The new school beverage policy won't make students noticeably thinner, Jacob
Sullum www.reason.com:
his role in tobacco debate, Center for Media and Democracy
www.prwatch.org/: Murray 2006.05.13
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1343

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/050306-nr-cf-hs-hk-usa-pr-healthy-school-bevera\
ge-guidelines-set-for-united-states-schools.htm

Alliance for a Healthier Generation - Clinton Foundation
and American Heart Association - and Industry Leaders Set Healthy
School Beverage Guidelines for U.S. Schools
Announces First Industry Agreement as Part of the Alliance's Healthy
Schools Program -- Will Affect Tens of Millions of Students
New York, NY May 3, 2006

The Alliance for a Healthier Generation - a joint initiative of the William
J. Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association - has worked with
representatives of Cadbury Schweppes, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and the American
Beverage Association to establish new guidelines to limit portion sizes and
reduce the number of calories available to children during the school day.
Under these guidelines, only lower calorie and nutritious beverages will be
sold to schools. This is the Alliance's first industry agreement as part of
its Healthy Schools Program, and it affects close to 35 million students
across the country.


http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060512-090152-2149r.htm
Commentary May 13, 2006
School pop policy won't thin ranks By Jacob Sullum

http://www.reason.com/sullum/051006.shtml
Pop Out May 10, 2006
The new school beverage policy won't make students noticeably thinner

Now that Chelsea is all grown up and living on her own,
Bill and Hillary Clinton have turned their attention to raising other
people's children. The senator is determined to protect them from video
games, while the former president is saving them from soda.

The latter effort recently produced an agreement by the nation's
leading soft-drink companies aimed at changing the mix of beverages
sold in schools. Mr. Clinton called the deal "a bold step forward
in the struggle to help 35 million young people lead healthier lives,"
saying, "This one policy can add years and years and years to the
lives of a very large number of young people."

It's hard to see how. Although the agreement is supposed to help
prevent obesity, it's unlikely to have a measurable effect
on students' weight.

To begin with, drinks approved for sale under the new rules,
including fruit juices and low-fat milk, have just as many calories
as the now-verboten sugar-sweetened soda. If the aim is making kids
thinner -- as opposed to, say, addressing a heretofore unnoticed
outbreak of scurvy -- substituting
orange juice (110 calories per 8 ounces) for Coca-Cola (100 calories)
won't accomplish anything.

At least high-school students will be able to buy diet soda and other
artificially sweetened beverages, which have no calories but are close
substitutes for regular soft drinks. The new rules deny that option to
elementary and middle school students, whose only beverage choices
aside from water will have about as many calories as Mountain Dew.

That decision presumably was based on concern about the alleged
health hazards of artificial sweeteners, which the Food and Drug
Administration and the American Dietetic Association consider safe
for general consumption. Michael Jacobson, who as head of the
Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has long fanned these
unfounded fears, told the New York Times,
"I'd like to get rid of... diet soft drinks completely" -- an ambition
that subverts the ostensible goal of preventing obesity.

Despite his reservations, Mr. Jacobson said.
"This voluntary agreement is certainly good enough that CSPI will
drop its planned lawsuit against Coca-Cola, PepsiCo,
Cadbury Schweppes and their bottlers."
The fact the agreement was reached under the threat of litigation
suggests it was not exactly "voluntary." But John Sicher, editor and
publisher of Beverage Digest, told the Associated Press the
arrangement will have "virtually no impact" on the companies'
bottom lines because "the sale of [sugar-sweetened] sodas in schools
is a tiny, tiny part of their overall volume."

That makes you wonder how much an impact the changes will
have on students' waistlines. As grounds for hope, Mr. Jacobson
cites a study in the March issue of Pediatrics that he says showed
"increased soft-drink consumption contributes to obesity."

By delivering free diet soft drinks to the homes of 53 teenagers
(a method Mr. Jacobson certainly would not approve) and
encouraging them to "Think Before You Drink," the researchers
achieved a dramatic 82 percent reduction in consumption
of sugar-sweetened beverages. Still, there was no significant overall
difference in weight change between this group and a control group
of 50 teenagers who did not receive diet drinks or counseling.
A statistically significant effect was apparent only among the fattest kids,
who lost a small amount of weight.

Since the intervention in this study was much more elaborate and
expensive than the changes Bill Clinton is trumpeting, there's little reason
to believe fiddling with the drink selection in school vending machines
will make students noticeably thinner. They will still be free to eat what
they want and to buy the beverages of their choice off campus,
which is where they consume most of their calories anyway.

So will schools start searching students' bags for contraband soda?
Will CSPI threaten a new lawsuit to establish soda-free zones around
schools? The soft drink companies may yet regret cutting this deal.

Jacob Sullum is a nationally syndicated columnist.
**********************************************************

http://www.reason.com/jsmain1.shtml [ photo ]
Reason magazine Senior Editor Jacob Sullum jsullum@...

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor of Reason, a monthly magazine on politics
and culture with a national circulation of about 60,000,
and a syndicated newspaper columnist.

Sullum's column, distributed by Creators Syndicate,
appears in newspapers
such as the New York Post, The Washington Times,
the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph,
and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
He has also written for National Review, Cigar Aficionado,
The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times,
and many other publications.
Sullum writes about a wide range of issues, including drug policy,
gun control, censorship, privacy, education, and religious freedom.
His book on the morality of drug use is scheduled to be published
next spring by Tarcher/Putnam.

Sullum's first book, For Your Own Good: The Anti-Smoking Crusade
and the Tyranny of Public Health (The Free Press),
was Amazon.com's #1 public policy bestseller in 1998.
It was widely praised by reviewers, who called it
"compelling" (The Wall Street Journal),
"meticulously logical" (The New York Times),
and a "cogent and thorough...must-read" (The Washington Post).

Sullum, a fellow of the Knight Center for Specialized Journalism,
has been a featured speaker
at the International Conference on Drug Policy Reform
and the Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy.
In 1988 he won the Keystone Press Award for investigative reporting,
and in 1991 he received First Prize
in the Felix Morley Memorial Journalism Competition.
In 1998 his article on pain treatment for Reason was a
National Magazine Award finalist in the Public Interest category.

Sullum first joined Reason in 1989 as an assistant editor,
later serving as associate editor and managing editor.
He has also worked as the articles editor of National Review
and as a newspaper reporter for the News and Courier/Evening Post
in Charleston, South Carolina,
and The Times Leader in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

Sullum is a graduate of Cornell University,
where he majored in economics and psychology.
He lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and daughter.

http://www.reason.com/ feedback gillespie@...;
Science correspondent Ronald Bailey rbailey@...;

http://www.prwatch.org/node/171

ACSH vs. Ashes: Tobacco's Worst Enemy, or a Smoke Screen?

The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)
sides with big business in virtually every controversy involving corporate
interests versus public health, but there is one big business
that it relentlessly criticizes -- the tobacco industry.
ACSH and Elizabeth Whelan have taken a consistent and outspoken
stand against the dangers of tobacco and have published hard-hitting
critiques of magazines that downplay tobacco's dangers in exchange
for advertising dollars.

Taking a strong stand on tobacco has helped ACSH cultivate a veneer
of credibility among public health professionals.
In particular, it has formed part of the bond between Whelan
and former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop
(see related story in this issue).
Whelan is the author of books about tobacco, titled
A Smoking Gun: How the Tobacco Industry Gets Away With Murder
and Cigarettes: What the Warning Label Doesn't Tell You,
along with numerous editorials and magazine articles.
She has testified as an expert witness for plaintiffs suing the tobacco
industry, and has even criticized her fellow conservatives
for what she calls their "blurred vision" about tobacco.

When presidential candidate Bob Dole opined that smoking
was not addictive, for example, Whelan publicly begged to differ,
as she has on other occasions. "Conservative politicians,
their spokesmen and right-wing journalists almost uniformly
condemned Clinton's 'war' against teen-age smoking,"
she complained in 1995.
"Conservative pundits pounce on anti-smoking activists with gusto,
questioning not just our methods, but our priorities. . . .
Republicans, posturing themselves as friends of the tobacco industry,
are doing themselves and America's youth a great disservice.
As a public health professional and lifelong Republican I ask: Why?"

ACSH's argument on many public issues is built around the idea that
tobacco and other lifestyle-related health factors are more important
and deserve higher priority than "hypothetical, miniscule" risks from
pesticides and other pollution. The organization publishes a magazine,
Priorities, whose title and content regularly return to the notion that
"unscientific" health advocates fail to prioritize real health risks
while dwelling on risks that are "trivial at best, or, at worst,
nonexistent."

Whelan has even attempted to deflect criticism of her own
organization's funding by claiming that prominent environmental
and consumer groups are beholden to tobacco money.
"My counterparts, why aren't they quizzed as to funding?"
she asked one reporter, claiming that
the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
and the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)
receive "substantial funding from the cigarette families,
including R.J. Reynolds family foundation. . . . Who knows where
else they get their funding?
They don't publish their funding list on a regular basis."

When Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz investigated these
allegations, however, he found that the NRDC and CSPI both
disclose all of their funding sources except for individual membership
contributions. As for the claim that they take tobacco money,
both have received some funding from from the Mary Reynolds
Babcock Foundation, which is run by second- and third-generation heirs of
tobacco money who
choose to give their money to liberal causes.

CSPI's Michael Jacobson acknowledges that the Babcock Foundation's money
originally came from tobacco profits.
"It's been sanitized by several generations," he says.
"That's a very different situation from
getting money from the Monsanto Fund,
which is an arm of the company."

For his part, Jacobson expresses measured skepticism about the
motives behind Whelan's anti-tobacco activism.
"I think that ACSH took up the smoking issue to deflect the criticism
that it always defends industry," he says. "Whelan often says things like
'X causes fewer deaths than tobacco, so it's not worth worrying
about' -- and, of course, everything causes fewer deaths than tobacco."

At the same time, Jacobson is careful to give credit where credit is due.
"Fig leaf though it may be, ACSH deserves credit for its work on
smoking," he says, "and journalists give extra credit to ACSH
because they know it's a right-wing group and right-wing groups
aren't expected to attack industry."

Of course, if CSPI's several-degrees-of-separation links to the tobacco
industry are worth mentioning, it seems only fair to note that Whelan
serves on the advisory council of Consumer Alert,
another front group for industry whose funders include Philip Morris,
Coors and the Beer Institute along with Monsanto,
the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Chevron, Exxon,
American Cyanamid and a host of other usual corporate suspects.

Guilty Associations

In fact, ACSH has numerous ties, through its board of directors and
advisory board, to many of the right-wing, tobacco-funded organizations
whose "blurred vision" Whelan criticizes.
Its advisory board includes representatives of the Hudson Institute,
the Progress & Freedom Foundation and the Cato Institute,
all of which receive funding from the tobacco industry and
oppose efforts to regulate tobacco.
Priorities magazine also features numerous articles from people
affiliated with these and other pro-tobacco think-tanks, including
the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Capital Research Center
(which has published two recent books
denying that smoking causes cancer).

ACSH also has numerous links
to The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC),
a "corporate-supported watchdog coalition that advocates
the use of sound sciences in public policy."
Like ACSH, TASSC attacks what it calls "junk science"
as it defends bovine growth hormone, genetically engineered foodstuffs,
dioxin, electromagnetic fields and endocrine disrupting chemicals.
Like ACSH, it is supported by the chemical, oil, dairy, timber,
paper, mining, manufacturing and agribusiness industries.

Unlike ACSH, however, TASSC takes money directly from
Philip Morris, and it has openly defended the tobacco industry.
In August 1997, for example, TASSC executive director Steven Milloy
was one of the paid speakers at a cushy little propaganda session for
foreign reporters hosted in Miami. The tobacco industry flew in
reporters from countries including Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Peru
and paid for their hotel rooms and expensive meals while they sat
through presentations that ridiculed "lawsuit-driven societies like
the United States" for using "unsound science" to raise questions
about "infinitesimal, if not hypothetical, risks"
related to inhaling a "whiff" of tobacco smoke.

Milloy likewise dismissed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
1993 study linking secondhand smoke to cancer as "a joke," and
when the British Medical Journal published its own study with
similar results in 1997, he scoffed that "it remains a joke today."
After the New England Journal of Medicine published a
Harvard University study linking secondhand smoke to heart disease,
he labeled the study an "abuse of statistics" and a case of
"epidemiologists trying to pass off junk science as Nobel prize work."

Milloy's rhetoric appears to be the basis for a story, titled "Smoke Rings,"
which appeared in the June 16, 1997 issue of William Buckley, Jr.'s
conservative National Review. Whelan, who describes herself as
"a longtime National Review fan," was so "disappointed" in the article
that she wrote a letter to the editor warning that "NR should be wary
of relying on a source that considers the
New England Journal of Medicine a purveyor of junk science.
In labeling the Harvard study 'junk science,'
you may be inadvertently junking all science."
Yet ACSH executive director Michael Fox is a member of TASSC's
advisory board, as are ACSH chairman A. Alan Moghissi and board
members Victor Herbert and F.J. Francis.
Another 46 members of the ACSH advisory board also serve on the
advisory board of TASSC. If TASSC is in the business of
"junking all science," why are so many ACSH supporters
willing to lend their name to it?

Secondhand Sophistry

ACSH does more than merely associate with the tobacco industry's
defenders. It has endorsed
and helped disseminate some of their arguments.
Jacob Sullum, for example, is one of the most vociferous defenders
of the tobacco industry in print today. As editor of Reason magazine,
a libertarian magazine published by the Reason Foundation,
Sullum adopts a "Clinton defense" regarding the industry's long history
of deceiving the public over tobacco's dangers.
"Yes, the industry's position on the hazards of smoking has been
disingenuous and irresponsible. But does it amount to fraud?" he asks.
"What industry spokesmen said was not, by and large, literally false.
Indeed, they carefully phrased their statements to avoid direct denial
of tobacco's hazards. . . . The tobacco companies didn't fool anyone
who didn't want to be fooled."

Although Sullum admits that "smoking is bad for you in the sense
that it raises the risk of certain diseases and tends to shorten your life,"
he says smoking might "also be good for you, in the sense that it
provides pleasure, relieves stress, or offers some other benefit. . . .
The refusal to acknowledge the benefits of smoking -- to admit the
possibility that anyone could rationally choose to smoke --
illustrates the arrogance of insisting,
'You shouldn't smoke because it's bad for you.'"

Sullum is one of the few inhabitants of planet earth who defended
Bob Dole's ill-fated claim that tobacco is non-addictive.
He accuses other journalists of serious errors, exaggerations, and
a bias against the tobacco industry. In discussions of the secondhand
smoke issue, he "also accuses the EPA of corrupting science and
cites many of the tobacco industry's arguments that so far have
persuaded virtually no one in medicine and public health who are
not recipients of tobacco industry money,"
observed Andrew Skolnick, an editor at
the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Sullum defends his reliance on tobacco-funded researchers by arguing
that scientists who "have qualms about the case against secondhand
smoke" and "have the courage to speak up are apt to be sought out
by tobacco companies as consultants and to attract research grants
from them. If such funding is grounds for doubt, so is money from
private organizations, such as the American Cancer Society,
and government agencies,
such as the California Department of Health,
that are committed to achieving 'a smoke-free society.' "

The tobacco industry itself likes Sullum's work so much that in May 1994 the
R.J. Reynolds company bought reprint rights to an editorial he had written
for the Wall Street Journal.
A few months later, Philip Morris paid him $5,000
for the right to reprint one of his articles as a five-day series
of full-page ads in newspapers throughout the country,
including the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times,
Chicago Tribune, Miami Herald, Boston Globe, and Baltimore Sun.
"We felt that this report was particularly objective,"
explained Philip Morris vice president Ellen Merlo.

Elizabeth Whelan is also aware of Sullum's track record as a tobacco
defender. Shortly after his articles on secondhand smoke appeared,
she complained that "Wall Street Journal, Reason, Forbes and
National Review all recently carried essentially the same article
by the same author -- Jacob Sullum -- who defies the now nearly
unanimous view of scientists that [secondhand smoke] can be harmful."

Given his record and reputation, it is perplexing, to say the least, that
ACSH chose to feature another of Sullum's essays, titled
"What the Doctor Orders," as the cover story for a 1996 issue of Priorities.

In "What the Doctor Orders," Sullum waxes nostalgic for the
health care standards and priorities of the 19th century.
In addition to attacking efforts to curb smoking, he also criticizes
motorcycle helmet and seatbelt laws, as well as public health measures
aimed at alcohol and drug abuse, obesity, violence and handguns,
as examples of the
"fundamentally collectivist . . . aims of the public health movement."

In an accompanying letter,
Whelan and ACSH Director of Public Health William London
describe Sullum's essay as "the most important critique of governmental
public health activities we have seen," which "should be assigned
reading in every school of public health."
The same issue of Priorities offers commentaries on the Sullum article
from eight other writers, who mingle similar fawning words of praise
with occasional faint criticisms. To finish off this "symposium,"
Sullum concludes with a final response in which he throws
in an attack on Medicaid and Medicare for good measure.

In his "symposium" in Priorities,
Jacob Sullum argues that government efforts to promote public health
are a threat to basic human freedoms.

Foggy Thinking and Poisoned Waters

What binds ACSH to a thinker like Sullum is their common roots
in a far-right, "free market" ideology that overrides even ACSH's
awareness of tobacco's murderous effects. These ideological
underpinnings explain why Whelan blames the rest of the anti-tobacco
movement for the failure of other conservatives to join them.

"Discussions of tobacco and health policies are dominated
almost exclusively by well-meaning social engineers and safety alarmists
whose expansive agenda all but guarantees that many on the right
reflexively gravitate to the opposite camp," she argues.
"In this way, liberal anti-smoking enthusiasts
have poisoned the waters for the political right."

The same ideology also sometimes places Whelan at loggerheads with
the opinions and strategies of the rest of the anti-tobacco movement.
She is one of the few, for example, who opposes the mandatory
"surgeon general's warning" that appears on cigarette packages.
In her view, the label "merely pre-empts the responsibility the industry
would normally have for the consequences caused by their products."

Similar conservative sentiments against government mandates led
ACSH and the pro-tobacco Competitive Enterprise Institute
to join forces in May 1998 in a bizarre appeal for Congress to
prove its "sincerity" by offering a tax rebate to adult smokers.
Legislation then pending would have raised tobacco taxes
(and thereby prices) in order to deter underage smoking.
"If these taxes are truly aimed at reducing underage smoking,
then Congress should give rebates of the tax to adult smokers,"
argued Whelan and CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman
in a joint news release.
"By rebating the revenues collected from adult smokers,"
they reasoned, "Congress could unequivocally demonstrate
the purity of its motives -- or it could drop the matter entirely."

Left unanswered was the question of how vendors were supposed
to rebate the tax to adults without also rebating it to minors -- who,
after all, do not buy their cigarettes directly, since sale of tobacco
products to minors is already prohibited.

Center for Media and Democracy http://www.prwatch.org/
520 University Avenue, Suite 227, Madison, Wisconsin 53703
Phone: 608-260-9713 Email: editor@...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch
Welcome to SourceWatch, a collaborative project of the
Center for Media and Democracy http://www.prwatch.org
to produce a directory of the people, organizations and issues
shaping the public agenda.
SourceWatch's primary focus is on documenting public relations firms,
think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts
that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of
corporations, governments and special interests.
Over time, SourceWatch has broadened to include others involved in
public debates including media outlets, journalists and government
agencies. Unlike some other wikis, SourceWatch has a policy of
strict referencing, and is overseen by a paid editor.
*******************************************************

http://www.acsh.org/ American Council on Science and Health
1995 Broadway, 2nd floor, New York, NY 10023-5860
(212) 362-7044 FAX: (212) 362-4919 acsh@...
Elizabeth M. Whelan whelan@...

Individual staffer:
[last name or last name followed by first initial]@acsh.org
http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.1318/healthissue_detail.asp
Low-Calorie Sweeteners and Other Sugar Substitutes: A Review of the Safety
Issues (from Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety)

An article in Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety
(2006;5:35-47) that formed the basis of ACSH's Sugar Substitutes and Your
Health report begins with the following abstract:
Sugar-free or reduced-sugar foods and beverages are very popular in the
United States and other countries, and the sweeteners that make them
possible are among the most conspicuous ingredients in the food supply.
Extensive scientific research has demonstrated the safety of the five
low-calorie sweeteners currently approved for use in foods in the United
States -- acesulfame K, aspartame, neotame, saccharin, and sucralose. A
controversial animal cancer study of aspartame conducted using unusual
methodology is currently being reviewed by regulatory authorities in several
countries. No other issues about the safety of these five sweeteners remain
unresolved at the present time. Three other low-calorie sweeteners currently
used in some other countries -- alitame, cyclamate, and steviol
glycosides -- are not approved as food ingredients in the United States.
Steviol glycosides may be sold as a dietary supplement, but marketing this
product as a food ingredient in the United States is illegal. A variety of
polyols (sugar alcohols) and other bulk sweeteners are also accepted for use
in the United States. The only significant health issue pertaining to
polyols, most of which are incompletely digested, is the potential for
gastrointestinal discomfort with excessive use. The availability of a
variety of safe sweeteners is of benefit to consumers because it enables
food manufacturers to formulate a variety of good-tasting sweet foods and
beverages that are safe for the teeth and lower in calorie content than
sugar-sweetened foods.

http://www.acsh.org/news/newsID.1317/news_detail.asp

http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.1316/pub_detail.asp
Dr. Ruth Kava kava@... 212-362-7044 x234)
Dr. Elizabeth Whelan whelan@... 212-362-7044 x237

http://www.acsh.org/docLib/20060417_sugar_web.pdf 25 pages
Sugar substitutes and your health, Kathleen Meister, M.S.

page 3 "2. Opponents of particular food additives sometimes attempt to cast
aspersions on them by pointing out that the studies supporting their safety
were conducted by the additives' manufacturers. But there is nothing
scandalous in this. It is inherent in the way the system for food additive
approval works. The alternative (having a government agency or independent
entity test food additives for safety) may sound good in theory, but it
would require research on prospective new products to be paid for with the
public's tax dollars. Under the
current system, the company that will benefit financially from the new
product pays for the research, and FDA's stringent review process ensures
that the studies were properly performed and interpreted."

page 6 "3. The 90th percentile of aspartame consumption is roughly 3.0
milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day. For a 150-lb adult, this
would be about 210 milligrams of aspartame, which is approximately the
amount in one 12-oz. can of aspartame-sweetened soft drink plus one packet
of aspartame-based table-top sweetener.
The acceptable daily intake of aspartame (the estimated amount that a person
can safely consume on average every day over a lifetime without risk) is 50
milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day, or about 16 times the 90th
percentile intake."
[ 40 mg mg/kg bw in EU ]

page 18 " Readers who are interested in finding out about the research
necessary before a new food additive can be approved may wish to browse
supplement 2 of volume 38 of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology,
published in 2000. This 129-page report, devoted entirely to the safety
testing of sucralose, can be found in many university libraries."

http://members.ift.org/NR/rdonlyres/DA941122-00F5-49AA-8BC3-27E32F80B746/0/crfsf\
sv5n2p3547.pdf
13 pages

Low-Calorie Sweeteners and Other Sugar Substitutes: A Review of the Safety
Issues.
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety
[not in PubMed] 2006; 5: 35-47. 13 pages
Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D., Manfred Kroger, Kathleen A. Meister
Posted: Monday, April 17, 2006
kavar@...; kv7@...; kmeister@...;

"MS 20060122 Submitted 2/22/06, no revision, Accepted 3/1/06.
Author Kroger is with Dept. of Food Science, Pennsylvania State Univ.,
Univ. Park, Pa.
Authors Meister and Kava are with American Council on Science and Health,
1995 Broadway, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10023-5860.
Direct inquiries to author Kava (E-mail: kavar@...)."

Vol. 5, 2006-COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWS IN FOOD SCIENCE AND FOOD SAFETY 35
© 2006 Institute of Food Technologists


http://www.cspinet.org/ cspi@...; jefferyb@... ;
Center for Science in the Public Interest
1875 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20009
Main switchboard: (202) 332-9110 Fax: (202) 265-4954


http://www.kintera.org/site/c.gpIQKXOBJqG/b.1503845/k.6460/Contact_Form__General\
/apps/ka/ct/contactus.asp?c=gpIQKXOBJqG&b=1503845&en=jfLJINPwF8JCISMuE4JGKTMAKgI\
KI1OBIaIFLXMIItE

William J. Clinton Foundation, 55 West 125th St.
New York, NY 10027 contact@...

Clinton Presidential Center & Foundation Offices in Little Rock:
William J. Clinton Foundation, 1200 President Clinton Ave.
Little Rock, AR 72201
*******************************************************


"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 rmforall@...
505-501-2298 1943 Otowi Road Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages
group with 73 members, 1,343 posts in a public, searchable archive
http://RMForAll.blogspot.com http://AspartameNM.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/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/1341
Connecticut bans artificial sweeteners in schools, Nancy Barnes,
New Milford Times: Murray 2006.05.12

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16628924&BRD=1655&PAG=461&dept_id=1309\
1&rfi=6

School food act knocks soda and snacks
By: Nancy Barnes 05/12/2006
*******************************************************