February 11, 2000

Subject: TROUBLE IN THE GARDEN (Biotech industry in deep trouble) + If you can't beat'em, slur'em: ABC attacks organic food + Don't Tax the Internet Petition + USDA and EPA Reclassify Malathion as Carcinogen + Cruise Ship pollution + INFANT FORMULA CONTAINS processed free glutamic acid (MSG) and processed free aspartic acid - both neurotoxins.

Hello everyone

Here is a copy of what I sent to my media list a couple days ago.

Here is another compilation of information that the mainstream media consistenly fail to report - just a short sample really! In an ideal world, economic interests (read advertizement dollars and stealth boardroom control of the media content) would not prevent such vital information to reach the people.

Fortunately, the Internet allows some of it to reach some of us...

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator

. ---February 3, 2000--- .
. ========== .
. Environmental Research Foundation .
. P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 .
. Fax (410) 263-8944; E-mail: erf@rachel.org .
. ========== .
. All back issues are available by E-mail: send E-mail to . . info@rachel.org with the single word HELP in the message. . . Back issues are also available from http://www.rachel.org. . . To start your own free subscription, send E-mail to .
. listserv@rachel.org with the words .
. The Rachel newsletter is now also available in Spanish; . . to learn how to subscribe, send the word AYUDA in an .
. E-mail message to info@rachel.org. .


Wall Street investors lost confidence in agricultural biotechnology during 1999.[1,2,3] Agricultural biotechnology is by no means dead, but investors drove down stock prices of ag biotech companies during 1999 in a stunning reversal for the industry. The WALL STREET JOURNAL said Jan. 7, 2000, "With the controversy over genetically modified foods spreading across the globe and taking a toll on the stocks of companies with agricultural-biotechnology businesses, it's hard to see those companies as a good investment, even in the long term."[2]

Hardest hit was Monsanto, the St. Louis chemical giant that had spent 5 years and billions of dollars morphing itself into a "life sciences" company, betting its future on biotechnology in pharmaceutical drugs and agricultural crops. As the WALL STREET JOURNAL wrote December 21, 1999, "Billions of dollars later, that concept of a unified 'life sciences' company -- using technology to improve both medicines and foods -- has become an affliction itself for Monsanto. The crop-biotechnology half of the program has grown so controversial that Monsanto has agreed to a deal that is likely not only to push biotech to the back burner, but also to cost Monsanto its independence. And investors are reacting harshly."[3]

Monsanto agreed late in 1999 to merge with Pharmacia & Upjohn, Inc. and the combined company will be run not from St. Louis but from Pharmacia headquarters in Peapack, New Jersey. Monsanto's ag biotech business will be spun off into a separate company and as much as 19.9% of it will be sold.

Two other leaders in ag biotech, the Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis AG, and the Anglo-Swiss drug firm AstroZeneca PLC, announced during 1999 that they will combine their ag biotech divisions into one and sell it off, "effectively washing their hands of crop biotechnology," the WALL STREET JOURNAL said.[3]

Thus by the end of 1999, ag biotech companies found themselves in trouble, worldwide, for the first time. Here is a short list of reasons why:

** A lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) forced the release of government documents showing that FDA scientists had expressed grave doubts about the safety of genetically modified foods even as the agency was publicly declaring such foods "substantially equivalent" to traditional crops.[4] It seems clear from these documents that the scientific integrity of the U.S. regulatory system has been compromised for political purposes, to provide a "fast track" for the rapid, large-scale introduction of genetically modified foods.

** The insurance industry has consistently refused to write policies covering liability for harm caused by genetically modified organisms. Steven Suppan, research director at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) in Minneapolis, said last June, "It is worth asking what kind of regulatory system approves for commercialization a technology whose risks are so undetermined that the products developed from the technology have not been insur- ed? An intuitive response is that the U.S. rejection of liability suggests that U.S. agribusiness and the U.S. government have less confidence than is proclaimed publicly in the safety of the products approved and in the integrity of the product review process," Dr. Suppan said.[5]

** A growing body of literature has begun to show that genetically modified crops are creating new kinds of environmental problems for farmers, and that genetically modified crops are exacerbating already-severe economic problems on American farms.[6]

** Europeans and others overseas have continued to insist that the safety of genetically modified foods has not been sufficiently documented and that import of such foods must be prohibited, or they must be labeled. The doubts expressed by FDA scientists, and the growing list of economic and environmental problems are likely to stiffen European resistance to genetically-modified seeds, crops, and foods.

** It became apparent in 1999 that the public rationale for promoting genetically modified foods -- that such foods would "feed the world" -- was based on wishful thinking, not economics. It is now clear that U.S. genetically modified crops are too expensive to "feed the world."[6]

** The rationale for refusing to label genetically modified foods came unraveled in 1999 as biotechnology companies began to announce new crops with special traits (rice with increased vitamin A, for example). For years, biotech companies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and FDA have argued that labeling genetically modified foods was impossible because it would require food companies to segregate genetically modified crops from conventional crops and it simply couldn't be done. All the crops were mixed together in the grain elevator, so labeling would be impossible, they said.

This silly and disingenuous argument evaporated in 1999. As soon as biotech firms announced specialty foods created by genetic engineering, the labeling problem miraculously disappeared. Labeling is suddenly easy -- indeed, required -- because consumer's can't be expected to pay premium prices for specialty foods if those foods aren't clearly identifiable on the grocery shelf.

Polls have shown that more than 80% of American consumers want genetically modified foods labeled as such. Now that labeling is acknowledged as feasible, will the biotech industry, USDA, EPA, and FDA bend to the public will and start labeling ALL genetically modified foods? Not on your life. Government and industry argue with one voice that labeling is not necessary because genetically modified foods are "substantially equivalent" to the conventional foods they have replaced. They even say labeling would be "misleading" because it would imply that there are differences between biotech foods and conventional foods.

Federal regulations governing biotech foods are founded on the premise that there are no "material differences" between genetically modified crops and conventional crops. This argument, it turns out, was thoroughly discredited by FDA scientists before the regulations were issued.

The FDA spent 1989-1992 developing regulations governing genetically modified foods for humans and feed for animals. This was back when President Bush and Vice-President Quayle were advocating "regulatory relief" for industry.

FDA's rules -- which were announced by Mr. Quayle in 1992 -- allow a biotech company like Monsanto or DuPont to decide for itself whether its food products are "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS). If a company decides that its new genetically modified corn or soybean or potato or wheat is "generally recognized as safe" then no safety testing is required before the products are introduced into the food supply. FDA said these rules -- like all their rules -- are based on "sound science."

However, during 1999 a lawsuit filed by the Alliance for Bio-Integrity in Fairfield, Iowa, forced the FDA to release some 44,000 pages of internal documents for the first time.[4] Among them was a series of memos from FDA scientists commenting on the FDA's proposed "substantially equivalent" policy for biotech foods.

A key issue is whether "pleiotropic effects" will occur when new genes are inserted into plants to give the plants desirable new traits. Pleiotropy means that more than one change occurs in a plant as a result of the new gene. For example, a gene that allows a plant to grow better under drought conditions might also make the entire plant grow smaller. The smaller size would be an unexpected "pleiotropic" effect.

FDA regulations assume that pleiotropic effects will not occur when new genes are inserted into conventional foods such as corn or potatoes or wheat or soybeans. Therefore, FDA says, genetically modified crops are "substantially equivalent" to conventional crops.

Internal memos make it abundantly clear that FDA's scientific staff believes pleiotropic effects will occur when new genes are inserted into food crops. [In the following quotations, words inside square brackets have been added for clarity but words inside normal parentheses were in the original memos.--P.M.]

Commenting on the FDA's proposed biotech regulations in early 1992, Louis Pribyl, an FDA microbiologist, wrote March 6, 1992, "It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects.... This is industry's pet idea, namely that there are no unintended effects that will raise the FDA's level of concern. But time and time again, there is no data to backup their contention, while the scientific literature does contain many examples of naturally occurring pleiotropic effects. When the introduction of genes into [a] plant's genome randomly occurs, as is the case with the current [genetic modification] technology (but not traditional breeding), it seems apparent that many pleiotropic effects will occur," Dr. Pribyl wrote. "Many of these effects might not be seen by the breeder [meaning Monsanto or DuPont or other biotech firm] because of the more or less similar growing conditions in the limited trials that are performed. Until more of these experimental plants have a wider environmental distribution, it would be premature for FDA to summarily dismiss pleiotropy as is done here," Dr. Pribyl wrote.

On the same subject, a memo from the Division of Contaminants Chemistry within FDA's Division of Food Chemistry and Technology said November 1, 1991, "Pleiotropic effects occur in genetically engineered plants... at frequencies up to 30%. Most of these effects can be managed by the subsequent breeding and selection procedures. Nevertheless, some undesirable effects such as increased levels of known naturally occurring toxicants, appearance of new, not previously identified toxicants, increased capability of concentrating toxic substances from the environment (e.g., pesticides or heavy metals), and undesirable alterations in the levels of nutrients may escape breeders' attention unless genetically engineered plants are evaluated specifically for these changes. Such evaluations should be performed on a case-by-case basis, i.e., every transformant should be evaluated before it enters the marketplace."

Instead of heeding the concerns of its scientific staff, FDA issued biotech food rules that assume no pleiotropic effects will occur, therefore no safety testing is required. All biotech foods are assumed to be safe. The stage was thus set for confidence in biotech foods to plummet as soon as word leaked out that the scientific underpinnings of the regulatory system had been compromised.

To be continued next week.


[1] I am indebted to Steven Suppan, research director at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) in Minneapolis, who provided me with several brief, thoughtful summaries of the state of agricultural biotechnology. Contact: ssuppan@iatp.org. Telephone (612) 870-3413.

[2] Christina Cheddar, "Tales of the Tape: Seed Co. May Yet Reap What They Sow," WALL STREET JOURNAL January 7, 2000, pg. unknown.

[3] Scott Kilman and Thomas M. Burton, "Biotech Backlash is Battering Plan Shapiro Thought Was Enlightened," WALL STREET JOURNAL December 21, 1999, pg.A1.

[4] The FDA documents are available at
http://www.bio-integrity.org/list.html. And see Marian Burros, "Documents Show Officials Disagreed on Altered Foods," NEW YORK TIMES December 1, 1999, pg. A15.

[5] Steven Suppan, unpublished paper, "National Summit on the Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods, June 17, 1999, Capitol Hilton Hotel, Washington, D.C. 2 pgs.

[6] Some of this literature is summarized in Charles M. Benbrook, "World Food System Challenges and Opportunities: GMOs, Biodiversity, and Lessons From America's Heartland," unpublished paper presented January 27, 1999, at University of Illinois. Available in PDF format at http://www.pmac.net/- IWFS.pdf .

Descriptor terms: biotechnology; monsanto; dupont; novartis; pharmacia; astrozeneca; agriculture; hunger; fda; regulation; labeling; alliance for biointegrity; pleiotropy;

Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge even though it costs the organization considerable time and money to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do not send credit card information via E-mail. For further information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F. by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or at (410) 263-1584, or fax us at (410) 263-8944.
--Peter Montague, Editor

If you can't beat'em, slur'em: ABC attacks organic food 2/6/00
deuce42@uswest.net (Deuce)

From: Brasscheck <ken@brasscheck.com>

ABC's 20/20 John Stossel, who has raised the art of shilling for big business to a fine art, is now at work educating the public about the *dangers* of organic food.

In Stossel's twisted universe, the market is god, unless of course the market is not buying what his clients want it to buy. Then the market is misguided and needs a multi-million dollar mass media re-education program. ("You will buy crap and like it.")

One "expert" given a huge audience by Stossel's program pointed out that manure has a lot of bacteria in it and therefore crops grown organically are more dangerous than those sprayed with pesticide. Uh huh. Earth to expert: most farmers, regardless of their methods, use manure when they can get it because its cheaper and better than manufactured fertilizer.

The expert, Dennis Avery, is identified simply as a former researcher for the Agriculture Department. No other affiliation is given. I guess the brilliant research team at ABC couldn't find his current day job which is Director of the Hudson Institute's "Center for Global Food Issues."

Call 1-800-222-1556 and you can hire him to give one of his popular speeches "Organic Farming's Threat to People and Wildlife" or "Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic." I kid you not.

Some other achievements his employer the Hudson Institute crows about on its web site include:

* Taking the lead on pushing for the expansion of NATO membership to the countries of Central Europe (I'm sure the people of Yugoslavia appreciate that.)

* Helping transform many aspects of the criminal and law enforcement systems in Indianapolis (Remind me to not go there.)

* Advising dozens (sic) of former communist governments on how to make the transition to democracy and market economies, (Great work guys, especially in Russia) and

* Designing and implementing innovative models of education reform across the country. (Now there's a comforting thought.)

Avery's also been featured in the Wall Street Journal as well. Here's one person's answer to his ravings in that rag: http://www.wildoats.com/know/organics.html

Another Avery gem from the Stossel slimefest: Avery says "organic farmers waste land and resources because they lose so much of their crop to weeds and insects. Avery says it's today's conventional farmers who have performed an environment-saving miracle by taking nitrogen to make chemical fertilizer, using pesticides and genetically engineered seeds to feed more people, using less land."

Stossel's informed conclusion: organic food isn't safe, it isn't particularly nutritious, and it isn't good for the environment at all.

We can laugh, but when's the last time you saw a coherent rationale for organic farming on a major news program or in a mass circulated periodical?

Avery's doing a good job as this January '99 press release from the Hudson Institute shows:

"Sierra Club Executive Endorses High-Yield Agriculture, Biotech Crops:

Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, has endorsed high-yield agriculture, including bio-engineered crops, because high farm yields will help save wildlife habitat and wild species."

I got that off *Monsanto's* web site by the way: http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/99/january99/14199_Hudson.html

You don't think companies like Monsanto actually fund the "science" and public policy work of people like Dennis Avery do you? Goodness! What's this world coming to?

There was supposed to be a comment board on the ABC web site for Stossel's story, but it was either never set up or quickly taken down. I wonder why...

Another great "investigation" John. Your Pulitzer is in the mail.

Is it really that wrong to want to see someone hung by his thumbs and horsewhipped?

Just asking.

Brass Check - http://www.brasscheck.com

"...if only the press were to do its duty, or but a tenth of its duty, this hellish system could not go on."
- William Cobbett, Rural Rides, 1830

"He who knows best knows how little he knows." - Thomas Jefferson

From: Don't Tax the Internet <petitions@worldnetdaily.com> Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2000
Subject: DTTN Sunday, Feb. 6, 2000 -- "Don't Tax the Net" briefing

Did you catch Joseph Farah's column? Here's a taste:

Big Brother gunnin' for the Net

They're coming.

Their goal is nothing short of control over this wonderful tool of knowledge, freedom and economic prosperity that you are using now.

Worse yet, they plan to take away all the Internet's great potential for the future and have you pick up the tab for their power grab.

Of course, I'm talking about government -- not just the federal government, mind you, but 50 different state bureaucracies currently debating some 2,000 Internet bills on the docket this year.

See the whole column at:

Tell your friends to sign the "Don't Tax the Net" petition, now with 20,000 signees:

Subject: USDA and EPA Reclassify Malathion as Carcinogen From: "Deuce" <deuce42@uswest.net>

How can anyone trust anything our government officials tell us anymore? There is no more protection. If this doesn't make you mad as hell, then youneed to do some serious self evaluation. Wonderful legacy we are leaving our kids. -Deuce

deuce42@uswest.net ICQ#395993

USDA and EPA Reclassify Malathion as Carcinogen By Robert Lederman
[see USDA letter below]

Things may be quiet in Giuliani's bunker right now but a storm is approaching that none of the "experts" in the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management [OEM] are ready to handle. Perhaps you'll remember how last September Giuliani, OEM Director Jerome Hauer and NYC Health Commissioner Neal Cohen stood before the public on a daily basis and assured us that Malathion, the organophosphate nerve gas they were repeatedly covering the City with was, "completely safe".

"I ask you not to create any undue or unnecessary alarm or panic," Giuliani said at a City Hall news conference on Thursday morning. "There's no point in not spraying, because there's no harm in spraying. So even if we're overdoing it, there's no risk to anyone in overdoing it...The more dead mosquitoes," he added, "the better. I don't think the media should try to push this out of proportion". NY Times 9/10/99

When activists began distributing scientific information to the media and the public as soon as the spraying began which directly challenged the Giuliani administration's claims the Mayor ridiculed the activists claiming they were neurotics who just wanted publicity.

"The mayor dismissed complaints from environmental advocates about the spraying, referring to them as hysterical "environmental terrorists" who "like to get you angry because it gets them on television." The spraying is harmless, he insisted." "More Mosquito War Protests greet new plan for spraying"-Daily News 9/18/99

When the same activists distributed copies of the Malathion labels from the product used in New York City to the media along with copies of the Mayor's Chem-bio Handbook which described Malathion as a potential military or terrorism-use weapon, Hauer lied repeatedly claiming that they'd used, "another Malathion". This was said despite the owner of the helicopter spraying company hired by Hauer confirming on an audio tape (also given to the media) that the labels were from the very canisters of Malathion used in NYC. The pilot also refuted Hauer and Giuliani's statements that the Malathion was "very diluted" confirming that it was in fact 96 percent unadulterated Malathion. The labels stated in no uncertain terms that the product must never be sprayed on humans.

As recently as January 6, 2000 OEM Director Hauer said in a public meeting, "I have nothing to hide...I'm very comfortable with the spraying of Malathion. If we had to do it again, we would do it the same way," 1/27/2000 Queens Tribune Emergency Management Director Grilled On Mosquito Control

For those who need a government agency to point out the obvious, your moment has arrived. The Environmental Protection Agency is about to reclassify Malathion as a human carcinogen. The following is a letter from a USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) official to Dr. Robert Simon, a noted toxicologist and anti-Malathion activist, on the new classification.

Dr. Robert K. Simon
Environmental and Toxicology International 11244 Waples Mill Road, Suite H2
Fairfax, VA 22030

Dear Dr. Simon:

Thank you for your letter of inquiry on the status of the Annual and Plant Health Inspection Service's revision of the " Fruit Fly Cooperative Control Program, Draft Environmental Impact Statement- 1999." Preparation of the final environmental impact statement (EIS) is on indefinite hold at this time because of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) ongoing review of one of the proposed program pesticides, malathion.

Preliminary information received from the EPA indicates that the EPA is considering changing the registration status of malathion because of studies that suggest that it could be a low-level human carcinogen. Such a change would result in a change in the risk analysis, would require review of protection and mitigation measures, would result in the need to inform and involve the public about the change, and could require the preparation of a supplemental draft EIS.

I regret the delay and that I cannot be more specific about the date of the expected revision, but we believe it is in the best interests of all concerned to wait until EPA's findings are confirmed and made public before we continue. I am placing your name on the distribution list for documents and updates. If you have any questions relating to our process, you may call me at-----.

Sincerely yours,

Harold T. Smith
Senior Project Leader
Environmental Analysis and Documentation Policy and Program Development
United State Department of Agriculture

USDA letter forwarded by:
Joyce Shepard, CSW
Citizens' Action Committee for Change
E-Mail: CactionC@jps.net
Telephone: 718-279-2069
Facsimile: 718-279-3281

Robert Lederman, President of A.R.T.I.S.T. (Artists' Response To Illegal State Tactics) ARTISTpres@aol.com (718) 743-3722

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/pesticid/webinst.htm NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/pesticid/pestlab.htm FYFANON ULV
[This is the brand of Malathion OEM Director Jerry Hauer Testified is being used]
page 1 of label
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/pesticid/fyf1.gifl page 2 Label">
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/pesticid/fyf2.gifpage 3 label
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/pesticid/fyf3.gif page 4 label


From: PhraxRaxs@aol.com
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000

Sorry, but the EPA & USDA acting so quickly is amazing. It would be a damn shame for this to be true. However, did you know that benzene is an extreem carcinogen? That funky smell that gasoline has...that is benzene.

That these two separate federal agencies should come out so quickly with their findings (low level risk) is interesting. Damn near anything in pure concentrations will cause lab rats to develope cancer, heart problems or other medical problems.

We must remember that while the mayor of NYC was trying to do something right, he may have done something wrong. How delightful it must be for the the other Senate candidate (Hillary) to have these two federal agencies anounce that her opponent is killing New Yorkers. Just a cynical thought for the day.
Phrax Raxs

Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2000
From: "Jackie Alan Giuliano, Ph.D." <jackie@deepteaching.com> Subject: Cruise Ship pollution

Hello all,

I never spent much time thinking about cruise ships. That form of vacation never appealed to me. But after doing some research, I am thinking about them a lot more these days.

There are hundreds of cruise ships in the water every day. In the Caribbean alone, 200 cruise ships take 400,000 visitors each month to just the Caribbean. These ships are having a profound negative effect on our environment and on the cultures and ecosystems of other countries.

Each day, whether at sea or in port, a typical cruise ship passenger may generate over 2 pounds of burnable waste, about a pound of food waste and over 2 pounds of glass and tin - five or six times as much as a person on shore.

On a ship carrying 3,000 passengers, this could be as much as 16,500 pounds of waste EVERY DAY, much of which is dumped at sea - along with raw sewage and toxic chemicals - into fragile marine ecosystems. And thousands of animals suffer horribly because of this every day.

Read about this serious situation in this week's Healing Our World commentary, titled "Cruise Ship Pollution: A Holiday of Toxins," on the Environment News Service, hosted on the Lycos Search Engine and Internet Guide. You can see the article at

The recreation choices we make have a profound affect on our world.

I wish you peace.

Jackie Alan Giuliano, Ph.D.

Author of "Healing Our World," a weekly column of opinion on the Environment News Service, available on the LYCOS Search Engine and Internet Guide at

Visit Jackie's website on teaching, activism and an archive of over 100 of his articles at http://www.deepteaching.com

From http://www.truthinlabeling.org

From time to time, we are asked if infant formulas contain processed free glutamic acid (MSG) and processed free aspartic acid - both neurotoxins.

The following are results of analyses (SEE WEB PAGE ABOVE) of five formulas purchased and analyzed in Canada. Brands are listed in alphabetical order. Ingredients of products sold in the United States and other countries may vary. The manufacturer of Enfalac sold in Canada uses the product name Enfamil in the United States.


TABLE 4 - Grams of aspartic acid and glutamic acid ingested daily by an average 3
month old infant
Carnation Good Start
Enfalac Iron Fortified
Enfalac Nutramigen Hypoallergenic
Isomil Soy Formula
Similac Lactose Free
Figures are based on original test results found in Table 1.

Ingredients that contain processed free glutamic acid (MSG) and free aspartic acid -- known neurotoxins -- are used in baby formula. The fact that neurotoxins are present in baby formula is of particular concern since the blood brain barrier is not fully developed in infants, allowing neurotoxins to be more accessible to the brain then is the case in healthy adults.

The amounts of aspartic acid and glutamic acid found in the formulas analyzed have been listed separately in the above schedules. However, in studies using experimental animals, neuroscientists have found that glutamic acid and aspartic acid load on the same receptors in the brain, cause identical brain lesions and neuroendocrine disorders, and act in an additive fashion.

You will note that the level of neurotoxins found in the hypoallergenic formula was greater than the level of neurotoxins found in the other formulas. In reviewing the literature on hypoallergenic formulas, we have found short term studies that concluded that hypoallergenic formulas are safe because babies tolerated them and gain weight. However, we have not seen any long term studies on the safety of hypoallergenic formulas. We are concerned that long term studies might reveal that infants raised on hypoallergenic formulas, as compared to infants who are breast fed or fed on non-hypoallergenic formulas, will exhibit more learning disabilities at school age, and/or more endocrine disorders such as obesity, and reproductive disorders, later in life. Long term studies on the effects of hypoallergenic formulas need to be done.

To put these figures in perspective, consider that in an FDA-sponsored study dated July, 1992 entitled "Safety of Amino Acids Used in Dietary Supplements," the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology concluded, in part, that:
"...it is prudent to avoid the use of dietary supplements of L-glutamic acid by pregnant women, infants, and children.... and...by women of childbearing age and individuals with affective disorders." (MSG is called glutamic acid when used in supplements.)

Consider, also, that a press release dated May 27, 1999, which discussed the European Commission marketing authorization for RotaShield(R) Rotavirus Vaccine stated, in part,
"RotaShield(R) should not be given to infants who are hypersensitive to latex or ... or monosodium glutamate."

We wish to express our appreciation to Baby Love Products Inc. of Camrose, Alberta, Canada for obtaining some of the above information.

Truth in Labeling Campaign, P.O. Box 2532, Darien, IL 60561

mailto: adandjack@aol.com Telephone: 858/481-9333