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