Posts Tagged U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Monday, February 06, 2012
By: Jonathan Benson
[NaturalNews] Correction: The original version of this article stated that some U.S. Department of Agriculture certified organic products may contain neotame. Since the publishing of this article, NaturalNews has obtained a letter from the USDA’s National Organic Program Deputy Administrator, Miles McEvoy, explaining that neotame is NOT permitted for use in products labeled certified organic, or in products that contain the label “made with organic [specified ingredient or food group]. You can view a copy of this letter here:
And while Monsanto was the original creator of neotame back when it owned the NutraSweet Company, J.W. Childs Equity Partners II, L.P. today owns the NutraSweet Company, which includes ownership of neotame as well.
It could be lurking in the foods you eat every single day and you would never even know it. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declared that one of Monsanto’s creations, a synthetic sweetener chemical known as neotame, does not have to be labeled in food products, including even in organic food products.
A modified version of aspartame with even more added toxicity, neotame received quiet and unassuming FDA approval back in 2002, even though no safety studies have ever been conducted on the chemical (http://www.neotame.com/pdf/neotame_fda_US.pdf). In fact, an investigation conducted by Feingold.org found only four studies relating to neotame in the MEDLINE database.
Two of these “studies” were not studies at all, and the other two were actually one duplicate study conducted by NutraSweet, the company that produces and sells neotame.
So just like with aspartame, the FDA has once again approved for use a dangerous sweetener chemical that metabolizes into formaldehyde when consumed. Except this time, the chemical contains added 3-dimethylbutyl, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has listed as one of the most hazardous known chemicals, and it does not have to be labeled on any of the products to which it is added.
“Neotame has similar structure to aspartame — except that, from it’s structure, appears to be even more toxic than aspartame,” writes HolisticMed.com on its page about neotame. “Like aspartame, some of the concerns include gradual neurotoxic and immunotoxic damage from the combination of the formaldehyde metabolite (which is toxic at extremely low doses) and the excitotoxic amino acid” (http://www.holisticmed.com/neotame/toxin.html).
The FDA, the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), and the World Health Organization (WHO) all consider neotame to be safe for use, despite the fact that WHO actually published a paper seeking to establish acceptable daily intake levels for neotame. If neotame is so safe that it does not even have to be labeled, according to the FDA, then why do acceptable daily intake levels have to be established? And what is the point of establishing them in the first place?
This dog and pony show of special interest regulatory corruption is a travesty that will have global negative health consequences. Like most other toxins added to foods, neotame will most likely cause chronic damage over a long period of time, which means mainstream health authorities will get away with never having to admit that neotame is a dangerous toxin.
Sources for this article include:
by: Lisa Garber
July 18, 2012
Earlier this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration declared bisphenol A relatively safe (cough, cough). But due to the growing awareness that BPA is actually highly toxic, even the FDA’s ‘safe’ statement hasn’t stopped many plastics and papers manufacturers from replacing the estrogen-mimicking compound with its close cousin, bisphenol S. And the revenue has been worth the change, even if BPS isn’t any safer than BPA. In fact, you may be more exposed to the BPS chemical now than you were to BPA before.
Why BPA is Unsafe
Despite the FDA’s announcement, research continues to raise red flags over BPA. Endocrinology, a publication of The Endocrine Society, featured a study in which mice received low doses of BPA and thereafter experienced effects on the brain and social behaviors.
Because BPA is environmentally persistent, its effects are long-lasting and trans-generational as well. In the aforementioned study, prenatal exposure to mice correlated with raised levels of anxiety, aggression, and cognitive difficulties.
Maybe mice are mice and people are people, but our exposure to BPA is nothing to be overlooked. We eat food from cans with BPA. We store leftovers in containers with BPA. We drink water from BPA-laden bottles. We handle thermal paper and thereby BPA at the workplace. We essentially live, breathe, and eat BPA.
And now we have to worry about the BPS chemical instead?
Increased BPS Chemical Exposure
Not much is yet known about BPS—the compound replacing BPA in products like thermal paper—but the outlook is gloomy.
In 2005, Japanese scientists compared the hormone-mimicking effects of BPA and 19 similar compounds (including BPS chemical) on human cells. Although they found BPS’s effects to be slightly weaker than its cousin’s, new research shows that we may be absorbing more BPS through our skin than we were absorbing BPA.
Kurunthachalam Kannan of the Wadsworth Center at the New York state Department of Health led a research team in analyzing 16 types of paper from the U.S., Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam. All receipt paper analyzed contained BPS.
“People who handle thermal paper in their jobs may be absorbing much more BPS,” the analysts said—19 times more, according to their research.
If you’re concerned about your BPS exposure, keep in mind that BPA-free (and BPS-laden) receipts have those telltale red fibers in the paper. To reduce your exposure:
- Wash your hands after touching thermal paper.
- Save paper—and yourself—and tell the cashier to not print the receipt.
- Avoid putting receipts in bags with food.
- Store necessary receipts in folders or drawers to avoid unnecessary contact.
- If you are the cashier, consider investing in gloves.
Monday, June 25, 2012
by: Jonathan Benson
[NaturalNews] A special needs school in Canton, Massachusetts, known as The Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) is once again in the news, this time for its use of a controversial form of therapy that is no longer officially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). According to a recent report by CNN’s Anderson Cooper, the FDA has essentially refused to even address JRC’s continued use of electroshock therapy, despite the fact that the agency announced an investigation into the matter roughly two years ago.
As we reported last year, JRC has a 20-year legacy of using electroshock therapy on its students, a process that involves attaching electrodes to students’ arms, legs and torsos, and delivering “moderately painful” jolts of electrocution when students get out of line. At that time, school officials and even some parents helped mount a million-dollar campaign to protect the practice from being outlawed because they claim it is highly effective (http://www.naturalnews.com/031656_electroshock_students.html).
FDA withdrew support for GEDs, but never again addressed the issue
In 2010, the FDA reportedly withdrew official approval for graduated electronic decelerators, also known as GEDs, which are devices JRC uses to discipline its most severe students. The school says the device is only used with court approval and parental consent, and works far better and more safely than pumping up these same children and adults with pharmaceutical drug cocktails, which are the only other alternative.
But not everyone is convinced that GEDs are safe, and some even consider them to be torture. And yet the FDA, which withdrew approval for the devices, has failed to offer an opinion on the matter. This, of course, has prompted many to question why the FDA even disavowed its blessing on GEDs in the first place, if it had no real intention of making a statement one way or another about their use.
“They sort of give a little bit of a wink and a nod to the notion of, ‘We are definitely on this, we are definitely moving forward, we just can’t tell you about it right now,” said CNN reporter Tom Foreman about the FDA’s dubious position on electroshock therapy. “It’s really been quite a number of months since the last sign of any action on this, so that begs the question, ‘When, if at any time, will they take action?'”
In a statement responding to all the press, JRC has stated that aversive therapies like GEDs are only used as part of court-ordered treatments on students who “struggle with violent, abusive or mutilating behaviors toward themselves or others.” The center adds that GEDs and similar therapies are used only after all other therapy options have been exhausted.