*************************************************************

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1211
Stephen Fox reports progress re aspartame ban with New Mexico Environmental
Improvement Board: Fox: Murray (also letter to David L Katz, MD): 2005.09.06

[ Rich Murray comments:
I was told that an agent for Pepsi-Cola sat silently in the back row.
The Chairperson, Gay Dillingham, mentioned that many emails and documents
had been submitted by the industry as well as by our activists.
Six of the seven New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board members were
present.

I spoke briefly, saying the Ramazzini Foundation study would be presented in
two weeks at a large conference of world toxicologists in Bologna, Italy,
showing conclusive evidence that aspartame and its products in the body,
methanol and formaldehyde, all produced lymphomas and leukemias in rats with
lifetime low doses. I pointed out that New Mexico had an opportunity to
become the first government in the world to take action to protect its
citizens against this gratuitous toxicity.

Lauren Charlap-Hyman, an experienced local school teacher with multiple
chemical sensitivity, spoke very effectively about the exposure of high
school students to multiple toxins in their diets.

Stephen Fox spoke concisely, plainly, and directly with great clarity and
impressive presence of mind. His account herein is thorough and accurate.

The Board's Counsel, Mary H. Smith, spoke emphatically to the effect that
she was not convinced that NM law allowed the Board authority to proscribe
food ingredients, especially ones approved by the federal FDA. She had
submitted a 2-page legal memo to the Board.

The Board was quite divided, with Ken Marsh and Gregory Green agreeing with
Mary Smith, and Clifford Stroud and Dolores Herrera opposed, while Gay
Dillingham and Harold Tso were roughly in the middle, as far as I could
follow the intricate discussions.

After much discussion, that seemed to me to be going in circles, Ken Marsh
moved to deny Fox's petition to ban aspartame, and Gregory Green seconded
it. I believe Gay Dillingham voted for denial, but the motion failed, with 3
for
denial and 3 against denial.

The issue of legal authority will be somehow dealt with on the next Board
session, during the initial Public Comment period, on Tuesday, October 4,
9:30 AM, Room 317, NM State Capitol., and probably the Board will then vote
on Fox's petition, which he can revise. Anyone may submit petitions to the
Board, which then has to respond within 14 to 60 days.

Mary Smith emphatically stated Fox and others on various sides should submit
the relevant NM statutes and relevant legal information in writing before
the session, and that Fox needed to hire his own attorney.

Fox explained that the Environmental Department did not respond at all to
his phone calls and emails asking for guidance in composing his petition,
but that an Assistant Attorney General had helped him and approved his
petition.

Gregory Green said the Environmental Department should "walk Fox through the
process" of submitting a legally correct petition, but Ken Marsh and Gay
Dillingham were opposed. Clifford Stroud suggested that the Board
"request", not "instruct" the Environmental Department to guide Fox.

Mary Smith at the end emphasized that the issues to be discussed October 4
be given Public Notice to invite more public participation among the two or
more sides available.

Personally, I am very encouraged.
It is impossible for the industry to discuss the fact of methanol from
aspartame being converted into formaldehyde and formic acid, without making
the public and professionals widely aware of this fact.
It is impossible to claim that these potent, cumulative toxins, neurotoxins,
and carcinogens are benign.

In mutual service, Rich Murray

Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall@... 505-501-2298
1943 Otowi Road Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages
group with 148 members, 1,211 posts in a public, searchable archive ]
**************************************************************


From: "E Bryant Holman" <bryanth@...>
To: "El Paso Greens" <ElPasoGreens@yahoogroups.com>; "1zapatista"
<1zapatista@yahoogroups.com>; "Aspartame Support Group"
<aspartame@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "Dr. Janet Starr Hull" <jshull@...>;
<BigBend@yahoogroups.com>; "Ojinaga List" <ojinaga@yahoogroups.com>; "Mary
Stoddard" <marystod@...>; "Jennie Lusk" <jennie87108@...>;
<Educate-Yourself_Forum@yahoogroups.com>; "Grupo Aspartame"
<aspartamo@yahoogroups.com>; "Stephen Fox" <stephen@...>
Subject: [Aspartame Support] New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board
Date: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 9:59 PM

Bulletin regarding the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, discusses
the use of this agency to try and ban the use of aspartame in the state.
*************************

Thank you for your interest in the New Mexico Environmental Improvement
Board meeting September 6, regarding a proposed rule change which would ban
the neurotoxic sweetener, aspartame, for the state of New Mexico, the first
ban of its kind in the USA.

What was scheduled as a 5 minute agenda item, a decision as to whether to
have a full scale hearing in the coming months, turned into an 80 minute
legal wrangle over whether the EIB has the power to challenge a product with
FDA approval, as well as which statutes allowed such a rule change, and
where in the Administrative Code the rule change should be inserted.

My reading of the statutes is quite clear; in the Food Act, Chapter 25 of
the NM statutes, the power to identify deleterious or poisonous food additives
is spelled out in no uncertain terms, and the power is given to the EIB and to
no other branch of state government, not the Health Department and not the
Governor's office.

There is no equivalent mirror section of the New Mexico Administrative Code
to match the very clear language of the statutes, and that was the crux of
my proposed rule change, which also added specific language about neurotoxic
food additives being prohibited, and clearly identified aspartame as one to
be banned in New Mexico.

Three state Senators [Pro Tem Senate President Ben Altamirano, Steve
Komadina, M.D., and Jerry Ortiz y Pino], and one state Rep. [Harriet Ruiz]
weighed in on this by sending in letters to the EIB, asking the Board to
move forward toward a decision to get rid of this neurotoxin; several
important physicians [Dr. Grant La Farge, Pediatric Cardiologist;
Dr. Ken Stoller, Pediatrician; Dr. H.J.Roberts, Internal Medicine,
and Dr. R.G. Walton, Psychiatrist] and numerous victims of aspartame
poisoning from all over the United States, all submitted letters to the Board
asking them to hold further hearings.

The cautionary and heavy-handed advice of the Board's Counsel, Assistant
Attorney General Mary H. Smith, figured heavily into the EIB's reluctance to
jump into this new, untested arena of food quality regulation; even though it
is quite well know that no other body in New Mexico has the statutory power
to control food quality. This counsel to the EIB was in direct contradiction
to the advice graciously afforded to me by another Assistant Attorney
General, almost as if they were two automobiles going in opposite and
diametrically opposed directions!

This is perhaps understandable, because, astonishingly, there is not one iota
of case law on this matter, because since the statutes were passed in 1941,
no one in New Mexico has ever used these statutes to reject or even question
the presence of well-known poisonous and deleterious food additives, even
though the statutory mechanisms to delineate the toxins and what to do about
them is quite clear in the statutes.

I, as petitioner, (in the next 15 days, in order to comply with the filing
schedule requirements) am forced to bring in a greatly expanded circle of
legal experts to present the legal facts on this issue at the next EIB
meeting in early October, in a presentation limited in toto to one half
hour, specifically those jurisdictional questions and statutory clarifications
which will satisfy the EIB's concerns so that it can move forward toward
resolving these issues decisively, with its highest concern being to protect
the health of all New Mexicans.

The FDA pre emption questions will loom large in the considerations by the
New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board in early October: has any state
ever stood up so strongly about getting rid of a product (aspartame) which
has been approved for 24 years, yet done so much obvious cumulative
neurodegenerative damage on so many millions of people?

Apparently the EIB members were bombarded with many emails, and the
Assistant Attorney General, Mary Smith, wrote in her memorandum that "the
Attorney General's Office computer system has been flooded with emails about
this matter," that she asked "her computer staff to block any unsolicited
emails that contain the word "aspartame" in the subject line and to send those
to our spam folder for immediate deletion!" (although, curiously, not one of
the board members complained in the meeting about the volume of emailed
communications---personally, I think the members' medical comprehension of
neurotoxic food additives is much clearer now because of physicians' and
victims' emails to them).

This might seem like a temporary setback for open and sincere communications
on a very serious subject, the neurotoxicity of commonly available food
additive, to the very board which has the sole power to do something
positive to correct and prevent further neurodegenerative damages from
the 5000 products consumed by 70% of Americans.

However, your views on these matters are still very vital, so please ask
your friends and family to also write letters asking for a ban on aspartame
in New Mexico, and please send them in writing (not Email) to:

Barbara Claire, EIB administrator
Department of Environment, N2153
1190 So. St. Francis
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502

( email: barbara.claire@..., if you have a specific question )

with 7 copies, one for each member of the Environmental Improvement Board.

I would also send the same kind of letter directed to both:

The Governor of New Mexico, The Honorable Bill Richardson,
The Capitol, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501


The Attorney General of New Mexico, The Honorable Patricia Madrid
The Bataan Building, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501

Clearly, the Executive branch has enormous powers to bring about our goals,
and the Attorney General has enormous powers to initiate suits regarding
aspartame's damages similar to the tobacco suits of the Attorneys General in
the 1990's. (In a legal causal sense, there really is little difference
between tobacco's lung cancer and aspartame's proven neurodegenerative
damages.)

Thank you for all of your help, and please keep the unrelenting
correspondence to these officials going, in order to get this vital task
accomplished, the first ban on neurotoxic aspartame in the United States!
I welcome your replies and your insights.

Respectfully,
Stephen Fox
Founder, New Mexico Nutrition Council
217 W. Water St.
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501

505 983-2002
stephen@...
*************************************************************

If you or someone you know drinks diet soda check out the Aspartame Victims
Support Group at http://presidiotex.com/aspartame

READING LIST: http://aspartametruth.com/books/

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/

ASPARTAME BUMPER STICKER http://ojinaga.com/bumperstickers/freesticker/

To subscribe to this list, send a blank e-mail to:
aspartame-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Our chat room is at http://aspartametruth.com/chatroom
**************************************************************

From: <katzdl@...>
To: <rmforall@...>
Subject: Re: Fwd: aspartame induces lymphomas and leukaemias in rats, full
plain text, M Soffritti, F Belpoggi, DD Esposti, L Lambertini: Ramazzini
Foundation study 2005.07.14: main results agree with their previous methanol
and formaldehyde studies: Murray 2005.09.04
Date: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 1:01 PM

Dear O Reader--

Thank you for the citations; I am aware of these, and others like them.

I am generally opposed to the use of artificial sweeteners, and discourage
my patients from consuming them. That said, tens of millions of people
consume asapartame, and few report adverse effects. That does not mean
the product is harmless. Even products that save lives-- such as
antibiotics-- can cause life-threatening effects in a small minority of
users. There is an interaction between product and person that determines
whether effects are neutral, beneficial, or harmful. When harmful is the
predominant effect, a product is deemed toxic and unsafe. When the
product is neutral in the vast majority, as the available evidence
suggests for aspartame, it is considered generally safe. That
unfortunately does not necessarily mean always and entirely so.

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts, and these references.

Best regards,

Dr. David Katz
O Magazine
Yale University School of Medicine
************************************************************

Thanks for thoughtful response-- Harvard Nurses Health Study offers decades
of so far unresearched data on ~100,000, including heavy users of diet soda:
Katz: Murray 2005.09.06


Dear Dr. Katz,

It is rare indeed since I started putting conscientious, earnest reviews of
mainstream aspartame toxicity research on the Net in January, 1999, for me
to receive a balanced, reasonable response.

Perhaps you may know of some experts who would be willing to mine the Nurses
Health Study data, available to any qualified researchers, which as far as I
know have never been studied to seek out any aspartame correlations with the
many diseases studied for decades in a huge cohort.

I also include reviews of three mainstream controlled research projects on
aspartame effects in vulnerable human groups, which agree in finding very
high incidences of symtoms, about a decade ago.

After two decades, there is an absolute dearth of studies on the incidence
of symptoms in heavy users, above 6 cans daily diet soda for years.

There are a multitude of diverse symptoms, as may be expected for chronic,
low-level, long-term formaldehyde toxicity. A 1 or 2 % increase in symptoms
such as headache or specific types of cancers over the two decades since
1981-3 would be hard to detect and attribute specifically to aspartame,
without very focused, long-term studies on very large cohorts-- even though
millions may be affected by this gratuitous toxic exposure.

It would be valuable to confirm that adaquate folic acid use is protective,
by expediting the excretion of formaldehyde.

It is also important to realized the relevance of research on alcohol
hangovers, stated by many experts to be mainly caused by the 1 part in
10,000 methanol impurity in dark wine and liquors, about twice the level as
supplied by aspartame diet sodas, upon the inevitable conversion in humans
of ingested methanol into formaldehyde, the "morning after".

In mutual service, Rich Murray

Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall@... 505-501-2298
1943 Otowi Road Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 USA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages
group with 148 members, 1,211 posts in a public, searchable archive
***********************************************************


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 2005.05.30 2005.07.24 rmforall



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1141
Nurses Health Study can quickly reveal the extent of aspartame (methanol,
formaldehyde, formic acid) toxicity: Murray 2004.11.21 rmforall

The Nurses Health Study is a bonanza of information about the health of
probably hundreds of nurses who use 6 or more cans daily of diet soft
drinks -- they have also stored blood and tissue samples from their immense
pool of subjects.

Dark wines and liquors, as well as aspartame, provide similar levels of
methanol, above 100 mg daily, for long-term heavy users. Methanol is
inevitably largely turned into formaldehyde, and thence largely into formic
acid.

Both products are toxic, and at this level of use, about 2 L daily,
almost six 12-oz cans of diet drink, are above recent lifetime EPA
safety limits in tap water for methanol and formaldehyde of respectively,
for a 60 kg person, 30 mg and 9 mg daily. The 1999 EPA level for
formaldehyde in drinking water was 1 ppm, while recent WHO levels are 2.6
ppm.

The immediate health effects for dark wines and liquors are the infamous
"morning after" hangover, for which many informed experts cite as the major
cause the conversion of the methanol impurity, over one part in ten thousand
(red wine has 128 mg/L methanol), into formaldehyde and formic acid.
Everyone knows the complex progression of symptoms at this level of
long-term, chronic toxicity.

Aspartame reactors have a very similar progression.

If 1% of all people exposed to aspartame are heavy users with symptoms, then
there would easily be about 2 million cases in the USA alone.

This is a public health emergency.

At the very least, professionals and the public should be alerted to
investigate their own exposure, and be given a chance to try a very safe,
simple, inexpensive treatment for complex, intractable, progressive
symptoms -- reducing or eliminating their intake.

There are as well, many safe substances that prevent or treat the
toxicities -- for example, high folic acid levels expedite the elimination
of formaldehyde.

These toxicities are largely uncontrolled co-factors that affect every
disease and must confuse and impede many health research programs on all
levels.

People in high-pressure, critical occupations, such as pilots, nuclear plant
operators, and national leaders, should certainly be alerted.

Also, two careful studies show substantial methanol release from degradation
of pectins by bacteria in the colon from fruits and vegetables -- a topic
that deserves careful, thorough research.

Due to my bias, based on detailed reviews by Monte WC (1984)
and by Mark D Gold (2003), for months I have been discounting the
startlingly high methanol levels reported in the abstract for Lindinger W
(1997). I had been reducing the values in their abstract from g to mg, an
unwarrented "correction" by a factor of a thousand, only to find that
thefull text study and their many related studies supply expert, robust
results:

Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1997 Aug; 21(5): 939-43.
Endogenous production of methanol after the consumption of fruit.
Lindinger W, Taucher J, Jordan A, Hansel A, Vogel W.
Institut fur Ionenphysik, Leopold Franzens Universitat Innsbruck, Austria.

After the consumption of fruit, the concentration of methanol in the human
body increases by as much as an order of magnitude.
This is due to the degradation of natural pectin (which is esterified with
methyl alcohol) in the human colon.
In vivo tests performed by means of proton-transfer-reaction mass
spectrometry show that consumed pectin in either a pure form (10 to 15 g)
or a natural form (in 1 kg of apples) induces a significant increase of
methanol in the breath (and by inference in the blood) of humans.
The amount generated from pectin (0.4 to 1.4 g) [ 400 to 1400 mg ]
is approximately equivalent to the total daily endogenous production
(measured to be 0.3 to 0.6 g/day) [ 300 to 600 mg ]
or that obtained from 0.3 liters of 80-proof brandy
(calculated to be 0.5 g). [ 500 mg ]
This dietary pectin may contribute to the development
of nonalcoholic cirrhosis of the liver. PMID: 9267548

Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1995 Oct; 19(5): 1147-50.
Methanol in human breath.
Taucher J, Lagg A, Hansel A, Vogel W, Lindinger W.
Institut fur Ionenphysik, Universitat Innsbruck, Austria.

Using proton transfer reaction-mass spectrometry for trace gas analysis of
the human breath, the concentrations of methanol and ethanol have been
measured for various test persons consuming alcoholic beverages and various
amounts of fruits, respectively.
The methanol concentrations increased from a natural (physiological) level
of approximately 0.4 ppm up to approximately 2 ppm a few hours after eating
about 1/2 kg of fruits,
and about the same concentration was reached after drinking of 100 ml brandy
containing 24% volume of ethanol and 0.19% volume of methanol.
PMID: 8561283 [ Corrected 2005.07.11:
24 ml means 19 g ethanol, and 0.19 ml means 0.15 g = 150 mg methanol.
One L diet soda has 61.5 mg methanol in the aspartame molecule, so 100 ml
diet soda has 6.15 mg methanol, so the brandy has 24.4 times more methanol
than diet soda. A pound of fruit gives about as much methanol as 2 L
(nearly 6 cans) diet soda. ]

I urge Channing Laboratory and its participating universities to rapidly
mount an in-house study to study the Nurses Health Study database for the
hundreds of nurses who are long-term users, above 6 cans diet drinks daily,
for correlations with every disease, as well as ubiquitous co-factors like
wine and liquor, cigarette smoke, and fruits and vegetables. It could
vastly serve the world public health to make the initial findings widely
available immediately. The disparaged issue of aspartame toxicity could be
swiftly made legitimate, and the resulting progress on all levels remarkably
accelerated.

A single scientist could do this.

Comments pro and con are welcome. A convenient venue would be
the moderated Usenet group: bionet.toxicology.



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/622
Rich Murray: Gold: Koehler: Walton: Van Den Eeden: Leon:
aspartame toxicity 2001.06.04 rmforall four double-blind studies

Headache 1988 Feb; 28(1): 10-4
The effect of aspartame on migraine headache.
Koehler SM, Glaros A PMID: 3277925, UI: 88138777
Shirley M. Koehler, PhD 904-858-7651 skoehler@...
http://www.med.umich.edu/abcn/alpha/alpha-K.html#Koehler
Alan Glaros glarosa@... 816-235-2074

They conducted a double-blind study of patients, ages 18-55, who had
a medical diagnosis of classical migraines (normally having 1-3
migraines in 4-weeks), who were not on medications (other than
analgesics), and who suspected that aspartame had a negative effect on
their migraine headaches. The subjects were given 1200 mg daily,
aspartame or placebo, for four weeks, about 17 mg/kg. The placebo
group had no increase in headaches. Approximately half of the subjects
(5 of 11) who took aspartame had a large, statistically significant
(p = 0.02), increase in migraine headache frequency, but not in
intensity or duration, compared to baseline or placebo. Only 11 of
25 subjects completed the program: 8 dropped out, 4 began new
medications, 2 had incomplete records. They were at home.
Since 1/3 of the subjects dropped out, they may have been choosing
to avoid headaches-- were they unpaid? To achieve statistical
signifance with only 11 subjects hints that the incidence rate from
aspartame is very high, about 1/2, for migraine cases who believe
that they are hurt by aspartame.

Walton, RG, "Adverse reactions to aspartame: double-blind challenge in
patients from a vulnerable population," 1993, with Robert Hudak and
Ruth J. Green-Waite, Biological Psychiatry, 34 (1), 13-17.
Ralph G. Walton, MD, Prof. of Clinical Psychology, Northeastern Ohio
Universities, College of Medicine, Dept. of Psychiatry, Youngstown,
OH 44501, Chairman, The Center for Behavioral Medicine,
Northside Medical Center, 500 Gypsy Lane, P.O. Box 240 Youngstown,
OH 44501 330-740-3621 rwalton193@...
http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/Psychiatry/walton.htm

Eight depressed patients, ages 24-60, and five non-depressed controls,
ages 24-56, employed at the hospital, were given for 7 days either
aspartame or a placebo, and then after a 3 day break, given the
opposite. Each got 2100 mg aspartame daily, 30 mg/kg bodyweight,
equal to 10-12 cans of diet soda daily, about a gallon. Despite the
very small number of subjects, the results were dramatic and
statistically significant. The eight depressed patients reported with
aspartame, compared to placebo, much higher levels of nervousness,
trouble remembering, nausea, depression, temper, and malaise. (For each
symptom, p<0.01) The five normals did not report strong enough
differences between aspartame and placebo to be significant.
Initially, the study was to be on a group of 40, but was halted by the
Institutional Review Board because of severe reactions among 3 of the
depressed patients.

Again, statistical significance with only 8 depressed patients:
"In this study, patients most often began to report significant
symptoms after day 2 or 3." The incidence rate is very high,
indeed, about 1/3. The most common symptoms are entirely typical
of thousands of case histories.

Stephen K. Van Den Eeden, T.D. Koepsell, W.T. Longstreth, Jr,
G. van Belle, J.R. Daling, B. McKnight, "Aspartame ingestion and
headaches: a randomized crossover trial," 1994, Neurology, 44, 1787-93
Steven K. Van Den Eeden,PhD 550-450-2202 skv@...
Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program
3505 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94611-5714
http://www.dor.kaiser.org/dorhtml/investigators/Stephen_Van_Den_Eeden.html

In their introduction, they comment:

"In addition, the FDA had received over 5,000 complaints as of July,
1991 in a passive surveillance system to monitor adverse side effects.
(17) Neurologic problems constitute the primary complaints in these
and several other case series, with headaches accounting for
18 to 45 %,depending on the case series reported. (17-19)"

Subjects, ages 18-57, were recruited who believed they got headaches
from aspartame, but were otherwise mentally and physically healthy.
They were paid $ 15 total, and were at home. Of the 44 subjects, 32
contributed data to the 38-day trials: a week of inert placebo, a week
of either aspartame or placebo, followed by a week of the opposite, and
then this two-week cycle repeated. The daily dose was about 30 mg/kg.
"The proportion of days subjects reported having a headache was
higher during aspartame treatment compared with placebo treatment
(aspartame = 0.33, placebo = 0.24; p = 0.04) (table 5)".
Of the 12 subjects not included in the data, 7 reported adverse
symptoms before withdrawing.

Again, statistical significance with a moderate number of healthy
subjects, willing to be recruited by a newspaper ad, who believed
aspartame hurt them. The number of headaches for each subject
for each treatment week are given: it appears that 4 subjects
had the strongest increase in headaches from the run-in week
or placebo week to their first week on aspartame, jumping from 0 to 5,
1 to 6, 1 to 4, 0 to 5 headaches per week. So, about 4 of the 44
healthy people recruited for the study, who believed aspartame hurt
them, had a stong increase in headaches from the first week of daily
asparame exposure, while 7 reported adverse symptoms before leaving,
a total of 11 out of 44, an incidence ratio of 1/4.

This is sky high, if we consider that, if the incidence ratio for the
about two hundred million users in the USA is 1 of 100, that is 2
million cases. It is plausible that the incidence ratio lies between 1
and 10 out of 100 for continuous daily exposure. These three flames
should have set off alarm bells, with extensive follow-up studies and
much more careful study of thousands of case histories. But these
little flares were adroitly smothered by thick blankets of industry
funded fluff:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/623
Rich Murray: Simmons: Gold: Schiffman: Spiers:
aspartame toxicity 2001.06.04 rmforall two double-blind studies
*************************************************************


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1186
aspartame induces lymphomas and leukaemias in rats, free full plain text, M
Soffritti, F Belpoggi, DD Esposti, L Lambertini, 2005 April, 2005.07.14:
main results agree with their previous methanol and formaldehyde studies,
Murray 2005.07.19

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1185
Ramazzini Institute (Italy) lifetime study with 1800 rats shows aspartame at
human use levels causes cancer (methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid), M
Soffritti and F Belpoggi: Felicity Lawrence, The Guardian (UK): Murray
2005.07.15

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1189
Michael F Jacobson of CSPI now and in 1985 re aspartame toxicity, letter to
FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford; California OEHHA aspartame critique
2004.03.12; Center for Consumer Freedom denounces CSPI: Murray 2004.07.27

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1045
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/scf2002-response.htm
Mark Gold exhaustively critiques European Commission Scientific
Committee on Food re aspartame ( 2002.12.04 ): 59 pages, 230 references

http://www.HolisticMed.com/aspartame mgold@...
Aspartame Toxicity Information Center Mark D. Gold
12 East Side Drive #2-18 Concord, NH 03301 603-225-2100
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/abuse/methanol.html
"Scientific Abuse in Aspartame Research"

Gold points out that industry methanol assays were too insensitive to
properly measure blood methanol levels.

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 is 18
times the USA EPA limit for daily formaldehyde in drinking water, 2 mg in 2 L
water.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/835
ATSDR: EPA limit 1 ppm formaldehyde in drinking water July 1999:
Murray 2002.05.30 rmforall

Aspartame is made of phenylalanine (50% by weight) and aspartic acid (39%),
both ordinary amino acids, bound loosely together by methanol (wood alcohol,
11%). The readily released methanol from aspartame is within hours turned
by the liver into formaldehyde and then formic acid, both potent, cumulative
toxins.


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1182
Joining together: short review: research on aspartame (methanol,
formaldehyde, formic acid) toxicity: Murray 2005.07.08 rmforall

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1071
research on aspartame (methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid) toxicity: Murray
2004.04.29 rmforall
************************************************************