New Hawaii Aspartame Resolution

Last year I made a series of posts about Hawaii’s move to ban the artificial sweetener aspartame in the state.  While this didn’t pass last year, a new resolution has been put forward, Hawaii HCR 128, calling on the FDA themselves to revoke their approval of aspartame and remove it from the US market.

The text of the resolution is a little tedious, but quite an extraordinary read!  I hope anyone who reads this blog and is a regular consumer of aspartame will read it and give some serious thought to what they’re doing to their bodies.

No less extraordinary is the list of cosponsors of the measure:

  • Angus McKelvey: Economic Revitalization, Business, & Military Affairs (Chair)
  • Maile Shimabukuoro: Hawaiian Affairs (Vice-Chair)
  • Karen Awana: Transportation (Vice-Chair)
  • Della Au Belatti, J.D.: Member Health, Judiciary
  • Tom Brower: Human Services (Vice-Chair)
  • Jerry Chang: Higher Education (Chair)
  • Corrine Ching: Member, Environmental Protection, Higher Education
  • Denny Coffman: Energy & Environmental Protection (Vice-Chair)
  • Cindy Evans: Member, Economic Revitalization, Business, & Military Affairs
  • Faye Hanohano: Public Safety (Chair)
  • Sharon Har: Interim Task Force on Smart Growth (Chair)
  • Ken Ito: Water, Land, & Ocean Resources (Chair)
  • Michael Y. Magaoay: Member, Interim Task Force on Standards of Conduct
  • Joey Manahan: Tourism, Culture, & International Affairs (Chair)
  • Hermina Morita: Energy & Environmental Protection (Chair)
  • Mark Nakashima: Higher Education (Vice-Chair)
  • Scott Nishimoto: Health (Vice-Chair)
  • Roland Sagum III: Member, Finance
  • Roy Takumi: Education (Chair)
  • Glenn Wakai Consumer Protection & Commerce (Vice-Chair)
  • Ryan Yamane: Health (Chair)

Details of the measure and it’s current status can be found on the Hawaiian Legislature webpage (type HCR128 into the search box), and there is an RSS feed if you want to follow the progress of this measure.

First the measure has to clear the Health Commitee, and will then be referred to the Finance Committee.

Food Scare!

I just came across this article on Grist, that addresses some of the things I mentioned in my last post.

After a presidential election that was won in no small part thanks to the power of the Internet, it’s logical to assume political lobbying will also follow suit.  I think this bill, which according to the Grist article has little chance of passing, likely touched a nerve in the food processing industry who responded by spreading political nonsense all over the Internet from almost unknown sources in hopes of turning public opinion against it.

I think it’s important to learn a lesson from this.

I think it’s important for all of us to work within webs of trust, and if you read something really sensational on the Internet from a source you’re not familiar with and want to post about it, be sure to research the topic thoroughly first.  If you post regularly on the Internet, earn your readers trust by being careful about what you post about.  Most importantly, don’t present something as fact unless you’re pretty sure it’s true, and you’ve taken reasonable steps to verify it.  I know my record on this is not perfect, but I think it’s doubly important these days we all pay more attention to this issue.

Obama’s Food Safety Plans

For the first time since 1906, in the wake of Upton Sinclair’s book The Jungle, there’s a proposal by the Obama administration to completely reorganize food safety enforcement in the US.  Since countries all over the world will likely adopt the basic principles behind any such a reorganization, it’s an issue that affects us all.

You can read the text of the proposed bill here.  The US Senate is considering a slightly different version that can be found by searching the Internet.

One of the strange things about this bill is the nearly complete lack of response from any mainstream news sources, or even many of the more well known food blogs.  It seems Obama has stunned everyone into silence, and everyone is afraid to take a stand on the issue.  Given the implications of this kind of change, I think it’s a little funny so few people have an opinion.

In the wake of recent food contaminations and the large numbers of people sickened by food contamination in the US and elsewhere, something urgently needs to be done.  The real question at hand is if this bill is taking the right approach, and in my opinion there are a lot of good things going for it.  There are however some problems and omissions as well.

A few of the comments I’ve encountered suggest it’s a measure intended to benefit large companies like Monsanto and Dow.  In my opinion, this isn’t true.  It’s a bill aimed as food processing and production, in other words companies that make something you put into your mouth and eat.  Companies like Monsanto and Dow produce seeds and chemicals, and are simply not affected by this one way or another, which can be a good or bad thing of course.  It’s clearly an omission that someone like Monsanto or Dow are allowed to introduce contaminants into our food, and it not be regulated.  Maybe however this is a battle for another day.

I’ve also heard arguments along the lines of it takes power from the states, or places burdens on them.  I must admit, when I read the text of the bill I don’t see horrible impending changes that are going to destroy the boundaries between the federal and local governments.

It will certainly be possible under the terms of what’s being proposed to outsource the entire food safety management to the food producers themselves, which of course is a situation not unlike what we have now.

The bill is certainly lacking clear definitions of what it means to be a food production facility, and it could potentially mean a home garden or someone’s kitchen.  I don’t see any specific attacks on organic or small CSA/farms, but there are also no clear exemptions for them.  In my opinion this is a problem that has to be addressed.  This is really the right time to formally legalize the on site slaughtering of animals by small farms.

This bill has some pretty cumbersome ‘paperwork’ associated with it, requiring food production facilities to track every additive and input of the process, very reminiscent of organic farm certification.  This is a very unfair burden for small and family run farms, who should be exempt from these provisions.

There is also a provision to allow victims of food contamination to file lawsuits for compensation.  While this is obviously a great thing involving serious and large scale contaminations, again it’s not so great in terms of more frivolous lawsuits against small farms and CSAa, which I think also need to be exempted from this or a federal insurance fund needs to be created to handle these cases of compensation.

What is clear is it’s the intention of these bills to put thousands more food inspectors into the field, and empower them to act when they encounter dangerous situations.

The idea behind these changes gets my qualified approval, but I’ll be watching what happens as these bills are debated and amended.

Breaking the Fertilizer Habit

Fertilizer is probably something all gardeners use, at least from time to time.  It comes in many forms from chemical to animal manure, or perhaps homemade in the form of ‘tea’ made from compost, manure or green plants.  There are also fertilizers claiming to be organic.  Some are added to the ground, and others applied to the leaves of the plants (foliar feeding).  Some are strong and others weak.  Of course there are also the component parts; nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (N,P and K), and fertilizers are given numerical ratings of these components like 10-20-10.  It can all seem confusing and opaque, especially at the beginning.

In particular many people feel somehow that fertilizer is an important element of gardening, and since other people use it, they have to as well.  An extension to this is the knowledge that organic gardeners don’t use chemical fertilizers, therefore you have to find an organic alternative like manure.

The Habit

This feeling like fertilizer is somehow an important part of gardening, can lead to a sort of addiction or dependence on fertilizer, that works something like this.

First you add fertilizer to your garden and you notice everything grows faster and looks greener and healthier.  This is particularly true with fertilizer high in nitrogen, and it’s very easy to get the feeling that if some fertilizer makes the plants look so good, more must be better.

At this point you might give your plants so much they experience sudden death, but more likely you keep giving them small amounts over time, perhaps a little extra when you sense it’s needed.  Since fertilizers usually contain more than one nutrient (NPK), probably over time the nutrients in your garden are getting more and more out of balance.  Since this probably leads to your plants not growing well, it can easily make you think you need more fertilizer.

By the time you’ve added so much that you finally realize you are causing the problem and not solving it, you can be faced with a situation that’s very difficult to deal with.

As someone who has spent the past decade or so moving their garden around, and needing to borrow spots from other people, I can tell you it’s a very common problem in my area.

A related problem can be if your garden is former pasture land, or otherwise has a lot of recently applied animal manure.

When do you need fertilizer?

As a rule, for most people, a well managed and established garden does not need any fertilizer.  It’s too complicated a topic to make such a broad statement, but this is the general rule.

It’s possible when you first start a garden you will have some problems, usually a shortage of organic material.  In this case it’s likely you will have to do something about the existing problems, and this might involve using some fertilizer.  Often fertilizer is not necessary, but sometimes it is.

If you are unable to practice good principles of crop rotation, you may need some fertilizer to compensate.  It’s worth pointing out you’ll likely end up with a whole host of other problems too if you don’t practice proper rotations.

Potted plants often require fertilizer.

Unless you are sure you need fertilizer, it’s best not to use any at all.  If you do need to use it, it’s best to use something weak like fish emulsion or homemade teas from green leaves or compost.  Fresh animal manure should almost never be used in your garden, rather it should be composted first.

If you live somewhere soil tests are available, get an analysis of your ground before you add any fertilizer.  This will give you an idea if anything is needed.

What can you do once the damage is done?

Besides hoping for rain, and just waiting for it all to wash away, one of the first things you should try to address in over-fertilized ground is nitrogen (N) levels.  Too much nitrogen, and your plants will be stressed and the weeds will grow faster than anything else you may try to grow.  Not enough, and your plants will be weak and small.

In my experience, the problem manifests itself like this.  In a healthy garden nitrogen fixing plants are the primary source of nitrogen, and the ground will be rich in fixed nitrogen.  Another much less important source of fixed nitrogen is compost.  Fixed nitrogen remains in the ground, and tends to become available when as the plants need it.  Any other source of nitrogen that gets added to the garden, whether from natural sources like manure or chemical fertilizer, will be soluble.  Soluble nitrogen is available immediately, and can stress or kill plants.  Soluble nitrogen can wash away, but it can also accumulate in large amounts in the ground.  In the presence of soluble nitrogen, nitrogen fixing plants will fix less, so there will be less fixed nitrogen in the ground.  In addition, if your ground is low in organic material, it may not have the capability to retain fixed nitrogen.

If your ground has too much soluble nitrogen, for example has a lot of animal manure added, try covering the garden with a high carbon mulch material like wood chips or straw.  In extreme cases you may want to mix a small amount of this material into the ground, but this can cause other problems as well, so don’t do it unless you think it’s really needed.  High carbon material will remove nitrogen from the ground.

If your garden is lacking nitrogen, consider a weak nitrogen fertilizer like fish/kelp emulsion, or homemade fertilizers like ‘teas’ in the short run, but nitrogen fixing plants are key to the long term.  Consider planting one or more nitrogen fixing trees like Alders or Sea Buckthorn in temperate climates.  For other climates you’ll have to research the issue and see what’s available.  Growing nitrogen fixing crops like beans and peas is also a good solution, perhaps as companion plants.  This is a situation that may take a few years to get stabilized, and if you’re using a chemical fertilizer now and intend to stop, you may want to cut back as a first step, for just this reason.

For other nutrient imbalances, I don’t have any good suggestions.  If you are unsure of the state of your ground, adding compost is always a safe thing to do.  If you can, let your ground lay fallow for a year or more before using it again as a garden.

Latest Aspartame News

If you’ve been around long enough, you may remember a series of posts I made last year about efforts in Hawaii to ban aspartame, the sweetener that’s commonly used in diet or light soft drinks and manufactured with the assistance of GM microorganisms.

If you want to learn more on the subject, an excellent video can be found here:  Sweet Misery.

Stephen Fox recently sent me an email update as to where things currently stand in the battle to get it properly labelled as a carcinogen or banned in the US:

New Mexico Senate President sides with World’s Largest Neurotoxic Carcinogenic Artificial Sweetener Maker, Ajinomoto, to Kill Consumer Protection Request of FDA to Rescind Aspartame

It saddens me to inform your readers that Wednesday morning Senator Tim Jennings cast the vote that killed a vital consumer protection measure in Senate Rules Committee. That was Senate Memorial 9 of Gerald Ortiz y Pino which asked the FDA to take this carcinogenic and neurotoxic artificial sweetener off the market, since it is still found in 6000 products, from food to pharmaceuticals.

This chemical was patented by G.D. Searle, which back in 1966 was investigating peptic ulcer drugs; the story from Searle is that the chemist licked his finger, and discovered that it was 200 times as sweet as sugar, profit lights went off in the chandelier in the corporate board’s cerebelum, but the FDA turned them down for approval for 15 years because of concerns over the methyl ester in aspartame becoming methanol then formaldehyde, and causing harm to the consumer. Jennings mentioned in the committee that he had had problems with acid reflux and would vote against the Memorial which he did (as if it still had something to do with peptic ulcer drugs!); I wonder if that was apparently all he had read of the Memorial, the first sentence: but I pointed out as politely as I could muster, that it had been considered as a peptic ulcer drug 46 years ago, but that was kind of like talking with Rip Van Winkel after his 300 year nap.

[Try to picture a Roswell rancher, a little overweight, impeccably dressed, with a dry scratchy voice, kind of populist appeal, like a New Mexico version of Will Rogers, homespun, witty, with a long background in Senate Finance, given the position as Pro Tem after the last one died suddenly, then elected in a fierce struggle between progressive/liberals and Republicans/Conservative Democrats. (Guess who won?)]

With all due respect to the Senate Pro Tem, Jennings ought to have been somewhat alarmed when the word “carcinogen” comes up in any serious legislative context, having just lost his wife at the age of 53 to a long ordeal with cancer. If he were genuinely concerned for the health of New Mexicans rather than just capitulating to the phalanx of corporate lobbyists speaking against it, he would have helped to pass it.

This is truly New Mexico’s deep and avoidable loss, as California is moving forward with consideration of aspartame as a carcinogen under Proposition 65, which allows them to label it as “a chemical known by the state of California to cause cancer,” and to even sue the manufacturers and corporate users, like Coca Cola, Pepsi, and Wrigley’s Gum. The California Attorney General, Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr., is already doing this in suits against Whole Foods for knowingly including a different carcinogen (1-4-5 Dioxane) in their 365 lines of Organic Soaps and Body Products, and then basically concealing it. Mark my word, these suits will come for aspartame and they will resemble the Tobacco Suits of the 1990’s, which resulted in judgments of $235 Billion.

The legislators love to spend that money now, but back in the early 1990’s, as then-Attorney General now-U.S. Senator Tom Udall told me many years ago, the Legislature would not contribute 50 cents to help fund the lawsuits, because of corporate lobbyists opposing such allocations by the Legislature. Similarly, these legislators who would not ask the FDA to take it off the market, will want to spend the proceeds of the aspartame suits. Ludicrous!

The Ministry of Education in British Columbia Canada recently agreed to remove ALL artificial sweeteners from the elementary and middle schools, as a result of parents’ demands, in spite of Health Canada, the equivalent of our FDA, still parroting the corporate line that aspartame/methanol/formaldehyde/diketopiperazine was somehow acceptable,especially for diabetic children and overweight children.

This is the real world regarding aspartame. Tim Jennings’ vote was not part of the real world. He asked after voting “do not pass,” for more copies of the studies proving it causes cancer, and I should have said then (but didn’t out of deference to the committee) that “I have been bringing you those same studies since 2004, like the Ramazzini report, when I first talked with you, Senator, about the dangers of this artificial sweetener, and it looks like you never read them!” Three years ago, I brought Jennings (and most of the legislature) at my expense an outstanding DVD, SWEET MISERY, on Aspartame’s proven medical effects, but he must never have watched it. [You can see it now free, on-line, and I recommend it strongly. Just google SWEET MISERY].

Truly I always liked Tim Jennings until today’s performance in Senate Rules. There was a group of Senior Senators who guzzle the stuff still, even though one of them died, one resigned because of “old age,” (what could make you age faster than consuming formaldehyde?), and two got clobbered in the 2008 elections and they are I hope permanently gone (they was the worst obstructionists of them all). Senate Majority Leader Michael Sanchez is trying to quit, he says. The bottling companies bring dolly’s full of cases to the legislature in order to ingratiate the legislators and legitimize their products.

I really don’t know if Tim Jennings is among the diet soda guzzlers still. If he has quit, he did so out of concern for his own health. If he DIDN’T quit consuming aspartame, he certainly is in no real position to be deciding such things for the rest of the state, especially since it was only a Memorial REQUESTING the FDA to taken it off the market, and to vote from a position of such a total lack of accurate medical information is absolutely shocking to me.

The world’s largest Aspartame maker, Ajinomoto of Japan, hired slick and powerful lobbyists as well as the state’s largest lawfirm, the Rodey Firm; in 2005 and in 2006 knocked down and prevented both the Board of Pharmacy and the Environmental Improvement Board from considering getting rid of aspartame in medicines and food products, respectively, by threatening them with lawsuits.

Ajinomoto manipulated the Governor by hiring two of his good friends (one of these was Michael Stratton, who has subsequently been tied to the pay-for-play Federal Grand Jury investigation that unfortunately caused Richardson to choose to step down from being Obama’s first choice for Commerce Secretary—I still think he would have excelled at that job!) as lobbyists to influence him to renege on his prior strong support for the EIB hearings, and those EIB hearings, without the Governor’s support and the assurance from Patsy Madrid that they didn’t have to worry about such threats, crumbled.

Thus, now Ajinomoto has manipulated the Legislative Branch into obsequious acquiescence. Quite a score, eh? 3 out of 3! What’s next? Put a pro-aspartame lobbyist on the New Mexico Supreme Court? After all, another aspartame maker from back in the 80’s and 90’s, Monsanto, got their own former corporate lawyers appointed as Supreme Court Justice (Clarence Thomas) and as US Attorney General, John Ashcroft.

Fortunately, the Rules Committee Chair, Senator Linda Lopez, and Rules Member/Senate Public Affairs Chair, Dede Feldman, had the sense to vote for the Memorial. The three Republicans voted against it, I think, just because both Ortiz y Pino and I mentioned the unavoidable historic fact that Donald Rumsfeld forced the approval for aspartame in 1981, even thought the FDA had turned them down for the prior 15 years! Maybe Rules member Stuart Ingle gave them “marching orders” to vote against it; he is the Minority Leader in the Senate.

But you might say, “But wait! Rummy’s gone, out of the picture,” but those Republicans apparently see some residual partisan pride in drinking formaldehyde, and for you and your children to do so, and never question the miserable ethics of Rumsfeld for his role in that matter! He made $12-15 million on the deal, and what was good for his bank account must still be good for America!?

It is sickening when you really examine the corporate manipulation and control of government at all levels, especially in the regulatory branches. I am sad to conclude today that Tim Jennings is part of that mess, rather than part of the real solution. Roswell’s other Senator, Republican Rod Adair, always sided with activists on this issue, and even cosigned as cosponsor some earlier related measures introduced in 2006, truly “reaching across the aisle,” as they are so fond of saying.

This really is not what a Senate President Pro Tem should be doing, siding with every Tom, Dick, and Harry corporate lobbyist who comes along. He should be helping to educate the vast lot of New Mexicans who still naively believe the FDA is there to protect them.

If you drink Diet Sodas or chew sugarless gum or consume Equal, and if you come down with migraine headaches, epilepsy, brain tumors, blindness, or any of the other 92 symptoms recognized by the FDA as caused by aspartame, remember Tim Jennings’ vote today in Senate Rules to deny a request of the FDA to take this proven poison off the market.

In the USA, products like asbestos, Thalidomide, leaded gasoline, cigarettes with horrible additives, Vioxx, Celebrex…(the list goes on and on), stay on the market because of the efforts of corporate lobbyists and obstructionist corporate lawyers. The USA only responds when one of two things happens:

1. the bodies of victims pile up

2. the lawsuits from the dead bodies and their heirs pile up.

Otherwise, you will see legislatures and regulatory boards and Governors and lobbyists from Ajinomoto, Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola, Monsanto, Equal, etc., sweep the dead bodies and the maimed and the impaired youth under the rug, until there is so much death and suffering under the rug, some nation will simply throw out the rug, and the health of that nation’s citizens will be the better for it.

Could that Nation ever be the United States? Doubtful, but if enough people communicated to Obama, to HHS Secretary Sebelius and to the next, as yet unappointed FDA Commissioner and Surgeon General, it could very well be the USA that takes aspartame off the market first.

After all, California took a mighty step in that direction just last Friday, regarding aspartame and Proposition 65. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that there is here an equation at work:

Lung Cancer and Emphysema/Tobacco suits in the 1990’s= Neurodegenerative Illnesses/Aspartame suits in the 2010’s!

Respectfully,

Stephen Fox, Editor, New Mexico Sun News, Santa Fe, New Mexico