Nonnutritive Sweeteners in Breast Milk.

J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2015 Aug 12:1-4. [Epub ahead of print]

Sylvetsky AC¹, Gardner AL, Bauman V, Blau JE, Martin Garraffo H, Walter PJ, Rother KI.

Abstract

"To date, saccharin is the only Nonnutritive sweetener (NNS) reported to be found in human breast milk after maternal consumption, while there is no apparent information on the other NNS.

Saccharin, sucralose, and acesulfame-potassium were present in 65% of participants' milk samples, whereas aspartame was not detected.

These data indicate that NNS are frequently ingested by nursing infants, and thus prospective clinical studies are necessary to determine whether early NNS exposure via breast milk may have clinical implications."

SACCHARIN WAS TO HAVE BEEN BANNED IN THE UNITED STATES BACK IN 1977 UNDER THE DELANEY CLAUSE, BUT OUR CORPORATE-LOVING CONGRESS PUT A STOP TO THAT.
CONGRESS ISSUED A 2-YEAR MORATORIUM ON THAT BAN BY THE FDA AND HAS EXTENDED THAT MORATORIUM EVERY YEAR SINCE 1977.

THE FACT IS, CHEMICAL BREAKDOWN OF SACCHARIN BY A HUMAN SYSTEM CREATES FORMALDEHYDE.

AS THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTED IN 2011:
"Government scientists listed formaldehyde as a carcinogen, and said it is found in worrisome quantities in plywood, particle board, mortuaries and hair salons.

Some in the industry have promised to continue fighting the report, and will appeal elements of its findings.

But some manufacturers already have begun using alternatives to formaldehyde in their products.

This is the 12th cancer list released by the toxicology program at the National Institutes of Health."

AND, IF YOU BUT LOOK, YOU WILL SEE LEGAL BATTLES AFTER EACH PRONOUNCEMENT OF A NEWLY LISTED CARCINOGEN.

INDUSTRY, MY FRIENDS, DOES NOT GIVE A TINKER'S EARTHEN DAM ABOUT OUR HEALTH.
IF IT DID, IT WOULD NEVER HAVE ASSAILED OUR HEALTH IN THE FIRST PLACE AND WOULD HAVE STOPPED WHEN CAUGHT HARMING HUMAN BEINGS.
PLEASE, THINK ABOUT THAT.

THE HISTORY OF SACCHARIN GOES BACK TO THE LATE 1800s.

"Three hundred times sweeter than sugar, with no apparent side effects, it was touted to consumers as the gateway to a world of sweetness without consequences.

Over time the saccharin story grew more complicated; while the substance remained unchanged, perceptions of it have undergone almost alchemical shifts.

In its 130-year history saccharin has been a laboratory accident, a wonder drug, a dangerous carcinogen, and a consumer cause célèbre."

AN ATTEMPT TO BAN SACCHARIN HAS BEEN MADE SINCE 1908.
YES, 1908.

FROM THE FDA:Introduction
In 1958, Congress passed the Delaney Clause of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

The Clause prohibited the use of all food additives found to be carcinogenic to humans or animals, and makes the U.S. Food and Drug Administration responsible for its implementation.
In the late 1970’s, a Canadian study by Arnold, D. L., et al, indicated the formation of bladder tumors in rats exposed to high doses of saccharin.
Later, the FDA responded by proposing a ban on saccharin in 1977 - under the Delaney Clause.

Due to public outcry following the ban proposal, Congress used its authority over the FDA to place a moratorium on the ban for two years until further research could be conducted.

The moratorium has remained in place to date, while the controversy over the research results has continued.

Background
The groundwork for the ban on saccharin was established in 1938 when Congress passed the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The Act tightened the existing food standards and reinforced the roles and responsibilities of the FDA.

In 1958, laws addressing food additives were introduced to give the FDA additional control over new chemicals entering the food supply.

The Delaney Clause, a provision of the law that prohibited the use of any food additive shown to cause cancer in animals and humans, would come into play twenty years later in an FDA attempt to ban saccharin.

The primary reason that saccharin remained on the market during the first 70 years of its use was its labeling as a “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) status among the regulatory agencies.

It was not until the 1969 ban on cyclamates, a non-nutritive sweetener often mixed with saccharin, that the FDA made a push to further investigate saccharin for possible carcinogenicity. At this same time, the FDA started a program to review all GRAS substances employing the most current science and technology.

In 1972, toxicological studies indicated possible bladder cancer caused by saccharin.
The data suggested the tumors might be a result of the impurities versus the saccharin itself. In response, the FDA removed saccharin from the GRAS status and issued an interim food additive regulation limiting the use of saccharin in foods while waiting for additional study results.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reviewed the study data in 1974 and agreed with the previous study conclusions.

The interim regulations continued until 1977 when additional rat studies were completed by Canadian research teams. Based on the claim that saccharin itself was causing bladder tumors in rats, the FDA proposed the ban on saccharin as a food additive via the Delaney Clause.

Public outcry and voiced concerns from the diabetic community pushed Congress to place a moratorium on the ban for two years to allow for additional research.

[HISTORICAL NOTE: MONSANTO HAD PURCHASED ALL RIGHTS TO THESE PRODUCTS WHEN IT TOOK OVER SEARLE IN 1938.]

In lieu of the moratorium, labeling requirements were established to warn individuals of the possible risk of cancer associated with the use of saccharin based on laboratory animal studies.

Recent Developments
In 2000, President Clinton signed a bill to remove the warning label from products containing saccharin. To this day a salt derivative of saccharin, sodium saccharin, remains on the list of carcinogens and still requires warning labels."

MONSANTO WON THE BATTLE...AGAIN.

I OFFER THE FOLLOWING HISTORY OF SACCHARIN ONLY SO THAT YOU CAN SEE HOW THE PROCESS OF ALLOWING ADDITIVES PLAYS OUT HERE IN AMERICA.

BASICALLY, THE TEAM WITH THE MOST POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL CLOUT WINS THE BATTLE TO INTRODUCE OR NOT INTRODUCE CHEMICALS INTO OUR FOOD SUPPLY.

WITH LOBBYISTS BEING THICKER THAN FLEAS IN CONGRESSIONAL HALLWAYS, BIG INDUSTRY ALWAYS HAS A FOOT IN THE DOOR OF THOSE WHO PASS LAWS AND CREATE THE RULES.

I HOPE BY READING THIS THAT YOU WILL COME TO UNDERSTAND HOW EASILY CONGRESS IS SWAYED AND THE EXTENT IT WILL GO TO FOR INDUSTRY AND FOR POPULARITY.

WHEN YOU READ, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT CONGRESS CHANGED ITS MIND ON BANNING SACCHARIN BECAUSE OF "PUBLIC OUTCRY", REMEMBER, PLEASE, THAT THOSE WHO INITIALLY WANTED SACCHARIN BECAUSE OF DIABETES WERE A VERY SMALL MINORITY OF VOTERS.

AND ALSO REMEMBER THAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS ALMOST NEVER FULLY INFORMED ABOUT SCIENTIFIC STUDIES.
SOME ARE ONLINE TODAY, BUT EVEN NOW, THE FULL STUDIES OFTEN COST SEVERAL DOLLARS TO PURCHASE IF ONE WISHES TO SEE EVERYTHING, AND HAS NO "M.D." AFTER THEIR NAME AND NO DEA NUMBER.

EVERY CURIOUS CITIZEN IN AMERICA SHOULD HAVE FULL ACCESS TO ALL SCIENTIFIC/MEDICAL STUDIES!

WE SHOULD ALSO HAVE ACCESS TO EVERYTHING CONGRESS SAYS OR DOES BEFORE BILLS ARE VOTED ON.

I HOPE YOU WILL ALSO GROW TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE VERY AGENCIES CREATED FOR OUR PROTECTION ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOBS.
WE HAVE FEW IN GOVERNMENT WHO PLACE THE CITIZENS OF THIS NATION ABOVE INDUSTRIAL PROFIT, OR ABOVE CAMPAIGN FINANCE, AND EQUALLY FEW WHO HAVE PRESERVED HONOR, INTEGRITY, OR TRUTH.

ALLOW ME TO RESTATE MY STANCE:
I AM NOT "PARTIED", HAVE NO PARTY AFFILIATION, LOATHE THE "PARTY SYSTEM", AND AM OUTRAGED DAILY THAT THOSE WE ELECT FAIL TO KEEP THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE, FAIL TO VOTE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, AND FAIL REPEATEDLY TO RESCUE OUR COUNTRY FROM ITS DOWNWARD SPIRAL.

OF ALL MY CONCERNS, THE CHIEF IS FOR THE CHILDREN, ALL CHILDREN.
CHILDREN HAVE NO SAY-SO, LITTLE CHOICE IN HOW THINGS ARE DONE OR WHAT DECISIONS ARE MADE FOR THEM.

THOSE WHO HARM CHILDREN ARE MY ENEMIES, AS THEY SHOULD BE.
WE ARE GIVEN THE TASK OF PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN, TRYING TO PROVIDE A BETTER, SAFER, SANER FUTURE FOR THEM.

WE MUST NOT FAIL TO DO SO.

THE SACCHARIN ISSUE, FOR ME, IS ABOUT A MISINFORMED OR UNINFORMED PUBLIC.
KNOWLEDGE GIVES POWER.
WHEN WE KNOW THE FACTS, ALL THE FACTS, THEN WE CAN MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS.
WHEN ANY FACTS ARE HIDDEN OR NOT MADE PUBLIC, NO ONE CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.

THE DECISION, IN THIS CASE, IS WHETHER OR NOT A MOTHER-TO-BE, OR A CURRENTLY PREGNANT FEMALE IS AWARE OF THE MANY STUDIES ACROSS OVER A CENTURY THAT HAVE POINTED TO HAZARDS TO THE FETUS, TO THE NURSING INFANT, TO THE TODDLER, TO THE CHILD WHO, IN ANY WAY, CONSUMES SACCHARIN.

THAT IS MY ONLY PURPOSE...TO INFORM.
ONCE PRESENTED, I SHOULD BE, BUT NEVER AM, CONTENT TO IMAGINE THAT MY READERS ARE WELL INFORMED TO MAKE THEIR OWN RIGHTFUL DECISIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE ARMED WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN KEPT FROM THEM, FOR WHATEVER REASON.

I ALWAYS END A BLOG FEELING THAT PERHAPS I MISSED SOMETHING, THAT I FAILED TO IMPART WHAT WAS NEEDED... MORE KNOWLEDGE.

AND NOW, ON WITH THIS NEW, FEEBLE ATTEMPT TO PROMOTE EMPOWERMENT AMONG MY FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS AND HELP SECURE A NEW GENERATION WHO WILL CREATE OUR FUTURE.

WE LEARN, MY FRIENDS, SO THAT WE DO NOT PERISH.

THE PURSUIT OF SWEET

Saccharin (C7H5NO3S) was discovered in 1878 in the Johns Hopkins University laboratory of Ira Remsen, a professor of chemistry. At age 21 Remsen had graduated with honors from the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University, earning an M.D. He soon abandoned his medical career to pursue chemistry, first at the University of Munich, then at the University of Göttingen, where he studied with Rudolph Fittig

In Fittig’s lab Remsen also studied sulfobenzoic acids, eventually publishing 75 papers on these and related compounds, laying the groundwork for the discovery of benzoic sulfinide—saccharin. Remsen returned to the United States in 1876—bringing with him influential German ideas about chemistry education—and accepted a professorship at Johns Hopkins. There he continued his research on the oxidation of methylated sulfobenzoic acids and their amides.

In 1877 a Russian chemist named Constantin Fahlberg was hired by the H.W. Perot Import Firm in Baltimore. Fahlberg studied sugar, while H.W. Perot imported sugar. The company enlisted him to analyze a sugar shipment impounded by the U.S. government, which questioned its purity. H.W. Perot also hired Remsen, asking him to provide a laboratory for Fahlberg’s tests. After completing his analyses and while waiting to testify at trial, Fahlberg received Remsen’s permission to use the lab for his own research. Working alongside Remsen’s assistants, Fahlberg found the lab a friendly place. In early 1878 Remsen granted Fahlberg’s request to take part in the institute’s research.

One night that June, after a day of laboratory work, Fahlberg sat down to dinner. He picked up a roll with his hand and bit into a remarkably sweet crust. Fahlberg had literally brought his work home with him, having spilled an experimental compound over his hands earlier that day. He ran back to Remsen’s laboratory, where he tasted everything on his worktable—all the vials, beakers, and dishes he used for his experiments. Finally he found the source: an overboiled beaker in which o-sulfobenzoic acid had reacted with phosphorus (V) chloride and ammonia, producing benzoic sulfinide. Though Falhberg had previously synthesized the compound by another method, he had no reason to taste the result. Serendipity had provided him with the first commercially viable alternative to cane sugar.
Remsen and Fahlberg published a joint article describing two methods of saccharin synthesis in February 1879. Though they specifically noted its taste—“even sweeter than cane sugar”—neither discoverer seemed interested in its commercial potential.

At least not initially. In 1884, after he had left Remsen’s lab and without notifying his codiscoverer, Fahlberg applied for German and American patents on a new method for producing saccharin more cheaply and in greater quantities. Remsen had long disdained industrial chemistry, considering himself a man of pure science. In 1886, though, Fahlberg filed another set of patents, claiming to be the sole discoverer of “Fahlberg’s saccharin.” Remsen, who wanted recognition rather than money, immediately protested to the chemistry community.

With his newly patented production method Fahlberg set up shop in New York City, where he and one employee produced five kilograms of saccharin a day for use as a drink additive. Offered in pill and powder form, saccharin’s popularity grew quickly. Doctors began to prescribe it to treat headaches, nausea, and corpulence. (Like sugar before it, saccharin became an all-purpose curative.) Canners used it as a preservative; diabetics used it to sweeten coffee or tea.

As saccharin use rose, consumers, regulators, and competitors began to question its supposed harmlessness. Fahlberg had tested saccharin in late 1882. After consuming 10 grams of the chemical, he waited 24 hours and experienced no adverse reactions. In fact, his body barely responded: almost the entire dose passed unmetabolized into his urine.

But by 1906, in response to such food-industry horror stories as Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, Americans demanded government intervention. Thus Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act, the first attempt to regulate the nation’s food supply.
Enforcement of the new law fell to the Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Chemistry and its head chemist, Harvey Washington Wiley. He had long crusaded to rein in what he saw as an out-of-control food industry. In 1908 Wiley proposed the first saccharin ban, taking his case straight to President Theodore Roosevelt.

Wiley’s stature as a chemist and sugar expert should have carried the day.

In his meeting with Roosevelt he argued that saccharin, as a coal-tar derivative, couldn’t possibly be fit for human consumption—though at this point the scientific evidence remained inconclusive. A factory owner responded that his company had saved thousands of dollars by replacing sugar with saccharin. Wiley countered that saccharin threatened the health of everyone who consumed it. Roosevelt gruffly settled the matter, saying, “Anyone who says saccharin is injurious to health is an idiot. Dr. Rixey gives it to me every day.”

Regulatory science, in the form of Wiley, had collided with industrial market priorities; the anecdotal evidence of a single influential consumer —President Roosevelt, whose personal physician had prescribed saccharin to help his patient slim down—had trumped both.

Wiley won a small victory in 1911.

He argued that because of saccharin's ubiquity, average consumers would ingest more of the sweetener than allowed for by Remsen’s scientists.

From July 1912 food regulations would treat saccharin as an “adulterant,” prohibiting its use in processed foods.

Industry lawyers fought back, and regulators wavered.

A March 1912 decision upheld the earlier ban but also declared the evidence for saccharin’s harmfulness as weak.
The ban on saccharin in processed food was the outcome of a bureaucratic stalemate between regulators and industry. No incontrovertible evidence proved saccharin harmful at regular doses.

Both sides offered evidence to support their claims, and neither could agree on a common definition of “harmful.”

Because no objective test existed, any experimental data was by definition controversial.

It's not about short-term usage as much as overuse and long-term usage.
FEW ARE AWARE THAT SACCHARIN OR ASPARTAME CARRY ANY WARNINGS ABOUT EITHER!

MANY ARE ALSO UNAWARE OF THIS:"Aspartame is not heat stable, meaning it breaks down when heated to high temperatures."

[THE TEA ROOM IS DEEPLY GRATEFUL TO SAYER JI FOR THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION. ]

"A new study, [in addition to hundreds, if not thousands of others], published in the September edition of the Journal of Bioscience and titled, "Effect of chronic exposure to aspartame on oxidative stress in the brain of albino rats," aimed to test the hypothesis that chronic consumption of aspartame may be causing neurological damage in exposed populations.

They found that chronic (90 day) administration of aspartame to rats, at ranges only 50% above what the FDA considers safe for human consumption, resulted in blood and brain tissue changes consistent with brain damage.

CHEMICAL PATHWAYS AND TOXICITY

Aspartame is metabolized into three distinct components: aspartic acid, methanol and phenylalanine. While aspartic acid is a well-known excitotoxin, phenylalanine only presents a serious health concern to those with a genetic disorder known as phenylketonuria.

Methanol, on the other hand, is far more problematic, as it is not naturally found in significant quantities in the human diet.

Moreover, the aspartame metabolite methanol (also known as wood alcohol) is highly toxic and is metabolized into the known human carcinogen formaldehyde and formic acid, [iv] which is known to be highly toxic to the central nervous system.

Considering the fact that the normal human body temperature is approximately 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, and that aspartame will convert to its toxic metabolites at temperatures as low as 86 degrees Fahrenheit, the finding that aspartame is neurotoxic to animals is not a surprise.

The authors of the new study surmised that the observed adverse brain changes were due to the generation of oxidative stress in brain regions.

A growing body of research now shows that sucralose, known by the brand-name Splenda, is also capable of suppressing the immune system, causing inflammatory bowel conditions such as Crohn's and ulcerative colitis, migraine headaches, and DNA damage.[v]

Below is a list of natural alternatives, along with the number of potential health benefits associated with each, as indexed on our website.

Compounds whose sweetness is not associated with adverse health effects

Honey (69)
Xylitol (21)
Erythritol (2)
Stevia (16)"

JI'S SOURCES:

[i] J W Olney, N B Farber, E Spitznagel, L N Robins. Increasing brain tumor rates: is there a link to aspartame? J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 1996 Nov;55(11):1115-23. PMID: 8939194

[ii] "Aspartame". Sugar Substitutes. Health Canada. Archived from the original on October 09 2008. Retrieved 2008-11-08.

[iii] Woodrow C Monte. Methanol: a chemical Trojan horse as the root of the inscrutable U.Med Hypotheses. 2010 Mar;74(3):493-6. Epub 2009 Nov 5. PMID: 19896282

[iv] Harris, Gardiner (10 June 2011). "Government Says 2 Common Materials Pose Risk of Cancer". New York Times. Retrieved 2011-06-11.

[v] GreenMedInfo.com, Sucralose Toxicity Research

[NOTE: IN ALL MY SEARCHES AND READING ALL OVER THE INTERNET, I HAVE FOUND FEW WITH THE IMPECCABLE DOCUMENTATION THAT IS ALWAYS FOUND ON THE ABOVE WEBSITE. SIMPLY, JUST THE FACTS. DO I TRUST HIS RESEARCH? 'ONLY' WITH MY LIFE. HOWEVER, DOUBTER THAT I AM, I ALWAYS FACT-CHECK EVEN THIS DEDICATED YOUNG MAN. OLD HABIT.]

HAD SACCHARIN AND OTHER ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS NOT BECOME SO PREVALENT IN THE AMERICAN DIET, HAD THEY NOT BEEN ADDED TO SO MANY OF OUR FOODS, FOODS CONSUMED BY NON-DIABETICS AND BY CHILDREN AND BY THE INFIRM AND IMMUNOCOMPROMISED, HAD THE GREAT POSSIBILITY OF BIOACCUMULATION NOT BECOME A NECESSARY HAZARD, PERHAPS FEWER STUDIES WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE TO MAKE CERTAIN WE ARE ALL, YOUNG, OLD, HEALTHY AND NOT, UNAFFECTED BY THE OVERUSE AND LONG-TERM USE OF THESE SUBSTANCES.

THEY ARE FOUND IN SOME VERY SURPRISING FOODS THAT MOST WOULD NEVER DREAM HAD ARTIFICIAL ANYTHING IN THEM!
"Some not-so-obvious foods and products contain aspartame. For example, condiments that typically contain sugar, such as ketchup, dressings, sauces and marinades, may use aspartame in their light or reduced-calorie versions. Aspartame can also be in some prescription and over-the-counter medications. The FDA requires that these medications include a statement that they contain phenylalanine. "

FROM MAYO CLINIC:

"The topic of sugar substitutes can be confusing. One problem is that the terminology is often open to interpretation. For instance, some manufacturers call their sweeteners "natural" even though they're processed or refined, as is the case with stevia preparations. And some artificial sweeteners are derived from naturally occurring substances — sucralose comes from sugar, for example.

Regardless of how they're classified, sugar substitutes aren't magic bullets for weight loss. Take a closer look.

Artificial sweeteners are widely used in processed foods, including baked goods, soft drinks, powdered drink mixes, candy, puddings, canned foods, jams and jellies, dairy products, and scores of other foods and beverages.
The FDA has also established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) for each artificial sweetener. This is the maximum amount considered safe to consume each day over the course of your lifetime. ADIs are intended to be about 100 times less than the smallest amount that might cause health concerns.
When choosing sugar substitutes, it pays to be a savvy consumer.

Get informed and look beyond the hype.

While artificial sweeteners and sugar substitutes may help with weight management, they aren't a magic bullet and should be used only in moderation.

And remember that processed foods, which often contain sugar substitutes, generally don't offer the same health benefits as do whole foods, such as fruits and vegetables."

RELATED TO THE ABOVE CAUTIONARY STATEMENTS BY MAYO CLINIC, PLEASE CONSIDER THIS STUDY:
A groundbreaking new study published in the prestigious journal Nature has revealed how non-caloric artificial sweeteners (NAS) drive obesity- and diabetes-related changes in both mice and humans.[Nature. 2014 Sep 17. Epub 2014 Sep 17. PMID: 25231862]

""Here we demonstrate that consumption of commonly used NAS formulations drives the development of glucose intolerance through induction of compositional and functional alterations to the intestinal microbiota."

"Collectively, these results demonstrate that saccharin directly modulates the composition and function of the microbiome and induces dysbiosis, accounting for the downstream glucose intolerance phenotype in the mammalian host."

OTHER WARNING ON INTAKE"The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and American Cancer Society acknowledge that aspartame is safe for general use within a recommended intake. The FDA sets an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for aspartame at 50 milligrams per kilogram, equivalent to 21 aspartame-sweetened beverages for a 165-pound person. "
THE PROBLEM WITH THE ABOVE STATEMENT?
IT IN NO WAY EXPLAINS ALL SOURCES THAT AN INDIVIDUAL CONSUMES THAT CONTAINS ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS.

IT MAKES NO MENTION OF CAREFUL MONITORING OF CONSUMPTION OF THOSE FOODS AND DRINKS BY CHILDREN, DOES NOT MENTION THAT MANY BABY FOODS AND EVEN SOME FORMULA, THAT CEREALS AND "HEALTHY" SNACKS AND EVEN CHEWING GUM, TOOTHPASTE AND FRUIT JUICES CONTAIN ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS.

IF ONE READS LABELS, DOES THE MATH, ONE WILL SOON SEE HOW MUCH THE ACTUAL CONSUMPTION AMOUNTS TO...USUALLY TO FAR TOO MUCH.

I HOPE THIS HAS INFORMED READERS OF THE FACT THAT, WHILE NOTHING IS GOING TO BE DONE TO REMOVE ARTIFICIAL ANYTHING MUCH FROM OUR TERRIBLE AMERICAN DIETS, WE CAN KEEP COUNT, KEEP WATCH, BE AWARE OF THE SYMPTOMS OF TOXICITY, AND MAKE BETTER DECISIONS BASED ON INCREASED AWARENESS.
GOOD HEALTH TO ALL.

FURTHER READING:

The Hemlock Tea Room and Ladies' Emporium

Friday, August 14, 2015

SACCHARIN FOUND IN 65% OF HUMAN BREAST MILK