Cot reports: TO/2010/29 & TO/2010/30
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:20 am
Aspartame Toxicity!
Jim and I together with other colleagues and a couple of people who had really suffered from Aspartame poisoning went to see FSA in London. If I can summarise it, it was like talking to the wall.
Jim has not let-up.
But this exchange lets you know the trick that Industry together with the 'powers that be' have done to the nation.
Rgds
Soroush
From: Jim McDonald []
Sent: 22 November 2010 10:10
To: Tim Smith; woodymonte
Subject: FW: Cot reports: TO/2010/29 & TO/2010/30
To: Mr Tim Smith, FSA Chief Executive.
Subject: Re: Cot reports: TO/2010/29 & TO/2010/30
Dear Mr Smith,
Further to my letter to you of yesterday, I thought your COT scientists might like to consider Professor Monte’s comments (below) on the content of these two reports. Professor Monte without question, is the expert on methanol metabolism today and having been quoted in one of the COT reports his comments must be taken into consideration in any decision COT /FSA will make.
The importance of the decision on whether free methanol is a serious threat to life or not, cannot be understated and the science is there to prove that it is. Surely if COT /FSA scientists are only just now(after 28 years) beginning to discover the potential free methanol has to seriously harm us, FSA should be erring on the side of caution and warning the UK public of a potential danger.
The interpretation of the science by COT scientists is being directly challenged here – I look forward to hearing their response.
With Kind Regards,
James McDonald
UKAAC
From: Woodrow Monte
Sent: 22 November 2010 02:56
To: Jim McDonald
Subject: Re: Cot reports: TO/2010/29 & TO/2010/30
Jim:
I have read the two reports that you have sent me and find them to be lacking in the truth department.
While it is well know that formaldehyde is an important if not exclusive toxic component of the metabolism of methanol in the human organism this issue is not evaluated properly in the review done by the Committee. The substantial science that supports the formaldehyde paradigm of methanol toxicity is ignored or is reviewed with considerable negative bias by someone with apparently enough scientific training to show maleficence and forethought in their actions.
Just one example of what I mean by the biased interpenetration of the scientific literature can be exemplified by their treatment of my 1984 article (Aspartame: Methanol and the Public Health. Journal of Applied Nutrition). The issue that is paramount to the discussion of how little methanol may be dangerous hinges on having some grasp of just how much methanol is consumed every day by the average person. Those dark entities such as the Methanol Foundation and the Formaldehyde Institute would have us think that methanol is nothing to worry about, their major argument being that that humans have always been consuming thousands of milligrams of methanol a day in their normal diet. This is a patent lie. I speak to this issue directly in my review article of 1984. My article includes an important chart that summarizes food intake averages collected by the US Government over a number of years. I carefully correlated this with the methanol content of those foods from trusted scientific sources (verified in my own laboratory). I concluded from this considerable data that the average methanol consumption of the American diet was less than 10 mg per day. This estimate stands to this day as the most comprehensive evenhanded attempt at determining the average methanol consumed by an average person. While using my paper as a reference the nameless author defuses the true meaning and value of my published work by asserting the following blatant misrepresentation.
"In contrast, Monte (1984) proposed that methanol exposure from natural sources is much less than 10 mg/day. This is based on an estimate from an EPA document and no further
details are provided".
It can be seen that ignorance of the content of my article is not the problem here... an attempt is being made to defuse the power and depth of the teachings of my work. This type of mischievous manipulation of the true meaning of the considerable body of scientific literature has gone a long way to perpetrating the tragic misconception of the safety of methanol. I wish you luck in your attempt at turning this issue around and giving the public a chance to hear the truth so that they can decide for themselves.
Kindest regards
Woodrow
--
Woodrow C. Monte PhD.
Professor Emeritus of Food Science and Nutrition
Arizona State University, Tempe AZ.
Jim and I together with other colleagues and a couple of people who had really suffered from Aspartame poisoning went to see FSA in London. If I can summarise it, it was like talking to the wall.
Jim has not let-up.
But this exchange lets you know the trick that Industry together with the 'powers that be' have done to the nation.
Rgds
Soroush
From: Jim McDonald []
Sent: 22 November 2010 10:10
To: Tim Smith; woodymonte
Subject: FW: Cot reports: TO/2010/29 & TO/2010/30
To: Mr Tim Smith, FSA Chief Executive.
Subject: Re: Cot reports: TO/2010/29 & TO/2010/30
Dear Mr Smith,
Further to my letter to you of yesterday, I thought your COT scientists might like to consider Professor Monte’s comments (below) on the content of these two reports. Professor Monte without question, is the expert on methanol metabolism today and having been quoted in one of the COT reports his comments must be taken into consideration in any decision COT /FSA will make.
The importance of the decision on whether free methanol is a serious threat to life or not, cannot be understated and the science is there to prove that it is. Surely if COT /FSA scientists are only just now(after 28 years) beginning to discover the potential free methanol has to seriously harm us, FSA should be erring on the side of caution and warning the UK public of a potential danger.
The interpretation of the science by COT scientists is being directly challenged here – I look forward to hearing their response.
With Kind Regards,
James McDonald
UKAAC
From: Woodrow Monte
Sent: 22 November 2010 02:56
To: Jim McDonald
Subject: Re: Cot reports: TO/2010/29 & TO/2010/30
Jim:
I have read the two reports that you have sent me and find them to be lacking in the truth department.
While it is well know that formaldehyde is an important if not exclusive toxic component of the metabolism of methanol in the human organism this issue is not evaluated properly in the review done by the Committee. The substantial science that supports the formaldehyde paradigm of methanol toxicity is ignored or is reviewed with considerable negative bias by someone with apparently enough scientific training to show maleficence and forethought in their actions.
Just one example of what I mean by the biased interpenetration of the scientific literature can be exemplified by their treatment of my 1984 article (Aspartame: Methanol and the Public Health. Journal of Applied Nutrition). The issue that is paramount to the discussion of how little methanol may be dangerous hinges on having some grasp of just how much methanol is consumed every day by the average person. Those dark entities such as the Methanol Foundation and the Formaldehyde Institute would have us think that methanol is nothing to worry about, their major argument being that that humans have always been consuming thousands of milligrams of methanol a day in their normal diet. This is a patent lie. I speak to this issue directly in my review article of 1984. My article includes an important chart that summarizes food intake averages collected by the US Government over a number of years. I carefully correlated this with the methanol content of those foods from trusted scientific sources (verified in my own laboratory). I concluded from this considerable data that the average methanol consumption of the American diet was less than 10 mg per day. This estimate stands to this day as the most comprehensive evenhanded attempt at determining the average methanol consumed by an average person. While using my paper as a reference the nameless author defuses the true meaning and value of my published work by asserting the following blatant misrepresentation.
"In contrast, Monte (1984) proposed that methanol exposure from natural sources is much less than 10 mg/day. This is based on an estimate from an EPA document and no further
details are provided".
It can be seen that ignorance of the content of my article is not the problem here... an attempt is being made to defuse the power and depth of the teachings of my work. This type of mischievous manipulation of the true meaning of the considerable body of scientific literature has gone a long way to perpetrating the tragic misconception of the safety of methanol. I wish you luck in your attempt at turning this issue around and giving the public a chance to hear the truth so that they can decide for themselves.
Kindest regards
Woodrow
--
Woodrow C. Monte PhD.
Professor Emeritus of Food Science and Nutrition
Arizona State University, Tempe AZ.