
Future (N.Y.: Dutton, 1996; Plume [paperback], 1997 -- ISBN 0452274141).

[5] F.X. Castellanos and others, "Developmental trajectories of brain
volume abnormalities in children and adolescents with
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder," Journal of the American
Medical Association Vol. 288 (2002), pgs. 1740-1748.

[6] Lennart Hardell and others, "Increased Concentrations of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Hexachlorobenzene, and Chlordanes in Mothers
of Men with Testicular Cancer," Environmental Health Perspectives Volume
111, Number 7 (June 2003), pgs. 930-934.

[7] Linda S. Birnbaum and Suzanne E. Fenton, "Cancer and Developmental
Exposure to Endocrine Disruptors," Environmental Health Perspectives
Vol. 111, No. 4 (April 2003), pgs. 389-394.

[8] On corporations, see Rachel's #388 and #582 at
http://www.rachel.org , for example.

[9] M.C. Roco, "From Vision to the Implementation of the U.S. National
Nanotechnology Initiative," Journal of Nanoparticle Research Vol. 3,
No. 1 (2001), pgs. 5-11.

[10] Associated Press, "EU chemical-safety plan is called unworkable,"
Baltimore Sun July 11, 2003.

[11] Samuel Loewenberg, "The Chemical Industry's European Reaction,"
The National Journal Vol. 35, No. 28 (July 12, 2003).

[12] David Barboza, "Monsanto Sues Dairy in Maine Over Label's Remarks
on Hormones," New York Times July 12, 2003.
########################################################################

NOTICE
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving it for research and educational purposes. Some of this
material may be copyrighted by others. We believe we are making "fair
use" of the material under Title 17, but if you choose to use it for
your own purposes, you will need to consider "fair use" in your own case
and perhaps seek reprint permission from the copyright owner.
Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic version of
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS free of charge even though it costs
the organization considerable time and money to produce it. We would
like to continue to provide this service free. You could help by making
a tax-deductible contribution (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or
$500.00). Please send your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental
Research Foundation, P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0160. Please
do not send credit card information via E-mail. For further information
about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F. by credit card
please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or at (732) 828-9995, or fax
us at (732) 791-4603. --Peter Montague, Editor
########################################################################

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1002
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartame/message/15477
aspartame review: methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid toxicity:
Murray 7.22.3 rmforall

Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall@...
1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 USA 505-986-9103

[NutraSweet, Equal, Canderel, Benevia]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/983
aspartame & formaldehyde toxicity: Murray 7.22.3 rmforall

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages
for 1014 posts in a public searchable archive 118 members

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartame/ 15591 posts 684 members

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/989
EU votes 440 to 20 to approve sucralose, limit cyclamates & reevaluate
aspartame & stevia: Murray 4.12.3 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

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/910
formaldehyde & formic acid from methanol in aspartame:
Murray: 12.9.2 rmforall

It is certain that high levels of aspartame use, above 2 liters daily
for months and years, must lead to chronic formaldehyde-formic acid
toxicity, since 11% of aspartame (1,120 mg in 2L diet soda, 5.6 12-oz
cans) is 123 mg methanol (wood alcohol), immediately released into the
body after drinking (unlike the large levels of methanol locked up in
molecules inside many fruits), then quickly transformed into
formaldehyde, which in turn becomes formic acid, both of which in
time are partially eliminated as carbon dioxide and water.

However, about 30% of the methanol remains in the body as cumulative
durable toxic metabolites of formaldehyde and formic acid-- 37 mg daily,
a gram every month. [J. Nutrition 1973 Oct; 103(10): 1454-1459.
Metabolism of aspartame in monkeys. Oppermann JA, Muldoon E, Ranney RE.]
If 10% of the methanol is retained as formaldehyde, that would give 12
mg daily formaldehyde accumulation, about 60 times more than the 0.2 mg
from 10% retention of the 2 mg EPA daily limit for formaldehyde in
drinking water.

Bear in mind that the EPA limit for formaldehyde in drinking water is
1 ppm, or 2 mg daily for a typical daily consumption of 2 L of water.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/835
RTM: ATSDR: EPA limit 1 ppm formaldehyde in drinking water July 1999
5.30.2 rmforall

This long-term low-level chronic toxic exposure leads to typical
patterns of increasingly severe complex symptoms, starting with
headache, fatigue, joint pain, irritability, memory loss, and
leading to vision and eye problems, and even seizures. In many cases
there is addiction. Probably there are immune system disorders, with a
hypersensitivity to these toxins and other chemicals.

Confirming evidence and a general theory are given by Pall (2002):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/909
testable theory of MCS type diseases, vicious cycle of nitric oxide &
peroxynitrite: MSG: formaldehyde-methanol-aspartame:
Martin L. Pall: Murray: 12.9.2 rmforall

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/946
Functional Therapeutics in Neurodegenerative Disease Part 1/2:
Perlmutter 7.15.99: Murray 1.10.3 rmforall

http://google.com gives 149,000 websites for "aspartame" , with the top
9 listings being anti-aspartame, while
http://groups.google.com/ finds on 700 MB of posts from 20 years of
Usenet groups, 79,300 posts, the top 10 being anti-aspartame.
http://www.AllTheWeb.com gives 239,091, the top 5 being leading and
very well informed volunteer anti-aspartame sites.
http://teoma.com/index.asp gives 42,900 websites, the top 7 are anti.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/ lists 734 aspartame items.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/915
formaldehyde toxicity: Thrasher & Kilburn: Shaham: EPA: Gold: Murray:
Wilson: CIIN: 12.12.2 rmforall

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/934
24 recent formaldehyde toxicity [Comet assay] reports:
Murray 12.31.2 rmforall

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/935
Comet assay finds DNA damage from sucralose, cyclamate, saccharin in
mice: Sasaki YF & Tsuda S Aug 2002: Murray 1.1.3 rmforall
[Also borderline evidence, in this pilot study of 39 food additives,
using a test group of 4 mice, for DNA damage from for stomach, colon,
liver, bladder, and lung 3 hr after oral dose of 2000 mg/kg aspartame--
a very high dose.]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/961
genotoxins, Comet assay in mice: Ace-K, stevia fine; aspartame poor;
sucralose, cyclamate, saccharin bad: Y.F. Sasaki Aug 2002:
Murray 1.27.3 rmforall [A detailed look at the data]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/939
aspartame (aspartic acid, phenylalanine) binding to DNA:
Karikas July 1998: Murray 1.5.3 rmforall
Karikas GA, Schulpis KH, Reclos GJ, Kokotos G
Measurement of molecular interaction of aspartame and
its metabolites with DNA. Clin Biochem 1998 Jul; 31(5): 405-7.
Dept. of Chemistry, University of Athens, Greece
http://www.chem.uoa.gr gkokotos@...
"K.H. Schulpis" <inchildh@...> "G.J. Reclos" <reklos@...>

http://www.dorway.com/tldaddic.html 5-page review
Roberts HJ Aspartame (NutraSweet) addiction.
Townsend Letter 2000 Jan; HJRobertsMD@...
http://www.sunsentpress.com/ sunsentpress@...
Sunshine Sentinel Press P.O.Box 17799 West Palm Beach, FL 33416
800-814-9800 561-588-7628 561-547-8008 fax

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/669
1038-page medical text "Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic"
published May 30 2001 $ 85.00 postpaid data from 1200 cases
available at http://www.amazon.com
over 600 references from standard medical research
************************************************************************