GENTECH archive 8.96-97

[Index][Thread]

Re: IFIC's New Survey (fwd)





*****************************************************************************
For more information on aspartame email:    betty@pd.org
    TYPE:    sendme help        on the Subject Line
                          1. Take the 60-day No Aspartame Test and
  Mission Possible                send us your case history.
5950-H State Bridge Rd.   2. Tell your doctor and all of your friends!
     Suite 215            3. Return Asparcidal food to the store. Anything
 Duluth, GA 30155  USA       with Monsanto's NutraSweet/Equal/Spoonful
                                  or Benevia or NatraTaste
VISIT  http://www.dorway.com/possible.html  Get links to 29 other sites.
       http://www.tiac.net/users/mgold/aspartame/  FAQs/Toxicity Reports
  
    Disability and Death are not acceptable costs of business!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 11:19:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Betty Martini <betty@noel.pd.org>
Reply-To: Ban-GEF@lists.txinfinet.com
To: Ban-GEF@lists.txinfinet.com
Subject: Re: IFIC's New Survey

Never listen to anything by the IFIC..  They are like a PR firm to
push everything that is unhealthy for you.  In fact, if you don't believe
it write to them at 1100 Connecticut Avenue, N. W., Suite 430, Washington,
D. C. 20036 and ask for one of their free packets.  You will be shocked,
they push aspartame  and everything bad.  The only way I know to use their
material to good advantage is if they say its good you know its bad.  I
bet they are funded by the glutimate association.  But if somebody wants
to look into where they get their funding you will know who is behind them.  

If you want to know how far they go, you may remember that Dr. John Olney
(world renowned researcher who is even responsible for baby food
manufacturers not putting MSG in their products) made world news about the
association of brain tumors with aspartame.  And this was expected.  After
all the secret trade information that was discussed during Congressional
Hearings revealed the comment that the phenylalanine in aspartame breaks
down into DKP.  In their words: "we have to consider complete conversion
to DKP", and then they went on to say that if they told the FDA they would
not get it approved.  This is a brain tumor agent.  

In the original studies the rats developed astrocytomas, a rare brain
tumor.  This is the first stage of the glioblastoma, a very malignant
deadly brain tumor.  Now glioblastomas are now rampant in the population.
We have even set up a brain tumor registry to track them and lymphomas,
etc.  One brain tumor agency director (after I mentioned this) said: "Tell
me about it, brain tumors have increased 600%".  

So what does the IFIC say about this in their free packet.  They say do
not believe it and even have the gall to say:  "In l981 after extensive
review of the  record by FDA scientists, then Commissioner Arthur Hull
Hayes approved aspartame as a food additive.  In his decision Hayes noted
that additional scientific data from a Japanese study about the brain
tumor issue corroborated his decision.  The PBOI chairman later wrote in a
letter to Hayes that the Japanese data would have caused that panel to
give aspartame an "unqualified approval."

Now if you want to know the truth about it go to Mark Gold's web page and
read the history of aspartame.  He wrote a 300 page research paper, in
sections, and he goes into all of this.

But just to be brief, no FDA Commissioner would approve aspartame because
of the brain tumors and other reasons, like the flawed tests.  Two U.S.
attorneys were asked to indict the original manufacturer because of them
and instead went to work for the manufacturer's law firm defending the
case.  A Wall Street Journal article I have discusses the probe of these
two U.S. Attorneys, Sam Skinner and Conlon.  Anyway, so President Reagan
appointed Dr. Hayes (so the story goes Reagan was a friend of Searle who
wanted it approved.  Monsanto bought Searle in l985).  A Board of Inquiry
was set up because of the opposition and the decision was not to approve
aspartame.  Dr. Hayes over-ruled the Board of Inquiry and then went to
work for  the manufacturer's PR firm, and some reports say at $1000.00
a day.  And he refused to speak to the press for over 10 years.  In fact,
60 Minutes tried to get him to explain and he refused to comment.  Who
knows how many hundreds of thousands of people have died from diseases and
symptoms triggered by this deadly poison, that was once listed with the
pentagon in an inventory of prospective biochemical warfare weapons!!!

Does IFIC care about the public, absolutely not.  They are on Monsanto's
side and their loyal supporter, the FDA.  

I am now looking at my packet, what do you know a brochure titled Food
Insight and they are pushing Glutamate and MSG.  I'll send a copy of this
post to Elaine Fitchpatrick, Executive Director of the southeast of
Mission Possible.  She has a great deal of information on MSG because she
is deathly allergic to it, and we found out that the Glutimate Association
goes by four different names.  This way people think they are some
authority on safe food and have no idea who they are.  I had the names but
it got deleted and I'll have Elaine email me these names for your
reference.  Let's see if IFIc is one of them.

I didn't go through the whole packet because I was getting sick at the
horrible things IFIC was pushing.  But I am now and look what we have - a
brochure titled HEALTHY EATING DURING PREGNANCY.  Yes, indeed, they are
pushing aspartame on pregnant women.  Must have been written by the
NutraSweet Company (Monsanto).  Dr. Louis Elsas of Emory University
testified before congress that aspartame is a neurotoxin and teratogen,
triggers birth defects.  He also says the phenylalanine can concentrate in
the placenta and cause mental retardation.  Dr. James Bowen said that
fetal tissue does not tolerate wood alcohol (which is in aspartame and
converts to formaldehyde).  Dr. H. J. Roberts wrote a position paper n
aspartame and pregnancy and says even a man consuming aspartame at the
time of conception can cause birth defects.  But the IFIC says its
perfectly okay for pregnant women to take.  

Now, what have we hear, a list of their publications.  One of them is
pesticides and Food Safety - favorably reviewed by the American Academy of
Family Physicians Foundation.  I think thats the one we could never find
an address for that the FDA uses to push aspartame.  I know there is one
Mark Gold says is a PR firm for junk food.  I'll also send a copy of this
to Mark Gold so he can confirm for me, and I'll put it on the list.

They also have a Food Biotechnology Video Guide.  I bet Monsanto made it.

And they have a brochure titled Functions of Fats in Food with technical
assistance from the American Dietetic Association.  In case you wonder who
they are, they are the media flacks of Monsanto and admit that NutraSweet
writes their material.  During the milk spills because of the bovine
growth hormone, the dietitians were sent into large major cities like
Atlanta and Chicago SCREAMING "its safe, it's safe, don't listen to them".
I asked the woman who she was and she said: "I'm a dietitian".  I said"
"Well no wonder, you do it for money!"  I asked her if she had read the
53,000 pages put out by Monsanto and she said: "Of course, not".  I then
said: "Have you even read the label?"  "No", she said. I saw the TV
cameras moving in, and I'm fortunate the part where I said: "Do you know
what they call people who do it for money?" did not get on national TV.
Barbara Mullarkey, top anti-aspartame journalist in Chicago dressed like a
potato (and a friend as a tomato) for genetic engineering, said she also
was attacked by a dietitian.  A local newspaper in Atlanta wrote about
what happened.  

Reading this publication list is like reading a list of things you should
never consume.  And the IFIC is pushing them all.  Why they even have a
brochure on the function of fats in foods and one called 10 trips to
healthy eating co-published with the American Dietetic Association.   The
New York Times brought out the official position of the ADA is that there
are no bad foods!  And they even have Reproduction Art, camera ready.  One
of them is Food Biotechnology:  Health & Harvest For Our Times.

This company needs to be exposed for misleading the public!!!!!!  I hope
journalists are listening in.  Everybody be sure to get your free packet
and then clean your house out of anything they say is safe!!!!

Regards,
Betty
P.S.  On the web pages below you will find the documents from the
physicians I mentioned as well as Dr. Roberts peer reviewed report on
brain tumors. He has been shouting about this for years along with Dr.
Olney.
*****************************************************************************
For more information on aspartame email:    betty@pd.org
    TYPE:    sendme help        on the Subject Line
                          1. Take the 60-day No Aspartame Test and
  Mission Possible                send us your case history.
5950-H State Bridge Rd.   2. Tell your doctor and all of your friends!
     Suite 215            3. Return Asparcidal food to the store. Anything
 Duluth, GA 30155  USA       with Monsanto's NutraSweet/Equal/Spoonful
                                  or Benevia or NatraTaste
VISIT  http://www.dorway.com/possible.html  Get links to 29 other sites.
       http://www.tiac.net/users/mgold/aspartame/  FAQs/Toxicity Reports
  
    Disability and Death are not acceptable costs of business!

On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Martin Rickinger wrote:

> 
> Re. the results of the new survey by the International Food Information
> Council and some statements of their president, like "these results clearly
> underscore the willingness of U.S. consumers to accept biotechnology as part
> of their lives" seem like a fraught to us, a study with manipulated results
> to allow the government to go on with it wrong policy re. biotecnology and
> labelling. That it appears just now before the Ottawa conference already
> shows what standpoint the US government will take in Ottawa. This survey
> only serves to show, see we do have support from the population.
> We have serious doubts on these results, that simply seem to give green
> light for the government.
> We seriously doubt that within 6 weeks the opinion of the US population has
> changed that dramatically. We're sure that a biotec company like Novartis
> will not have published the results of its survey, if the numbers wouldn't
> have been correct; especially when the numbers weren't in favour of
> biotecnology at all, inspite of its president's hard trying to interprete
> them favourably. If they found that 93% of the americans want simply all
> transgenic products clearly labelled and that 54% prefer organic agriculture
> against types of agriculture, incl. biotecnology, then we think that this
> corresponds really to the reality. IFIC's new survey seems like a fraught,
> like someone's idea, oh let's publish new results of a new survey, all in
> favour of the governments policies, let's twist the mind of our population.
> 
> Our opinion to FDA's policy re. labelling, that mandates labeling of foods
> produced through biotechnology only when there is a substantial change, like
> in a food's composition, nutritional value or allergenicity, is that this is
> wrong and unlogically. 
> Anyone learns in school, already since 20 yrs., that a new gene from another
> specie will automatically produce new substances in the physiology, so
> there'll be always a fundamental change in the transgenic physiology. (We've
> learnt this even now again, as research has shown this clearly with
> transgenic soja.)
> If there are no substantial changes in nutritional value, composition, etc.
> why do we then need biotecnology? If there's no substantial change, then why
> do we have it, why does FDA support it so strongly; we would then do better
> without it. FDA supports biotecnology because it promises substantial
> improvements, that means, with FDA's own arguments, it needs labelling.
> However FDA or in general the US govt might bend the situation. Its own
> arguments say, we do need to label everything.
> Fishes that grow twice as much in half of the time, new crops that will make
> antibiotics useless in the world or are resistant against heavy poisons that
> kill all other types of life; excuse us, these are not fundamental changes?
> Guess they are. So pls. label everything clearly. 
> 
> And pls. keep your poisonous food out of our countries. If you want, let
> your population eat it, but pls. don't influence our countries, our
> governments to believe in your twisted, unlogic arguments. Let the people of
> other countries eat healthy things. We and our governments are not the play
> ball of your wrong ideas and policies. It's time you leave other countries
> in peace and not destroy the health of everyone and the beautiful nature of
> any other country. Pls. stop this, or otherwise the world will have to start
> stopping you. To know that 93% of your population and 85% of Europa want
> clear labelling of anything transgenic is enough to accept this. It's wrong,
> trying to manipulate this standpoint. If 54% of your country are in favour
> of organic agriculture, then 54% are in favour of it; that's it. That means
> you should support these 54%, doesn't matter what your multinationals tell
> you. Nobody will say that this is an unhealthy thinking of 54% of your
> population; no need to manipulate this healthy thinking; better to simply
> accept this fact and be happy that your population still thinks that healthy
> anyway.
> 
> I speak in the name of the whole continent of South America.
> 
> Martin, Brazil
> 
> 
> 
>