|
Banneling
Geregistreerd: 5 maart 2004
Berichten: 4.052
|
Citaat:
Board pushes forward with sweetener Wendy Brown | The New Mexican
October 5, 2005
State agency votes in favor of talks next July on future of sugar substitute aspartame
The state Environmental Improvement Board plans to hold a five-day hearing next July to determine whether New Mexico should become the first state in the country to ban the sugar-substitute aspartame.
The board made the decision Tuesday during a hearing in which lawyers for Stephen Fox, a Santa Fe gallery owner who believes the state should ban aspartame, and the Calorie Control Council, a low-calorie-food industry trade group, argued over whether the board has the authority to hold a hearing on whether to ban the substance.
Cliff Stroud, the board’s vice chairman, made the motion to grant the hearing. Stroud believes if the board does not have the authority to listen to people who have concerns about the food supply, then the system is broken.
Stroud said the board has the authority to listen to any petitioner, and the Legislature had no intention of stopping the board from banning a substance like aspartame when it established the board.
The Legislature established the board when it passed the state Environmental Improvement Act in 1978.
It is responsible for rules on issues such as the state’s food and water supply, liquid waste, air quality and radiation control.
The governor appoints members, but no more than four of them can belong to the same political party.
Board members Stroud, Gay Dillingham, Harold Tso and Soren Peters voted in favor of holding the hearing, while Greg Green and Ken Marsh voted against the proposal.
Board member Dolores Herrera was not present.
Fox petitioned to ban the popular sweetener, which is sold under the brand names of NutraSweet and Equal and can be found in roughly 6,000 products. “State government actually works,” he said after the hearing.
T.J. Trujillo, a Santa Fe lawyer representing the Calorie Control Council, plans to review the council’s legal options and decide whether to appeal the board’s decision.
Trujillo said he has researched whether states can ban aspartame and hasn’t found a similar case. “I believe this is the first of its kind,” he said in an interview Monday.
Stevan Looney, an Albuquerque lawyer representing Fox, told the board the state Environmental Improvement Act and the state Food Act give the board responsibility to protect consumers and make rules regarding food protection.
Looney explained to the members that Fox wasn’t paying him for his representation. “I’m here as a private citizen,” he said.
Trujillo argued that the state acts are limited in focus and can’t override federal law, adding that the state would have to expend a lot of time and resources to effectively review the subject of whether aspartame is dangerous.
Trujillo said he supports an analysis written by lawyers working for Ajinomoto USA Inc., an aspartame manufacturer, which states that if the board did ban aspartame, courts would overturn the decision on the grounds that state-by-state bans of various food products would wreak havoc on interstate commerce.
In his motion to grant the hearing, Stroud asked the board to request that the state Environment Department provide and pay for an independent hearings examiner and a medical expert for the hearing.
Dillingham said she had already talked to Environment Department officials about such a request and believed it would not be a problem.
Board member Green said the Legislature clearly did not intend to give the board the authority to ban federally approved products like aspartame when it created the state acts that govern the board.
“I don’t trust the FDA as far as I can throw them,” Green said, but he doesn’t believe the state has the expertise or time to take up the subject effectively.
He said the board has made determinations on issues where the differences between the two parties are minimal, but that is not the case with aspartame.
On the subject of whether aspartame is safe, he said, “You’re miles apart.”
Tuesday’s hearing did not reach the subject of whether aspartame is dangerous, but seven people who spoke during the board’s public comment period told the board they believe the substance is poisonous and should be banned.
Mary Smith, a lawyer in the attorney general’s civil division who acts as the board’s legal counsel, was present but did not speak at the hearing. Green suggested the board ask the Attorney General’s Office to write a legal opinion on the matter, but Don Trigg, director of the civil division, said that by statute, only elected officials can ask for those opinions.
|
yup.
Trouwens, als je nagaat in wat dat goedje wordt afgebroken eens het in je lichaam zit ... hmmm
Het kan makkelijk ageren op het niveau van receptoren in neuronen, yup.
Zuipen maar, laat het vee maar zuipen !  [edit]
[size=1] Edit:[/size] [size=1]After edit by /\|cazar on 06-10-2005 at 13:35
Reason:
--------------------------------
Citaat:
Board pushes forward with sweetener Wendy Brown | The New Mexican
October 5, 2005
State agency votes in favor of talks next July on future of sugar substitute aspartame
The state Environmental Improvement Board plans to hold a five-day hearing next July to determine whether New Mexico should become the first state in the country to ban the sugar-substitute aspartame.
The board made the decision Tuesday during a hearing in which lawyers for Stephen Fox, a Santa Fe gallery owner who believes the state should ban aspartame, and the Calorie Control Council, a low-calorie-food industry trade group, argued over whether the board has the authority to hold a hearing on whether to ban the substance.
Cliff Stroud, the board’s vice chairman, made the motion to grant the hearing. Stroud believes if the board does not have the authority to listen to people who have concerns about the food supply, then the system is broken.
Stroud said the board has the authority to listen to any petitioner, and the Legislature had no intention of stopping the board from banning a substance like aspartame when it established the board.
The Legislature established the board when it passed the state Environmental Improvement Act in 1978.
It is responsible for rules on issues such as the state’s food and water supply, liquid waste, air quality and radiation control.
The governor appoints members, but no more than four of them can belong to the same political party.
Board members Stroud, Gay Dillingham, Harold Tso and Soren Peters voted in favor of holding the hearing, while Greg Green and Ken Marsh voted against the proposal.
Board member Dolores Herrera was not present.
Fox petitioned to ban the popular sweetener, which is sold under the brand names of NutraSweet and Equal and can be found in roughly 6,000 products. “State government actually works,” he said after the hearing.
T.J. Trujillo, a Santa Fe lawyer representing the Calorie Control Council, plans to review the council’s legal options and decide whether to appeal the board’s decision.
Trujillo said he has researched whether states can ban aspartame and hasn’t found a similar case. “I believe this is the first of its kind,” he said in an interview Monday.
Stevan Looney, an Albuquerque lawyer representing Fox, told the board the state Environmental Improvement Act and the state Food Act give the board responsibility to protect consumers and make rules regarding food protection.
Looney explained to the members that Fox wasn’t paying him for his representation. “I’m here as a private citizen,” he said.
Trujillo argued that the state acts are limited in focus and can’t override federal law, adding that the state would have to expend a lot of time and resources to effectively review the subject of whether aspartame is dangerous.
Trujillo said he supports an analysis written by lawyers working for Ajinomoto USA Inc., an aspartame manufacturer, which states that if the board did ban aspartame, courts would overturn the decision on the grounds that state-by-state bans of various food products would wreak havoc on interstate commerce.
In his motion to grant the hearing, Stroud asked the board to request that the state Environment Department provide and pay for an independent hearings examiner and a medical expert for the hearing.
Dillingham said she had already talked to Environment Department officials about such a request and believed it would not be a problem.
Board member Green said the Legislature clearly did not intend to give the board the authority to ban federally approved products like aspartame when it created the state acts that govern the board.
“I don’t trust the FDA as far as I can throw them,” Green said, but he doesn’t believe the state has the expertise or time to take up the subject effectively.
He said the board has made determinations on issues where the differences between the two parties are minimal, but that is not the case with aspartame.
On the subject of whether aspartame is safe, he said, “You’re miles apart.”
Tuesday’s hearing did not reach the subject of whether aspartame is dangerous, but seven people who spoke during the board’s public comment period told the board they believe the substance is poisonous and should be banned.
Mary Smith, a lawyer in the attorney general’s civil division who acts as the board’s legal counsel, was present but did not speak at the hearing. Green suggested the board ask the Attorney General’s Office to write a legal opinion on the matter, but Don Trigg, director of the civil division, said that by statute, only elected officials can ask for those opinions.
|
yup.
Trouwens, als je nagaat in wat dat goedje wordt afgebroken eens het in je lichaam zit ... hmmm
Het kan makkelijk ageren op het niveau van receptoren in neuronen, yup.
Zuipen maar, laat het vee maar zuipen ! [/size] |
[size=1] Edit:[/size] [size=1]After edit by /\|cazar on 06-10-2005 at 13:35
Reason:
--------------------------------
Citaat:
Board pushes forward with sweetener Wendy Brown | The New Mexican
October 5, 2005
State agency votes in favor of talks next July on future of sugar substitute aspartame
The state Environmental Improvement Board plans to hold a five-day hearing next July to determine whether New Mexico should become the first state in the country to ban the sugar-substitute aspartame.
The board made the decision Tuesday during a hearing in which lawyers for Stephen Fox, a Santa Fe gallery owner who believes the state should ban aspartame, and the Calorie Control Council, a low-calorie-food industry trade group, argued over whether the board has the authority to hold a hearing on whether to ban the substance.
Cliff Stroud, the board’s vice chairman, made the motion to grant the hearing. Stroud believes if the board does not have the authority to listen to people who have concerns about the food supply, then the system is broken.
Stroud said the board has the authority to listen to any petitioner, and the Legislature had no intention of stopping the board from banning a substance like aspartame when it established the board.
The Legislature established the board when it passed the state Environmental Improvement Act in 1978.
It is responsible for rules on issues such as the state’s food and water supply, liquid waste, air quality and radiation control.
The governor appoints members, but no more than four of them can belong to the same political party.
Board members Stroud, Gay Dillingham, Harold Tso and Soren Peters voted in favor of holding the hearing, while Greg Green and Ken Marsh voted against the proposal.
Board member Dolores Herrera was not present.
Fox petitioned to ban the popular sweetener, which is sold under the brand names of NutraSweet and Equal and can be found in roughly 6,000 products. “State government actually works,” he said after the hearing.
T.J. Trujillo, a Santa Fe lawyer representing the Calorie Control Council, plans to review the council’s legal options and decide whether to appeal the board’s decision.
Trujillo said he has researched whether states can ban aspartame and hasn’t found a similar case. “I believe this is the first of its kind,” he said in an interview Monday.
Stevan Looney, an Albuquerque lawyer representing Fox, told the board the state Environmental Improvement Act and the state Food Act give the board responsibility to protect consumers and make rules regarding food protection.
Looney explained to the members that Fox wasn’t paying him for his representation. “I’m here as a private citizen,” he said.
Trujillo argued that the state acts are limited in focus and can’t override federal law, adding that the state would have to expend a lot of time and resources to effectively review the subject of whether aspartame is dangerous.
Trujillo said he supports an analysis written by lawyers working for Ajinomoto USA Inc., an aspartame manufacturer, which states that if the board did ban aspartame, courts would overturn the decision on the grounds that state-by-state bans of various food products would wreak havoc on interstate commerce.
In his motion to grant the hearing, Stroud asked the board to request that the state Environment Department provide and pay for an independent hearings examiner and a medical expert for the hearing.
Dillingham said she had already talked to Environment Department officials about such a request and believed it would not be a problem.
Board member Green said the Legislature clearly did not intend to give the board the authority to ban federally approved products like aspartame when it created the state acts that govern the board.
“I don’t trust the FDA as far as I can throw them,” Green said, but he doesn’t believe the state has the expertise or time to take up the subject effectively.
He said the board has made determinations on issues where the differences between the two parties are minimal, but that is not the case with aspartame.
On the subject of whether aspartame is safe, he said, “You’re miles apart.”
Tuesday’s hearing did not reach the subject of whether aspartame is dangerous, but seven people who spoke during the board’s public comment period told the board they believe the substance is poisonous and should be banned.
Mary Smith, a lawyer in the attorney general’s civil division who acts as the board’s legal counsel, was present but did not speak at the hearing. Green suggested the board ask the Attorney General’s Office to write a legal opinion on the matter, but Don Trigg, director of the civil division, said that by statute, only elected officials can ask for those opinions.
|
yup.
Trouwens, al je nagaat in wat dat goedje wordt afgebroken eens het in je lichaam zit ... hmmm
Het kan makkelijk ageren op het niveau van receptoren in neuronen, yup.
Zuipen maar, laat het vee maar zuipen ! [/size] |
[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------
Citaat:
Board pushes forward with sweetener (27 comments; last comment posted Yesterday 10:18 pm) print | email this story Byemail = String.fromCharCode(119,98,114,111,119,110,64,115, 102,110,101,119,109,101,120,105,99,97,110,46,99,11 1,109); document.write('Wendy Brown'); Wendy Brown | The New Mexican
October 5, 2005
State agency votes in favor of talks next July on future of sugar substitute aspartame
The state Environmental Improvement Board plans to hold a five-day hearing next July to determine whether New Mexico should become the first state in the country to ban the sugar-substitute aspartame.
The board made the decision Tuesday during a hearing in which lawyers for Stephen Fox, a Santa Fe gallery owner who believes the state should ban aspartame, and the Calorie Control Council, a low-calorie-food industry trade group, argued over whether the board has the authority to hold a hearing on whether to ban the substance.
Cliff Stroud, the board’s vice chairman, made the motion to grant the hearing. Stroud believes if the board does not have the authority to listen to people who have concerns about the food supply, then the system is broken.
Stroud said the board has the authority to listen to any petitioner, and the Legislature had no intention of stopping the board from banning a substance like aspartame when it established the board.
The Legislature established the board when it passed the state Environmental Improvement Act in 1978.
It is responsible for rules on issues such as the state’s food and water supply, liquid waste, air quality and radiation control.
The governor appoints members, but no more than four of them can belong to the same political party.
Board members Stroud, Gay Dillingham, Harold Tso and Soren Peters voted in favor of holding the hearing, while Greg Green and Ken Marsh voted against the proposal.
Board member Dolores Herrera was not present.
Fox petitioned to ban the popular sweetener, which is sold under the brand names of NutraSweet and Equal and can be found in roughly 6,000 products. “State government actually works,” he said after the hearing.
T.J. Trujillo, a Santa Fe lawyer representing the Calorie Control Council, plans to review the council’s legal options and decide whether to appeal the board’s decision.
Trujillo said he has researched whether states can ban aspartame and hasn’t found a similar case. “I believe this is the first of its kind,” he said in an interview Monday.
Stevan Looney, an Albuquerque lawyer representing Fox, told the board the state Environmental Improvement Act and the state Food Act give the board responsibility to protect consumers and make rules regarding food protection.
Looney explained to the members that Fox wasn’t paying him for his representation. “I’m here as a private citizen,” he said.
Trujillo argued that the state acts are limited in focus and can’t override federal law, adding that the state would have to expend a lot of time and resources to effectively review the subject of whether aspartame is dangerous.
Trujillo said he supports an analysis written by lawyers working for Ajinomoto USA Inc., an aspartame manufacturer, which states that if the board did ban aspartame, courts would overturn the decision on the grounds that state-by-state bans of various food products would wreak havoc on interstate commerce.
In his motion to grant the hearing, Stroud asked the board to request that the state Environment Department provide and pay for an independent hearings examiner and a medical expert for the hearing.
Dillingham said she had already talked to Environment Department officials about such a request and believed it would not be a problem.
Board member Green said the Legislature clearly did not intend to give the board the authority to ban federally approved products like aspartame when it created the state acts that govern the board.
“I don’t trust the FDA as far as I can throw them,” Green said, but he doesn’t believe the state has the expertise or time to take up the subject effectively.
He said the board has made determinations on issues where the differences between the two parties are minimal, but that is not the case with aspartame.
On the subject of whether aspartame is safe, he said, “You’re miles apart.”
Tuesday’s hearing did not reach the subject of whether aspartame is dangerous, but seven people who spoke during the board’s public comment period told the board they believe the substance is poisonous and should be banned.
Mary Smith, a lawyer in the attorney general’s civil division who acts as the board’s legal counsel, was present but did not speak at the hearing. Green suggested the board ask the Attorney General’s Office to write a legal opinion on the matter, but Don Trigg, director of the civil division, said that by statute, only elected officials can ask for those opinions.
|
yup.
Trouwens, al je nagaat in wat dat goedje wordt afgebroken eens het in je lichaam zit ... hmmm
Het kan makkelijk ageren op het niveau van receptoren in neuronen, yup.
Zuipen maar, laat het vee maar zuipen ! [/size] |
[/edit]
Laatst gewijzigd door /\|cazar : 6 oktober 2005 om 12:35.
|
5 oktober 2005, 23:53
