|
|
News |
| Top | Next | Front Page |
Date: 12 Apr 1999 12:03:57 -0500
From: joe cummins
jcummins@julian.uwo.ca
by Laura Spinney, from the American Association for Cancer Research
In the first ever study of the onset of puberty among Hispanic girls in the US, American researchers have found that they develop later than their African-American counterparts. One possible explanation is that some component of their diet might be delaying puberty and shielding them from the harmful effects of estrogen for longer.
The findings were presented today by Mary Wolff of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York at the 90th annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research in Philadelphia, and they are relevant because early puberty is associated with increased risk of reproductive cancer. At menarche the female body is exposed to its own estrogen, and as estrogen is known to cause damage to DNA, early puberty means longer exposure and potentially more damage.
Wolff and her colleagues gathered data on the pubertal stages reached by 179 nine-year-old girls in New York City who fell into one of three ethnic categories:
"We chose nine-year-olds because any older would have been too late for the African-Americans, and any younger too early for the Hispanics," she says. They found that although obesity rates were similar among the African-Americans and Hispanics, the latter reached puberty later. 80% of the African-Americans had developed breasts by the age of nine, compared to only 45% of the Hispanics and 42% of the Caucasians. Yet obesity normally correlates with early onset of puberty.
According to Wolff, it is possible that the discrepancy could be explained by genetic factors. But a more intriguing possibility is that something in the Hispanic girls' diet is counteracting the effects of obesity and delaying puberty. In order to test this, the researchers asked the girls' questions about their diet using the Harvard Youth/Adolescent Questionnaire (YAQ). They also measured the concentration of phytestrogens in their urine. Phytestrogens are substances found in fruit and vegetables that mimic the effects of estrogen. "The body recognizes them as estrogen," says Sarah Hochman, one of the researchers, "But they don't have the same damaging effects." By binding to estrogen receptors, phytestrogens may displace the harmful hormone, thereby conferring some protection.
This was only a preliminary study, and the data are sketchy. For one thing, YAQ does not allow for the wide variety of tuberous vegetables consumed by the Hispanics of East Harlem - vegetables such as the apio, boniato, jicama and yam, which are rich in phytestrogens. So these may simply have gone unreported. Nevertheless, the Latinas reported a significantly greater intake of one particular family of phytestrogens, phytosterols, than either of the other two groups.
Whether they eat enough sweet potatoes to produce an anti-estrogenic effect is not clear, but the findings raise the provocative possibility that certain foods could mediate the health effects of obesity. And as Wolff points out, you only have to look at the National Cancer Institute's statistics to see that Hispanic women in the US have a significantly lower risk of breast cancer than their African-American or Caucasian counterparts.
| Top | Previous | Next | Front Page |
Date: 12 Apr 1999 14:17:44 -0500
From: Betty Martini
Mission-Possible-USA@altavista.net
Sections:
**** SECTION 1 - CHEMICAL PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION ****
**** SECTION 2 - COMPOSITION, INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS ****
**** SECTION 3 - HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION ****
**** SECTION 4 - FIRST AID MEASURES ****
**** SECTION 5 - FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES ****
**** SECTION 6 - ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES ****
**** SECTION 7 - HANDLING and STORAGE ****
**** SECTION 8 - EXPOSURE CONTROLS, PERSONAL PROTECTION ****
**** SECTION 9 - PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES ****
**** SECTION 10 - STABILITY AND REACTIVITY ****
**** SECTION 11 - TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION ****
**** SECTION 12 - ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION ****
**** SECTION 13 - DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS ****
**** SECTION 14 - TRANSPORT INFORMATION ****
**** SECTION 15 - REGULATORY INFORMATION ****
**** SECTION 16 - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ****
References
The Effect
A fairly complete list of aspartame breakdown components
showing hazardous breakdown products and identifying DKP as a tumor agent.
CAS = Chemical Abstracts Service, registry number
CAS# 22839-47-0
From: http://www.fisher1.com Fisher original source no longer available
Check out the The molecular formula of aspartame is C
14H18N
2O5
EMERGENCY OVERVIEW Not available. Dispose of in a manner consistent with federal, state, and local regulations. US DOT
No information available
IMO
No information available.
IATA
No information available.
RID/ADR
No information available.
Canadian TDG
No information available.
MSDS Creation Date: 2/28/1995 Revision Date: 7/16/1996
The information above is believed to be accurate and represents the best
information currently available to us. However, we make no warranty of
merchantability or any other warranty, express or implied, with respect to
such information, and we assume no liability resulting from its use. Users
should make their own investigations to determine the suitability of
the
information for their particular purposes. In no way shall Fisher be
liable
for any claims, losses, or damages of any third party or for lost
profits
or any special, indirect, incidental, consequential or exemplary
damages, howsoever arising, even if Fisher has been advised of
the possibility of such damages.
http://www.sci.ouc.bc.ca/chem/molecule/pdb/aspartam.pdb
In addition, DORway has a "CHIME"
page with lots of good information at:
http://www.dorway.com/chime.html
(NOTE:
For those who use Netscape Navigator 3.1 or better, and who would like to
view molecules in 3D and "stereo", in several formats, with the ability to
rotate them to any angle... get and install the plug-in from:
http://www.mdli.com/chemscape/chime/chime.html
(two dimensional representation)
The methanol
(with no natural antidote of Ethanol) breaks down in-solution (diet coke,
whatever) into formaldehyde. The human liver also breaks down free methanol
from any solution into formaldehyde. The body has difficulty eliminating
formaldehyde so it combines some of it with water and stores it in the fat
(and this is called "weight gain"). What is not stored in the fat is
further
converted to formic acid (same thing as ant sting poison). So, with each
swig EACH user gets a micro-dose of three poisons, two of which
(formaldehyde
and formic acid) are known carcinogens... along with that side-order of DKP,
the tumor agent. A science report done on a case of diet cokes, that were
evaluated by a reputable food laboratory, proved the methanol ->
formaldehyde
conversions, even in the unopened container cooling off in the refrigerator,
and the phenylalanine to DKP conversion.
http://www.dorway.com/jcohen.html The damage/problems caused by the use of aspartame are noted in
the
FDA's own compiled list of 92 symptoms of aspartame poisoning
http://www.dorway.com/badnews.html#symptoms>
More information available at: http://chemfinder.camsoft.com/ Most of
these 91 symptoms are noted on the http://www.dorway.com/badnews.html page.
Perhaps the phrase that best applies is that "ASPARTAME is a Pandora's box
of
chameleon-like toxins and tumor agents that have 92 FDA acknowledged ways to
ruin your life, death being one of them".
OK! Now check out some of those breakdown componets!
(Oh... and as yet we have not looked into DkP
(diketopiperazine) the tumor agent!)
Date: 13 Apr 1999 03:20:04 -0500 From NGIN:
http://members.tripod.com/~ngin
As Norfolk faces the prospect of an 18-acre GM trial on a commercially
useless crop
a leading geneticist says he does not think the field trials planned to
test the
safety of GM crops are "really rigorous enough". He goes on to say:
"A tiny accident, one gene leaking out, can have massive
consequences."
By Environment Correspondent Alex Kirby
BBC online: BBC News A leading UK scientist says he thinks genes from genetically-modified
(GM) crops will inevitably escape into other plants.
He is Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College,
London.
In Leviathan, a TV programme to be shown on
BBC Two on 14 April, Professor Jones looks at
the creation 80 years ago of the original
hybrid crops.
And in an interview with BBC News Online, he
explains his concerns over GM crops today.
"People may be worried that GM food is not safe to eat. I think that's
unlikely. But if it were true, we could easily find out.
"It's straightforward science. But evolution is not like that."
Professor Jones says it is impossible to predict what evolution will do,
and draws a parallel between GM foods and antibiotics.
"If you had said in the 1940s that
penicillin would be completely
useless in parts of the world within
50 years, people would have
thought you were mad.
"But you would have been right.
Evolution picked up a gene and
changed it, and now the bacteria
are resistant to penicillin.
"We are doing more or less the
same with genetically manipulated
plants. Those genes are going to
get out into other plants. Everybody
knows that.
"And we have no idea what is going
to happen."
The prospect haunts Professor Jones. What would happen, for
instance, if a gene that conferred resistance against insects escaped?
"Suddenly we have no insects. With no insects
you have no ecology, no ecosystem, no
pollinators, no flowers, God knows what.
"Now this probably will not happen. But it
certainly might. With GM plants, we are doing
something new. We are moving genes around
to where they've never been before.
"And we don't seem to be considering the possibility that evolution
may take advantage of those genes, as it has done previously, in ways
that we don't like."
He does not think the field trials planned to test the safety of GM
crops are "really rigorous enough".
"A tiny accident, one gene leaking
out, can have massive
consequences.
"Too much attention is being paid
to a non-problem - are GM foods
poisonous? They almost certainly
ain't.
"But we have to be sure what we are
doing before we go ahead, and I
think we're going ahead far too
soon."
BBC Two's Leviathan will be shown
at 19h30 BST (18h30 GMT) on
Wednesday, 14 April.
Date: 13 Apr 1999 10:36:48 -0500 Subject: Legal control lost over our food and health
by James Erlichman,
GUARDIAN(London) -- Tuesday April 13, 1999
America's victory in the banana war shows free trade has lost us legal
control over our food and health, writes James Erlichman
Last week it was bananas. In a month's time it will be beef. A few weeks
after that we may be told what milk we can buy. The legal struggle over
who controls our food supply has already been lost.
When the World Trade Organisation ruled last week that the United States
had won its protracted banana trade battle with the EU, attention
understandably focused on the plight of small ex-colonial producer, the
Winward Islands, which Britain had sought to protect. Next came concern
for Scottish cashmere and Italian cheese producers who are threatened by
the #120 million worth of punitive tariffs which the WTO has awarded to
the US to compensate it for the lost earnings of its big banana plantation
companies.
But, according to legal experts, we should be looking to the future to
grasp just how comprehensively control over food, health and the
environment has been ceded to the WTO and the unelected forces that
control it. 'Legal power in these and other areas shifted back in the
early 1990s with few ordinary people actually noticing,' says Geert Van
Calster, a member of the Brussels Bar and a consultant to SJ Berwin & Co,
the London-based law firm which specialises in international trade.
The WTO was born four years ago out of the Uruguay round of the old GATT
(General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs) negotiations. According to Van
Calster, Britain and most other countries signed up to the agreement at a
time when belief in the virtues of free trade exceeded concerns about food
safety, health, animal welfare and environmental damage.
And if the WTO has powers to grant the United States #120 million in
damages over bananas, then imagine the scope of its power on bigger
issues, such as the trade in genetically modified food.
In June, the World Trade Organisation's so-called expert food panel (known
as Codex Alimentarius) is expected to rule that the genetically engineered
milk-yield booster, BST, poses no threat to human health. Never mind that
two scientific committees of the European Commission have raised grave
doubts about its safety and want to see the EU moratorium kept in place.
Monsanto, the US company which owns BST, will now have a powerful legal
lever to overturn any objections from EU governments and citizens.
Even before that, a certain collision is expected on May 13. That is when
the WTO has told the European Union that it must lift its 10-year blockade
on American beef that has been treated with growth-boosting hormones.
In theory, the WTO's complex rules balance the virtues of free trade
against the need to protect people and the planet. 'The problem is that in
practice they don't,' says lawyer Peter Stevenson, legal director of the
pressure-group Compassion in World Farming. The nub of the issue, he says,
is the founding principle of GATT and the WTO: the belief that free trade
will reduce the risk of war and make the world wealthy through
international capitalism, a principle enshrined in rules which forbid
trade discrimination on the basis of any 'process and production methods'.
This rule stops a lazy, outmoded producer from blocking imports from an
efficient country which has invested in the latest machinery. That seems
fine. 'But it would also stop a country which has adopted only free-range
methods from blocking imports of battery-farmed eggs,' says Stevenson.
Article 20 of the GATT agreement allows a country to ban imports on the
grounds that 'public morals or animal health' are threatened. But only if
such a ban is absolutely 'necessary'. 'Necessary' does not mean necessary
to protect people and animals. It means 'necessary' in the sense that all
other legal avenues have been explored and exhausted.
Even the US has fallen foul of this, trying to block the import of tuna
and shrimp when nets also snared dolphin and sea turtles. Both times it
was overruled by the WTO disputes procedure on the grounds that other
legal avenues were not exhausted, and that existing conservation treaties
did not necessarily include the species in question. 'If a measure
designed to save a species from extinction cannot survive a WTO challenge,
it's hard to believe any animal protection measure will ever be acceptable
to the WTO,' says Stevenson.
A few years ago, Tim Lang, now professor of food policy at Thames Valley
University, led an investigation into decision-making on food at the WTO.
It revealed that the Codex Alimentarius is heavily influenced by the
delegates from transnational corporations who pack its decision-making
panels.
'If and when the EU moves to ban GM soya or any other genetically
engineered food you can be virtually certain that American companies will
swiftly force the US government to challenge any embargo under WTO rules,'
said Professor Lang.
The Americans, it can be argued, are simply using international law t look
after their own interests. But don't be too smug - Agriculture Minister
Nick Brown has just voiced his support for American hormone-reared beef,
while Blair has been remarkably keen to defend GM foods, despite fierce
public opposition. 'The reason is simple,' says a source at the Ministry
of Agriculture. 'British industry may have failed at many things, but it
is first-rate in the bio-sciences - drugs and GM foods. We have to back
our commercial winners, and we will use the World Trade Organisation, just
like the Americans do, to profit from its rulings.'
*** 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 the included information for research and educational
purposes. ***
Date: 14 Apr 1999 19:12:29 -0500 By Clare Short,
BBC News 14 April 1999,
UK Politics
Calling for international conventions on GM foods
International Development Secretary Clare Short has
warned that multi-national companies could force
genetically-modified food onto Third World countries.
Ms Short told MPs "There is a
danger that major companies will
misuse their power to force this
technology onto countries
unknowingly - either in importing
food that's the product of such
technology or seed."
The remedy to this potential problem, Ms Short said,
was an "agreement on a biosafety protocol to the
Convention on Biological Diversity".
Ms Short was responding to
a question from Labour MP
Dr Lynne Jones. She
expressed concerned that
local farmers may be
ignorant of possible risks
when offered GM crops.
This could make it difficult for
them to turn down such
products.
Dr Jones asked: "How
confident are you that they
will continue to have that power, given the might of the
multi-national companies, possibly backed up the World
Trade Organisation?"
Ms Short said "countries need the capacity to
understand the pros and cons, to manage the process
and diminish the risk".
She then took other government departments to task for
failing to mention the needs of the developing world in a
statement of government policy.
This "serious omission" would be addressed in a
forthcoming policy statement she said.
Ms Short added: "It did take a little robust movement
within Whitehall to remind other government departments
of the important interests of developing countries, which
of course is one of the major duties of my department."
Date: 15 Apr 1999 13:20:05 -0500 The St. Louis Post Dispatch printed this editorial just after receiveing a fax copy of the article from the The Independent. (Compliments of STL activists!)
The St. Louis Post Dispatch Monsanto Co. is using draconian laws and ham fists in Britain to try to suppress environmentalists' opposition to its genetically modified crops. Last December, the activist group Genetix Snowball printed its "Handbook for Action," detailing the location of Monsanto test plots and suggesting civil disobedience. The pamphlet was sent to about 650 people, including Prince Charles and Prime Minister Tony Blair. Monsanto wants the names and addresses of everyone who got a copy. It plans to send each person a warning: If they incite or take action against Monsanto they could be charged as a "co-conspirator."
The company had previously gotten a court injunction against protesters.
Such heavy-handed tactics can only reinforce the company's image abroad as a corporate bully and create more resistance in the public's mind. "The collection and retention of names and addresses of people by Monsanto is very worrying for us," John Wadham, of the British civil rights group Liberty, told the London Times. "These could be people who have merely read a book and are in subsequent danger of being caught up in court proceedings." Last year, Monsanto won an injunction against five members of Genetix Snowball who had pulled up 200 genetically engineered plants at a test plot in England. The injunction also covered the group's press secretary, who hadn't uprooted any plants. He was listed as a "co-conspirator" for inciting the public to break the law. Monsanto has the right to protect its property from vandalism. Vandalism is ugly, but so is threatening and intimidating protesters. One has to wonder when Monsanto's board of directors will awaken from its bad dream: its public relations strategy is a shambles, is costing the shareholders millions if not billions of dollars and is raising even greater public fear of genetically modified foods. Perhaps the company should take a tip from Genetix Snowball, which may be losing on the legal front but faring far better in the public relations war. When digging up bioengineered crops, the group's handbook advises: Decorate your spade to look friendly. Avoid tools like scythes. Threats, lawsuits and ham fists will cost them more than a few billable hours.
Date: 15 Apr 1999 13:39:01 -0500 Synthesis/Regeneration April, 1999
Dear Green or greenish friend,
Synthesis/Regeneration 19 will be back from the printer in time for Earth Day. Focusing on "The Political Economy of Genetic Engineering," S/R 19 is a companion issue to S/R 18, which had sections on "Introduction to Biotech," "Artificial Foods and Human Health," "Ecological Balance and Biological Integrity" and "Control of Information."
As usual, rates are:
We can also send 20 or more copies of S/R 19 (& S/R 18, in any combination) for $1.50 each. For priority mail orders and orders outside of the US, we will also have to bill for postage. If you need to receive S/R 19 by Apr 24, WE WILL HAVE TO BILL FOR PRIORITY MAIL. Please make checks to "WD Press" and mail to P.O. Box 24115, St. Louis MO 63130.
The issue of genetic engineering is first and foremost an issue of multinational corporations' attempting to reshape society's relationship with nature by recasting those sectors of the economy that concern our most basic biological needs: food and health. The most obvious manifestations of this effort are their willingness to contaminate the food supply, destroy ecosystems, and drive hundreds of millions of farmers off of the land. To hide what they are doing, their PR departments throw up the smokescreen of claiming to "feed the world." They then do everything in their power to suppress criticism, and even discussion, of their actions.
Both S/R 18 and S/R 19 provide activists with the information they need to combat corporate propaganda. The collection is perhaps the most extensive description of legislative initiatives and direct actions in print, with contributions by Green Party organizers in the European Parliament, Ireland, Italy, US, Canada, New Zealand and the Philippines.
Subscriptions to S/R (4 issues) are $15 (additional postage if
outside US).
In solidarity,
Don Fitz, Editor, Synthesis/Regeneration
THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF GENETIC ENGINEERING
Corporate Control of Food Production
2 Genetic Engineering and World Hunger
Sarah Sexton & Nicholas Hildyard maintain that more than enough food is already being produced.
5 The Plunder of Nature
Vandana Shiva opposes the piracy of knowledge from other societies or from Nature herself.
9 Opposition to Monsanto's Suicide Seeds
Hope Shand explains the increasingly vulnerability of farmers.
14 Family Farmers Warn of Dangers of GE Crops
Bill Christison objects to corporate bosses having unlimited access to government officials.
15 Do GE Crops Really Produce a Higher Yield?
Charles Benbrook documents that GE soybeans produce 4-6% less.
17 Playing God or Work of the Devil: Human Patenting
Julie Narimatsu & Michael Dorsey question whether human body parts should be the property of other human beings.
20 Beware the Violence Initiative Project
Mitchel Cohen challenges research backing genetic racism.
24 Will Human Genes Be Spliced into Food for People?
Don Fitz sees human genes going into food with no discussion.
27 Toward a Meaningful Moratorium on GMOs
Steve Emmott notes that five European Union states are limiting GMO releases.
29 Global Trade and Biodiversity in Conflict
GRAIN and the Gaia Foundation examine conflicts between the privatization of biodiversity and efforts to empower communities.
33 Eating with Conscience
Howard Lyman fought government attempts to bastardize organic standards.
36 First the Seed
Brian Tokar thinks sale of seeds offers a focus for GE work.
37 Keeping Monsanto's Fake Corn Out of Maine
Nancy Oden forced Monsanto to back down.
38 Government/Industry Collusion Must End
Joan Russow wants a complete ban on GE foods and crops.
39 St. Louis Biodevastation Declaration for Banning Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops
42 GE Actions of the Irish Green Party
Paula Giles reports that elected Greens have eroded the more extreme ambitions of industry.
44 Italian Greens Address Altered Foods
Lorenzo Colacicchi wants labels to list ingredients and procedures.
45 New Zealand Green Party Policy on Safe Food
These Greens want half of produce to be certified organic by 2020.
47 Smart Farmers Burn Monsanto's GE Cotton
Roberto Verzola records reactions to illegal GE experiments in India.
Date: 15 Apr 1999 15:14:36 -0500 A report from the cancer research meeting (AACR) April 14
by Amy Thompson
Dr. Julie A. Ross, of the University of
Minnesota,
reported that 70% of infant leukemias involve
a genetic
translocation occurs during and may be linked
to
topoisomerase II inhibitors found naturally
in soybeans,
fruits, vegetables and other common foods.
This finding was surprising to say the least,
and runs
counter-intuitively to another body of
research that finds
vegetables such as soy beans may have a
protective role in
cancer. Ross acknowledges the benefits but
believes we
should think deeply about all their effects.
"I donit want to
be out there saying fruits and vegetables are
a bad thing,"
says Ross, "but we need to rethink the
pathways before we
say that this is always good and this is
always bad for you."
Ross didnit start out chasing topoisomerase
II inhibitors, but
rather stumbled across them. The same 11q23
genetic
translocation that they found in infant
leukemias also showed
up in a specific adult group of acute myeloid
leukemias
(AMLs). Some adults that had been treated
with
epipodophyllotoxin, a topoisomerase II
inhibitor, during
cancer chemotherapy were developing AML with
the exact
same translocation as in these infant
leukemias. So Ross
made the connection between the two cancers
and asked
the question: are there natural topoisomerase
II inhibitors
out there that could be affecting pregnancy?
It turns out that there are indeed many
natural sources of
topoisomerase II inhibitors. They are found
in some
vegetables, fruits, soybeans, tea, cocoa,
wine, caffeine, and
soybeans. Interestingly, in certain Asian
countries where
soybean consumption is high, like China and
Japan, there are
very high rates of infant and adult AML.
Ross and her colleagues were interested
enough in this link
to go back and re-interview women who had
participated in
studies of infant leukemias many years ago.
She
re-interviewed mothers of infants who had
developed
leukemia as well as controls who had had
healthy infants. All
were asked about their diet during pregnancy.
Ross classified
the women into low, medium, and high
consumers of foods
containing topoisomerase II inhibitors. While
very little
correlation was found in diets of mothers and
all types of
infant cancers, in the small group of women
who had infants
with AML, high consumption was associated
with a 10-fold
risk.
The number of women with AML infants was
small, and the
study relied on the womenis memories of their
eating habits
as long as 8 years previously. But a 10-fold
increase is a
startling finding, so Ross and her colleagues
are planning
another study. In this national study, which
will include 250
pairs of AML and normal infants, Ross will
try to clarify the
relationship between diet and this form of
leukemia. Itis likely
to be a complicated relationship, and Ross
cautions that
genetic phenotype will probably play a
crucial role.
But Ross believes that it is still a good
idea to eat your
vegetables. In fact, she hypothesizes that
vitamins in
vegetables and fruit may have a protective
effect against
these inhibitors. But itis possible that even
with veggies,
there can be "too much of a good thing".
MSDS Name: L-Aspartyl-l-phenylalanine methyl ester, 98%
**** SECTION 1 - CHEMICAL PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION ****
Company Identification: Acros Organics N.V.
Janssen Pharmaceuticalaan 3a
2440 Geel, Belgium
For information in North America, call: 800-ACROS-01
For information in Europe, call: 0032(0) 14575211
For emergencies in the US, call CHEMTREC: 800-424-9300
For emergencies outside the US, call: 0032(0) 14575299
**** SECTION 2 - COMPOSITION, INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS ****
CAS# Chemical Name % EINECS#
22839-47-0 L-ASPARTYL-L-PHENYLALANINE
METHYL ESTER,98%98 245-261-3
**** SECTION 3 - HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION ****
Appearance: Sweet white powder.
Target Organs: Skin.
Potential Health Effects
**** SECTION 4 - FIRST AID MEASURES ****
**** SECTION 5 - FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES ****
Upper: Not available.
**** SECTION 6 - ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES ****
**** SECTION 7 - HANDLING and STORAGE ****
**** SECTION 8 - EXPOSURE CONTROLS, PERSONAL PROTECTION ****
Exposure Limits
Chemical Name ACGIH NIOSH OSHA - Final PELs
L-ASPARTYL-L-PHENYL
ALANINE METHYL ESTER,98%
none listed none listed none listed
**** SECTION 9 - PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES ****
Physical State: Not available.
Appearance: Sweet white powder
Odor: Not available.
pH: Not available.
Vapor Pressure: Not available.
Vapor Density: Not available.
Evaporation Rate: Not available.
Viscosity: Not available.
Boiling Point: Not available.
Freezing/Melting Point: 248.00 - 250
Decomposition Temperature: Not available.
(See
http://www.dorway.com/jcohen.html#refrig
Anything above freezing??)
Solubility: sparingly soluble
Specific Gravity/Density: Not available.
Molecular Formula: MISDO
Molecular Weight: 294.30
**** SECTION 10 - STABILITY AND REACTIVITY ****
**** SECTION 11 - TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION ****
**** SECTION 12 - ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION ****
**** SECTION 13 - DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS ****
RCRA D-Series Maximum Concentration of Contaminants: Not listed.
RCRA D-Series Chronic Toxicity Reference Levels: Not listed.
RCRA F-Series: Not listed.
RCRA P-Series: Not listed.
RCRA U-Series: Not listed.
Not listed as a material banned from land disposal according to RCRA.
**** SECTION 14 - TRANSPORT INFORMATION ****
**** SECTION 15 - REGULATORY INFORMATION ****
**** SECTION 16 - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ****
References
Now... for the BREAKDOWN components of
aspartame (perhaps NOT a complete list!) L-Aspartyl-l-phenylalanine methyl
ester, 98%, aspartame CAS #22839-47-0 (a.k.a. Equal, NutraSweet, Spoonful,
Benevia, Equal Measure, etc.) is composed of (at least) three things:
http://www.sci.ouc.bc.ca/chem/molecule/formula.htm is a WEB site by
Dr. Dave Woodcock of the
Chemistry Department at Okanagan University College, Kelowna, British
Columbia, Canada. This page has aspartame listed with a formula of:
C14H
18N2O5
(item 553 of 610) and if any interested party has the "CHIME" 3D
molecule viewer the aspartame MDL can be viewed at:
The Effect
The phenylalanine breaks down into diketopiperazine (DKP), a
known tumor agent, and it is the reason for the FDA mandated
"PHENYLKETONURICS: Contains phenylalanine" (PKU) warning label.
Diketopiperazine was also the major empediment to approval noted in the
Searle "Helling" memo
http://www.dorway.com/secrets.html.
A fairly complete list of aspartame breakdown components
from the aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol is as follows:
Note:
** means: No page for item at:
http://webbook.nist.gov
CAS = Chemical Abstracts Service, registry number
Top
Previous Next Front Page
From: Jon
mail@icsenglish.com
Leading geneticist urges GM caution
Prof. Steve Jones is concerned about GM crops
Monday, April 12, 1999 Published at 23:13 GMT 00:13 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_315000/315566.stm
Inherently unpredictable
More rigour needed
Top
Previous Next Front Page
From: MichaelP
papadop@peak.org
Why are we being force-fed?
Top
Previous Next Front Page
From:
devatalk@mcmail.com
GM warning for Third World
Top
Previous Next Front Page
From:
T4shea@aol.com
Monsanto's Ham Fists
Posted: Thursday, April 15, 1999 | 8:23 a.m.
Top
Previous Next Front Page
From:
T4shea@aol.com
Synthesis/Regeneration - A Magazine of Green Social Thought
A Magazine of Green Social Thought
c/o WD Press, P.O. Box 24115, St. Louis MO 63130
314-727-8554 (evenings, weekends)
E-mail:
fitzdon@aol.com
1-4 copies, $3.95 each;
5-9 copies, $3.00 each;
10+ copies, $2.00 each.
Spring, 1999
Ethical and Legal Issues of Biotechnology
Global Organizing
Top
Previous Front Page
From: joe cummins
jcummins@julian.uwo.ca
Subject: Soybeans may cause leukemia
Vegetables May Not Be So Good for You