Farmed Fish and Dirty Secrets

A very important discovery! Eating fish might not be the healthy alternative you once thought. This is a compelling documentary that you should watch because it has a lot of information that could possibly save your life or at the very least make an important dietary decision.

Farmed Norwegian Salmon : The World’s Most Toxic Food
By Chef Marcus Guiliano

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYYf8cLUV5E

Syngenta Charged Over Covering Up Animal Deaths from GM Corn

June 18th, 2012

NaturalSociety
 
By Anthony Gucciardi

In a riveting victory against genetically modified creations, a major biotech company known as Syngenta has been criminally charged for denying knowledge that its GM Bt corn actually kills livestock. What’s more is not only did the company deny this fact, but they did so in a civil court case that ended back in 2007. The charges were finally issued after a long legal struggle against the mega corp initiated by a German farmer named Gottfried Gloeckner whose dairy cattle died after eating the Bt toxin and coming down with a ‘mysterious’ illness.

Grown on his own farm from 1997 to 2002, the cows on the farm were all being fed exclusively on Syngenta’s Bt 176 corn by the year 2000. It was around this time that the mysterious illnesses began to emerge among the cattle population. Syngenta paid Gloeckner 40,000 euros in an effort to silence the farmer, however a civil lawsuit was brought upon the company. Amazingly, 2 cows ate genetically modified maize (now banned in Poland over serious concerns) and died. During the civil lawsuit, however, Syngenta refused to admit that its GM corn was responsible. In fact, they went as far as to claim having no knowledge whatsoever of harm.

The case was dismissed and Gloeckner, the farmer who launched the suit, was left thousands of euros in debt. And that’s not all; Gloeckner continued to lose many cows as a result of Syngenta’s modified Bt corn. After halting the use of GM feed in 2002, Gloeckner attempted a full investigation with the Robert Koch Institute and Syngenta involved. The data of this investigation is still unavailable to the public, and only examined one cow. In 2009, however, the Gloeckner teamed up with a German action group known as Bündnis Aktion Gen-Klage and to ultimately bring Syngenta to the criminal court.

Using the testimony of another farmer whose cows died after eating Syngenta product, Gloeckner and the team have charged the biotech giant for the death of over 65 cows, withholding knowledge of the death-link, and holding the corporation liable for not registering the cattle deaths. The team is even charging Hans-Theo Jahmann, the German head of Syngenta , personally over the withholding of knowledge.

The charges bring to light just how far large biotechnology companies will go to conceal evidence linking their genetically modified products to serious harm. Monsanto, for example, has even threatened to sue the entire state of Vermont if they attempt to label its genetically modified ingredients. Why are they so afraid of the consumer knowing what they are putting in their mouths?

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/syngenta-charged-over-covering-up-animal-deaths-gm-corn/#ixzz1yABc24Jj

The horrific ramifications of the Gulf oil spill

This piece originally appeared on AlterNet.

Almost two full years after the BP oil spill, a panel of experts gathered at the 17th annual Tulane Environmental Law Summit, to present the continuing impacts of the BP Oil Spill. That spill began with the April 20, 2010, explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling unit used by BP 40 miles off the Louisiana coast. Eleven men lost their lives. The resulting spill of oil into the Gulf of Mexico stands as the largest oil spill in U.S. history and the second largest environmental disaster in this country to date besides the nearly decade-long Dust Bowl of the 1930s. Scientists at the summit presented recent photographs of shrimp with no eyes and fish with cancerous tumors born long after the gulf was declared “safe” for fishing.

It turns out that testing water and fish flesh under the surface oil after the spill was not very telling about long-term impacts as oil and water don’t mix and the chronic, toxic impacts were delayed until long after BP was put in charge of the “cleanup.” When BP sprayed chemical dispersants containing a slew of toxic heavy metals including arsenic, the oil didn’t magically disappear. It sank into the sediment. Disturbingly, the allowable levels set by the government for the toxins in our seafood are based on health impacts for a 176-pound adult eating less than two medium shrimp a day. The testing is for one chemical out of a crude oil mixture containing thousands of chemicals. No synergistic effects are considered. This in no way protects children, fetuses, people who weigh less than 176 pounds or anyone who eats seafood on a daily basis like the folks here on the Gulf Coast.

Dr. Andrew Whitehead, Ph.D., associate professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Louisiana State University, who is studying the BP spill and has reviewed much of the scientific studies of the Exxon Valdez spill, explained that stock declines of species may take several years to develop as reproduction is impacted in successive generations and across species. The Exxon Valdez spill is now known to be responsible for the decline of many species, including marine mammals, marine birds, and fishes such as pink salmon and herring. Though we have a take on the immediate acute impacts of the BP spill on animals caught in the oil, the chronic ultimate impacts of the BP spill are still unknown. But we do know that the killifish, the most abundant forage fish for the bigger fish in Gulf Coast marshes, are being affected. Fish from oiled marshes show signs of direct toxicity and reproductive impairment. Dr. Whitehead’s experiments involving exposures to oiled sediments, done in collaboration with colleague Dr. Fernando Galvez, show that killifish embryos are taking longer to develop or don’t hatch at all. They are being born with malformed hearts and hearts that may not function properly when they mature. And as the impacts from the spill on the fish bioaccumulate and propagate across generations, liability is harder to prove without good and strategic scientific study that sadly is harder to fund.

But some impacts are being felt now, especially for sediment dwelling seafood. Current reports from fisherman up and down the coast are startling. The oyster harvest for 2010 was the worst in more than four decades and oystermen continue to report catches down as much as 75 percent. Crab catches are in steep decline. Brown shrimp production is down two-thirds. And the white shrimp season was even worse, leading to descriptions of “worst in memory” and “nonexistent.” This from the region that before the spill provided 40 percent of the nation’s seafood.

Dr. Patricia Williams, Ph.D., Diplomate of the American Board of Toxicology, Associate Professor, Coordinator of Toxicology Research Laboratories, Pontchartrain Institute for Environmental Sciences, University of New Orleans, spoke at the summit about what she sees as a failure to properly assess the impact of the spill on seafood and on human health. She said:

In 1996, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration acknowledged that direct measurement of tissue for PAH (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon) concentrations generally does not provide a useful indicator of exposure of fish to PAHs from petroleum spills. Regardless, an extremely expensive seafood testing program was launched using this method. Testing included only 13 PAH parent compounds out of 200 PAHs present in crude oil. PAHs act on each other resulting in greater toxicity than expected from a single PAH (synergism). The synergistic nature of the PAHs were ignored in interpretation of the results. Additionally, the Levels of Concern were calculated for a 176 pound individual. This does not address toddlers and children or the developing fetus and placental transfer. The public was not warned of these deficiencies in the seafood testing program.

Dr. Williams explained that “PAHs are endocrine disruptors that interfere with the normal blood-borne hormones (e.g., estrogen and testosterone) that are responsible for the regulation of reproductive and developmental processes. Only very low amounts of chemicals are needed to disrupt the normal endocrine balance of both humans and animals. Evidence of reproduction imbalance is seen in the second generation of white shrimp in the 2011 harvest. Shrimp were harvested with defective eye stalks, pleopods, and pereiopods. Such anatomical defects are occurring in the markedly reduced white shrimp population in the Gulf and warn of endocrine dysfunction that could result in the loss of the species.”

Furthermore, “The heavy metals known to be present in crude oil are being ignored in the testing of seafood. Metal toxicity can produce neurobehavioral abnormalities in sea life such as: alterations in avoidance or attraction responses; critical swimming speed; changes in social interactions (e.g. aggression), reproduction, feeding, and predator avoidance; food foraging with reduced feeding ability; loss or orientation in swimming and changes in schooling behavior. Heavy metal testing in BP Oil clean-up workers has documented increased arsenic levels in 24 hour urine specimens.”

Finally, Dr. Williams warned that “The future chronic health effects from consumption of contaminated seafood and biomagnification along the food chain are yet to be realized in both sea life and humans. Chronic effects may take years to present and may elude an analysis of their causal origins. ”

On the second day of the summit, a settlement between private plaintiffs and BP was announced in the press. This settlement does not resolve the government cases, either civil or criminal, against the responsible parties. But the settlement of the private case raises the question whether the government prosecutions will be resolved without a trial and without jail time for executives ultimately responsible for the deaths of 11 workers and severe and ongoing environmental and economic impacts on the region. The summit attendees were abuzz with speculation about what will happen in the federal and State of Louisiana cases.

In Louisiana, petroleum is king. This state is the third largest producer of petroleum in America, Louisiana is responsible for more than one-quarter of the nation’s natural gas production, and Louisiana is the third leading refiner of petroleum in the country. In addition, the state makes over 600 petroleum products making it the second in the nation in primary production of petrochemicals. The 20-mile stretch on the Mississippi from New Orleans to Baton Rouge known as “The Cancer Corridor” pumps out one-quarter of the chemicals made in America. Louisiana leads the United States in release of toxic chemicals into the environment. The seven-parish industrial corridor has the highest density of petrochemical industries in the nation and possibly the world.

All this money in petroleum has a huge impact on politics in Louisiana, just as it does on a national and international level. It’s probably impossible to get elected to any Louisiana office without courting petroleum dollars and making campaign promises to that industry. A visit to the petroleum friendly website for the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources reveals the following section titled “Legacy Liability Reform.”

This “Legacy Liability Reform” is less likely to ensure any protection for Louisiana’s resources or its citizens than it is to assure petroleum companies that Louisiana and its resources are theirs for the taking. The reform is code for “don’t worry about liability because immunity for really bad stuff is all part of the deal for investing in Louisiana.” Oh, by the way, the Louisiana courts have been very protective historically of petroleum interests as well.

From the 1950s on, drilling for oil and gas on federal lands and waters has produced the second largest source of revenue for the federal government besides taxes. This has led to a rather cozy relationship between the federal government and those corporations that extract petroleum here. Let us not forget that since the inception of the Minerals Management Service (now renamed the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement to emphasize what it should be doing) has been involved in numerous scandals. For example, in 1990, MMS employees were linked to prostitution, and in 2008 the Department of Interior’s inspector general reported that MMS employees were engaged in both drug use and sexual activity with employees from the very energy firms they were to be regulating. This wasn’t just the foxes guarding the chicken coop, but the foxes actually in bed doing lines of coke with the chickens.

Clint Guidry, president, Louisiana Shrimp Association, spoke at the summit about the political ramifications of the spill and the unlikelihood of real justice coming from the government case. Mr. Guidry had worked for BP earlier in his career like so many Louisiana men have. He knows intimately both the oil industry and the fishing industry. When the spill happened, Louisiana shrimping was devastated. First, Guidry lobbied for jobs for all the shrimpers when the fisheries closed. Then he fought for job site safety for the workers and community residents impacted by the cleanup. Guidry’s role became that of witness to the harms on fisherman response workers when they began to suffer from being exposed to aerial application of the chemical dispersant and being downwind from burn sites of the surface oil. For instance, on May 26 seven shrimpers from the offshore response crew were admitted to West Jefferson Hospital with chemical poisoning. Two days later, after Obama’s May 27 visit to Grand Isle where he was photographed picking up tar balls, two more shrimpers were airlifted to West Jefferson Hospital for emergency medical treatment, also for chemical poisoning. Guidry met with the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, the U.S. Coast Guard, the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety, and with other government representatives from the local to the federal including Secretaries Napolitano and Salazar and U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.

Mr. Guidry still has the following unresolved questions:

1. Why did we allow people who caused the oil spill to be in charge of the cleanup? Everything they did was to limit liability, not to protect the environment, the resources or the people.
2. How could the government announce on Aug. 5, 2010, that suddenly 75 percent of the oil had disappeared? Corporations run this country and they operate under the Golden Rule: Who holds the gold makes the rule.
3. According to statements made by Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Chairman Garret Graves, BP is choosing the direction of the environmental damage assessment. Shouldn’t the Oil Spill Recovery fund be administered independently so it could fund real scientists like Dr. Whitehead?
4. Oil companies are good at covering up spills and sinking the oil with additional chemicals, but they are no good at cleaning up spills. If we are allowing these companies to drill in the Gulf, shouldn’t they be required to have the technology to prevent disasters and to clean them up? They don’t.
5. Even after the largest loss of life and oil, no laws have been changed. Eleven men are dead but I don’t believe anybody will go to jail. The government is the keeper of the record of the criminal investigation and if they settle the case, the public will never see that information. If the record is not made public in a trial, how do we learn from this spill?
6. I’m a third generation fisherman. We were the first environmentalists because if you don’t take care of the environment, it doesn’t take care of you. I love wildlife. The spill has devastated wildlife. What price do you put on a dead dolphin?
7. The head of Minerals Management Service at the time of the BP disaster came from big oil. She was fired by Obama and MMS was split up but no one else was fired. Is that enough house cleaning? Can these people keep us safe when they have failed in the past?

As the federal government and affected states including Louisiana move toward trial or settlement, we should all be asking these questions.

How will the government cases be resolved? Potential penalties of more than $17 billion for environmental violations remain on the books for BP. Peter Lehner, executive director of Natural Resources Defense Counsel writes in his blog, “How the remainder of the case pans out says a lot about the future of energy in this country. Will the government allow BP, and the rest of the oil industry, to continue business as usual with nothing more than a slap on the wrist? Or will the company be put on trial and held accountable for its actions? Will the penalties be severe enough to make the oil industry clean up its act? BP reported profits of $21.7 billion in 2011, nearly 3 times the estimated cost of its settlement with private parties in the Gulf.”
And one question looms even larger than the spill, the resulting legal cases or even BP profits: How can we establish a separation between the oil industry and our government?

Monsanto, Bayer and Dow face trial for 'systematic human rights abuses'

Article is from The Ecologist

Permanent Peoples' Tribunal accuses biotech giants Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, DuPont and BASF of promoting dangerous pesticides including endosulfan, paraquat and neonicotinoids

The world's major agrochemical companies, Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, DuPont and BASF, will face a public tribunal in early December accused of systematic human rights violations.

They are accused of violating more than 20 instruments of international human rights law through promoting reliance on the sale and use of dangerous and unsafe pesticides including endosulfan, paraquat and neonicotinoids.

The Permanent Peoples' Tribunal (PPT), an international opinion tribunal created in 1979, will hear expert testimony from scientists, medical doctors and lawyers to prove the charges. Victims who have been injured by these products - from farmers, farmworkers, mothers and consumers from around the world - will also testify to the causes and nature of their injuries.

The cases will be heard over a four-day trial in Bangalore, India beginning December 3. While the Tribunal has no legal weight, and cannot force sanctions on companies, it aims to expose and raise awareness of large-scale human rights violations.

Pesticides Action Network (PAN) International, a global network comprised of 600 organisations in 90 countries, has spent years collecting information to bring about the indictments and is seeking justice for more than 25 specific cases - such as Silvino Talavera, an 11-year-old from Paraguay who died days after breathing in a cloud of Monsanto's RoundUp herbicide sprayed by a crop duster. The trial will also hear evidence of the link between pesticide use and a decline in bees.

The corporations, known as the 'Big 6' control 74 per cent of the global pesticide market, as well as dominating the global seed market.

Bayer reject the allegations saying they are a, 'wholesale distortion of the role of pesticides in our society.' Monsanto, Syngenta and Dow, after being contacted by the Ecologist, were unavailable for comment.

Pesticide poisonings

An estimated 355,000 people are believed to die each year from unintentional pesticide poisoning, according the World Health Organization. Nick Mole from PAN UK said the trial would give a voice to the otherwise voiceless victims of pesticides.

‘The pesticide industry is massive and incredibly powerful. It is difficult to prove corporate manslaughter even when these products are killing hundreds of people a year,' he says. ‘We've spoken to people who have been abused and we are allowing them to give voice to their individual stories. We will be presenting the outcome of the Tribunal to the corporations and will be inviting their response,' he says.

It is hoped that the verdict, to be delivered on December 6, will lead to greater discussions at UN institutions on holding agrochemical corporations accountable for crimes relating to the impact of their products.

Peoples' Tribunal
The PPT grew out of the work by Italian Senator Lelio Basso, and serves as a grassroots, ad hoc court to consider charges and to issue verdicts on complaints of human rights violations submitted by victims or their representative groups.

Since 1979, the PPT has held 35 sessions exposing various forms of human rights abuses in cases from the Bhopal disaster, Tibet sovereignty and the intervention of the US in Nicaragua.

 Please NOTE this article is from http://www.theecologist.org/

LAWSUIT TO UNCOVER TOXIC HISTORY OF NEW JERSEY

U.S. EPA Will Not Release Hazardous Ratings for Pompton Lakes and Other Sites

Washington, DC — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is wrongfully withholding hazardous ratings it has conducted at toxic sites throughout New Jersey, according to a federal lawsuit filed today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).  The ratings gauge the sites’ level of toxicity, human exposure and contamination pathways through air, soil and water.

The suit filed today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia arose out of EPA’s failure to disclose its Hazardous Rating System scores for one of New Jersey’s most troubled toxic sites – the old E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Company armament factory at Pompton Lakes.  The agency has rebuffed past requests for these scores based upon a 1991 internal directive.  According to EPA, these ratings both factor into whether to list a site under Superfund, which confers a higher clean-up priority, more funding options and citizen oversight, and also on how best to address the relative risks posed at each site.

PEER has asked for these hazardous rating scores for not only Pompton Lakes but for all other New Jersey sites not listed as national Superfund cleanup sites – a list of approximately 70 of the most contaminated locations in the state.  EPA sat on the request past the deadline mandated in the Freedom of Information Act, which serves as the basis for the PEER suit.

“By failing to disclose these hazardous ratings, EPA keeps the public in the dark about risks in their communities and frustrates their efforts to hold polluters and government accountable,” stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe.  “People should be alerted about vapor intrusion into their homes.  Keeping these scores secret makes EPA part of the problem and impedes a solution by shielding industrial polluters from public oversight from affected communities and the media.”
Article From: http://www.peer.org

New Jersey has the most Superfund sites in the country (144) but could have even more if the Hazardous Rating System scores were the dispositive benchmarks for Superfund listing.  Many sites in New Jersey pose risks equal to or greater than Superfund-listed sites, yet these uncontrolled sites (such as Pompton Lakes, where clean-up has stumbled along for more than 20 years) remain in regulatory limbo.  Publication of all Hazardous Ranking System scores would enable apples-to-apples comparisons which, in turn, would help prioritize sites for clean-up and target responsible parties.

“EPA has taken the stance that these Hazardous System Rating scores do not have to be disclosed on the grounds that they constitute ‘pre-decisional’ policy recommendations.  Yet, numbers are not policy recommendations – they are factual statements which are considered public records under the Freedom of Information Act,” said PEER Counsel Kathryn Douglass who drafted the complaint.  “Moreover, we are well beyond the pre-decisional stage as EPA long ago made the decision to let these sites languish.”

The U.S. Justice Department, representing EPA, has 30 days to file an answer to the PEER suit.

“The Obama administration said it was going to be transparent,” Wolfe added. “Here is an opportunity to reverse a 20-year secrecy policy so that communities can see what EPA knows about toxic conditions in our own backyards.”

Debunking Aspartame's Safety

For all you people who are trying to figure out, is Aspartame safe. I have compiled numerous articles and websites that are for and against this manufactured sweetener. On one hand there are the "real" scientific government agencies that continually say that Aspartame is safe and does not hurt anyone.

Websites such as aspartame.org make statements such as this, "Despite the overwhelming documentation of aspartame’s safety, unfounded allegations that aspartame is associated with a myriad of ailments, including multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and lupus, have continued to be spread via the Internet and the media by a few individuals who have no documented scientific or medical expertise. Recently, several governments and expert scientific committees (including the Scientific Committee on Food of the European Commission, the United Kingdom’s Food Standards Agency, the French Food Safety Agency and Health Canada) carefully evaluated the Internet allegations and found them to be false, reconfirming the safety of aspartame. In addition, leading health authorities, such as the Multiple Sclerosis Foundation, The National Multiple Sclerosis Society, The National Parkinson Foundation, Inc., the Alzheimer’s Association, and the Lupus Foundation of America, have reviewed the claims on the Internet and also concluded that they are false." http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_myths.html

On the other hand there are the so-called non-experts who apparently have "no documented or scientific expertise". 

But wait a minute! After further investigation of these founded claims. An interesting article say's quite the opposite. Take for example this article by Public Service Europe that debunks the Scientific Committee on Food Safety of the European Commission which above favors Aspartame. And is considered a viable source for real scientific expertise.

The article titled and states:

The reputation of the European Food Safety Authority has been sullied ahead of a key investigation into the food sweetener aspartame

The European body responsible for a new study on the health effects of artificial sweetener aspartame is under attack following the revelation it has hired scientists, who did not declare connections to the food industry. A transparency watchdog has called for two newly appointed members of the EFSA's additives panel to be suspended after uncovering their past relationship with a lobbying firm financed by aspartame producer Ajinomoto and food giants Coca-Cola, Kraft and Nestle.

The two scientists, Italian Riccardo Crebelli and German Ursula Gundert-Remy, are "in violation" of the agency's own rules because they "failed to disclose consulting activities for the International Life Sciences Institute, an international lobby group funded by the food industry", says watchdog Corporate Europe Observatory. New rules were needed to ensure scientists' credentials were impeccable, according to the observatory, which says its mission is to "expose the power of corporate lobbying in the European Union".

The Italy-based EFSA was asked in May to re-evaluate the safety of aspartame, due to high levels of public concern over possible side-effects. This followed two academic studies published last year, linking aspartame with cancer in mice and pre-term delivery. After reviewing the studies' findings, the agency decided its existing advice on the "acceptable daily intake" of aspartame - 40 mg per kilogramme of body weight - did not need altering. "Even though aspartame has been authorised for many years in many countries following thorough safety assessments, a degree of public concern about the safety of aspartame has continued," the agency said, adding that it was now "working to address this public concern".

Shortly after the new study was commissioned, five of the 19 members of the agency's panel on food additives and nutrient sources were replaced as their mandates had expired. Corporate Europe Observatory, together with a French watchdog, examined the backgrounds of the new members. Gundert-Remy was appointed as a scientific adviser to the Life Sciences Institute's research foundation in 2005, the watchdogs found. Crebelli on the other hand "was a member of the scientific committee of a three-day symposium on the safety of food packaging" organised by the institute in 2008. He was tasked with "the review of research abstracts submitted by applicants who wish to publicly present their work at the symposium".

The agency has defended its appointees. Criticism was based on "factual mistakes" that put a "negative light" on its independence, the agency's executive director Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle said in a letter earlier this week. The experts "were not required to declare those activities, as they are not related to their scientific panel's field of activities," Geslain-Lanéelle said. Gundert-Remy "advised (the institute) on general research topics such as obesity" whereas Crebelli "has not been a member" of the institute's scientific committee - but rather, "participated in the scientific committee of a conference".

Such activities, the executive director said "cannot result in potential conflicts of interest" and there had, therefore, been no "breach of trust". Corporate Europe Observatory insisted on the other hand that experts were obliged by the agency's rules to declare all interests "even if this advice or these services are not related to the field of activities of the scientific panel of a given expert". The Life Sciences Institute rejects claims that it is a lobby firm, preferring to refer to itself as a "foundation" - seeking a "balanced approach to solving problems of common concern for the wellbeing of the general public". Backers of its European branch include Monsanto, the genetically modified seed specialist, Mars and Unilever.

http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/887/questions-over-the-european-food-safety-agency

One may ask the simple question who are these people and affiliated websites? Can they be trusted? Well if you investigate both the aspartame.org website and it's affiliate caloriecontrol.org you will find that there is no contact information. There is a "contact us" on the top right hand corner of the aspartame.org website but it does not work. How unfortunate. 

What about the caloriecontrol.org website? Conveniently there is no way to contact them directly either. You are only able to email them and wait for a reply. 

But there is an interesting notation on the website that tells you about who they are and what they represent. Click here to read about them. 

Isn't that interesting that caloriecontrol.org represents the manufacturers and suppliers of the very industry it claims in this next statement? "Council seeks to provide an effective channel of communication among its members, the public and government officials, and to assure that scientific, medical and other pertinent research and information is developed and made available to all interested parties."

There is also a list of companies that gives caloriecontrol.org funding to help protect us, the consumers, of their products. Click here for that list and be enlightened to see all this companies that are selling us these products. Of course not all of these sweeteners are bad. But most of them I would not use. 

So what about this other group Public Service Europe? Are they trustworthy? It would seem that they are doing their job and reporting on major stories that need to be disclosed, where major media news outlets continuously fail the general public. Are they able to be directly contacted? It certainly seems that way. Do they have a contact list readily and easily obtainable? Yes! Click here for that list. It would seem to me that they are readily available for questions and comments. 

The other two affiliated groups seem to be mysteriously unavailable. And that always raises an eyebrow on my head. CalorieControl.org allows you to send them your contact information and wait for a reply. But will they respond to any serious questions? I have not tried to contact them yet. But I wouldn't hold my breathe waiting for a response.  

The FDA has also stated on its own website that Aspartame is safe, in a research conducted by Paul 

A. Spiers. FDA and MIT stated this:

"We conclude that aspartame is safe for the general population," said Paul 

A. Spiers, visiting scientist in the Clinical Research Center (CRC).

Mood, aggression and selected cognitive functions were tested during a 

study in which some of the subjects consumed doses of aspartame nearly 

20 times the daily amount taken by the vast majority of the general 

population.

During a four-month period, subjects received either aspartame, sugar or a 

placebo and underwent physical and psychological testing. Some subjects 

were given doses of up to 45 milligrams per kilogram of body weight--the 

equivalent of 17 to 24 12-ounce diet beverages for males and 14 to 19 12-

ounce drinks for females. In the general population, most Americans who 

consume aspartame take in 3 milligrams per kilogram of body weight a 

day, the equivalent of one or less 12-ounce diet beverage.

Despite the high consumption of aspartame, the 48 normal subjects 

showed no changes in mood, memory, behavior, electroencephalograms 

(which record the electrical signals of the brain) or physiology that could be 

tied to aspartame, Dr. Spiers found. Although some subjects reported 

headaches, fatigue, nausea and acne, the same number of incidences 

were reported by subjects taking placebo and sugar as those taking 

aspartame.

Dr. Spiers noted that these findings corroborate the results of another 

recent study with preschool and elementary school children that discovered 

no effect on their moods, activity levels, behavior or thinking after they 

consumed high doses of aspartame.

He recommended that if a patient reports any adverse effects from a food 

product, factors such as the patient's overall diet, nutrition and behavior 

should be carefully tested in a double-blind challenge. "Only in this way can 

allegations regarding the safety of any food product be properly evaluated 

before speculation regarding harmful effects begins," wrote Dr. Spiers and 

co-authors LuAnn Sabounjian of Interneuron Pharmaceuticals of 

Lexington; Dr. Allison Reiner of Princeton, NJ; Diane K. Myers and Judith 

Wurtman of the CRC; and Donald L. Schomer in the neurophysiology 

department at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical 

School.

PLEASE NOTE THE FINAL PART OF THIS REVIEW

The study was conducted at MIT's CRC. Electro-encephalograms were 

done at the Beth Israel-Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. This work 

was supported by a grant from the NutraSweet Co. to the Center for Brain 

Sciences and Metabolism Charitable Trust.

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02p0317/02P-0317_emc-000479-02.pdf

Clearly this grant is subject to discrepancies due to the fact that NutraSweet is a major manufacturer of Aspartame!

Perhaps the company that manufactures the chemical should NOT be allowed to sponsor the research because clearly that is a major conflict of interest. And why would this even be considered valid or accredited on the FDA's website, which claims to be the omnipotent federal regulatory group that protects it's citizens from harmful chemicals here in the USA? Would not perhaps a completely unbiased scientific group funded by the state itself be deemed a more suitable proponent? I would hope so. 

So what are some of these other "individuals who have no documented scientific or medical expertise", or non-reputable websites that spread invalid lies and rumors about the safety of Aspartame? 

Well, I just so happen to know a few of these internet sites. One of them is a scientific database government website, called PubMed.gov. This one website contains over a hundred articles that discusses scientific findings about Aspartame. You would be surprised how many negative findings there are!
Here is just one article.

Vestibulocochlear toxicity in a pair of siblings 15 years apart secondary to aspartame: two case reports.

Pisarik P, Kai D.

Source

University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Tulsa, 1111 S. St. Louis Ave., Tulsa, OK 74120-5440, USA. paul-pisarik@ouhsc.edu

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

Aspartame may have idiosyncratic toxic effects for some people; however, there are few case reports published in the medical literature. We present two case reports in a pair of siblings, one with a vestibular and the other with a cochlear toxicity to aspartame. The cochlear toxicityis the first case to be reported, while the vestibular toxicity is the second case to be reported.

CASE PRESENTATION:

A 29-year-old white female had a 20-month history of nausea and headache, progressively getting worse with time and eventually to also involve vomiting, vertigo, and ataxia. She was extensively evaluated and diagnosed with a vestibular neuronitis versus a chronic labyrinthitis and treated symptomatically with limited success. In response to a newspaper article, she stopped her aspartame consumption with total cessation of her symptoms. Fifteen years later, her then 47-year-old white brother had a 30-month history of an intermittent, initially 5-10 minute long episode of a mild sensorineural hearing loss in his right ear that progressed over time to several hour episodes of a moderately severe high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss to include tinnitus and a hypoesthetic area in front of his right tragus. After a negative magnetic resonance scan of the brain, he remembered his sister's experience with aspartame and stopped his consumption of aspartame with resolution of his symptoms, although the very high frequency hearing loss took at least 15 months to resolve. For both, subsequent intentional challenges with aspartame and unintentional exposures brought back each of their respective symptoms.

CONCLUSION:

Aspartame had a vestibulocochlear toxicity in a pair of siblings, suggesting a genetic susceptibility to aspartame toxicity. Even though the yield may be low, asking patients with dizziness, vertigo, tinnitus, or high-frequency hearing loss about their aspartame consumption and suggesting cessation of its use, may prove helpful for some.

Another great website to get reliable health related information is Life Extension. lef.org

Yet another website I really like and consider reliable is Truth In Labeling. truthinlabeling.org

It briefly discusses aspartame but mainly focuses on MSG. 

A really great website I turn to for loads of great info is natural news. http://www.naturalnews.com/

They have pertinent information on all sorts of stuff!

A great website that just shows you all the ingredients and gives it an overall score is called Good Guide. http://www.goodguide.com/

They have a major database of pretty much everything that is on the store shelf. This can help you make the right decision on what products to purchase. Definitely check them out!

So this information should help everyone make the right decision whether to buy a product with Aspartame in it. Of course you are your own person and can decide what to put in your body, but if you are pregnant or have small children I would consider there young minds and bodies and the effects that might occur before giving them Aspartame laced products.

Furthermore, with so much uncertainty surrounding an artificial sweetener that clearly has negative results in lab animals and some humans, would it not be safe to assume that this product may have an impact on you the consumers health?

There are natural alternatives to  help remedy the consumers need for a zero calorie sweetener. Perhaps instead of drinking a diet soft drink, why not have a glass of water? Or if you need a caffeine fix. Why not have a glass ice tea or a cup of coffee? Does it have to be sweet? This are questions that should be pondered and there are plenty of alternatives to living a healthier life with out artificial or other manufactured products that can cause harm to the human body.

I hope that this helps you make the right decision and you will enjoy the journey through life more and with less risk of causing harm to the body you have been blessed with. 

Names of Ingredients That Contain Processed Free Glutamic Acid (MSG)1

***Information provided by the Truth in Labeling Campaign***

Everyone knows that some people get reactions after eating the food ingredient monosodium glutamate --reactions that include migraine headaches, upset stomach, fuzzy thinking, diarrhea, heart irregularities, asthma, and/or mood swings.  What many don’t know, is that more than 40 different ingredients contain the chemical in monosodium glutamate (processed free glutamic acid) that causes these reactions.  The following list of ingredients that contain processed free glutamic acid has been compiled over the last 20 years from consumers’ reports of adverse reactions and information provided by manufacturers and food technologists.

Names of ingredients that always contain processed free glutamic acid:

Glutamic acid (E 620)²,  Glutamate (E 620)

Monosodium glutamate (E 621)

Monopotassium glutamate (E 622)

Calcium glutamate (E 623)

Monoammonium glutamate (E 624)

Magnesium glutamate (E 625)

Natrium glutamate

Yeast extract

Anything “hydrolyzed”

Any “hydrolyzed protein”

Calcium caseinate,  Sodium caseinate

Yeast food, Yeast nutrient

Autolyzed yeast

Gelatin

Textured protein

Soy protein, soy protein concentrate

Soy protein isolate

Whey protein, whey protein concentrate

Whey protein isolate

Anything “…protein”

Vetsin

Ajinomoto

Names of ingredients that often contain or produce processed free glutamic acid:

Carrageenan (E 407)

Bouillon and broth

Stock

Any “flavors” or “flavoring”

Maltodextrin

Citric acid, Citrate (E 330)

Anything “ultra-pasteurized”

Barley malt

Pectin (E 440)

Protease

Anything “enzyme modified”

Anything containing “enzymes”

Malt extract

Soy sauce

Soy sauce extract

Anything “protein fortified”

Anything “fermented”

Seasonings

The following are ingredients suspected of containing or creating sufficient processed free glutamic acid to serve as MSG-reaction triggers in HIGHLY SENSITIVE people:

Corn starch
Corn syrup
Modified food starch
Lipolyzed butter fat
Dextrose

Rice syrup

Brown rice syrup
Milk powder
Reduced fat milk (skim; 1%; 2%)   most things low fat or no fat  anything Enriched

anything Vitamin enriched 

 (2) E numbers are use in Europe in place of food additive names.

(1) Glutamic acid found in unadulterated protein does not cause adverse reactions.  To cause adverse reactions, the glutamic acid must have beenprocessed/manufactured or come from protein that has been fermented. 

Reminders

Low fat and no fat milk products often contain milk solids that contain MSG and many dairy products contain carrageenan, guar gum, and/or locust bean gum.  Low fat and no fat versions of ice cream and cheese may not be as obvious as yogurt, milk, cream, cream cheese, cottage cheese, etc., but they are not exceptions.

Protein powders contain glutamic acid, which, invariably, will be processed free glutamic acid (MSG).  Individual amino acids are not always listed on labels of protein powders.

At present there is an FDA requirement to include the protein source when listing hydrolyzed protein products on labels of processed foods.  Examples are hydrolyzed soy protein, hydrolyzed wheat protein, hydrolyzed pea protein, hydrolyzed whey protein, hydrolyzed, corn protein. If a tomato, for example, were whole, it would be identified as a tomato. Calling an ingredient tomato protein indicates that the tomato has been hydrolyzed, at least in part, and that processed free glutamic acid (MSG) is present.

Disodium guanylate and disodium inosinate are relatively expensive food additives that work synergistically with inexpensive MSG. Their use suggests that the product has MSG in it. They would probably not be used as food additives if there were no MSG present.

MSG reactions have been reported from soaps, shampoos, hair conditioners, and cosmetics, where MSG is hidden in ingredients with names that include the words "hydrolyzed," "amino acids," and/or "protein."  Most sun block creams and insect repellents also contain MSG.

Drinks, candy, and chewing gum are potential sources of hidden MSG and/or aspartame, neotame. and AminoSweet (the new name for aspartame). Aspartic acid, found in neotame, aspartame (NutraSweet), and AminoSweet, ordinarily causes MSG type reactions in MSG sensitive people. (It would appear that calling aspartame "AminoSweet" is industry's method of choice for hiding aspartame.) We have not seen Neotame used widely in the United States. 

Aspartame will be found in some medications, including children's medications. For questions about the ingredients in pharmaceuticals, check with your pharmacist and/or read the product inserts for the names of “other” or “inert” ingredients.

Binders and fillers for medications, nutrients, and supplements, both prescription and non-prescription, enteral feeding materials, and some fluids administered intravenously in hospitals, may contain MSG.

According to the manufacturer, Varivax–Merck chicken pox vaccine (Varicella Virus Live), contains L-monosodium glutamate and hydrolyzed gelatin, both of which contain processed free glutamic acid (MSG) which causes brain lesions in young laboratory animals, and causes endocrine disturbances like OBESITY and REPRODUCTIVE disorders later in life.  It would appear that most, if not all, live virus vaccines contain some ingredient(s) that contains MSG.

Reactions to MSG are dose related, i.e., some people react to even very small amounts. MSG-induced reactions may occur immediately after ingestion or after as much as 48 hours.  The time lapse between ingestion and reaction is typically the same each time for a particular individual who ingests an amount of MSG that exceeds his or her individual tolerance level.

Remember: By food industry definition, all MSG is "naturally occurring." "Natural" doesn't mean "safe."  "Natural" only means that the ingredient started out in nature, like arsenic and hydrochloric acid.

Industry and Fluoridation

***PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS INFORMATION IS FROM: FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK  Excerpt from: Waldbott GL, Burgstahler AW, and McKinney HL. (1978). Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma. Coronado Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas. p. 295-305. INDUSTRY AND FLUORIDATIONINDUSTRY WELCOMED fluoridation with open arms. Chemical Week, a publication for the chemical industry, vividly portrayed this fact in 1951 with an enthusiastic news account: All over the country, slide rules are getting warm as waterworks engineers figure the cost of adding fluoride to their municipal supplies. They are riding a trend urged upon them by the US Public Health Service, the American Dental Association, the State Dental Health Directors, various state and local health bodies, and vocal women's clubs from coast to coast. ... it adds up to a nice piece of business on all sides and many firms are cheering the USPHS and similar groups as they plump for increasing adoption of fluoridation. (1) The beneficiaries named in this article were chemical companies and equipment firms: General Chemical, Harshaw Chemical Co., Blockson Chemical Co., American Agricultural Chemical Co., Aluminum Co. of America (ALCOA), Davison Chemical Corp., and Baugh Chemical Co. Chemical Week obviously failed to discuss how many other industries in addition to chemical corporations would eventually gain financially from the unexpected bonanza. Even so, the desire of corporations to sell their products was not the only significant motive for industry to "plump" for the new health measure. THE PROBLEM In the early 1930s, ALCOA and other manufacturers of aluminum had a problem so serious that it threatened their very existence. During the smelting and reduction process, when bauxite (aluminum oxide) is dissolved and electrolyzed in molten cryolite, hydrogen fluoride and other volatile fluorides are released into the air, and sodium fluoride remains in the bath. (2) The latter cannot simply be dumped on the ground because it seriously pollutes grass and other forage. Indeed, in 1950 ALCOA's plant in Vancouver, Washington, was fined for dumping fluorides into the Columbia River, and the airborne fluorides heavily contaminated the grass and forage, "which resulted in injury and death to cattle." (3) If it could be established further that human health also suffered from fluoride pollution, the consequences to the company in terms of damage suits would have been immeasurable. Damage to Animal Life. Many other industries, especially the manufacturers of steel and phosphate fertilizer, shared this problem with ALCOA. On August 25, 1961, W. S. Meader and his wife May, near Pocatello, Idaho, obtained a judgement in the US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, against Food Machinery and Chemical Corp. for the sum of $57,295.80 and against J. R. Simplot Co. for $4,246.41. The factories of these corporations emitted solid and gaseous fluoride compounds which seriously damaged the Meader trout farm and fish hatchery. According to the court record, "eggs were worthless" and did not hatch properly; the fish also exhibited malformations. "During the week after rains, the Meaders were hauling away about a ton of dead fish per day." (4) Fluoride levels in water samples from the Meader hatchery ranged between 0.5 and 4.7 ppm - no different than the fluoride concentrations in food and drinks consumed today by humans in many places. Inevitably, the business of the farm began to deteriorate as "customers were lost." Damage to fish is not the only source of litigation resulting from environmental fluoride. Ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution, wholesale pollution of air and of the countryside with fluoride fumes and fallout has taken place, and fluoride poisoning has become an important industrial hazard. Early reports of damage came from Great Britain and also from Freiburg, Germany, where by 1893, 880,000 marks (about $200,000) had been paid for current injuries and 644,000 marks for permanent relief. Around the industrial city of Freiburg in Saxony a disease of cattle, endemic for 20 years, was identified in 1907 as fluoride poisoning from the smelters. (5) At about the same time, cattle near copper mines of Anaconda, Montana, were reported to have developed "copper teeth," which were remarkably similar to what was later recognized in humans as "Colorado brown stain" or "mottled teeth" (Fig. 17-1). (6) In the early 1950s American industry was plagued with a virtual epidemic of litigation. In 1950, Mr. and Mrs. Julius Lampert had won their suit against the Reynolds Metals Company's Troutdale aluminum plant for fluoride burns to their gladiolus crops. (7) In Blount County, Tennessee, prior to January 1, 1953, ALCOA had hardly made up the loss of income incurred by 141 farmers and cattle raisers, (8) when another suit charged that fluoride fumes "damaged farmlands, injured registered cattle," making them unmarketable, and caused premature deterioration of teeth, stiffness of joints, knots on ribs, loss of appetite, and general retardation of growth. (9) Other suits involved the ALCOA plant at Vancouver, Washington, which had to pay cattleman William Fraser $60,000 in 1962 and in the same year, $20,000 to Earl Reeder because of fluoride injury to their cattle on Sauvies Island. (10) In 1961 Fairview Farms. Inc., received $300,000 from the Harvey Aluminum Company's reduction plant in The Dalles, Oregon, because of damage to dairy herds, loss of forage and of milk supply, as well as depreciation of the lands. Orchardist W. J. Meyer and his wife Mary Ann also received $485,000 for "willful damage" to cherry, apricot, and peach crops. (11) The threat to farming by fluoride pollution can be visualized if we realize that Polk County, which was Florida's leading cattle producer in 1954 with 120,000 head, had some 30,000 fewer cattle by 1965. Fluoride emissions from phosphate plants on pastures were building up toxic levels as high as 1800 ppm in the grass and other forage. The official maximum allowable concentration for cattle is 40 PPM, (12) but even this level permits significant damage. (13) Human Health. When human health was at stake, the spectre of these damage suits became even more ominous for the corporations. In the 1955 suit Paul M. Martin and his wife Verla vs. Reynolds Metals, it was proved for the first time in the United States that fumes from an aluminum reduction plant had caused illness to humans. (14) The significance of this litigation is underscored by the fact that seven other aluminum, metal, and chemical companies joined Reynolds Metals as "friends of the court" to obtain a reversal of the judgement against their fellow corporation. Fred Yerke, a Reynolds attorney, "contended that, if allowed to stand, the verdict would become a ruling case, making every aluminum and chemical plant liable to damage claims merely by operating." (15) The verdict did stand: in June 1958, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the decision against Reynolds by a five to one vote. (16) Finally, in 1968, the company settled the case by buying the Martin ranch - a solution to the problem that has been followed by other corporations. Another suit involving human health threatened the Rocky Mountain phosphate plant in Garrison, Montana, when residents complained constantly of "strep" throats, burning eyes, and asthmatic symptoms which they associated with fumes emanating from the plant. Classes of the Garrison school were interrupted 35 times during the first year of the plant's operation (1963-1964) because of fluoride fumes. That fluoride was the chief culprit became evident when ranchers observed: their cows suffered from mottled teeth (Fig. 17-1) and legs so stiff and painful that they had to graze on their knees (Fig. 17-2). Samples of vegetation near the stack fallout showed fluoride concentrations several thousand times the usual levels. (17) In spite of the installation of pollution control equipment, the plant had to be shut down repeatedly. Finally, the factory discontinued operation altogether for reasons unrelated to the pollution problem. In another part of the country, a jury decided on March 13, 1972, in favor of P. G. and P. N. Barci, father and son, in the suit of Barci vs. Intalco Aluminum Company of Ferndale, Washington, because of damage to cattle, trees, and to human health. A lung specialist from Spokane testified that P. G. Barci suffered from pulmonary fibrosis, a permanent lung disease which had completely disabled him. (18) About two years later, the same aluminum company lost a $130,500 fluoride emission suit to Ray and Helen Freeman, who resided a mile away from the plant on Lake Terrell. (19) THE SOLUTION These are but a few of the numerous law suits highlighting the magnitude of environmental damage by fluoride. Ironically, the expenditures I have discussed are small compared to the cost of installing effective air-cleaning equipment. For instance, by 1957 the United States Steel Corporation's Columbia-Geneva Division's plant in Provo, Utah, had spent $9 million to install electrostatic precipitators and other anti-pollution devices. The same company had previously been faced with nearly 900 damage claims totaling approximately $4.5 million. (20) Unfortunately, even high-priced air-cleaning equipment does not solve the problem, since fluoride scrubbed from chimneys does not disappear; it has to be washed onto the land or into rivers and lakes and eventually creates further difficulties. Dismayed by the prospect of continuous litigation and fearful of recognition of widespread damage to human health, corporations initiated extensive research programs to convince communities and the courts that small amounts of fluorine are not harmful to man. They collaborated with scientists at leading universities and at industrial research laboratories. One of these temples of learning is the Mellon Institute in Pittsburgh, Pa., founded by Andrew W. and Richard B. Mellon, the former owners of the Aluminum Company of America. LIFE magazine of May 9, 1938, described the Mellon Institute as an "Intellectual holding company and a laboratory for applied science open to the US businessman" where every possible resource and piece of equipment is available to industry. Such varied subjects as shaving, cigarette technology, or insecticides could be studied to improve products or to find new uses for them. LIFE added: "When a manufacturer is in trouble, for example, he finds the market for his goods is shrinking, he goes to the Institute. For $6,000 or more he gets a fellowship entitling him to employ a scientist for a year and use laboratory facilities. When the research is satisfactorily completed, all discoveries are turned over to the manufacturer exclusively." (21) Thus, findings incriminating to the corporations need not be published or presented to the medical and veterinary professions. Whereas the Mellon Institute was the most logical place to seek aid in their precarious plight, corporations also sought help from other institutions of higher learning, especially the Universities of Tennessee, Cincinnati, and Wisconsin, all of which received large research grants to create a favorable climate of opinion for fluoride. Between 1940 and 1960, a flood of scientific reports issued from these institutions, which acknowledged the receipt of financial support from nine corporations, several of whom had been dumping fluoride into the environment. (22) One of the scientists engaged in research at the Mellon Institute, Gerald J. Cox, a biochemist, was to play a major role in promoting fluoridation. (23) Some of his research had suggested to him that fluoride "may be specifically required for tooth formation." (24) He therefore recommended that it be added to water supplies as a means of reducing tooth decay. (25) On September 29, 1939, Cox told the Western Pennsylvania Section of the American Water Works Association meeting at Johnstown that "the present trend toward complete removal of fluorine from water and food may need some reversal." Cox's term "reversal" referred to the fact that water works engineers had been recommending 0. 1 PPM as the maximum level of fluoride in drinking water because they felt that at least a tenfold margin of safety should be maintained (Table 17-1 ). (26) Table 17-1 Recommended Maximum Levels of Ions in Water Used for Drinking and Cooking, 1939 (26) Ion Max. Level (ppm) Calcium 30 Magnesium 10 Lithium 5 Iron 0.5 Bicarbonate 150 Carbonate 20 Sulfate 100 Chloride 200 Iodide 0.01 Fluoride 0.1 At that time even the official USPHS regulations stated: "The presence of . . . fluoride in excess of 1 p.p.m...shall constitute ground for rejection of the water supply." (27) Because fluoride had been universally recognized as a toxic agent until then, Cox realized that water works officials might be held liable for poisoning people drinking fluoridated water. He therefore cautioned his audience: "Fluorides are among the most toxic of substances. Mottled enamel results from as little as 0.0001 percent of fluorine in drinking water [1 PPM] . The results on adults of drinking water containing sufficient fluoride to prevent dental caries in children must be determined." (25) Cox undeniably sensed The Great Dilemma right at the start. Cox's theory that fluoridated water could protect teeth against decay was based on his own experiments and on evidence provided in 1938 by W. D. Armstrong, professor of biochemistry at the University of Minnesota, and a consultant for the Dental Division of the PHS. In collaboration with P. J. Brekhus, Armstrong had reported more fluoride in enamel of healthy than in decayed teeth. (28) Twenty-five years later, however, his own reinvestigation convinced him that he had misinterpreted his early data, and he realized that the differences in the fluoride content between the sound and the carious teeth in his study were due to differences in the age of the teeth and did not reflect their susceptibility to decay. (29) Thus the basis of Cox's main argument for recommending the addition of fluorides to drinking water was later shown to have been wrong! In 1943, F. A. Arnold, Jr., of the National Institute of Dental Research in Bethesda, Maryland, took up Cox's suggestion. He advocated fluoridation in the Journal of the American Dental Associationon the basis of Cox's experiments, Dean's PHS surveys, and the Armstrong-Brekhus fluoride analyses of tooth enamel. Arnold stated: "The cumulative toxic effects on the body from ingestion of fluoride in this concentration is admitted to be a possibility. However, all things considered, such a possibility seems rather remote." (30) Even in 1946 he still maintained in his AAAS report that "such a procedure cannot be recommended for other than research purposes at the present time" and suggested a study which "may take 12-15 years before the final answer is clearly delineated." (31) In the early 1940s Cox had an excellent opportunity to introduce his idea to scientists when he became a member of the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council (23) and prepared for this illustrious body several pro-fluoridation summaries of the literature on dental caries. Through this organization, with its close link between industry and government, he was able to influence many scientists... Cox lost no time in implementing his project. On September 20, 1939, five years before Newburgh and Grand Rapids experiments were initiated, and at the very time when he first suggested the fluoridation idea to the water engineers in Johnstown, he recommended fluoridation for that city; (25) however, his proposal was rejected. Subsequently he promoted the measure more successfully before chemical and dental organizations, parent-teacher associations, and city councils. Nevertheless, Cox's research at the Mellon Institute and his political activities fell short of relieving the aluminum industry of its distressing plight. ALCOA also tackled its fluoride pollution problem on another front, namely through the Kettering Laboratory in Cincinnati. This institute was founded in 1930 by gifts of the Ethyl Corporation, General Motors' Frigidaire subsidiary, and the duPont Company to investigate chemical hazards in American industrial operations. Like the Mellon Institute, it has made many valuable scientific contributions. Its 1955 budget of $643,000 was funded by industry (about 90%) and most of the rest by government agencies. (33) Dr. Robert A. Kehoe, its first chief, one of the nation's leading industrial toxicologists, personified the close link between PHS and industry since he was Medical Director of the Ethyl Corporation and a consultant of the Division of Occupational Medicine of the PHS, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and tile Atomic Energy Commission. He and his staff have also been consulted almost routinely by editors of medical journals as to the suitability of articles submitted for publication and have thus given industry a foothold in influencing the medical literature on fluoride. Kehoe and his colleagues at Kettering also played a key role in developing government standards to prevent lead poisoning in industry. These standards have subsequently been criticized severely because they were far too lax. (34) Since 1931 a considerable portion of the Kettering Laboratory's facilities has been devoted to the study of fluoride, particularly the refrigerant gas Freon 12. Like the Mellon Institute's findings, those of the Kettering Laboratory are made available to the professions and to the public only upon approval of the industrial donor of the grant. Article 8 of one of the contract agreements between the Aluminum Company of America and the Laboratory specified that the University of Cincinnati shall "disseminate for the public good any information obtained. However, before the issuance of public reports or scientific publications, the manuscripts thereof will be submitted to the Donor for criticism and suggestions. Confidential information obtained from the Donor shall not be published without permission of said Donor." (35) The corporations were allowed to interpret the term "confidential information." One can only guess how much valuable research has been lost to the medical profession because of these agreements. During the mid-20th century, the research that issued from the Kettering Laboratory dominated the medical literature on the toxicology of fluoride. Among its most useful products in the area of fluoride research were the abstracts and an annotated bibliography prepared by Irene R. Campbell covering the literature on fluoride through 1971. (36, 37) Although written mostly by proponents, many scientific articles in Campbell's annotated bibliography reveal serious health hazards of fluoride even in small amounts and at low concentrations. It is impossible to understand, therefore, how Kehoe could state publicly in March 1957 that "the question of the public safety of fluoridation is nonexistent from the viewpoint of medical science." (38) Kettering Institute scientist E. J. Largent, who subsequently became consultant for Reynolds Metals Company, has written a book entitled Fluorosis: The Health Aspects of Fluorine Compounds, which was expressly designed, as indicated on its jacket, to "aid industry in law suits arising from fluoride damage." This book has been used as a reference source by many physicians and health organizations and strongly supports the use of fluoride in drinking water and discounts or minimizes its toxicological effects: "in recent years additional surveys of information have been reported that establish again and again the complete safety of fluoridating drinking water." (39) ..... (from page 311-314) Interestingly, the corporations that originally sponsored fluoridation rarely promoted their product publicly. In 1950-1951 ALCOA had explicitly advertised sodium fluoride "of a uniform high degree of purity" for addition to water supplies in the Journal of the American Water Works Association (61). On May 22, 1957, however, ALCOA's Chemical Sales Manager, H.P. Bonebrake, stated in a letter to C.A. Barden of Oberlin, Ohio, that his firm was not promoting fluoride for water fluoridation or selling it "directly to any municipality." Nevertheless, Hearings on Fluoridation before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, suggest that ALOCA was the driving force behind fluoridation: In 1944 Oscar Ewing was put on the payroll of the Aluminum Company of America, as attorney, at an annual salary of $750,000. This fact was established at a Senate hearing and became a part of the Congressional Record. Since the Aluminum Co. had no big litigation pending at the time, the question might logically be asked, why such a large fee? A few months thereafter Mr. Ewing was made Federal Security Administrator with the announcement that he was taking a big salary cut in order to serve his country. (62)   It was Ewing, as chief of the PHS, who officially gave the green light to fluoridation only five years after the initiation of the 10 to 15-year experiments in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Newburgh, New York. At that time the permanent teeth of children born under fluoridation had not yet erupted, and therefore no reliable scientific conclusions concerning its benefits could possibly have been reached. Prior to Ewing's tenure of office in the federal government, Andrew Mellon, the founder of ALCOA, had been the U.S. Treasurer. The PHS was then in the Department of the Treasury. One can only speculate concerning Mr. Mellon's role as protector of his company. Nor can it be ascertained whether or not such scientists as Knutson, Dean, Russell, and their colleagues in the Dental Division of the PHS, were in any way influenced in their desire to please their boss, Oscar Ewing. This thought is bound to occur to anyone who is familiar with governmental agencies; it is also driven home clearly by the Watergate affair. When decisions are made at the top level -be they right or wrong -it is not easy for government employees to report "corruption, waste, or regulatory abuse." The consequences: "Too often they are characterized as troublemakers, then are fired, frozen out of promotions or subjected to personal harassment for the rest of their careers."" Industry's vital role in promoting fluoridation cannot be doubted nor can the leadership of ALCOA be denied in this affair. In carefully orchestrated harmony, industry, science, and the PHS collaborated in a plan that instituted a health procedure touching virtually everyone in America. Enormous research activity produced a mountain of evidence-much positive-that fluoridation was the long-sought answer to our dental health care problems. But what of the serious problems discovered? Why were they obscured, discounted, or simply ignored? If we examine the fluoride literature closely to determine how much of it was supported or generated by industry and/or the PHS, we shall find the answers to our questions. We shall also understand some of the reasons why scientists, physicians, and dentists are generally ignorant of the true consequences of fluoridation. REFERENCES 1. Water Boom for Fluorides. Chemical Week, July 7, 1951, p. 14. 2. Davenport, S.J., and Morris, G.G.: US Bureau of Mines. Circular 7687, US Dept. of Interior, June 1954, p. 8. 3. Oregon Rancher Asks $200,000 of Aluminum Co. Seattle Times, Dec. 16, 1952. 4. Food Machinery and Chemical Corporation vs. W.S. Meader and May Meader, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth District, Aug. 25, 1961. 5. Ost, H.: Der Kampf gegen schadliche Industriegase. Z. Angew. Chem., 20:1689-1693, 1907. 6. The So-Called Copper Teeth of Cattle. Br. Dent. J., 28:141-142, 1907. 7. Damages Awarded for Crop Burns. Lewiston (Idaho) Morning Tribune, Feb. 6,1962. 8. Jury Decides Alcoa Liability Ended in 1955. Knoxville (Tenn.) Journal, May 7, 1958. 9. Alcoa Sued for Nearly $3 Million. Knoxville (Tenn.) Journal, July 30. 1955. 10. Sauvies Island. Portland (Oregon) Reporter, June 26, 1962. 11. Harvey Loses Fluoride Case. Hood River (Oregon) News, Oct. 29, 1970. 12. Lewis, H.R.: With Every Breath You Take. Crown Publishers, Inc.. New York, 1965, pp. 110-111. 13. Gordon, C.C., and Tourangeau, P.C.: The Impact of Fluoride on the Farmlands of Buckeystown, Maryland, Caused by the Eastalco Aluminum Smelter (cover title). Environmental Studies Laboratory, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont., February, 1977. 14. Three Win in Fume Suit. The Oregonian (Portland), Sept. 17, 1955. 15. Seven Enter Fluoride Case. The Oregonian (Portland), Oct. 15, 1957. 16. Aluminum Firm Loses Appeal in Poison Case. Cleveland (Ohio) Press. June 6, 1958. 17. Smog Battle Ends in Montana Town. New York Times, Sept. 17, 1967. 18. Park, R.: The Intalco Trial. Northwest Passage, Bellingham, Wash., March 20 - April 2, 1972, p. 9. 19. Intalco's Fluoride Emissions Exceed State Standards, Manager Tells Jury. Bellingham (Wash.) Herald, Jan. 17, 1974. Jury Awards Damages from Intalco. Ibid., Jan. 27, 1974. 20. Utah Steel Mill Curbs Pollution. New York Times, Nov. 10, 1957. 21. Science Means Business in This Grecian Temple. LIFE, May 9, 1938, p. 48. 22. Aluminum Co. of America; American Petroleum Institute; E.I. du Pont de Nemours Co.; The Harshaw Chemical Co.; Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp.; Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Co.; Reynolds Metals Co.; Tennessee Valley Authority; and Universal Oil Products Co. 23. Institute Hill PTA to Discuss Fluoridation. Butler (Pa.) Eagle, Jan. 28, 1959. 24. Cox, G.J.: Experimental Dental Caries. I. Nutrition in Relation to the Development of Dental Caries. Dental Rays, 13:8-10, 1937. 25. Cox, G.J.: New Knowledge of Fluorine in Relation to Dental Caries. J. Am. Water Works Assoc., 31:1926-1930, 1939. 26. Babbit, H.E., and Doland, J.J.: Quality of Water Supplies in Water Supply Engineering. 3rd Edition, McGraw Hill, New York, 1939, p. 454. 27. USPHS: Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards. Public Health Rep. 58:69-111, 1943 (at p. 80). 28. Armstrong, W.D., and Brekhus, P.J.: Possible Relationship between the Fluorine Content of Enamel and Resistance to Dental Caries. J. Dent. Res., 17:393-399, 1938. 29. Armstrong, W.D., and Singer, L.: Fluoride Contents of Enamel of Sound and Carious Human Teeth: A Reinvestigation. J. Dent. Res., 42:133-136,1963. 30. Arnold, F.A., Jr.: Role of Fluorides in Preventive Dentistry. J. Am. Dent. Assoc., 30:499-508, 1943. 31. Arnold, F.A., Jr.: The Possibility of Reducing Dental Caries by Increasing Fluoride Ingestion, in F.R. Moulton, Ed.: Dental Caries and Fluorine, 1946, pp. 99-107, and p. 105. 32. Doctor Appointed. Pittsburgh (Pa.) Post Gazette, April 4, 1962. 33. Testimony of Dr. R. Kehoe in Paul Martin Family vs. Reynolds Metals Corp., p. 960. 34. Bryce-Smith, D., and Waldron, H.A.: Lead in Food - Are Today's Regulations Sufficient? Chem. Brit., 10:202-206, 1974. 35. Contract Agreement Between Aluminum Co. of America and U. of Cincinnati, signed by N.P. Auburn, Vice-President and Dean of Administration (April 30. 1947). Testimony McCarthy vs. The Cincinnati Enquirer, 1956. 36. Campbell, I.R., and Widner, E.M.: Annotated Bibliography: The Occurrence and Biological Effects of Fluorine Compounds. The Kettering Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1958. 37. Fluoride Abstracts. Supplement to Annotated Bibliography The Occurrence and Biological Effects of Fluorine Compounds. The Kettering Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1955-1971. 38. "Our Children's Teeth," Report to the Mayor and the Board of Estimate of the City of New York by the Committee to Protect Our Children's Teeth, Inc., March 6, 1957. p. 27 39. Largent, E.J.: Fluorosis: The Health Aspects of Fluorine Compounds. 1961, p. 73. 61. High Purity ALCOA Sodium Fluoride for the Fluoridation of Water. J. Am. Water Works. Assoc., 42:5, 1950; Fluoridate Your Water with Confidence. Use High Purity ALCOA Sodium Fluoride. Ibid., 43: 45, 1951. 62. Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Eighty-Third Congress, Second Session on H.R. 2341, May 25, 26, and 27, 1954, p. 51. 63. When Workers Blow Whistle on Federal Waste, Fraud. U.S. News and World Report, Dec. 19, 1977, p. 55.