0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
238 Ansichten1 Seite
The story of how aspartame was discovered and approved by the FDA has been pieced together over the years through documents obtained by Mission Possible. That aspartame overcame FDA neurotoxicity concerns and is now found in over 7,000 commonly consumed foods, beverages and medical preparations is a case study of how power politics trumps science and public safety in the product approval process.
In one set of documents, aspartame producer G.D. Searle used poor people from six third-world countries as test subjects for a study conducted in 1983/84. The data shows that, over the 18-month duration of the study, some of the subjects developed brain tumors; others began to experience seizures. In one case, a pregnant woman spontaneously aborted, began hemorrhaging and then disappeared from the study.
The study showed that the numbers of people whose brains and central nervous systems are adversely affected by aspartame are statistically significant enough to warrant a review of its status as an FDA-approved artificial sweetener. But the FDA was not provided with the results of the Searle study nor was it allowed to review the clinical data.
A study was done at Kings College in England by Dr. Peter Nunn in 1999 on aspartame and brain tumors. Monsanto insisted that aspartame could not cause brain tumors because it doesn't get in the blood stream even though Martini says industry's own studies shows it does and released this information in a report...
http://www.wnho.net/fda_study_asp_brain_tumors.htm
The story of how aspartame was discovered and approved by the FDA has been pieced together over the years through documents obtained by Mission Possible. That aspartame overcame FDA neurotoxicity concerns and is now found in over 7,000 commonly consumed foods, beverages and medical preparations is a case study of how power politics trumps science and public safety in the product approval process.
In one set of documents, aspartame producer G.D. Searle used poor people from six third-world countries as test subjects for a study conducted in 1983/84. The data shows that, over the 18-month duration of the study, some of the subjects developed brain tumors; others began to experience seizures. In one case, a pregnant woman spontaneously aborted, began hemorrhaging and then disappeared from the study.
The study showed that the numbers of people whose brains and central nervous systems are adversely affected by aspartame are statistically significant enough to warrant a review of its status as an FDA-approved artificial sweetener. But the FDA was not provided with the results of the Searle study nor was it allowed to review the clinical data.
A study was done at Kings College in England by Dr. Peter Nunn in 1999 on aspartame and brain tumors. Monsanto insisted that aspartame could not cause brain tumors because it doesn't get in the blood stream even though Martini says industry's own studies shows it does and released this information in a report...
http://www.wnho.net/fda_study_asp_brain_tumors.htm
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Verfügbare Formate
Als RTF, PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
The story of how aspartame was discovered and approved by the FDA has been pieced together over the years through documents obtained by Mission Possible. That aspartame overcame FDA neurotoxicity concerns and is now found in over 7,000 commonly consumed foods, beverages and medical preparations is a case study of how power politics trumps science and public safety in the product approval process.
In one set of documents, aspartame producer G.D. Searle used poor people from six third-world countries as test subjects for a study conducted in 1983/84. The data shows that, over the 18-month duration of the study, some of the subjects developed brain tumors; others began to experience seizures. In one case, a pregnant woman spontaneously aborted, began hemorrhaging and then disappeared from the study.
The study showed that the numbers of people whose brains and central nervous systems are adversely affected by aspartame are statistically significant enough to warrant a review of its status as an FDA-approved artificial sweetener. But the FDA was not provided with the results of the Searle study nor was it allowed to review the clinical data.
A study was done at Kings College in England by Dr. Peter Nunn in 1999 on aspartame and brain tumors. Monsanto insisted that aspartame could not cause brain tumors because it doesn't get in the blood stream even though Martini says industry's own studies shows it does and released this information in a report...
http://www.wnho.net/fda_study_asp_brain_tumors.htm
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Verfügbare Formate
Als RTF, PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
soft-drink business. And nagging questions about aspartame's safety are a constant worry. Notes Robert W. Kirkpatrick, an analyst for Duff & Phelps Inc.: "You have to wonder whether some new study is going to make the Food & Drug Administration more cautious" about aspartame. ' POLITICAL AMBITIONS. The , y low and sell high. That simple family undoubtedly will receive a premium be- ~xiom appears to be the driving force cause of aspartame's c~rrent bullish prospects. behind the Searle family's And by selling out at the height of the decision to cash sweetener's in theirthe popularity, 34'1<· familyinterest may in G. D. Searle & Co., the command a better price for its lackluster Skokie (Ill.) core phar- maceutic'al andbusiness pharmaceutical consumer thanproducts it would companyotherwise founded get. by their great-greatgrandfather To rejuvenate Searle's maturing prescription nearly a century drug line, ago. Rumsfeld has poured more than $500 The Searles' million into R&LJ, desire built to diversify a $2;') million their research holdings, center, and probably by sellingand struck licensing thejoint-venture compa.ny, comes agreementson thewith heelsforeign of a major corporateAs a drugmakers.· restructuring result, Searleand hasthe explosive three new drug success of the at applications company's the Ffl.-\ andaspartame 11 products sVieetener, in clinical which trial. But the together drugmaker have haslifted yet to sales logtoany $946 million profits fromand its boosted the current market heavy development spending. value ]n of the family's fact, stock to $978from competition million, fromand generic $212 newmillion drugs se\'en and the years effectago.of the Somestronganalysts dollarbelieve Searle shares, on its overseas opera- which tions cutrecently Searle's solq at S58. could prescription drug fetch as much operating as $75 from earnings a chemical in half last year, or to pharmaceutical $95.8 million. company suitor. That A recovery in the drug price tag would operations put themay acquisition already be cost at $3.7 in the billion-the making, largestSearle's however. nonoil merger inearnings second-quarter history. Ui\lCOPlJFO~ii'Arsl~. more than doubled, to The :338.4 Searles have timed million, partlytheir sale carefully. because of higher "] think the famil~' sales. pharmaceutical had decided But neither to do this thelong Searle ago," familysa~'s nor James Rumsfeld R. Phelps, is likely formerly the com-to to be around pany's see how Searle's general counsel. it all turns disastrous out.One Rumsfeld, ,vii" reason couldadmits be to having politicalperformance ambitions, iswhen rumored it was to be under a possibledirect family successor management. to Secretary At theof State instigation George Shultz of then-chief in executi\'e a second DanielReaganC. Searle, UNDER thePRESIDENT Administration. company [g] \\'ent on a SALES RUMSFELD. di\'ersification OF bingeNUTRASWEET with un- ROCKETED TO $336 MILLION I profitable results. Says a former insider: ,.] sweeteners, such as Hoechst's acesulfame, as don't well think as those theunderSearles were ever development by real I~' & Procter comfortable Gamble Co. managing and Pfizer theInc. business." To Many turn things industryaround, the family watchers in 1977that believe recruited currently formerbanned Defense Secretary Donald cyclamates-which H. a sell for Rumsfeld as president. fraction of aspartame's cost-eould While Rumsfeld's massive pruning of operations and staff have improved earnings dllamatically and revitalized Searle's pharmaceutical research and develop- Illent effort, the company's fortunes now ride most heavilJ.',..on its aspartame sweetener, marketed bnder the brand name N utraSweet. After only two years on the market, sales of the noncaloric sweetening agent rocketed to $336 million and are expected to reach $1 billion CiS DEE· next year. "Right now, it's the peak of the market," says David Saks, an independent health "The careester acquisition E. of securities Coleman, Agrigenetics researcher. the is soft-spoken "There likeisa 10- no year jump competition, chemist fortheus,"who isis chairman says Coleman.Indeed, price hig-h, demand of the Lubrizol is purchaseCorp., incredible-if capseverareadily seriesof therevolunteers moves was aimed that atmarket, a seller's exploiting this the $800biotechnology is it." to develop plant million specialty-chemical maker is a varieties that can conservative By selling out provide now, thea But outfit. major Searles new the cansource of lowprofile collect raw on materials producer aspartame's of for oil the chemical additives dazzling company. is not potential-yet holdingavoid Lubri- back the as zol's risks first farof foray ashaving into biotechnology to biotechnology fulfill it.isThe concerned.was the company's Over newthe purchase owner, five past however, few years years it ago could has ofquietly face athreats 25%bought share fromin stakes in other Genentech Inc., but sincestartups. several biotechnology then it has Now narrowed it is taking itsasights majortoplungeplant biotechnology with the $50 with million the purchase goal of developing of debt-ridden new types of plant oils. Agrigenetics "Weasee Corp., this Boulder whole(Colo.) as a sourcethat area company of specialty specializes chemicals,in using at biotechnology the same time having to improve a base of crops.