Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site petrus.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!petrus!mwg From: mwg@petrus.UUCP Newsgroups: net.kids,net.med Subject: Re: The Perils of Nutrasweet Message-ID: <394@petrus.UUCP> Date: Thu, 11-Jul-85 09:17:21 EDT Article-I.D.: petrus.394 Posted: Thu Jul 11 09:17:21 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 07:47:47 EDT References: <771@burl.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc Lines: 24 Xref: watmath net.kids:1446 net.med:1688 ++ > ...concerns nutrasweet and pregnant women. I was told that a physician > at Emory has stated that nutrasweet may be harmfull to the unborn > baby. My question is twofold: 1. Why wasn't this studied earlier? There was a longish article last year in Common Cause magazine about nutrasweet. The claim was that nutrasweet was pushed through the FDA very quickly (and not without substantial pressure from some chemical company which makes almost all of it), with a minimum of studys and testing. They failed to show, conclusively, any harmful side-effects. This was related to the fact that they failed to show *anything* conclusively. The product was raced through approval to demonstrate the Reagan administration's desire not to tie up 'progress' with too much red tape. The main interviewee of the article was an MD (from Emory if I remember) who said that nutrasweet was the type of thing that plays with a class of vital bodily fluids which exist and function in extremely small quantities (hormones or neurotransmitters or some such). Therefore a small quantity of neutrosweet may affect your mood, disposition or other psychological and neural brain functions in subtle, difficult-to-measure ways. I avoid the stuff like the plague. If you would like, I can dig up the article and post quotes or send you a hard copy. (Send mail.) -Mark