Date: 5 Jun 1999 12:11:48 -0500
From: "Paul & Katrin" email@example.com
From: NLP Wessex
Subject: To beat Monsanto, start here
Date: 03 June 1999 23:43
We are pleased to pass on this message regarding US seed merchant Farm Advantage from Iowa farmer Jim Winiger who is locked in his own legal battle with Monsanto. If Farm Advantage win their law suit against Pioneer it will probably bring down most of the agricultural biotechnology industry in the US, and that will probably mean an end to GM foods globally.
If you have contact with anybody who cares about this subject and has access to appropriate financial means please forward this message to them and encourage them to support Farm Advantage's legal costs in this important test case.
If anyone wishes to assist in this pivotal case, or to help Jim with his own serious legal battle, they should contact Jim Winiger at firstname.lastname@example.org
For more information on Jim's own dispute with Monsanto visit http://www.winiger.com/farmbu~1/monsanto/monsan~1.htm
More details of the Farm Advantage case are given at the end of this message.
NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX
If anybody wants to beat Monsanto, you have to start here.
To beat Monsanto at their own game, of forcing Gene Technology down the throats of the world, you must start here, in Iowa.
If the world wants to stop Monsanto's Gene Monopoly, you must make sure that this company in Iowa, Farm Advantage, has the money to fight Pioneer Seeds in this court fight.
" If the decision goes against Pioneer, this will likely have a serious damping effect on biotech companies willing to invest in future seeds. It would remove the very incentive companies have to invest the billions of dollars needed to create these seeds."
The World has an opportunity here to send a message to the people who are investing in Monsanto Stock, that the World is not satisfied with this Gene Technology, and their profits could turn into losses. Make no mistake, If the world wants to stop Monsanto, Farm Advantage must win this court fight. The world must send this company financial Help. As one attorney said in my personal court fight with Monsanto and Farm Bureau, Jim face it, "The one who has the most money gets what they want."
Believe me I know about the money part. I am losing my personal fight, I do not have the financial resources! In my case it will take about $40,000.00 to win this case. To Monsanto and Farm Bureau this amount of money is pocket change, to me it's my life. 54 years lost !
Regards: Jim Winiger
(The above is a response to the following message which was originally posted by NLP Wessex 30 May 1999)
The May/June 1999 edition of Farm Journal published in the US reports on a legal dispute between two US agricultural seed companies which could lead to the invalidation of all existing GM crop patents in the US, thereby undermining the entire financial basis of the US GM crop industry.
The dispute is between Farm Advantage, a seed and chemical retail operation in Belmond, Iowa, and Pioneer Hi-Bred Intenational. Farm Advantage are being sued by Pioneer after they purchased Pioneer seed from a third company and then sold it on to its own customers. Farm Advantage was not an authorised Pioneer dealer.
Farm Advantage's defence is based on a claim that US companies do not have the right to patent seed in the first place. They cite wording in the Plant Variety Protection laws (acts Congress passed in 1930 and in 1970 to direct seed-rights issues) which they claim stipulate that only those acts have jurisdiction over seeds. Lawyers advising Farm advantage say companies can't use US Patent and Trademark Office protection to further control seeds.
According to Mike Kirk, executive director of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA): "If the decision goes against Pioneer, this will likely have a serious dampening effect on biotech companies' willingness to invest in future seeds. It would remove the very incentive companies have to invest the billions of dollars needed to create these seeds."
A ruling against Pioneer would have big implications for all agri-biotech companies doing business in the US and could destroy the basis on which Monsanto is also already pursuing lawsuits against farmers who it says have illegally saved patented Roundup Ready seeds.
According to the AIPLA 10,778 plant patents have been issued by the US patent office since 1985.
NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX
Date: 6 Jun 1999 00:51:30 -0500
From: Vegetarian Resource Center email@example.com
Subject: TOP FOOD / HEALTH NEWS, Tuesday, June 01, 1999
From: Pierre Renaud & Leah Shaw
Tuesday, June 01, 1999
THOUSANDS of foods containing genetically modified ingredients are still on supermarket shelves despite promises they would be removed. http://envirolink.newsreal.com/osform/NewsService?osform_template=pages/envirolinkStory&ID=envirolink&path=News/Category.NRdb@2@23&storypath=News/Story_1999_05_30.NRdb@2@3@3@63
Decades-old Pesticides Come Under Fire Inquiry assesses record of Pest Management Regulatory Agency To understand what's wrong with the country's pesticide management system, environmentalists say, Canadians need only examine the nearest telephone pole. http://www.ottawacitizen.com:80/national/990531/2661919.html
EURO-LAW TO PUT GM FOOD INTO BRITAIN BRUSSELS is poised to allow unprocessed mutant food into British shops and the Government cannot stop it. Nor will there be any way shoppers will know what they are buying. The European Commission's scientific experts have given the all-clear to genetically altered chicory which produces red-leafed radicchio. http://envirolink.newsreal.com/osform/NewsService?osform_template=pages/envirolinkStory&ID=envirolink&category=Food&storypath=News/Story_1999_05_31.NRdb@2@23@3@55&path=News/Category.NRdb@2@23
Date: 6 Jun 1999 06:35:28 -0500
From: Colleen Robison-Spencer firstname.lastname@example.org
Note the last 3 paragraphs especially. I have included the whole story for those without internet access. Check out the paragraph concerning the 300,000 pints dumped yearly--although not G.E. related, very interesting. C.
By Avram Goldstein,
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 6, 1999; Page A2 © Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company
With blood donations steadily falling and demand for transfusions rising, the United States is headed for a blood supply shortfall next year, according to blood researchers.
Unless those trends are suddenly reversed, the usable blood supply in 2000 will drop by 600,000 pints to 11.69 million units n 249,000 units fewer than blood banks and hospitals expect to need, according to the National Blood Data Resource Center in Bethesda.
"Blood banks are notorious for crying wolf again and again, and sometimes it's hard to take them seriously," said Arthur Caplan, a University of Pennsylvania bioethicist who chairs a federal advisory committee on blood safety and supply. "But if you look at the numbers, this is serious."
In 1992, the available supply of donated blood was 13.2 million pints, but surveys showed that it fell to 12.9 million in 1994 and 12.3 million in 1997. In 1992, there were 11.3 million transfusions. That fell slightly before increasing to 11.5 million in 1997.
The possible shortage comes as physicians are becoming more reliant on blood transfusions as they attempt an increasing number of organ transplants, complex surgical procedures and aggressive new cancer therapies.
"Blood truly is to the health care system as oil is to transportation, and you're looking at declines that aren't just seasonal," Caplan said. "That spells real trouble for every American. That means delays in elective surgery, problems in treatment of cancer and problems in the supply of blood products for people with very serious diseases."
Experts say the supply projections raise questions about whether Americans are less generous and community oriented than their parents were and whether long-held fears of contracting blood-borne illnesses continue to make people fear rolling up their sleeves.
It is clear it has become increasingly difficult to persuade companies to encourage their workers to give blood, according to Harvey G. Klein, the chief of transfusion medicine at the National Institutes of Health clinical center in Bethesda. "Now we have many more small businesses and some reluctance on the part of many employers to allow space and time for blood drives," Klein said. "The opportunity to collect is not what it was 15 years ago."
"What has alarmed me and should alarm everyone is that over the past several years there have been times when there simply wasn't enough blood of the right blood group to perform surgery that should be done but can be postponed," he said.
In contrast to the nation as a whole, the Washington-Baltimore area has seen increased donation in the past several years, said Patrick J. Smith, spokesman for the area's biggest blood collector, the Greater Chesapeake and Potomac region of the American Red Cross. In 1997, the region collected 262,000 units of whole blood, compared with a projected 282,000 this year.
Despite that collection advantage, the local Red Cross group imports blood from other areas to meet the demands of a region dominated by major teaching and research institutions, Smith said.
The threat of a blood deficit increases pressures on government officials deciding how best to assure the safety of the blood supply.
An expert panel last week recommended that the Food and Drug Administration bar blood donations from Americans who visited Britain during the "mad cow" outbreak to reduce the chances of a tainted donation n even though there has never been a documented case of such an infection. That policy could cut donations by as much as 286,000 units a year, depending on whether the ban extends to people who spent only a week or as much as a year in Britain.
A different advisory panel in April urged the FDA to stop requiring blood banks to destroy blood collected from people with hemochromatosis, a hereditary disease that overloads their bodies with iron and can cause irreversible organ damage.
Doctors say the best therapy is to drain a pint of blood from the patient about four times annually to reduce iron levels. Each year up to 300,000 pints taken from people with hemochromatosis are discarded because they are not considered altruistic donations.
Doctors say that as long as the blood is not contaminated by a virus, it would be perfectly safe for transfusion. But because hemochromatosis patients now pay for the bleeding procedure, called a phlebotomy, the American Red Cross views them as having an unacceptable financial motivation to be bled for free if they can donate acceptable blood. That could lead to lying about their lifestyles or medical conditions, officials said.
"We still feel voluntarism is the bedrock of safety," said American Red Cross Medical Director Richard J. Davey. "If there's a way that we can remove the financial incentives for those people to donate . . . we would welcome them as volunteer blood donors."
Several firms are working on blood substitutes that can carry oxygen or perform other limited blood functions that could ease demand for transfusions, while others are seeking ways to extend the shelf life of donated blood.
Other researchers expect to be able to eradicate all transmissible diseases from blood through genetic testing and manipulation. That would dramatically increase the supply because blood banks would be able to "cleanse" hundreds of thousands of contaminated donations each year instead of destroying them.
Scientists are also finding ways to generate large volumes of scarce blood proteins by enabling genetically altered animals to produce them in milk, for example. If that succeeds it also could take pressure off the demand side.
Date: 6 Jun 1999 07:15:51 -0500
From: Colleen Robison-Spencer email@example.com
This 1/8 page letter was included in an eight page Giant Foods advertisement this morning.
Note: Any typing errors are probably mine. C
By Odonna Mathews, [Giant Foods] Consumer Advisor, 8 page Ad 6/06
I know the first time I heard the term "functional foods" I was puzzled. We know the term "junk food" but "functional foods"? What are they? How are they different from other foods?
"Functional foods" is a term people have begun to use to describe foods that provide health-promoting or disease-fighting benefits. Many of the foods we eat everyday meet the definition of functional foods. Here are some examples:
None of these foods alone are a "magic bullet". The best advice is still eating a variety of foods from all the food groups. But many of these new foods may help to enhance an already healthful diet. For more information on functional foods, visit the website of the Internatioon Food Information Council, http://www.ificinfo.health.org
Date: 7 Jun 1999 02:03:42 -0500
From: Judy_Kew@greenbuilder.com (Judy Kew)
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 21:44:57 -0700
From: *Brewster and/or Cathleen Kneen firstname.lastname@example.org
Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 1998 Clive James - Chair, ISAAA Board of Directors
In 1998, the global area of transgenic crops increased by 16.8 million hectares to 27.8 million hectares, from 11.0 million hectares in 1997.
Five principal transgenic crops were grown in eight countries in 1998, three of which, Spain, France and South Africa, grew transgenic crops for the first time in 1998. Data for China has not been included in the global database because only tentative estimates were available which suggest that <100,000 hectares of transgenic crops were grown in 1998, representing <1% of global transgenic area, with Bt cotton being the principal crop.
The countries listed in descending order of transgenic crop area on a global basis in 1998 are:
The proportion of transgenic crops grown in industrial countries was 84%, about the same as 1997 (86%) with 16% grown in the developing countries, with most of that area in Argentina, and the balance in Mexico and South Africa. As in 1997, the largest increase in transgenic crops in 1998 occurred in the USA (12.4 million hectares) where there was a 2.5 fold increase, followed by Argentina (2.9 million hectares) with a 3.0 fold increase, and Canada (1.5 million hectares) with a 2.1 fold increase.
USA continued to be the principal grower of transgenic crops in 1998 and its share of global area was the same (74%) in 1997 and 1998. Argentina's transgenic crop area increase was the largest relative change, increasing 3.0 fold from 1.4 million hectares in 1997 to 4.3 million hectares in 1998; thus Argentina's global share of transgenic crop area increased from 13% of global area in 1997 to 15% in 1998. Canada's share of global transgenic crop area decreased marginally from 12% in 1997 to 10% of global area in 1998. The five principal transgenic crops grown in 1998 were, in descending order of area, soybean, corn/maize, cotton, canola/rapeseed, and potato.
Transgenic soybean and corn continued to be ranked first and second in 1998, accounting for 52% and 30% of global transgenic area, respectively. Cotton and canola shared third ranking position in 1998 each occupying 9% of global area.
The relative ranking of the principal transgenic traits were the same in 1997 and 1998, with herbicide tolerance being by far the highest, increasing from 63% in 1997 to 71% in 1998. Insect resistant crops decreased from 36% in 1997 to 28% in 1998.
Stacked genes for insect resistance and herbicide tolerance increased from <0.1% in 1997 (<0.1 million hectares) to 1% or 0.3 million hectares in 1998 with quality traits occupying less than 1% and <0.1 million hectares in both 1997 and 1998.
There were three noteworthy developments in terms of traits, herbicide tolerance contributed the most (77% or 12.9 million hectares) to global growth, and insect resistance contributed 22% equivalent to 3.7 million hectares; the multiple or stacked traits of insect resistance and herbicide tolerance increased by 0.2 million hectares in 1998 representing 1% of global area with significant prospects for further growth in future.
Of the 5 major transgenic crops grown in 8 countries in 1998, the two principal crops of soybean and corn, represented 82% of the global transgenic area. In 1998 herbicide tolerant soybean was the most dominant transgenic crop (52% of global transgenic area) followed by insect resistant corn (24%), herbicide tolerant canola (9%), and insect resistant/herbicide tolerant cotton at 9% and herbicide tolerant corn at 6%.
The three major factors that influenced the change in absolute area of transgenic crops between 1997 and 1998 and the relative global share of different countries, crops and traits were:
It is noteworthy that 1998 was the first year for a commercialized transgenic crop to be grown in the countries of the European Union. Estimates suggest that introductory quantities of insect resistant maize were grown primarily in Spain (20,000 hectares) and France (2,000 hectares);
More information on the benefits associated with transgenic crops is becoming available following the substantial area of transgenic crops planted in the USA and Canada in 1997. Multiple benefits have been reported by growers for selected transgenic crops; these include more flexibility in terms of crop management (particularly important for herbicide tolerant crops), decreased dependency on conventional insecticides and herbicides, higher yields and cleaner and higher grade of grain/end product.
As expected, net economic returns to the grower vary by year, by crop product and by location, depending on factors such as level of infestation of the targeted pest, the epidemic level of a disease or the weed density. For the USA in 1996, economic benefits to growers from the following transgenic crops were estimated conservatively at $128 million for Bt cotton, $19 million for Bt corn, and $12 million for herbicide tolerant soybean, for a collective national benefit of $159 million.
Similarly, in 1997, economic benefits were estimated at $119 million for Bt corn, $109 million for herbicide tolerant soybean, $133 million for Bt cotton, and $5 million for herbicide tolerant cotton and <$1 million for Bt potato, for a collective national benefit in the USA of $366 million. In Canada, benefits at a national level, due to the use of herbicide tolerant canola, were estimated at $5 million in 1996, and $48 million in 1997, plus $5 million for Bt corn for a total of $53 million.
Thus, in 1996 and 1997, selected transgenic crops in the USA and Canada resulted in economic benefits to growers, conservatively estimated at $583 million.
Transgenic crops are proprietary, developed almost exclusively by the private sector in the industrial countries, with the majority of the global transgenic crop area to-date grown in countries of the North. However, it is important to note that developing countries such as China played a pioneering role by being the first country to introduce a commercialized transgenic crop in the early 1990s. Argentina is a global leader in the accelerated adoption of transgenic crops with significant expansion imminent in Mexico and South Africa.
http://www.greenbuilder.com modem: 512.288.3903
Green Building Professionals Directory at http://www.greenbuilder.com/directory
Date: 7 Jun 1999 05:56:17 -0500
From: email@example.com (jim mcnulty)
Friday June 4, 6:56 pm Eastern Time
ST. LOUIS, Mo, June 4 (Reuters) - Monsanto Co. (NYSE:MTC - news) said Friday it will increase by 25 basis points the interest rate on $2.5 billion of senior unsecured debt issued in a private placement last year following a registration delay.
The life sciences company said the debt securities were to be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission by June 7. The higher rate will be paid from June 8 until the SEC declares the registration effective.
Monsanto said it is currently in discussions with the SEC. It is one of roughly 150 companies originally contacted by the commission about certain accounting issues.
A spokeswoman was not immediately available to provide further details.
Date: 7 Jun 1999 11:21:43 -0500
From: Matthew Hodges firstname.lastname@example.org
Just a question... The recent research from Cornell showed that POLLEN from the GAF corn was responsible for killing off the Monarch larvae.
Meanwhile our starry-eyed genetic engineers and their dollar-eyed masters are busy concocting wonderful new "functional" foods, whereby we can all be vaccinated or treated for different conditions by eating a potato or an ear of delicious corn.
I'm wondering now whether these traits might be transfered through the pollen we breathe-- so we only need to breathe the air to be "treated"?
Any info on this?
From: "Campbell, Jon"
This is the message that we need to carry back here in the US: the genetic pollution caused by spread of genetically tampered pollen is just not acceptable. They must be stopped and banned.
Date: 7 Jun 1999 16:06:43 -0500
From: "Campbell, Jon"
From: Paul Davis [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, June 07, 1999 4:26 PM
Yesterday our dear Prime Minister Tony Blair was on a morning TV show assuring the nation how important it was to carry on trials with GM crops and everything is safe anyway isn't it......
Todays big story - the farmer conducting one of the six farm scale trials of GM crops was ordered by the estate trustees to destroy the whole lot, they were concerned that surrounding crops, paticularly organic, would be badly affected.
Bad luck Tony... try again!!!!
Date: 7 Jun 1999 17:23:11 -0500
From: Betty Martini Mission-Possible-USA@altavista.net
Dear Ms. Martini,
This email is causing much distress and some degree of panic to the general public. I have been asked by some to investigate the source of this article, the actual transcript of the World Environmental Conference, and scientific validation of the inflammatory claims made in this article. Could you please give me the scientific references? I have searched medline to no avail.
If you can be of any assistance in this matter I would be very grateful.
Pamela S. Patterson
I see that you are from CDC, and as you know, the CDC went to CNN and disclaimed the World Environmental Conference post as a hoax/myth. I assure you I'm no myth and I did lecture at the World Environmental Conference sponsored by the EPA. Even EPA denied it and yet they contacted me themselves to find out who was the spokeswoman who said "we have an epidemic of MS and lupus and cannot identify the toxin." This was Dr. Clarice Gaylord who I have been in touch with.
I told Dr. Gaylord they were telling people they knew nothing about the email. When caught they said the reason they denied it was because this World Environmental Conference was sponsored by grant to Elizabeth State University by Dr. Gaylord's former Office of Environmental Justice, and they could not sanction comments. Dr. Gaylord's comments came from field reports throughout US.
Just as we get this report of "why are so many people being diagnosed with MS and lupus" so are government employees. I told Dr. Gaylord to ask the EPA if they had any problem with telling the truth, that it was a grant sponsored World Environmental Conference. They still have not told the truth and Dr. Gaylord said it was alright to post our communications. You will find one or two listed on www.dorway.com on the NoMarkle page, it says EPA Misinformation. Simply go to www.dorway.com and put in the search engine Nancy Markle.
On the Nancy Markle page you will find confirming information that there is no hoax, no myth, but the information is true and all this baloney that Monsanto puts out is just propaganda. You will see world famous toxicologist, Dr. George Schwartz, post to the NutraSweet team about their false information. You will also see Dr. Roberts position paper MS or Aspartame Disease?
Read neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D.'s letter to the Minneapolis Neuropathy Association, and included are some recent studies on aspartame that show you what a deadly toxin it is, how formaldehyde accumulates in the cells with 50% toxicity in the liver and substantial amounts in the adipose tissue, brain and retina. And how it DAMAGES DNA!
Read Dr. Monte's journal paper on aspartame and methanol on the NoMarkle page and you'll understand about Monsanto's propaganda on the methanol in NutraSweet, and this business about their being more methanol in tomato juice. You would think they had Walt Disney as a writer, except that he's dead.
Since I don't know you or how much you know about the situation, this began when somebody by the name of Nancy Markle took a post I had written in l995 and published it under her name. After I had lectured for the World Environmental Conference, I happened to be on a neurological list and was trying to convince some neurologists how aspartame destroys the central nervous system.
At that time Dr. Roberts wrote his position paper MS or Aspartame Disease? He also sent some of the physicians other reports by mail. Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D., also gave me some material I put on the list to help them. Then I wrote about just lecturing for the World Environmental Conference showing that everywhere you go people are talking about this epidemic of MS and lupus.
A manby the name of John Smith in the United Kingdom saw Nancy Markle's post and realized how serious it was and sent it to Shoshanna Allison in Clarkston, Georgia. Shoshanna now dubbed Paula Revere fired the shot heard around the world. Her marriage was broken up by Aspartame Disease when her husband developed lupus, mood swings, and the classic symptoms. She knew the information was correct and put it on 450 global networks. It went to hospitals, clinics, E.R.'s, media, corporations - you name it.
Doctors who had patients they could not diagnose all of a sudden realized what the problem was. Hospital phones were ringing off the hook. I spoke to one lady in a Colorado Hospital who said her doctors got the Markle email and asked her if she drank diet drinks. She had been in the hospital 4 weeks and they could not diagnose her. She couldn't hardly walk with joint pain, and the dietitians (funded by Monsanto) were giving her NutraSweet laced food even in the hospital.
The doctors put a stop to it, the patients symptoms disappeared and she "walked" out of the hospital free of pain and the symptoms that brought her there. Someone calledwho had a husband in a coma at the Mayo Clinic who drank 13 cans of diet soda a day. I don't know that he is going to make it, but his physician was shocked I knew his findings without him telling me. As Dr. Roberts says, "aspartame is a disease because its symptoms are predictable, and there is a pattern".
Pamela, as I told the FDA, "you can't put this fire out", so stop trying. Those responsible to solve the problem "are the problem", and CDC is just as much a part of it. Barbara Mullarkey, one of the best anti-aspartame journalists who has every document since aspartame was approved, wrote an excellent article in Informed Consent which is on www.dorway.com
Read about the CDC because they had an opportunity to stop this years ago. In November, l984 the CDC did an investigation of aspartame complaints. It was probably one of the most damning ever done. It showed aggressive behavior, disorientation, hyperactivity, extreme numbness, excitability, memory loss, loss of depth perception, liver impairment, cardiac arrest, seizures, suicidal tendencies, severe mood swings and DEATH! Then Frederick L. Trowbridge adds an executive summary to the report which conflicts with the information in the report stating complaints were generally of a mild nature.
Pamela, seizures, cardiac arrest, liver impairment and DEATH are not mild findings. Perhaps aspartame would not be on the market today if the CDC had followed through and not added this summary which conflicted with the report.
When people requested the investigation and knew about it they were only sent the summary, as I was. I had to file with Freedom of Information to get it and then someone told me they didn't know where it was. Of course, I got it.
Before Dr. Satcher left the CDC I told him he had 30 days to get rid of that phony summary and put a summary factual to the investigation, and if he didn't I would put the entire 146 pages on web for the world to read. He didn't and I did.
My letter to CDC earlier whichtook a year to be answered gave me this excuse about Dr. Trowbridge now being retired. What does that have to do with anything? The CDC is part of the Department of Health & Human Services just as the FDA is. Was the CDC helping the FDA to cover this up because the FDA over-ruled a Board of Inquiry to approve this neurotoxin?
Now, do you want to know what damage this phony summary did? We quote Flying Safety, the journal of the U.S. Air Force on our warning flyer distributed throughout the world. Monsanto knows that. It has been translated into many languages. Flying Safety said: " In pregnancy the effects of aspartame can be passed directly to the fetus, even in very small doses. People have suffered aspartame related disorders with doses as small as that carried in a single stick of chewing gum. This could mean a pilot who drinks diet sodas is more susceptible to flicker vertigo or to flicker-induced epileptic activity. It also means that all pilots are potential victims of sudden memory loss, dizziness during instrument flight and gradual loss of vision." (May, l992)
Flying Safety decides to retract this because they said with the CDC investigation showing only mild findings this is simply just "living and breathing"! The CDC investigation did not show living and breathing - it showed disability and dying!
I told the Editor that I knew only Monsanto would know about that investigation and that it had this phony summary on it and that I wanted it retracted instantly, and I sent them the entire 146 pages so they could see for themselves. I spoke with the editor and told her I was coming to New Mexico to talk to them, and that if they didn't retract it that as soon as a pilot died from NutraSweet you can believe the article would be quoted. The editor told me they would not retract it and not to come to New Mexico, although they admitted the investigation they got showed they were in error. The Public Relations Department at the Pentagon who she wanted to talk to me, didn't want to talk about aspartame and eventually took the recording off her phone and would not return calls. I wasn't about to allow Air Force pilots to consume a deadly neurotoxin so I flew to Kirkland Air Force Base to distribute pilot packets on the base.
And sure enough when three American Airline pilots who were heavy users of aspartame died, one in flight, American Airlines sent Captain Fred Fox who had written them about this, the retracted article in Flying Safety about "living and breathing" just as I said would happen.
After Dr. Roberts declared Aspartame Disease a world epidemic his material was distributed at the First International Conference on Emerging Diseases, sponsored in part by CDC, in Atlanta in March, l998. I wrote a paper and distributed it to doctors and scientists in 91 countries of the world about what CDC did, and CDC didn't like it a bit. After Donna Shalala and now Surgeon General Satcher spoke I put the information IN THEIR HANDS. One lady from the CDC tried to prevent me from giving it to Dr. Satcher but a very nice 6' 4" scientist leaned right over her, and put it in his hands for me!
There are no secrets in this world, Pamela. In the end it will all come out. Are you trying to tell me that Medline is stripped of the studies? I'll be glad to help you. When you go to www.dorway.com access Dr. Ralph Walton's peer reviewed studies. Notice only industry funded studies ever showed aspartame to be safe. Isn't it interesting that almost 100 per cent of INDEPENDENT aspartame studies shows problems. Monsanto doesn't like independent studies. Why they wouldn't even sell Dr. Walton the aspartame when he did one. They knew what would happen. Sure enough one person started bleeding from the eyes, conjunctival bleeding, and one man had a retinal detachment. Other subjects reported being poisoned. The institution had to stop the study.
Monsanto has sent the world a message on which studies they accept - ones where researchers are willing to say they showed safety. Example in point: Monsanto funded a study for Dr. Diana Dow-Edwards on birth defects. It was disastrous, so Monsanto withdrew their funding and Dr. Dow-Edwards had to pay for the study herself. Then neither Monsanto or the FDA would accept it. Thats one of the 26 questions the FDA refuses to answer on www.dorway.com delivered to them by then Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. Then Monsanto puts out advertisements pushing aspartame on pregnant women even though its a teratogen (triggers birth defects) and a neurotoxin. See Dr. Louis Elsas' testimony before congress, pediatric professor at Emory University, genetics, in l987 on www.dorway.com
And there are other disastrous studies proving that aspartame destroys the central nervous system, the brain and triggers seizures; studies which even showed aspartame killed and triggered brain tumors in humans. It's just that the manufacturer didn't see fit to publish those studies that showed aspartame to be a killer. You should read the book The Tainted Truth by Cynthia Crossen who says the road to hell was paved with research funds.
While the FDA and Monsanto says that the studies that approved aspartame showed safety why don't you read for yourself the FDA audit, the Bressler Report, on www.dorway.com You will see what aspartame triggered in original studies were brain tumors, pancreatic tumors, mammary tumors, ovarian tumors, uterine tumors, pituitary adenomas, astrocytomas, atrophied testes, grand mal seizures and other horrors.
I talked to Dr. Harris of the FDA before the FDA and CDC ran to CNN to declare this issue to be an Internet hoax. I told Dr. Harris to stop telling people aspartame was safe since we have their own FDA audit, the CDC investigation and the protest of the National Soft Drink Association on web. He said: "I can't refute that."
So there is panic??!! You know, Pamela plagues do that, they cause panic. If the CDC had done their job aspartame might not be on the market and there wouldn't be a plague. In Dr. Roberts first press conference he said if something wasn't done then in 5 or 10 years we would have a world plague. Its quoted in his first book published in l990, Aspartame (Nutrasweet) Is It Safe? , Charles Press, the last page. Now you can welcome Aspartame Disease, probably destined to be one of the largest epidemics in world history. We're talking about 200 million people consuming a deadly neurotoxin, a deadly addictive drug that interacts with other drugs including monamine oxidase inhibitors, alpha-methyldopa and L-dihydroxphenylalanine. We're talking about a drug that changes brain chemistry and changes the dopamine level of the brain.
Dr. Roberts has brought out some of the drug interactions in his book Aspartame (NutraSweet) Is It Safe? He says that the drugs include Coumadin, phenytoin (Dilantin), antidepressants, propranolol (Inderal), methyldopa (Aldomet), insulin and lidocaine (Xylocaine). Such an influence may be manifested as either reduced or excessive drug activity. Dr. Roberts mentions in a chapter on Parkinsonism of impaired levodopa action by amino acids and protein. A few of many possible mechanisms of drug interactions:
Aspartame actually had a drug application before it was withdrawn to be marketed as an additive which would require no safety monitoring. Doctors and scientists and victims have been screaming at the FDA ever since aspartame was approved. It caused 3 Congressional hearings but Monsanto lobbying and influence was just too powerful to get it off the market. Then when people started going blind the Community Nutrition Institute petitioned the FDA to ban aspartame to save people from blindness. I call the FDA, Monsanto's Washington Branch Office. Their actions speak for themselves, they cared more for Monsanto then the people.
And with all this screaming, complaints and nasty letters to the FDA so that they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that aspartame is poison, what do they do? In l996, Dr. David Kessler, FDA Commissioner grants blanket approval for a deadly drug to be used like sugar. And Pape of the National Yogurt Association petitions the FDA to allow aspartame in yogurt without it being labeled, absolutely against the labeling law which requires a PKU warning.
I can understand why Mr. Pape doesn't want it labeled. He knows aspartame (NutraSweet/Equal/Spoonful) has a bad name because he was counsel for the National Soft Drink Association. My, my, my what a small world! And did the FDA allow it? Thats one of the 26 questions too, they won't answer! Then Dr. Kessler amid allegations he padded his expense account resigned. He had completed his mission - to accomplish what Monsanto had asked of him. And he did it with full knowledge that aspartame is a literal deadly poison. As Dr. Blaylock says in a lecture on www.dorway.com, reactions to aspartame are not allergic, but toxic like arsenic and cyanide!
Reading the history of the approval of this neurotoxin is like something out of the twilight zone. How did they get away with it? The studies were the target of an indictment for fraud that was not carried out when two U.S. Prosecutors went to work for the law firm defending the case, and let the statute of limitations expire. When the District Attorney goes to work for the godfather expect acquittal.
Still the FDA would not approve it for 16 years, even when President Reagan, a friend of Rumsfeld and Searle, demanded the FDA do so. So President Reagan fired the FDA Commissioner and appointed Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes to do the deadly dead. There was so much opposition a Board of Inquiry was set up that said not to approve aspartame because it triggers brain tumors. Dr. Hayes over-ruled his own Board of Inquiry and went to work for the PR firm of the manufacturer, sort of like an art director going to work for a pig farm. It is rumored that he was paid $1000.00 a day.
You know what an FDA Commissioner does in a PR firm? He sends postcards home from Bermuda! He has refused to speak to the press ever since including when Dr. John Olney made world news, and was on 60 Minutes about the brain tumor/ aspartame connection. Dr. Olney is a world famous researcher and founded the field of neuroscience known as excitotoxicity. He has probably received 300 world awards. He was the physician who prevented baby food companies from putting MSG in baby food. And what did the FDA do? They ran to the rescue of Monsanto, their dear loyal friend!
Read the secret trade information on www.dorway.com where the original manufacturer, Searle (Monsanto bought them in l985) admitted they had to consider complete conversion to DKP (the brain tumor agent) and if the FDA found out they wouldn't approve it.How's that for premeditated murder - full knowledge that when they marketed aspartame it would break down to a brain tumor agent and give the consumer public brain tumors. Oh, the FDA says they knew about the DKP.
Aspartame was fed to rats and rats developed brain tumors. Yet the FDA now refuses to admit aspartame triggers brain tumors. You know when it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, hangs around with other ducks, and people call it a duck, there is a good reason to believe it is a duck. Aspartame breaks down to a brain tumor agent, fed to rats triggered brain tumors, and fed to the consumer public triggered the same brain tumor as in the rats. Now FDA wants to call it an anecdote rather than a duck! I call it the crime of the century!
I wept when Kelli Motluck, heavy user of aspartame had one of those astrocytomas converted to glioblastomas. She had a wonderful husband and child. She told me "I want to live, I want to live, I want to live, but if I die you be sure to let the world know what Monsanto did to me." And I wept when Cyndi Veth died too, so very young. I weep every time these youngsters die from aspartame triggered brain tumors.
Spend some time, Pamela, reading about the approval of aspartame. It's better than going to the movies to see the Twilight Zone. Some of the short comings are very interesting like the failure to challenge the manufacturer's contract with Universities Associated for Research and Education in Pathology (UAREP). This private group was engaged to determine the factual accuracy of prior aspartame studies - BUT with the stipulation that UAREP "shall not express an opinion regarding either the design or safety significance of these studies, nor make recommendations about the safety of aspartame for human use! Translation: THE PATHOLOGISTS WERE SWORN TO SILENCE!
Even the late Dr. Adrian Gross, the FDA toxicologist, who tried to stop the approval of aspartame and told Congress that aspartame violated the Delaney Amendment because it triggered brain tumors, challenged the credentials of UAREP relative to its ability to assess prior aspartame studies. Dr. Gross' last words to Congress shall never be forgotten: "And if the FDA violates its own laws who is left to protect the public?" The FDA acts above the law, and appears to be a law into themselves. Even when one of the most important men in the world at the time, the Speaker of the House, Congressman Newt Gingrich, asks them to answer questions, they refused. How do you get away with that? I guess they figure they are taking the 5th to avoid self-incrimination.
I understand the concern, after all I take the case histories coming in from the ends of the earth. Thanks to Nancy Markle, a lot of people found out they didn't have MS at all but were suffering from Aspartame Disease. And people found out why aspartame triggered lupus. Aspartame turns your immune system against your body. The formaldehyde embalms the proteins and makes them strange to the immune system.
Your immune system attacks your own body because it considers your own denatured protein as an antigen. This then generates the false information fed into the immune system that your own proteins are to be attacked. Then any other insults, mental, physical, immunological can stimulate the immune attack and the immune attack is lupus! We have noticed that when the victim stops the assault of aspartame when they have lupus that they usually become asymptomatic.
Yes, thanks to Nancy Markle, two support groups are now set up on the Internet and victims are counting the days off aspartame and watching their symptoms disappear. Some of them may have been using it too long although physicians are recommending detoxification. The first NutraSweet Detoxification Center has been setup by Dr. Paula Rhodes here in Atlanta, and I hope doctors will follow suit throughout the world.
In a nutshell aspartame destroys the central nervous system, the brain, the optic nerve and the immune system and ravages every organ in the body. It triggers an irregular heart rhythm and physicians not realizing aspartame is a drug medicates these patients and many times they can go into complete heart block or die of myocardial infarction.
See Dr. Roberts position paper, Aspartame and Cardiac Symptoms. It is a teratogen and can destroy the fetus or trigger birth defects. There is no warning for pregnancy, and you don't know if the baby is PKU until its born, so if it survives it will probably be mentally retarded as the phenylalanine concentrates in the placenta.
See Dr. Elsas testimony before congress and Dr. Roberts position paper on aspartame and pregnancy. You just couldn't make a better poison. In fact, according to Alex Constantine in his article NutraPoison, he says aspartame was listed with the pentagon in an inventory of prospective biochemical warfare weapons submitted to Congress.
Perhaps the physician who said it the best was Dr. James Bowen who told the FDA many years ago that aspartame was mass poisoning of the American public and more than 70 countries of the world. And he has Lou Gehrigs disease he says was triggered by aspartame. Dr. Woodrow Monte said on CBN recently that the reason aspartame causes so many problems (symptoms and diseases) is that it effects every part of the body!
Aspartame Disease is a crime against humanity that didn't have to be. The coverup is unbelievable. Even with CNN doing their hoax bit and AP and Time Magazine involved, it only got the information to more people. Lauran Neergaard who wrote the AP article said to me: "But we didn't use your name?" No, they didn't or the web site that would have given the correct information and government documents. They knew all along it was me, were on the web site, knew it was the truth, and told a lie. CNN ran the hoax bit twice. They should know it didn't work the first tme and it didn't work the second time either.
By golly, its a plague, and when Dr. Roberts new medical text on the world plague of Aspartame Disease is published soon it will no doubt make more world news. Better panic than death, and I can tell you we have literally jerked many victims from the jaws of death by giving them the facts instead of propaganda like Monsanto, FDA and CDC, and the trade organizations that take money from Monsanto and endorse their product.
Mission Possible operations ( a worldwide volunteer force) in most states and in many countries of the world are getting the truth to the people. You can't put out the fire. The only thing you can do is help get it removed from the marketplace because we will.
Monsanto knows that if aspartame is recalled people will wake up well from all kinds of horrible medical problems, from joint pain (caused by hardens of the synovial fluids by aspartame) to seizures. They know they have to do something to stop this, so their solution is to get an even more potent aspartame approved, Neotame. I have told the FDA the world now knows and if they approve they are going to start a war.
I live right here in Atlanta, Pamela, with CDC, Emory and Coca Cola. I also told Coca Cola they can't rewrite history. They knew aspartame was a poison before they put it in pop. Their history is written in the blood of those they poisoned. Even giants can fall. According to the Journal Constitution regarding their stock, Coke has been dropped from the world elite, in one year from 2nd in the world to 8th, now 16th. Disability and death are not acceptable costs of business. Attorneys say tobacco will pale against aspartame. This is the greatest scandal in U.S. History, the mass poisoning of the consumer public in 100 countries of the world.
CDC should be handling this plague but this is Epidemic Headquarters. If those there to solve the problem are the problem then only consumer power in action can help the victims.
You have two choices, if CDC cares about the consumer public you can get involved and help remove the toxin from the market. If you're going to continue this nonsensical cover-up then step aside and deal with the panic.
Betty Martini, Founder
Mission Possible International
Mission Possible Aviation
Disability and Death are not acceptable costs of business!
Date: 7 Jun 1999 23:52:46 -0500
From: Judy_Kew@greenbuilder.com (Judy Kew)
Thanks to Neil Carman and Laurel Hopwood for this article.
In an interview in Washington on Friday, Glickman said biotechnology "shouldn't be a steamroller. ... Ultimately, if the consumer doesn't buy, the technology isn't worth a damn. Period."
"People's jaws dropped. ... It was probably the most dramatic turnaround in the message of a secretary of agriculture that I've seen." (Charles Benbrook) - ----
By Bill Lambrecht Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau
Sunday, May 30, 1999. St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Fueling the debate
In the planting of genetically changed crops around the world, the U.S. government has done just about everything it can to help except drive the tractor.
Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman has been one of biotechnology's leading boosters, admonishing reluctant Europeans not to stand in the way of progress and urging the acceptance of food grown using the new, American technology. But lately, Glickman has turned cautious. In St. Louis last week, he warned that the United States must pay closer attention to questions being raised around the world about genetic engineering.
"We can't force-feed . . . reluctant consumers," he said.
His words, along with a recent scientific finding that biotechnology may harm butterflies, are helping trigger an emerging debate in this country that could prove pivotal for the new technology and for its driving force, St. Louis-based Monsanto Co.
In an interview in Washington on Friday, Glickman said biotechnology "shouldn't be a steamroller. ... Ultimately, if the consumer doesn't buy, the technology isn't worth a damn. Period."
He said European concerns about the potential health and environmental effects of modified crops are taking a toll on U.S. grain exports.
"There are certainly more and more questions being asked about biotechnology, and those questions must be answered," Glickman said. "They cannot be brushed off. They must be dealt with.
"You can't stop progress. ... But it doesn't mean that it is written on Mount Sinai that there aren't questions that have to be answered. I believe that is the era we are entering right now."
After years of muted concerns about biotechnology in the United States, Washington is suddenly brimming with new studies and discussions:
If that weren't enough new activity, wealthy foundations are considering plowing millions of dollars into a public awareness campaign that would be conducted by environmental advocacy groups.
"There is a shift. It might even be a sea change," Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists said of the new attention in the United States to genetic engineering.
Jay Byrne, a Monsanto spokesman, said he regards the attention as positive. Three government studies published this month in the United Kingdom by the Irish Food Authority, by a British House of Commons committee and by a British Ministry of Agriculture panel found no human health implications from gene-altered food.
As Byrne sees it, the flurry of new studies in Washington can allay any fears that might be sprouting. "People are getting engaged in a responsible manner seeking out valid independent information from the science community on this issue," he said.
The emerging debates will include topics as large as corporate mergers in agriculture which Glickman also is warning about and as small as the butterfly.
In a report that accelerated the biotechnology debate globally, Cornell University scientists reported 10 days ago that monarch butterflies could be threatened by certain modified crops. They found that nearly half of the caterpillars in laboratory tests died after eating the pollen of corn engineered with Bt (bacillus thuringiensis) bacteria to resist pests.
With as much 25 million acres in the United States being sown with engineered corn this year, many people took notice. Unfortunately for the genetic science industry, the report dealt not with spiders or cockroaches, but with the "Bambi of the insect world," as a Washington Post headline put it.
The monarch study gave people a touchstone in a complex matter that most Americans haven't thought a lot about.
For European leaders, it was evidence to raise more barriers to the technology. The 15-nation European Union said it would suspend further consideration of approvals for modified corn. Austria banned cultivation of Monsanto's engineered corn, and the French ambassador said his country might revisit its past approval of a Monsanto hybrid.
Those reactions could prove to be ill-considered if the next round of studies showed that cornfields are easier on monarchs than a college lab.
For now, Kathryn DiMatteo, executive director of the Massachusetts-based Organic Trade Association, sees the Cornell study as galvanizing groups that have paid scant attention to genetic science.
"It's getting to be critical mass," she said.
Besides encouraging public debate, Glickman is raising eyebrows among insiders who watch the politics of genetic engineering.
His public shift from cheerleader to probing realist began a month ago in a speech at Purdue University.
"It's not enough to celebrate science for science's sake," Glickman said in the speech. "When it's all said and done, the public opinion poll is just as powerful a research tool as the test tube."
In an interview, Glickman said he was trying to send a message not just to the American people, but to others in government. He said he remains committed to biotechnology as important both to human health and to farming.
But, he added, a better job has to be done about building confidence.
"There's a growing concern about what people eat, what goes in their mouths," Glickman said.
Glickman surprised participants on all sides of the debate, among them Charles Benbrook, a consultant who has worked for Congress and the National Academy of Sciences since the early 1980s.
When word of Glickman's all-but-ignored speech at Purdue filtered out, Benbrook said, "People's jaws dropped. ... It was probably the most dramatic turnaround in the message of a secretary of agriculture that I've seen."
Unlike their European counterparts, most pro-environment organizations in the United States have paid scant attention to genetic engineering. Some American groups may have been persuaded by the potential of modified crops to reduce the spraying of farm chemicals.
Some groups had their plates full, while others lacked resources to pursue a complicated issue that requires scientific expertise. This lack of attention has befuddled their European counterparts but may change soon with an infusion of money from foundations.
The Chicago-based Joyce Foundation is among several foundations that have been gathering information on genetic engineering for a meeting to be held next month in New York. Participants have put together an inch-thick workbook on biotechnology that they will distribute to representatives of foundations that fuel much of the work of America's environmental advocacy groups.
The Joyce Foundation's Margaret O'Dell said she sees donors drawn to biotechnology for several reasons, among them concern about patenting genetic resources.
"We feel that it is important to put the appropriate regulatory framework and oversights in place so that we don't find ourselves as a society jumping into a new area without understanding the implications," she said.
What that might mean is new, louder opposition to biotechnology that would turn up the heat on Monsanto and its rivals.
Jean Halloran is the executive director of the Consumer Policy Institute, affiliated with Consumer Reports magazine. She explained that foundation money means more organizers, media specialists and experts writing reports.
"Running a campaign on issues with no money is a lot like running for Congress with no money," she said.
Monsanto's Byrne said that Monsanto is happy to participate in any new talks.
"All too often, this debate can be polarized by the extremes of fear or concern and those of hope," he said.
"The best public service is to have an informed debate in the middle," he said.
Date: 7 Jun 1999 23:52:46 -0500
From: Judy_Kew@greenbuilder.com (Judy Kew)
By Michael Mann, (C) Reuters Limited 1999.
HELSINKI - Finland will take a very cautious approach to legislation on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) during its upcoming six months as EU president, Finland's environment minister has warned.
"Genetic engineering is really fundamental, as fundamental as nuclear power, and our basic principle must be the precautionary principle," Satu Hassi said, referring to the EU's policy of avoiding health risks.
"Splitting the atom is interfering with one of the most fundamental things in nature. Genetic engineering is much the same," she said in a recent interview with Brussels-based reporters in Helsinki.
The 15-member EU is currently revamping legislation on the approval and licensing of new crops and food modified by biotechnology.
Life science companies and exporting countries such as the United States want Europe to streamline the process to make it easier to sell genetically modified organisms. But green and consumer groups fear such foods could damage human health and the environment and want lawmakers to enact extra safeguards.
Hassi signalled that those wishing speedy progress may be disappointed when Finland takes over the EU presidency on July 1.
"I would be rather strict in the procedure and be very careful with GMOs. These are issues where we can only see the results of our actions after a long time," she said, adding that she felt Austria and Luxembourg were fully justified in introducing national restrictions on certain GM crops.
"I'm sure there are ways of using genetic engineering which are acceptable. But my feeling is that scientists have had too much power in creating the legislation."
Hassi said she was concerned about shortcomings in EU laws on the labelling of GM foods, which she said cannot guarantee opponents of the technology that their food is totally free of ingredients derived from GM crops.
Current EU president Germany wants to broker a compromise on the revision of GMO licensing laws at a meeting of EU environment ministers on June 24 and 25, but its plans have run into stiff opposition from the EU's executive Commission and a number of governments.
If Bonn's attempt fails, it will be up to Hassi to find a solution to the problem, so that the European Parliament can give the legislation its second reading in the autumn.
Even if Germany succeeds, GM foods and new applications for marketing approvals are certain to crop up several times during Finland's first ever six-month stint chairing EU business.