VERBRAUCHER AKTUELL

Kinder, Konsum und Suche nach Identität

Weg vom Markenwahn das kann ein guter Vorsatz in manchen Familien sein. Doch Eltern müssen mit gutem Beispiel vorangehen.Bielefeld. Das Sweatshirt guckt Marc (11) nicht einmal an. "Das ist assi, so kann ich doch nicht rumlaufen." Form und Farbe sind zwar in Ordnung, doch das richtige Label fehlt. Und auf die Marke kommt es an zum Leidwesen der Eltern, die oft bereits das Handy oder Diddl-Figuren finanziert haben und sich spätestens bei Markensportschuhen für 200 Euro die Frage stellen, ob es nicht auch die Modelle für 100 tun.

"Der Wert der Ware definiert sich über den Preis. Reduzierte Sachen oder Fälschungen riechen Jugendliche sieben Meter gegen den Wind", sagt der Soziologe Professor Klaus Hurrelmann von der Universität Bielefeld. Teure Handys oder Turnschuhe erhöhen den Wert der eigenen Person, glauben viele Heranwachsende. "Gerade in der Pubertät fehlt ihnen der innere Halt, und damit geht ein geringes Selbstwertgefühl einher", sagt Pädagogikprofessor Peter Struck von der Universität Hamburg.

Mütter und Väter seien gefordert, das Selbstbewusstsein der Kinder zu stärken und ihnen auch ein Gefühl für den Wert des Geldes zu vermitteln, sagt Struck. "Eltern sollten den Kindern nicht jeden Wunsch und schon gar nicht sofort erfüllen." Noch wichtiger ist jedoch, die Kinder zu überzeugen, dass nicht nur das Äußere zählt. "Man kann auch einem Fünfjährigen schon erklären, dass man sich die teuren Adidas-Schuhe nicht leisten kann", so Struck. Dafür empfiehlt er die "Prime-Time" der Kinder, etwa nach der Gute-Nacht-Geschichte. "Wenig Erfolg hat man, wenn man mit dem Kind diskutiert, während es in einem Kaufhaus cholerisch ausrastet."

Die Psychotherapeutin Anna Schoch aus München rät: "Die meisten Erwachsenen sollten erst einmal ihre eigenen Maßstäbe überprüfen." Oft schielten auch sie nach teuren Marken. Eltern sollten Kindern verdeutlichen, dass sie auch mit guten Leistungen in der Schule, sportlichen Erfolgen oder sozialem Engagement punkten können. "Kinder müssen lernen, Massentrends zu widerstehen und Nein zu sagen."

Wie stark sich Kinder an Konsum und Marken orientieren, hängt vor allem vom familiären Umfeld ab. "Wenn Kinder zu viele Spielsachen oder Markenartikel bekommen, entwickeln sie schnell eine Konsumabhängigkeit", sagt Albert Wunsch, Leiter des Katholischen Jugendamtes in Neuss. Man solle ihnen in erster Linie Sachen schenken, die man nicht kaufen kann.

Spätestens in der Schule werden Kinder mit bestimmten Logos oder Marken konfrontiert. Bis zum zehnten Lebensjahr sind die Ansichten der Eltern noch wichtig. Danach zählt vor allem die Meinung der Gleichaltrigen. Mit dem Eintritt in die Pubertät suchen viele Kinder verstärkt nach der eigenen Identität. Die Werbung spricht gezielt diese Gruppe an. "Dem Kind wird suggeriert, dass nur ein bestimmter Schuh der richtige ist: Wenn du den nimmst, bis du ein anderer Mensch", sagt Hurrelmann. Diese Aufwertung durch ein Produkt sei natürlich nur eine Illusion. "Aber das Kind glaubt, jetzt von anderen anerkannt zu werden.

Wenn Kinder sagen "Das haben alle", sollte man das Wort "alle" hinterfragen. "Meist handelt es sich nur um Gruppen", sagt Hurrelmann. Eine Lösung kann auch sein, den Kauf um zwei, drei Monate zu verschieben und zu schauen, ob der Wunsch dann immer noch so stark ist. Bleibt der Wunsch bestehen oder wird das Kind tatsächlich wegen seiner Kleidung in der Schule gehänselt, rät Hurrelmann, nachzugeben. "Der Druck auf die Kinder ist in manchen Schulklassen wahnsinnig hoch. Wenn ich dem Kind nicht helfe, dränge ich es unter Umständen in eine Außenseiterrolle." Beim Kauf eines teuren Markenprodukts könnten Eltern auch das Kind einen Anteil vom Taschengeld bezahlen lassen. "So bekommen Kinder ein Verständnis, dass Marken ihren Preis haben."

03.01.05

Von Britta Schmeis und Carina Frey

Verbraucher aktuell

http://www.wz-newsline.de/seschat4/200/sro.php?redid=72356


Nachrichtr von der BI Bad Dürkheim

Bangladesh: Arsen im Trinkwasser, Arsen im Reis

Die größte Massenvergiftung in der Geschichte der Menschheit erfasst
die Nahrungskette...

http://www.telepolis.de/tp/r4/artikel/18/18958/1.html

Avoidable health crisis re nighttime EMR exposures

Klaus: Below is one of the emails I sent the other day making an appeal for dissemination of information to the public in regard to the specific issue of nighttime EMF/EMR exposures and close proximity to electrical devices/appliances.


Subj: Fwd: Avoidable health crisis
Date: 6/23/2004 9:50:44 PM Central Standard Time
From: JCMPelican
To: john@ramstad.org
CC: mn03@mail.house.gov
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Avoidable health crisis
Date: 6/8/2004 4:43:31 PM Central Standard Time
From: jcmpelican@aol.com

Thank you for using Trust for America's Health Mail System

Message sent to the following recipients:
President Bush
Message text follows:

June 8, 2004

[recipient address was inserted here]

Dear [recipient name was inserted here],

Dear President Bush, Senator Dayton, Senator Coleman and Representative Kennedy:

Inaction and greed on the part of government are very costly to this country!!! The EMF Interagency Committee Report (2000) has never been presented to Congress. Findings include immune dysfunction, Leukemia and other health problems due to chronic exposures to low levels of EMF's (electromagnetic fields).

Since then, the 2002 Calif EMF Study has found connection to brain cancer, Leukemia, Lou Gehrig's Disease and miscarriage to EMF levels as low as 4.0 milligauss (about $8 million more was spent on this study). New study (2004) -- Lai/Univ Washington through NIEHS, actually shows a picture of cells leaving rat's brains after exposure equiv to use of electrical appliances such as a hair dryer.

I have a booklet published by "utilities communications' experts" that recommends replacing electric clocks (BEDSIDE) with battery-operated or wind-up clocks!!! I have two grandsons diagnosed with rare immune. Told they may develop Leukemia. They were sleeping next to electric meters in their respective homes. Dramatic improvement after changes!!!

Two guinea pig studies my own home -- drastic blood changes and death within a month of to one guinea pig out of each study after exposure to electric meter on bedroom wall!!!

Grandsons and guinea pigs developed ASTHMA!!!

Husband slept near electric clock radio for years -- diagnosed with Alzheimers. We also have two high voltage powerlines on blvd only 50 ft. from front of house; however, I am convinced that the most extreme symptoms/problems are due to SLEEPING close to electrical appliances/devices.

Univ of Wash study suggests repeat exposure to hair dryers, etc. and states cumulative damage. The BIG PROBLEMS are more specific and easier to adapt too but we MUST HAVE "an informed public" in order to begin to drastically reduce the vast numbers of struggling children with ADD, ADHD, asthma, chronic infections and even cancers!!!

Economic loss alone from all illnesses that can be prevented by reducing nighttime EMF/EMR exposures is astronomical!!! Everyone knows what a mess our healthcare system is in. We need to inform the public so children will have full use of their brains which they don't have now. Even something as simple as "lack of sleep or lack of good sleep," can begin the downward spiral we see often in children who do not fare well in school.

I am not even "touching on" all of the problems that result from parents who can't sleep and go on to develop any number of inflammatory conditions (virtually any disease) from sleeping close to electrical objects that could simply be moved across the room. Anger, depression, chronic sinus, ear and other infections, migraine headaches -- all of this is found in research regarding inflammation and so is the fact that both ionizing and nonionizing radiation cause "inflammation!!!!"

I am begging you to begin to take appropriate action (informing the public) by presenting the EMF Interagency Committee Report to Congress and providing for dissemination of information to the public (funds included in the $46 million allocation for EMF RAPID Study).

Sincerely,

Joanne C. Mueller
731- 123rd Avenue N.W.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55448-2127 USA
Telephone: 763-755-6114
Email: jcmpelican@aol.com

WWF-Studie

08.06.04

Eine Studie des WWF belegt, dass synthetische chemische Substanzen die Intelligenz von Kindern beeinträchtigen. Die Erkenntnisse offenbaren, dass bestimmte Chemikalien die Gehirnentwicklung und Motorik von Kindern schädigen können, und zwar schon in Konzentrationen, die bereits im menschlichen Blut nachgewiesen wurden. Solche Chemikalien befinden sich in Fernsehern, Computern aber auch in Polsterbezügen und Möbeln. Aus der Studie geht auch hervor, dass 70 Prozent der meistgenutzten Chemikalien bisher nicht oder nur unzureichend auf ihre Effekte auf Gehirn und Nervensystem getestet wurden. Sie bergen daher ein unbekanntes Risiko für die kindliche Entwicklung. Die Studie fasst neue wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zusammen.

Die ganze Nachricht im Internet:

http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php4?Nr=8615

May 21, 2004

The Bush Administration is giving Americans new reason to watch what they eat. Over the course of 10 days last month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued three "guidances" and one directive -- all legally binding interpretations of law -- that threaten to seriously dilute the meaning of the word organic and discredit the department's National Organic Program.

The changes -- which would allow the use of antibiotics on organic dairy cows, as well as synthetic pesticides on organic farms, and more -- were made with zero input from the public or the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), the advisory group that worked for more than a decade to help craft the first federal organic standards, put in place in October 2002.

The USDA insists the changes are harmless: "The directives have not changed anything. They are just clarifications of what is in the regulations that were written by the National Organic Standards Board," stated USDA spokesperson Joan Shaffer. "They just explain what's enforceable. There is no difference [between the clarifications and the original regulations] -- it's just another way of explaining it."

But Jim Riddle, vice chair of the NOSB and endowed chair in agricultural systems at the University of Minnesota, argues that what the USDA is trying to pass off as a clarification of regulations is in fact a substantial change: "These are the sorts of changes for which the department is supposed to do a formal new rulemaking process, with posting in the federal register, feedback from our advisory board, and a public-comment period. And yet there is no such process denoted anywhere."

Organic activists suspect that industry pressure drove the policy shifts. They point out that the USDA leadership has long-standing industry sympathies: Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman served on the board of directors of a biotech company; both her chief of staff and her director of communications were plucked right out of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

One practice favored by large agribusiness is the use of antibiotics on cows. A USDA guidance issued on April 14 will allow just that on organic dairy farms -- a dramatic reversal of 2002 rules. [1] Under the new guidelines, sickly dairy cows can be treated not just with antibiotics but with numerous others drugs and still have their milk qualify as organic, so long as 12 months pass between the time the treatments are administered and the time the milk is sold.

"This new directive makes a mockery of organic standards," said Richard Wood, a recent member of the FDA's Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee and executive director of Food Animal Concerns Trust.

Another new guidance put out on the same day would allow cattle farmers to feed their heifers non-organic fishmeal that could be riddled with synthetic preservatives, mercury, and PCBs, and still sell their beef as organic.

And the following week, on April 23, the USDA took the startling step of issuing a legal directive that opens the door for use of some synthetic pesticides on organic farms.

Last but certainly not least, another guidance released on April 14 narrows the scope of the federal organic certification program to crops, livestock, and the products derived from them, meaning that national organic standards will not be developed for fish, nutritional supplements, pet food, fertilizers, cosmetics, or personal-care products.

Despite the USDA's demurrals, activists view the department's changes as a serious threat to hard-won standards for organic products. The National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture and other groups are investigating possible industry influence into the USDA's process, and some environmental groups are preparing to take legal action.

This story was jointly produced by BushGreenwatch http://www.bushgreenwatch.org and Grist Magazine http://www.gristmagazine.com/. For more on this story, visit Grist Magazine http://www.gristmagazine.com/muck/muck051804.asp.


SOURCES:
[1] Antibiotic Guidance Statement, USDA, Apr. 14, 2004.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/GuidanceStatements/AntibioticGuidance041304.pdf
[2] Fishmeal Guidance Statement, USDA, Apr. 14, 2004.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/GuidanceStatements/FishmealGuidance041304.pdf
[3] Pesticide Compliance, USDA, Apr. 23, 2004.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Compliance/PesticidesCompliance.pdf
[4] Scope Guidance Statement, USDA, Apr. 14, 2004.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/GuidanceStatements/ScopeGuidance041304.pdf


Source: http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000123.php

EU Lebens- und Futtermittelrecht

19.05.04

Das Bundeskabinett beschloss am Mittwoch die Neuordnung des Lebensmittel- und Futtermittelrechts (LFBG). Der Gesetzesentwurf berücksichtigt verschiedene europäische Vorgaben, die im Gefolge der BSE-Krise entstanden sind. Für Deutschland ist erstmals ein einheitliches Lebens- und Futtermittelgesetzbuch vorgesehen. Die Grundsätze des Gesetzentwurfs hält foodwatch für sinnvoll. Aber bei der Konstruktion des Gesetzes sieht die Organisation erhebliche Gefahren für den Verbraucherschutz: "Die einflussreiche Wirtschaftslobby wird den Verbraucherschutz aushebeln", prognostiziert Wolfschmidt.

Die ganze Nachricht im Internet:

http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php4?Nr=8498

OCA & Allies Declare Major Victory as Monsanto Drops GE Wheat
Monsanto suspends biotech wheat program
By Carey Gillam, Reuters

KANSAS CITY, Mo. < Monsanto on Monday said it was suspending plans to introduce what would be the world's first biotech wheat, a product that has generated concerns around the world about scientific tinkering with a key food crop.

Monsanto, whose shares moved lower Monday morning, said it had reached the decision after "extensive consultation" with customers in the wheat industry, and would continue to monitor the desire for crop improvements to determine "if and when" it might be practical to move forward.

St. Louis-based Monsanto has been doing field tests of Roundup Ready wheat for six years. It has already commercialized Roundup Ready corn and soybeans, and had hoped to spread the technology into the vast wheat-growing industry, starting in the United States and Canadian markets.

The company has been under fire from environmentalists, farmer groups and some export trade experts for its plans to introduce a spring wheat variety called Roundup Ready, which is tolerant of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.

Opponents said the biotech crop would be moderately beneficial to only a small segment of the wheat-growing industry, but could devastate exports of all U.S. and Canadian wheat. Survey after survey done by export officials has shown that foreign buyers were unwilling to risk alienating their own customers by accepting biotech wheat supplies.

U.S. Wheat Associates, which markets American wheat abroad, had warned Monsanto that foreign opposition was strong.

U.S. Wheat Associates President Alan Tracy said he was both disappointed and relieved by Monsanto's move.

"It's a shame when a promising scientific trait is deferred because of nonscientific concerns," Tracy said. "Monsanto is obviously responding to the same concerns that we've seen in the marketplace, and we want to give them credit ... for recognizing the problems we would face."

Just two weeks ago, a group of grain industry players, including the North American Millers' Association, sent a letter to Monsanto Chief Executive Hugh Grant expressing industry concerns and asking that Monsanto tread carefully in its introduction.

Several groups have sought moratoriums on a biotech wheat introduction, and some foreign buyers have threatened to avoid purchasing U.S. wheat if Monsanto's biotech wheat was introduced.

"I think it is a very wise decision," said Louis Kuster, a North Dakota wheat farmer, referring to Monsanto's decision. "Our foreign markets overwhelmingly did not want it and repeatedly had told us they would seek other sources of supply. That would mean ruination of the wheat market."

Monsanto said that so far in fiscal 2004 it had spent less than $5 million on the Roundup Ready wheat project, and the plans to shelve it would not change its forecast for fiscal-year 2004 earnings.

The company said it would stop breeding and field research of Roundup Ready wheat and focus instead on work on Roundup Ready cotton and an improved soybean oil.

National Association of Wheat Growers CEO Daren Coppock said the decision was "a positive outcome" for the industry and for Monsanto. He said two other biotech wheat traits are in development by other organizations and they might be able to help forge an easier path to acceptance.

"If we see a broader-based trait come forward, it helps us all, plus it
gives us time to do our homework on gaining acceptance," Coppock said.

Added Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers
Association, "Monsanto has correctly read the winds of public opinion and farmers and consumers who are opposed to their Roundup Ready wheat."

"I think that the crops that are in the pipeline are not going to be able to be introduced without a tremendous amount of debate and civil strife," Cummins said.

Monsanto shares were down 66 cents or 2% at $32.33 on the New York Stock Exchange Monday morning, off an earlier low at $32.14

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/wheatwin051004.cfm

and

Embattled Biotech Industry Seeks to Bring Non-Food GMOs to Market
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/grasses051004.cfm


Informant: Teresa Binstock

Over the past few weeks America's organic standards have once again come under heavy attack. First the USDA's National Organic Program (NOP) announced on April 14 that they would no longer monitor or police "organic" labels on non-agricultural products, literally opening the door for unscrupulous companies to put bogus organic labels on products such as fish, body care products, pet foods, fertilizer, and clothing.

In the case of seafood and body care products, the marketplace is already starting to become flooded with products bearing the organic label, even though the production methods (industrial fish farms) or content ("organic" shampoos with organic claims based upon added water) in many of these products violate traditional organic principles. Besides giving the green light to bogus organic labels the new USDA "scope policy" penalizes genuine organic companies that have begun sourcing, certifying, and labeling their products as organic.

Corporate agribusiness and the biotech lobby have apparently decided that strict organic farming practices and the booming organic market constitute a threat to their bottom line, and have called on their friends in the Bush administration USDA to degrade organic standards and prepare for a restructuring of organic production so as to facilitate the use of industrial agriculture practices such as pesticides, antibiotics, non-organic feed, growth hormones and even genetically engineered animal drugs.

USDA's NOP announced on April 28 controversial new directives/guidance statements on national organic standards including:

"Organic" Crops Raised with Pesticides?

The USDA has now stated that as long as the farmer and the organic certifier don't know the specific ingredients of the pesticides applied to the "organic" plants, the crops can be sold as "organic". To make matters worse, it is not required by law for pesticide companies to list the ingredients on their products (it's considered proprietary information), so the farmers rarely know what the specific ingredients are.

"Organic" Dairy Cows Injected with Antibiotics and Synthetic Hormones?

The USDA has announced that individual cows can be treated with any kind of drug at any time, including synthetic growth hormones, but milk can only be sold from that cow 12 months after that treatment. The problem with this directive is that it opens up the door for split operation factory style dairy farms, whereby organic and non-organic dairy operations are carried out simultaneously, and hundreds if not thousands of "organic" dairy cows are kept in intensive confinement. Not only are industrial sized dairy farms bad for the environment, but they inevitably give rise to sick cows who have to be treated with drugs. Of course many of these drugs build up in the body fat and are released in the milk and meat from these animals.. If this new directive is allowed to stand, organic milk could potentially contain residues of drugs and hormones.

Mercury and PCBs Allowed in "Organic" Beef?

The USDA also stated on April 28 that non-organic fishmeal can be fed to cattle and the beef can still be sold as "organic". Fishmeal is used as a protein supplement on conventional cattle ranches, but it frequently contains mercury, PCBs and other synthetic chemicals. Mercury and PCBs are "bioacculmulators" meaning they are concentrated and stored in the "meat" of the animal.

The Organic Consumers Association is working hard to stop the degradation of organic standards by the USDA and head-off the takeover of the organic market by corporate agribusiness and biotech interests. We are now launching a national campaign called SOS--Safeguard Organic Standards, to make sure that strict organic standards are maintained and that organic monitoring, certification, and policing extends to the full range of consumer products, including body care, clothing, pet food, fertilizer, and other items. But to Safeguard Organic Standards we need your donations and we need your grassroots volunteer energy. Join us, and ask your friends, family, and neighbors to do the same.

http://www.organicconsumers.org

Informant: garden beekeeper

Leading Fortune 500 Companies, Coke, Pepsi, Walmart, Kraft General Foods, etc. filed against for knowingly poisoning the public with aspartame

SACRAMENTO, CA (PRWEB) April 26, 2004--ASPARTAME LAWSUITS ACCUSE MANY COMPANIES OF POISONING THE PUBLIC. Defendants in the lawsuits include Coca-cola, PepsiCo, Bayer Corp., the Dannon Company, William Wrigley Jr. Company, Walmart, ConAgra Foods, Wyeth, Inc., The NutraSweet Company, and Altria Corp. (parent company of Kraft Foods and Philip Morris).

Lawsuits were filed in three separate California courts against twelve companies who either produce or use the artificial sweetener aspartame as a sugar substitute in their products. The suits were filed in Shasta, Sonoma and Butte County, California.

The suits allege that the food companies committed fraud and breach of warranty by marketing products to the public such as diet Coke, diet Pepsi, sugar free gum, Flintstone's vitamins, yogurt and children's aspirin with the full knowledge that aspartame, the sweetener in them, is neurotoxic.

Aspartame is a drug masquerading as an additive. It interacts with other drugs, has a synergistic and additive effect with MSG, and is a chemical hyper-sensitization agent. As far back as 1970, Dr. John Olney founded the field of neuroscience called excitotoxicity when he did studies on aspartic acid, which makes up 40% of aspartame, and found it caused lesions in the brains of mice. He made world news on the aspartame/brain tumor connection in l996. Dr. Ralph Walton, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine has written of the behavioral and psychiatric problems triggered by aspartame-caused depletion of serotonin.

Aspartame causes headache, memory loss, seizures, vision loss, coma and cancer. It worsens or mimics the symptoms of such diseases and conditions as fibromyalgia, MS, lupus, ADD, diabetes, Alzheimer's, chronic fatigue and depression.

Aspartame liberates free methyl alcohol. The resulting chronic methanol poisoning affects the dopamine system of the brain causing addiction. Methanol, or wood alcohol, constitutes one-third of the aspartame molecule and is classified as a severe metabolic poison and narcotic.

Recent news is full of reports of world-class athletes and other healthy consumers of aspartame suddenly dropping dead. Sudden death can occur from aspartame use because it damages the cardiac conduction system.

Dr. Woodrow Monte in the peer reviewed journal, Aspartame: Methanol and the Public Health, wrote: "When diet sodas and soft drinks, sweetened with aspartame, are used to replace fluid loss during exercise and physical exertion in hot climates, the intake of methanol can exceed 250 mg/day or 32 times the Environmental Protection Agency's recommended limit of consumption for this cumulative poison."

The effects of aspartame are documented by the FDA's own data. In 1995 the agency was forced, under the Freedom Of Information Act, to release a list of ninety-two aspartame symptoms reported by thousands of victims. This is only the tip of the iceberg. H. J. Roberts, MD, published the medical text "Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic" -- 1,000 pages of symptoms and diseases triggered by this neurotoxin including the sordid history of its approval.

Since its discovery in 1965, controversy has raged over the health risks associated with the sugar substitute. From laboratory testing of the chemical on rats, researchers have discovered that the drug induces brain tumors. On Sept 30, l980 the Board of Inquiry of the FDA concurred and denied the petition for approval. In l981, the newly appointed FDA Commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes, ignored the negative ruling and approved aspartame for dry goods. As recorded in the Congressional Record of 1985, then CEO of Searle Laboratories Donald Rumsfeld said that he would call in his markers to get aspartame approved. Rumsfeld was on President Reagan's transition team and a day after taking office appointed Hayes. No FDA Commissioner in the previous sixteen years had allowed Aspartame on the market.

In 1983, aspartame was approved for use in carbonated beverages. Today it is found in over 5000 foods, drinks and medicines.

Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, MD, author of "Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills" ( http://www.russellblaylockmd.com ) wrote about the relationship between aspartame and macular degeneration, diabetic blindness and glaucoma (all known to result from excitotoxin accumulation in the retina).

All of these neurodegenerative diseases are worsened by aspartame. In addition, we now have evidence that excitotoxins play a major role in exacerbation of MS and other demyelinating disorders including trigeminal neuraliga. Blaylock says that new studies show excitotoxins trigger significant elevation of free radicals in the lining (endothelial cells) of arteries, which means that aspartame will increase the incidence of heart attacks and strokes (atherosclerosis).

In original studies, aspartame has triggered brain, mammary, uterine, ovarian, testicular, thyroid and pancreatic tumors.

Plaintiffs have asked for an injunction to stop companies from producing, manufacturing, processing, selling or using aspartame.

Plaintiffs in all three cases are seeking a jury trial.

If you would like to schedule someone from the National Justice League for an interview, please call or fax us at 208-246-1171.

Roberta Bellon, Public Relations

NATIONAL JUSTICE LEAGUE
http://www.nationaljusticeleague.com
2205 Hilltop Dr. Ste. 2022
Redding, Ca 96002
Phone: 208-246-1171
California: 530-248-3483
Cell Phone: 208-890-0034
E-mail: info@nationaljusticeleague.com

FOR INFORMATION ON ASPARTAME:
http://www.dorway.com
http://www.wnho.net

You can also contact Dr. Betty Martini, Founder, Mission Possible Intl, 9270 River Club Parkway, Duluth, Georgia 30097 USA 770-242-2599

This release is issued by courtesy of:WORLD NATURAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION (for further information on this Breaking News and History of Aspartame)
http://www.wnho.net/history_of_aspartame.htm

Contact Information
Betty Martini

MISSION POSSIBLE INTERNATIONAL
http://www.wnho.net, http://www.dorway.com

World Natural Health Organization


Informant: ECOTERRA Intl.

Microwaves are a hazard to life
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/189655/

Microwave–ovens cause cancer after all
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/189666/

Man turns the Earth into a Microwave–Oven
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/189645/

Still 'Cooking' With Microwaves?
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/209635/

Food prepared in the microwave oven leads to changes in the blood
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/microwave_cooking.pdf

Microwave oven info
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/491151/