(blog à finir et à corriger)
Et, où en reparle de l'extraction de gaz de schiste.......en Angleterre.
(source : The Guardian,
Good luck, England !
Et, l'on continue sur l'art et la manière dont nos politiques font le lit des maladies qui emporteront leur citoyen.
Merci, América !
(source : Minds.com)
Sources:
http://www.sweetpoison.com/aspartame-side-effects.html
http://rense.com/general33/legal.htm
http://dorway.com/
Mais, que fais-je, mes chers cinq lecteurs, je cause en Anglais ou en américain.
Ah, mon Dieu, quelle horreur, moi, qui me fait un point d'honneur de défendre la langue française.
Que fais-je là !!!!!!!
Et, où en reparle de l'extraction de gaz de schiste.......en Angleterre.
(source : The Guardian,
Fracking the nation: the dash for gas beneath rural Britain
With
inland gas reserves said to be enough to meet the UK's needs for 25
years, even the most picturesque of places are being eyed up by
prospectors
From this to this … ?
The village of Compton Martin in Somerset, left, and a Cuadrilla shale
gas drilling rig near Blackpool. Photograph: Adrian
Sherratt/Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
Compton Martin is not the most obvious place to have a conversation about drilling for gas,
and what's already happening in US states such as Texas, Oklahoma and
Ohio. It sits on the northern edge of the Mendip Hills, in the famously
picturesque Chew Valley. It may say something about the place that it
still has a functioning village water pump.
At a bus stop, I meet two local mums: Chloe Mann, 35, and Sarah Kirwan, 39. "It's quiet little village," says Mann, a mother of two who works part-time at a law firm. "It feels like a lovely little enclave of the countryside. We always feel like it's Hobbitshire – a green valley where nothing happens."
But something big may be about to. Since 2008, in partnership with an Australian firm called Eden Energy, a Welsh company named UK Methane has owned Petroleum Exploration and Development Licenses that cover large swathes of countryside south of Bristol, some of which sits on top of the old North Somerset coalfield. In March this year, the firm's director, one Gerwyn Williams, publicly announced that he was interested in test-drilling for gas in Compton Martin, and the nearby village of Ston Easton.
If successful, this could be followed by the extraction of coalbed methane, a controversial practice related to "fracking", the notorious business of producing gas via hydraulic fracturing of shale deposits. In fact, coalbed methane extraction can itself involve fracking techniques – and in any case, if sufficient gas is discovered, the fracking of local shale could eventually follow.
Both possibilities are the focus of noisy hostility, here and elsewhere. Despite official reassurances about its safety, shale-fracking has been linked to earthquakes, water contaminated with pollutants such as arsenic and lead, noise pollution, and more. For similar reasons, coalbed methane extraction is maligned by eco-activists as its "evil twin". Possible evidence for such claims is not hard to find: as I discover when I pitch up at a local meeting organised by a group called Frack Free Somerset, many campaigners point to the increasingly renowned case of Tara in south-west Queensland, Australia, where residents have reported no end of worrying phenomena since coalbed methane extraction began there. Not just gas leaking into local rivers, but an array of health problems from headaches and nosebleeds to skin rashes.
The conversations I have with people here suggest a weird mixture of The Archers and Dallas. "This is an area of outstanding natural beauty, so I can't see how they're getting away with it," says Compton Martin's sub-postmaster, Ray Stewart, who runs a post office that is almost surreally tiny. He then sounds a note of ambivalence. "But we need energy, do we not? We all use it."
I bump into Kim Russell, 55, about 50 yards away, who is climbing on to a fearsome-looking motorcycle. "I don't agree with it," he tells me. "The amount of pollution fracking creates, and the stories you read about water suddenly catching fire and all that. And anyway, the community won't benefit."
Put simply, Britain is in the midst of a dash for gas. In this week's comprehensive spending review, George Osborne re-affirmed the government's support for new inshore gas exploration; March this year saw the creation of a new Office of Unconventional Oil and Gas. And all around the country, prospectors are scouting for new gas fields, amid talk of untapped resources that could supposedly meet a large share of the UK's energy needs for decades to come.
Fracking has become a media byword for all this, but "unconventional gas" actually encompasses three processes. Fracking itself uses a technique whereby deep wells are drilled into underground shale deposits, and pumped with water, laced with sand and chemical agents – which fractures the rocks, and releases natural gas (along with lots of contaminated H20, often in the form of a residual sludge).
Coalbed methane extraction is a related method, which is actually at a more advanced stage in the UK. It involves the drilling of wells into coal seams followed by the pumping out of water, which results in gas being released by the coal, and being brought to the surface. Lastly, there is the so-called underground coal gasification now proposed for – among other places – an area beneath Swansea Bay in west Wales, which involves the partial burning of subterranean coal deposits.
A protest against fracking in Lancashire in 2011. Photograph: Alamy
All three are part of a huge, ongoing story. After the infamous
events of April and May and 2011, when two earth tremors in the
Blackpool area were blamed on test fracking and operations were stopped,
the most high-profile unconventional gas project is once again focused
on the Bowland basin in Lancashire, where the energy firm Cuadrilla aims
to frack for shale gas, and has just sold a 25% stake in its operations
to the gas conglomerate Centrica, formerly British Gas, for £40m.
In the commuter-belt village of Balcombe in West Sussex, Cuadrilla is set to begin test-drilling for shale oil and gas. Small-scale production of coalbed methane is already happening near Warrington in Cheshire, where a pilot project is also using gas to generate electricity. The Australian firm Dart Energy has applied for planning permission for 14 coalbed methane wells and a network of pipelines near Falkirk, and is prospecting elsewhere in Scotland. Whole swathes of the British landscape, in fact, are now synonymous with exploration licences that run to 300, each of which has its own number: in and around Somerset, the ones to watch are 225, 226, 227 and 228.
And now there is a new twist. On Thursday, as reports suggested inland shale might hold enough untapped gas to meet the UK's needs for 25 years, it was confirmed that negotiations between the government and the United Kingdom Onshore Operators Group had resulted in a new "industry charter". Its key provisions mean that if new gas is discovered, "local communities" could receive financial benefits: £100,000 for every well that is fracked as part of exploration, and 1% of revenues if things prove to be commercially viable. Thus far, this is only envisaged as applying to shale gas. When it comes to coalbed methane, the official line – given to me by an industry insider – runs as follows: "It is true that coalbed methane can be hydraulically fractured, but it has not been done in the UK, and there are no plans to do so. But if there were, coalbed methane would be included in the scheme."
Fracking, it should be noted, has been widely used on coalbed methane deposits in Australia and the US. So as well as the possible arrival of rigs and tankers, perhaps small villages in the Mendip Hills may yet see a modest financial windfall.
The business economics of unconventional gas are interesting indeed. Prospecting is often done by small, unknown companies, whose apparent aim is to interest bigger firms, and then sell them stakes in full-blown production. UK Methane is a perfect case in point: apparently based on an industrial estate in Bridgend, it has no listed telephone number. When I phone a mobile number for its boss given to me by an anti-fracking activist, a nervous-sounding voice answers, and suggests I send an email to a bog-standard BT Internet address.
I do as I'm told, seeking information about the company's plans for Compton Martin, Ston Easton, and the nearby town of Keynsham. The reply reads as follows: "Hello John, We are in the middle of a corporate transaction at present so I am unable to comment. Everything is fluid. Once I am in a position to be able to make some firm decisions I will call you. Best regards, Gerwyn."
What he seems to be referring to is the recent selling of the Australian energy firm Eden Energy's stake in British gas exploration – which includes its share of the action in the West Country – to a new UK firm called Shale Energy. The price was £10m, £750,000 of which is to be paid in cash, with £6m in Shale Energy shares, and two lots of £1.6m, to be paid when any gas discovered reaches first 500bn cubic feet, and then a trillion cubic feet. Such are the weird economics of unconventional gas, and numbers that tend to dance in front of your eyes.
The town of Keynsham is 13 miles from Compton Martin. In August last year, UK Methane announced that it was about to apply for planning consent to commence test-drilling for gas in another unlikely location: a patch of local land next to a roundabout on the Bristol ring-road. Thus began a saga that seemed to have reached an uneasy pause last December, when the company withdrew its application, claiming that the level of information being requested from it was "far higher than that for any other previous planning application that we have been involved with". It is now set on applying for what it calls "full production permission", though when that might happen is unclear.
"I don’t think they understand the fight they’re getting into with
the environmental lobby' … anti-fracking campaigner Laura Corfield.
Photograph: Adrian Sherratt
Watching all this closely is a coalition of local organisations, and a
core of activists. One of them is 28-year-old Laura Corfield, who runs
an eco-oriented social enterprise called Shift Bristol. I meet her in a
cafe on the high street. "People have described UK Methane as a company
of two guys in a broom cupboard," she says. "For a while we were like,
'Are they playing games? Are they really super-clever?' But actually,
I don't think there's anything hidden. At one point, they gave us their
mobile telephone numbers. I don't think they understand the fight
they're getting into with the environmental lobby. And now, they're not
saying anything at all."
What will happen as and when they apply for full-blown gas production? "If they've had that much trouble for just a test bore-hole, the reaction they'd get to that would be monumental. I actually think it would make our job easier if they come back with a bigger proposal."
Unlike Compton Martin, I suggest, Keynsham looks like the kind of place that might appreciate an injection of funds as part of a future gas deal. And if that was proposed, it might make things more uncertain, mightn't it? "Yes," she says. "People are either actually strapped for cash or very fearful of being strapped for cash. I think they might find security in something like that. It's a bargaining chip, isn't it? It makes the decision harder for people. I guess we'll just have to find somebody that can crunch the calculations."
The third site in which UK Methane seems to be interested is in Ston Easton, a sleepy hamlet close to the old Somerset mining town of Midsomer Norton. There is not much here, apart from the Church of St Mary the Virgin, a luxury hotel currently offering an al fresco ballet show, and a smattering of farms.
One belongs to Jonny and Tom Osborne, 48 and 46 respectively, whose dairy and sheep farm has been in their family for three generations. I meet them midway through the morning, when Tom is seeing to a herd of sheep in a barn that backs on to gently undulating countryside. "Why destroy your environment for the sake of some gas, when you might cause so much damage?" he says. "They should just leave it alone."
"The ponds here are from a natural spring," says Jonny, pointing towards a large expanse of water in the middle distance. "In the farm over the way, they sink bore holes, to get water for the animals, direct from the water table. So you can see why we'd be worried about contamination. It's time we put something back in the land, not destroyed some more."
I wonder: would they feel any different if their village was offered money?
Tom lets loose a dismissive snort. "But how can you compensate people for what might be lost? That's just a bribe, isn't it?"
At a bus stop, I meet two local mums: Chloe Mann, 35, and Sarah Kirwan, 39. "It's quiet little village," says Mann, a mother of two who works part-time at a law firm. "It feels like a lovely little enclave of the countryside. We always feel like it's Hobbitshire – a green valley where nothing happens."
But something big may be about to. Since 2008, in partnership with an Australian firm called Eden Energy, a Welsh company named UK Methane has owned Petroleum Exploration and Development Licenses that cover large swathes of countryside south of Bristol, some of which sits on top of the old North Somerset coalfield. In March this year, the firm's director, one Gerwyn Williams, publicly announced that he was interested in test-drilling for gas in Compton Martin, and the nearby village of Ston Easton.
If successful, this could be followed by the extraction of coalbed methane, a controversial practice related to "fracking", the notorious business of producing gas via hydraulic fracturing of shale deposits. In fact, coalbed methane extraction can itself involve fracking techniques – and in any case, if sufficient gas is discovered, the fracking of local shale could eventually follow.
Both possibilities are the focus of noisy hostility, here and elsewhere. Despite official reassurances about its safety, shale-fracking has been linked to earthquakes, water contaminated with pollutants such as arsenic and lead, noise pollution, and more. For similar reasons, coalbed methane extraction is maligned by eco-activists as its "evil twin". Possible evidence for such claims is not hard to find: as I discover when I pitch up at a local meeting organised by a group called Frack Free Somerset, many campaigners point to the increasingly renowned case of Tara in south-west Queensland, Australia, where residents have reported no end of worrying phenomena since coalbed methane extraction began there. Not just gas leaking into local rivers, but an array of health problems from headaches and nosebleeds to skin rashes.
The conversations I have with people here suggest a weird mixture of The Archers and Dallas. "This is an area of outstanding natural beauty, so I can't see how they're getting away with it," says Compton Martin's sub-postmaster, Ray Stewart, who runs a post office that is almost surreally tiny. He then sounds a note of ambivalence. "But we need energy, do we not? We all use it."
I bump into Kim Russell, 55, about 50 yards away, who is climbing on to a fearsome-looking motorcycle. "I don't agree with it," he tells me. "The amount of pollution fracking creates, and the stories you read about water suddenly catching fire and all that. And anyway, the community won't benefit."
Put simply, Britain is in the midst of a dash for gas. In this week's comprehensive spending review, George Osborne re-affirmed the government's support for new inshore gas exploration; March this year saw the creation of a new Office of Unconventional Oil and Gas. And all around the country, prospectors are scouting for new gas fields, amid talk of untapped resources that could supposedly meet a large share of the UK's energy needs for decades to come.
Fracking has become a media byword for all this, but "unconventional gas" actually encompasses three processes. Fracking itself uses a technique whereby deep wells are drilled into underground shale deposits, and pumped with water, laced with sand and chemical agents – which fractures the rocks, and releases natural gas (along with lots of contaminated H20, often in the form of a residual sludge).
Coalbed methane extraction is a related method, which is actually at a more advanced stage in the UK. It involves the drilling of wells into coal seams followed by the pumping out of water, which results in gas being released by the coal, and being brought to the surface. Lastly, there is the so-called underground coal gasification now proposed for – among other places – an area beneath Swansea Bay in west Wales, which involves the partial burning of subterranean coal deposits.
A protest against fracking in Lancashire in 2011. Photograph: Alamy
All three are part of a huge, ongoing story. After the infamous
events of April and May and 2011, when two earth tremors in the
Blackpool area were blamed on test fracking and operations were stopped,
the most high-profile unconventional gas project is once again focused
on the Bowland basin in Lancashire, where the energy firm Cuadrilla aims
to frack for shale gas, and has just sold a 25% stake in its operations
to the gas conglomerate Centrica, formerly British Gas, for £40m.In the commuter-belt village of Balcombe in West Sussex, Cuadrilla is set to begin test-drilling for shale oil and gas. Small-scale production of coalbed methane is already happening near Warrington in Cheshire, where a pilot project is also using gas to generate electricity. The Australian firm Dart Energy has applied for planning permission for 14 coalbed methane wells and a network of pipelines near Falkirk, and is prospecting elsewhere in Scotland. Whole swathes of the British landscape, in fact, are now synonymous with exploration licences that run to 300, each of which has its own number: in and around Somerset, the ones to watch are 225, 226, 227 and 228.
And now there is a new twist. On Thursday, as reports suggested inland shale might hold enough untapped gas to meet the UK's needs for 25 years, it was confirmed that negotiations between the government and the United Kingdom Onshore Operators Group had resulted in a new "industry charter". Its key provisions mean that if new gas is discovered, "local communities" could receive financial benefits: £100,000 for every well that is fracked as part of exploration, and 1% of revenues if things prove to be commercially viable. Thus far, this is only envisaged as applying to shale gas. When it comes to coalbed methane, the official line – given to me by an industry insider – runs as follows: "It is true that coalbed methane can be hydraulically fractured, but it has not been done in the UK, and there are no plans to do so. But if there were, coalbed methane would be included in the scheme."
Fracking, it should be noted, has been widely used on coalbed methane deposits in Australia and the US. So as well as the possible arrival of rigs and tankers, perhaps small villages in the Mendip Hills may yet see a modest financial windfall.
The business economics of unconventional gas are interesting indeed. Prospecting is often done by small, unknown companies, whose apparent aim is to interest bigger firms, and then sell them stakes in full-blown production. UK Methane is a perfect case in point: apparently based on an industrial estate in Bridgend, it has no listed telephone number. When I phone a mobile number for its boss given to me by an anti-fracking activist, a nervous-sounding voice answers, and suggests I send an email to a bog-standard BT Internet address.
I do as I'm told, seeking information about the company's plans for Compton Martin, Ston Easton, and the nearby town of Keynsham. The reply reads as follows: "Hello John, We are in the middle of a corporate transaction at present so I am unable to comment. Everything is fluid. Once I am in a position to be able to make some firm decisions I will call you. Best regards, Gerwyn."
What he seems to be referring to is the recent selling of the Australian energy firm Eden Energy's stake in British gas exploration – which includes its share of the action in the West Country – to a new UK firm called Shale Energy. The price was £10m, £750,000 of which is to be paid in cash, with £6m in Shale Energy shares, and two lots of £1.6m, to be paid when any gas discovered reaches first 500bn cubic feet, and then a trillion cubic feet. Such are the weird economics of unconventional gas, and numbers that tend to dance in front of your eyes.
The town of Keynsham is 13 miles from Compton Martin. In August last year, UK Methane announced that it was about to apply for planning consent to commence test-drilling for gas in another unlikely location: a patch of local land next to a roundabout on the Bristol ring-road. Thus began a saga that seemed to have reached an uneasy pause last December, when the company withdrew its application, claiming that the level of information being requested from it was "far higher than that for any other previous planning application that we have been involved with". It is now set on applying for what it calls "full production permission", though when that might happen is unclear.
"I don’t think they understand the fight they’re getting into with
the environmental lobby' … anti-fracking campaigner Laura Corfield.
Photograph: Adrian Sherratt
Watching all this closely is a coalition of local organisations, and a
core of activists. One of them is 28-year-old Laura Corfield, who runs
an eco-oriented social enterprise called Shift Bristol. I meet her in a
cafe on the high street. "People have described UK Methane as a company
of two guys in a broom cupboard," she says. "For a while we were like,
'Are they playing games? Are they really super-clever?' But actually,
I don't think there's anything hidden. At one point, they gave us their
mobile telephone numbers. I don't think they understand the fight
they're getting into with the environmental lobby. And now, they're not
saying anything at all."What will happen as and when they apply for full-blown gas production? "If they've had that much trouble for just a test bore-hole, the reaction they'd get to that would be monumental. I actually think it would make our job easier if they come back with a bigger proposal."
Unlike Compton Martin, I suggest, Keynsham looks like the kind of place that might appreciate an injection of funds as part of a future gas deal. And if that was proposed, it might make things more uncertain, mightn't it? "Yes," she says. "People are either actually strapped for cash or very fearful of being strapped for cash. I think they might find security in something like that. It's a bargaining chip, isn't it? It makes the decision harder for people. I guess we'll just have to find somebody that can crunch the calculations."
The third site in which UK Methane seems to be interested is in Ston Easton, a sleepy hamlet close to the old Somerset mining town of Midsomer Norton. There is not much here, apart from the Church of St Mary the Virgin, a luxury hotel currently offering an al fresco ballet show, and a smattering of farms.
One belongs to Jonny and Tom Osborne, 48 and 46 respectively, whose dairy and sheep farm has been in their family for three generations. I meet them midway through the morning, when Tom is seeing to a herd of sheep in a barn that backs on to gently undulating countryside. "Why destroy your environment for the sake of some gas, when you might cause so much damage?" he says. "They should just leave it alone."
"The ponds here are from a natural spring," says Jonny, pointing towards a large expanse of water in the middle distance. "In the farm over the way, they sink bore holes, to get water for the animals, direct from the water table. So you can see why we'd be worried about contamination. It's time we put something back in the land, not destroyed some more."
I wonder: would they feel any different if their village was offered money?
Tom lets loose a dismissive snort. "But how can you compensate people for what might be lost? That's just a bribe, isn't it?"
Good luck, England !
Et, l'on continue sur l'art et la manière dont nos politiques font le lit des maladies qui emporteront leur citoyen.
Merci, América !
(source : Minds.com)
The Shocking Story of How Aspartame Became Legal
Joe Martino
January 19, 2013
Did you know that Aspartame was banned by the FDA twice? How is this product legal now?
The
bittersweet argument over whether Aspartame is safe or not has been
going on for a long time. On one side we have medical evidence that
suggests we should avoid using it and on the other side we lean on the
FDA’s approval that suggests it is safe. Since generally that seems to
be the factor that many continue to hold trust based upon, I thought we
could look into the Aspartame story to find out how it came to be
accepted as safe by the FDA. You would think that something so widely
used and so well accepted would have quite the pristine story leading to
its acceptance. I imagine one will discover otherwise after reading
this post.
It all starts in the mid
1960′s with a company called G.D. Searle. One of their chemists
accidentally creates aspartame while trying to create a cure
for stomach ulcers. Searle decides to put aspartame through a testing
process which eventually leads to its approval by the FDA. Not long
after, serious health affects begin to arise and G.D. Searle comes under
fire for their testing practices. It is revealed that the testing
process of Aspartame was among the worst the investigators had ever seen
and that in fact the product was unsafe for use. Aspartame triggers the
first criminal investigation of a manufacturer put into place by the
FDA in 1977. By 1980 the FDA bans aspartame from use after having
3 independent scientists study the sweetener. It was determined that one
main health effects was that it had a high chance of inducing brain
tumors. At this point it was clear that aspartame was not fit to be used
in foods and banned is where it stayed, but not for long.
Early
in 1981 Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld (who is a former Secretary of
Defense.. surprise surprise) vowed to “call in his markers,” to get it
approved. January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration,
Searle took the steps to re-apply aspartame’s approval for use by the
FDA. Ronald Reagans’ new FDA commissioner Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr.,
appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of
inquiry’s decision. It did not take long for the panel to decide 3-2 in
favor of maintaining the ban of aspartame. Hull then decided to appoint a
6th member to the board, which created a tie in the voting, 3-3. Hull
then decided to personally break the tie and approve aspartame for use.
Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly
as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with
Burston-Marsteller. Burstone-Marstella is the chief public relations
firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never
spoken publicly about aspartame.
It
is clear to this point that if anything the safety of aspartame is
incredibly shaky. It has already been through a process of being banned
and without the illegitimate un-banning of the product, it would not be
being used today. Makes you wonder how much corruption and money was
involved with names like Rumsfeld, Reagan and Hull involved so heavily.
In 1985, Monsanto decides to purchase the aspartame patent from G.D.
Searle. Remember that Arthur Hull now had the connection to Monsanto.
Monsanto did not seem too concerned with the past challenges and ugly
image aspartame had based on its past. I personally find this comical as
Monsanto’s products are banned in many countries and of all companies
to buy the product they seem to fit best as they are champions of
producing incredibly unsafe and untested products and making sure they
stay in the market place.
Since then,
aspartame has been under a lot of attack by scientists, doctors,
chemists and consumers about it’s safety and neurotoxic properties.
Piles of comprehensive studies have been completed that show aspartame
is a cause for over 90 serious health problems such as cancer, leukemia,
headaches, seizures, fibromyalgia, and epilepsy just to name a few. We
have written several articles discussing various affects of aspartame. Aspartame Leukemia Link. Aspartame and Brain Damage.
For a full timeline on aspartame’s legal and safety battles, expand the box below.Full Aspartame Timeline
Timeline
December 1965– While working on an ulcer drug, James Schlatter, a chemist at G.D. Searle, accidentally discovers aspartame, a substance that is 180 times sweeter than sugar yet has no calories.
Spring 1967– Searle begins the safety tests on aspartame that are necessary for applying for FDA approval of food additives.
Fall 1967– Dr. Harold Waisman, a biochemist at the University of Wisconsin, conducts aspartame safety tests on infant monkeys on behalf of the Searle Company. Of the seven monkeys that were being fed aspartame mixed with milk, one dies and five others have grand mal seizures.
November 1970– Cyclamate, the reigning low-calorie artificial sweetener — is pulled off the market after some scientists associate it with cancer. Questions are also raised about safety of saccharin, the only other artificial sweetener on the market, leaving the field wide open for aspartame.
December 18, 1970– Searle Company executives lay out a “Food and Drug Sweetener Strategy’ that they feel will put the FDA into a positive frame of mind about aspartame. An internal policy memo describes psychological tactics the company should use to bring the FDA into a subconscious spirit of participation” with them on aspartame and get FDA regulators into the “habit of saying, “Yes”.”
Spring 1971– Neuroscientist Dr. John Olney (whose pioneering work with monosodium glutamate was responsible for having it removed from baby foods) informs Searle that his studies show that aspartic acid (one of the ingredients of aspartame) caused holes in the brains of infant mice. One of Searle’s own researchers confirmed Dr. Olney’s findings in a similar study.
February 1973– After spending tens of millions of dollars conducting safety tests, the G.D. Searle Company applies for FDA approval and submits over 100 studies they claim support aspartame’s safety.
March 5, 1973– One of the first FDA scientists to review the aspartame safety data states that “the information provided (by Searle) is inadequate to permit an evaluation of the potential toxicity of aspartame”. She says in her report that in order to be certain that aspartame is safe, further clinical tests are needed.
May 1974– Attorney, Jim Turner (consumer advocate who was instrumental in getting cyclamate taken off the market) meets with Searle representatives to discuss Dr. Olney’s 1971 study which showed that aspartic acid caused holes in the brains of infant mice.
July 26, 1974– The FDA grants aspartame its first approval for restricted use in dry foods.
August 1974– Jim Turner and Dr. John Olney file the first objections against aspartame’s approval.
March 24, 1976– Turner and Olney’s petition triggers an FDA investigation of the laboratory practices of aspartame’s manufacturer, G.D. Searle. The investigation finds Searle’s testing procedures shoddy, full of inaccuracies and “manipulated” test data. The investigators report they “had never seen anything as bad as Searle’s testing.”
January 10, 1977– The FDA formally requests the U.S. Attorney’s office to begin grand jury proceedings to investigate whether indictments should be filed against Searle for knowingly misrepresenting findings and “concealing material facts and making false statements” in aspartame safety tests. This is the first time in the FDA’s history that they request a criminal investigation of a manufacturer.
January 26, 1977– While the grand jury probe is underway, Sidley & Austin, the law firm representing Searle, begins job negotiations with the U.S. Attorney in charge of the investigation, Samuel Skinner.
March 8, 1977– G. D. Searle hires prominent Washington insider Donald Rumsfeld as the new CEO to try to turn the beleaguered company around. A former Member of Congress and Secretary of Defense in the Ford Administration, Rumsfeld brings in several of his Washington cronies as top management.
July 1, 1977– Samuel Skinner leaves the U.S. Attorney’s office and takes a job with Searle’s law firm. (see Jan. 26th)
August 1, 1977– The Bressler Report, compiled by FDA investigators and headed by Jerome Bressler, is released. The report finds that 98 of the 196 animals died during one of Searle’s studies and weren’t autopsied until later dates, in some cases over one year after death. Many other errors and inconsistencies are noted. For example, a rat was reported alive, then dead, then alive, then dead again; a mass, a uterine polyp, and ovarian neoplasms were found in animals but not reported or diagnosed in Searle’s reports.
December 8, 1977– U.S. Attorney Skinner’s withdrawal and resignation stalls the Searle grand jury investigation for so long that the statue of limitations on the aspartame charges runs out. The grand jury investigation is dropped.
June 1, 1979– The FDA established a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) to rule on safety issues surrounding NutraSweet.
September 30, 1980– The Public Board of Inquiry concludes NutraSweet should not be approved pending further investigations of brain tumors in animals. The board states it “has not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive.”
January 1981– Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of Searle, states in a sales meeting that he is going to make a big push to get aspartame approved within the year. Rumsfeld says he will use his political pull in Washington, rather than scientific means, to make sure it gets approved.
January 21, 1981– Ronald Reagan is sworn in as President of the United States. Reagan’s transition team, which includes Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of G. D. Searle, hand picks Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. to be the new FDA Commissioner.
March, 1981– An FDA commissioner’s panel is established to review issues raised by the Public Board of Inquiry.
May 19, 1981– Three of six in-house FDA scientists who were responsible for reviewing the brain tumor issues, Dr. Robert Condon, Dr. Satya Dubey, and Dr. Douglas Park, advise against approval of NutraSweet, stating on the record that the Searle tests are unreliable and not adequate to determine the safety of aspartame.
July 15, 1981– In one of his first official acts, Dr. Arthur Hayes Jr., the new FDA commissioner, overrules the Public Board of Inquiry, ignores the recommendations of his own internal FDA team and approves NutraSweet for dry products. Hayes says that aspartame has been shown to be safe for its’ proposed uses and says few compounds have withstood such detailed testing and repeated close scrutiny.
October 15, 1982– The FDA announces that Searle has filed a petition that aspartame be approved as a sweetener in carbonated beverages and other liquids.
July 1, 1983– The National Soft Drink Association (NSDA) urges the FDA to delay approval of aspartame for carbonated beverages pending further testing because aspartame is very unstable in liquid form. When liquid aspartame is stored in temperatures above 85 degrees Fahrenheit, it breaks down into DKP and formaldehyde, both of which are known toxins.
July 8, 1983– The National Soft Drink Association drafts an objection to the final ruling which permits the use of aspartame in carbonated beverages and syrup bases and requests a hearing on the objections. The association says that Searle has not provided responsible certainty that aspartame and its’ degradation products are safe for use in soft drinks.
August 8, 1983– Consumer Attorney, Jim Turner of the Community Nutrition Institute and Dr. Woodrow Monte, Arizona State University’s Director of Food Science and Nutritional Laboratories, file suit with the FDA objecting to aspartame approval based on unresolved safety issues.
September, 1983– FDA Commissioner Hayes resigns under a cloud of controversy about his taking unauthorized rides aboard a General Foods jet. (General foods is a major customer of NutraSweet) Burson-Marsteller, Searle’s public relation firm (which also represented several of NutraSweet’s major users), immediately hires Hayes as senior scientific consultant.
Fall 1983– The first carbonated beverages containing aspartame are sold for public consumption.
November 1984– Center for Disease Control (CDC) “Evaluation of consumer complaints related to aspartame use.” (summary by B. Mullarkey)
November 3, 1987– U.S. hearing, “NutraSweet: Health and Safety Concerns,” Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Senator Howard Metzenbaum, chairman.
December 1965– While working on an ulcer drug, James Schlatter, a chemist at G.D. Searle, accidentally discovers aspartame, a substance that is 180 times sweeter than sugar yet has no calories.
Spring 1967– Searle begins the safety tests on aspartame that are necessary for applying for FDA approval of food additives.
Fall 1967– Dr. Harold Waisman, a biochemist at the University of Wisconsin, conducts aspartame safety tests on infant monkeys on behalf of the Searle Company. Of the seven monkeys that were being fed aspartame mixed with milk, one dies and five others have grand mal seizures.
November 1970– Cyclamate, the reigning low-calorie artificial sweetener — is pulled off the market after some scientists associate it with cancer. Questions are also raised about safety of saccharin, the only other artificial sweetener on the market, leaving the field wide open for aspartame.
December 18, 1970– Searle Company executives lay out a “Food and Drug Sweetener Strategy’ that they feel will put the FDA into a positive frame of mind about aspartame. An internal policy memo describes psychological tactics the company should use to bring the FDA into a subconscious spirit of participation” with them on aspartame and get FDA regulators into the “habit of saying, “Yes”.”
Spring 1971– Neuroscientist Dr. John Olney (whose pioneering work with monosodium glutamate was responsible for having it removed from baby foods) informs Searle that his studies show that aspartic acid (one of the ingredients of aspartame) caused holes in the brains of infant mice. One of Searle’s own researchers confirmed Dr. Olney’s findings in a similar study.
February 1973– After spending tens of millions of dollars conducting safety tests, the G.D. Searle Company applies for FDA approval and submits over 100 studies they claim support aspartame’s safety.
March 5, 1973– One of the first FDA scientists to review the aspartame safety data states that “the information provided (by Searle) is inadequate to permit an evaluation of the potential toxicity of aspartame”. She says in her report that in order to be certain that aspartame is safe, further clinical tests are needed.
May 1974– Attorney, Jim Turner (consumer advocate who was instrumental in getting cyclamate taken off the market) meets with Searle representatives to discuss Dr. Olney’s 1971 study which showed that aspartic acid caused holes in the brains of infant mice.
July 26, 1974– The FDA grants aspartame its first approval for restricted use in dry foods.
August 1974– Jim Turner and Dr. John Olney file the first objections against aspartame’s approval.
March 24, 1976– Turner and Olney’s petition triggers an FDA investigation of the laboratory practices of aspartame’s manufacturer, G.D. Searle. The investigation finds Searle’s testing procedures shoddy, full of inaccuracies and “manipulated” test data. The investigators report they “had never seen anything as bad as Searle’s testing.”
January 10, 1977– The FDA formally requests the U.S. Attorney’s office to begin grand jury proceedings to investigate whether indictments should be filed against Searle for knowingly misrepresenting findings and “concealing material facts and making false statements” in aspartame safety tests. This is the first time in the FDA’s history that they request a criminal investigation of a manufacturer.
January 26, 1977– While the grand jury probe is underway, Sidley & Austin, the law firm representing Searle, begins job negotiations with the U.S. Attorney in charge of the investigation, Samuel Skinner.
March 8, 1977– G. D. Searle hires prominent Washington insider Donald Rumsfeld as the new CEO to try to turn the beleaguered company around. A former Member of Congress and Secretary of Defense in the Ford Administration, Rumsfeld brings in several of his Washington cronies as top management.
July 1, 1977– Samuel Skinner leaves the U.S. Attorney’s office and takes a job with Searle’s law firm. (see Jan. 26th)
August 1, 1977– The Bressler Report, compiled by FDA investigators and headed by Jerome Bressler, is released. The report finds that 98 of the 196 animals died during one of Searle’s studies and weren’t autopsied until later dates, in some cases over one year after death. Many other errors and inconsistencies are noted. For example, a rat was reported alive, then dead, then alive, then dead again; a mass, a uterine polyp, and ovarian neoplasms were found in animals but not reported or diagnosed in Searle’s reports.
December 8, 1977– U.S. Attorney Skinner’s withdrawal and resignation stalls the Searle grand jury investigation for so long that the statue of limitations on the aspartame charges runs out. The grand jury investigation is dropped.
June 1, 1979– The FDA established a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) to rule on safety issues surrounding NutraSweet.
September 30, 1980– The Public Board of Inquiry concludes NutraSweet should not be approved pending further investigations of brain tumors in animals. The board states it “has not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive.”
January 1981– Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of Searle, states in a sales meeting that he is going to make a big push to get aspartame approved within the year. Rumsfeld says he will use his political pull in Washington, rather than scientific means, to make sure it gets approved.
January 21, 1981– Ronald Reagan is sworn in as President of the United States. Reagan’s transition team, which includes Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of G. D. Searle, hand picks Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. to be the new FDA Commissioner.
March, 1981– An FDA commissioner’s panel is established to review issues raised by the Public Board of Inquiry.
May 19, 1981– Three of six in-house FDA scientists who were responsible for reviewing the brain tumor issues, Dr. Robert Condon, Dr. Satya Dubey, and Dr. Douglas Park, advise against approval of NutraSweet, stating on the record that the Searle tests are unreliable and not adequate to determine the safety of aspartame.
July 15, 1981– In one of his first official acts, Dr. Arthur Hayes Jr., the new FDA commissioner, overrules the Public Board of Inquiry, ignores the recommendations of his own internal FDA team and approves NutraSweet for dry products. Hayes says that aspartame has been shown to be safe for its’ proposed uses and says few compounds have withstood such detailed testing and repeated close scrutiny.
October 15, 1982– The FDA announces that Searle has filed a petition that aspartame be approved as a sweetener in carbonated beverages and other liquids.
July 1, 1983– The National Soft Drink Association (NSDA) urges the FDA to delay approval of aspartame for carbonated beverages pending further testing because aspartame is very unstable in liquid form. When liquid aspartame is stored in temperatures above 85 degrees Fahrenheit, it breaks down into DKP and formaldehyde, both of which are known toxins.
July 8, 1983– The National Soft Drink Association drafts an objection to the final ruling which permits the use of aspartame in carbonated beverages and syrup bases and requests a hearing on the objections. The association says that Searle has not provided responsible certainty that aspartame and its’ degradation products are safe for use in soft drinks.
August 8, 1983– Consumer Attorney, Jim Turner of the Community Nutrition Institute and Dr. Woodrow Monte, Arizona State University’s Director of Food Science and Nutritional Laboratories, file suit with the FDA objecting to aspartame approval based on unresolved safety issues.
September, 1983– FDA Commissioner Hayes resigns under a cloud of controversy about his taking unauthorized rides aboard a General Foods jet. (General foods is a major customer of NutraSweet) Burson-Marsteller, Searle’s public relation firm (which also represented several of NutraSweet’s major users), immediately hires Hayes as senior scientific consultant.
Fall 1983– The first carbonated beverages containing aspartame are sold for public consumption.
November 1984– Center for Disease Control (CDC) “Evaluation of consumer complaints related to aspartame use.” (summary by B. Mullarkey)
November 3, 1987– U.S. hearing, “NutraSweet: Health and Safety Concerns,” Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Senator Howard Metzenbaum, chairman.
http://www.sweetpoison.com/aspartame-side-effects.html
http://rense.com/general33/legal.htm
http://dorway.com/
Mais, que fais-je, mes chers cinq lecteurs, je cause en Anglais ou en américain.
Ah, mon Dieu, quelle horreur, moi, qui me fait un point d'honneur de défendre la langue française.
Que fais-je là !!!!!!!
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire