In the 1970s, reluctant food processors
“voluntarily” took processed free glutamic acid (MSG) out of baby food.
Today its back, in fertilizers called “Omega Protein Refined/Hydrolyzed
Fish Emulsion” and “Steam Hydrolyzed Feather Meal,” both of which contain
hydrolyzed proteins; and in a product called AuxiGro WP Plant Metabolic
Primer (AuxiGro) produced by Emerald BioAgriculture (formerly Auxein Corporation),
which contains both hydrolyzed protein(s) and “monosodium glutamate.”
AuxiGro is being sprayed on some of the vegetables we and our children
will eat, into the air we and our children must breath, and onto the ground
from which it can move into drinking water. Head lettuce, leaf lettuce,
tomatoes, potatoes, and peanuts were among the first crops targeted. On
September 12, 2000, the Auxein Corporation Web site gave the following
information:

Crops registered include: Celery;
Fresh Market Cucumbers; Edible Navy and Pinto Beans; Grapes; Bulb Onions;
Bell, Green and Jalapeno Peppers; Iceberg Head Lettuce; Romaine and Butter
Leaf Lettuce; Peanuts; Potatoes; Snap Beans; Strawberries; Processing Tomatoes;
Fresh Tomatoes; and Watermelons.

Today, there is no crop that we know of
that has not been approved for treatment with MSG by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).

Even in California — the only state
where there are any restrictions on the use of AuxiGro — AuxiGro has
been approved for use on a number of crops, and Emerald BioAgriculture
continues to push for more. Field tests in California have been —
and may continue to be — conducted on a variety of crops, and those AuxiGro
treated crops may be sold in the open market without revealing that they
have been treated. We can’t tell you which crops those are because the
CDPR has refused to send records of test trials (which are public information)
to the Truth in Labeling Campaign.

As of June 13, 2002, AuxiGro was registered
for use in California on tomatoes, almonds, apricots, cherries, plums,
nectarines, peaches, prunes, grapes (including grapes to be used in wine),
and onions. At that time, the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation said they were not aware of any testing of AuxiGro for use on
other crops. They also said that they did not have any proposals presently
in house to register additional crops for AuxiGro. It would appear, however,
that what the CDPR said was not true, for the CDPR subsequently announced
that Emerald BioAgriculture had applied for permission to use AuxiGro on
tomatoes (new use), and on melons (new crop) — and, to the best of our
knowledge, approval is always preceded by field testing.

On July 7, 2004, Emerald BioAgriculture
requested approval of use of AuxiGro as a desiccant, disinfectant, fertilizer,
fungicide, growth regulator – for increased yield and prevention of powdery
mildew in various crops such as almonds, grapes, and melons. They
also asked to add cole crops (including broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage,
cauliflower, kale, collards, turnips, rutabaga, mustard, watercress, and
kohlrabi) to the list of crops approved for AuxiGro use.

Approval for use on organic crops–in
all states–has been requested.

Whats wrong with using
glutamic acid, an amino acid found in protein, as a spray on crops?

– In protein, amino acids are
found in balanced combinations. Use of free glutamic acid as a spray on
crops throws the amino acid balance out of kilter.

– Its not the glutamic acid found
in protein that is being sprayed on crops, its a synthetic product. The
spray being used most widely is called AuxiGro. The “free glutamic acid”
or so called “L-glutamic acid” component being used by its manufacturer,
Emerald BioAgriculture, contains L-glutamic acid, an amino acid found in
protein; but it also contains D-glutamic acid, pyroglutamic acid, and other
chemicals referred to in the industry as “contaminants.” The free glutamic
acid used in AuxiGro is processed free glutamic acid. It is manufactured
— in chemical plants — where certain selected genetically engineered
bacteria — feeding on a liquid nutrient medium — excrete the free glutamic
acid they synthesize outside of their cell membrane into the liquid medium
in which they are grown. In contrast, the free glutamic acid found in protein,
and the free glutamic acid involved in normal human body function, are
unprocessed. free glutamic acid, and contain no contaminants.

– No one knows what the long term effects
of spraying processed free glutamic acid on crops will be.

– That the processed free glutamic acid
(MSG) will be absorbed into the body of the plant and into the fruit, nuts,
seeds, or vegetable it produces seems undeniable. If it were not,
the plant would not be stimulated to grow. Neither Emerald BioAgriculture
or the EPA will address this issue.

– That there will be residue left on crops
has not been disputed by Emerald BioAgriculture. But no study of either
the amount of that residue, or the least amount of processed free glutamic
acid needed to cause a reaction in an MSG-sensitive person, has ever been
done. “It should wash off” doesn’t mean it will wash off. “It seems unlikely
that such a small amount would cause a reactions” doesn’t mean that a small
amount will not cause a reaction or have long term health effects.

– Free glutamic acid is known to be toxic
to the nervous system. But the neurotoxic effects that processed free glutamic
acid will have on animals that consume the plants on which it is sprayed
– effects over and above any effects caused by external glutamic acid residue
– have never been evaluated. Neither are there data on the effects that
spraying processed free glutamic acid will have on drinking water.

– Consider, also, that children are most
at risk from the effects of processed free glutamic acid. Their undeveloped
blood-brain barriers leave them most at risk from exposure to processed
free glutamic acid. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that infant animals
fed processed free glutamic acid when young develop neuroendocrine problems
such as gross obesity, stunted growth, and reproductive disorders later
in life, and that they also develop learning disabilities. Emerald BioAgriculture
did not address that particular safety issue in its application to the
EPA.

– No one knows how little glutamic acid
is needed to kill a single brain cell or to trigger an adverse reaction.

– Free glutamic acid is a neurotransmitter.
It causes nerves to fire, carrying nerve impulses throughout the nervous
system.

– Free glutamic acid is a neurotoxin. Under
certain circumstances, free glutamic acid will cause nerves to fire repeatedly,
until they die.

– Processed free glutamic acid kills brain
cells. The free glutamic acid ingested by laboratory animals that caused
brain lesions and neuroendocrine disorders was very often given in the
form of the food ingredient “monosodium glutamate.” “Monosodium glutamate”
is the name of a particular food additive. Processed free glutamic acid
is the reactive component in “monosodium glutamate,” just as processed
free glutamic acid is a reactive component in AuxiGro.

The glutamate industry research done in
the 1970s that was submitted to the EPA by the Auxein Corporation, that
pretended to find that processed free glutamic acid is “safe,” has been
long refuted by independent scientists. Indeed, at the present time, neuroscientists
attempting to develop drugs to block the toxic effects of free glutamic
acid are using processed free glutamic acid to selectively kill certain
kinds of brain cells.

– Processed free glutamic acid causes neuroendocrine
disorders in maturing animals that ingest processed free glutamic acid
early in life.

– Processed free glutamic acid causes learning
disorders in maturing animals that ingest processed free glutamic acid
early in life.

– Processed free glutamic acid crosses
the placental barrier and causes learning disabilities in animal offspring
of dams that ingest it.

– Processed free glutamic acid has access
to the brain through the blood-brain barrier, which is not impervious to
the unregulated flow of processed free glutamic acid. The blood-brain barrier
is immature at birth and may continue to develop up to puberty. In certain
areas called the circumventricular organs, the blood barrier is never impervious
to the unregulated flow of free glutamic acid. In addition, the blood-brain
barrier is easily damaged by such events as high fever, a blow to the head,
drug use, stroke, ingestion of processed free glutamic acid, and the normal
process of aging.

– The National Institutes of Health recognize
glutamic acid as being associated with addiction, stroke, epilepsy, degenerative
disorders such as Alzheimers disease, Parkinsons disease, and ALS, brain
trauma, neuropathic pain, schizophrenia, anxiety, and depression.

– For years, free glutamic acid has been
produced and used in food additives with names such as monosodium glutamate,
sodium caseinate, and hydrolyzed soy protein. In some people, the processed
free glutamic acid in food additives causes adverse reactions that include
migraine headache, asthma, arrhythmia, tachycardia, nausea and vomiting,
depression, and disorientation. The processed free glutamic acid in prescription
and non-prescription drugs, food supplements, and cosmetics can also cause
adverse reactions.

There are badly flawed industry-sponsored
studies that have pretended to find that processed free glutamic acid does
not cause adverse reactions. Inappropriate procedures used by the glutamate
industry have included limiting subjects to people virtually guaranteed
not to be sensitive to processed free glutamic acid, and/or using processed
free glutamic acid or other similarly reactive substances in placebos as
well as in test material. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has based
its claim that processed free glutamic acid causes only mild and transitory
reactions on those badly flawed industry-sponsored studies.

– Even the EPA admits that the food additive
called “monosodium glutamate” causes adverse reactions.

– Even the FDA admits that the food additive
“monosodium glutamate” contains processed free glutamic acid.

<>– Even the FDA admits that many consumers
refer to all free glutamic acid as “MSG.”

The EPAs approvals of use
of MSG in agriculture are simple, straightforward, and in violation of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

In reviewing the application of Auxein
Corporation (now Emerald BioAgriculture) for use of processed free glutamic
acid in a spray to be applied to crops as they grow, the EPA failed to
conform to the requirements of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,
which require, in part, that the EPA review any proposed action for validity,
completeness, reliability, and relationship to human risk. The EPA also
ignored Executive Order 13045 which requires government agencies to consider
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of
major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
For example, Auxein Corporation sent the EPA 14 industry-sponsored toxicological
studies from the literature, all done in the 1970s, but failed to mention
hundreds of studies in the literature that refuted those 14 studies.
Auxein Corporation even failed to send the EPA independent studies that
appeared in the same book(s) as the industry-sponsored studies sent to
the EPA. For example, although processed free glutamic acid causes brain
lesions and neuroendocrine disorders in infant animals, this special hazard
faced by infants was ignored by Auxein Corporation. It would appear that
Auxein Corporation restricted its consideration of “available information”
to information made available by the glutamate industry; and the EPA, even
after having been sent abstracts from other “available information,” has
not challenged the Auxein Corporation applications. A more complete discussion
of the shortcomings of the EPA approvals granted to Auxein Corporation
has been submitted to the EPA.

Questions about the safety of spraying
processed free glutamic acid on plants and into the environment have been
raised by the Truth in Labeling Campaign and by individual consumers. The
EPA has refused to address those concerns. The EPA, and, in particular,
EPA spokesperson Dr. Janet Andersen, has failed to respond to allegations
that in approving the spraying of processed free glutamic acid, the EPA
failed to consider the reliability, validity, and completeness of the Auxein
Corporation application or comply with Executive Order 13045 entitled Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, except to
say that the EPA had complied with executive order 13045. Moreover, while
responding to letters that asked direct questions of the EPA, Andersen
failed to respond to most, if not all, of the direct questions contained
in those letters.

AuxiGro, the first MSG-laced plant “growth
enhancer” to hit the market, has been approved for spraying on every crop
we know of, with no restrictions on the amount of processed free glutamic
acid (MSG) that may remain in and/or on crops when brought to market. Even
before consumers had an inkling that crops were being sprayed, the Truth
in Labeling Campaign received reports that MSG-sensitive consumers had
gotten sick from head lettuce and potatoes.

Federal Register notices chronicling the
application and approval of processed free glutamic acid are available
on the Web via GPO Access, the Federal Register, through: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
Application for approval of use of AuxiGro was made to the EPA in 1997.
Testing of the product was also approved in that year, and many of the
test crops sprayed with AuxiGro were brought to market without notifying
consumers. Glutamic acid was granted an exemption from establishment of
a tolerance limit in January, 1998. AuxiGro was also approved for use on
a number of crops in January, 1998, and approved for use on other crops
later. No announcement of these approvals was made in the Federal Register.

Due to a technical glitch in the system,
the glutes came to need one more approval to make their California registrations
work. The glutes were asking for AuxiGro to be approved for use as
a fungicide in California, but the EPA had only approved AuxiGro for use
as a pesticide produce or plant growth enhancer. And when application
was made for this addition to their approvals, the application was brought
to our attention; and the Truth in Labeling Campaign filed a formal protest
to this approval of AuxiGro. The Formal
Objection of the Truth in Labeling Campaign was filed on August 16, 2001
with the EPA.

By law, formal objections filed in a timely
manner must be responded to within six months. Also, by law (we were told)
even though the Final Rule had not been promulgated, this additional use
of AuxiGro would be considered approved unless and until the EPA determined
that it should be otherwise. In July, 2004, we received a conference call
from Dr. Andersen and a number of other EPA players, including an EPA lawyer
— a “courtesy call” telling us that our objections had been discounted
and that the Final Rule allowing use of AuxiGro as a fungicide would be
published shortly in the Federal Register.

Whats wrong at the EPA?

Neither the EPA nor Janet Andersen, Ph.D.,
director of the Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD),
are stupid. Rather, all evidence would appear to suggest that the
EPA, which is charged with protecting the health of Americans, says
it
is protecting the health of Americans, when in fact the EPA acts
to protect the bottom line of big business. Don’t think for a moment
that MSG is the only toxin unleashed on the American public by the EPA.
Let the words “methyl parathion” and “DDT” jog your memory.

The EPA, in granting the chemical
referred to as “L-glutamic acid” an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of “L-glutamic acid” on all food commodities
when applied/used in accordance with good agricultural practices (thereby
allowing unrestricted amounts of processed free glutamic acid (MSG) residue
to remain in and on any and all food crops that come under the EPAs jurisdiction)
violated Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i), Section 408(c)(2)(ii), Section 408(c)(2)(B),
and Section 408(b)(2)(D) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Neither “L-Glutamic Acid and Gamma Aminobutyric Acid; Exemptions from
the Requirement of a Tolerance; Final Rule” (Federal Register June 21,
2001) nor “Glutamic Acid; Pesticide Tolerance Exemption; Final Rule” (Federal
Register January 7, 1998), which preceded it, met the criteria established
by law for granting exemptions from the restriction of a tolerance.

How did spokesperson Andersen excuse the
fact that the EPA approved processed free glutamic acid for use in an EPA
approved spray? First, said Andersen, the free glutamic acid used in the
spray is naturally occurring, and its 99.3 per cent pure pharmaceutical
grade L-glutamic acid. Yet, in admitting that the free glutamic acid in
AuxiGro is not 100 per cent pure L-glutamic acid, and that it is pharmaceutical
grade, Andersen contradicted herself, and actually made the point that
1) if the free glutamic acid used in AuxiGro were truly natural, it wouldn’t
be “pharmaceutical grade;” and 2) if the free glutamic acid used in AuxiGro
were truly natural it would be 100 per cent, not 99.3 per cent pure L-glutamic
acid.

Andersen said something else very interesting.
She said that the EPA is well aware of the fact that MSG causes adverse
reactions. However, when Andersen used the term “MSG” she was referring
to the one food ingredient called “monosodium glutamate,” and not to the
free glutamic acid in “monosodium glutamate” that causes adverse reactions.
Failure to define terms, as Anderson did (and does) so handily, is both
deceptive and misleading.

What Andersen did is very clever. What
she said makes no sense at all. No one has ever claimed that the processed
free glutamic acid in AuxiGro comes out of a box labeled “monosodium glutamate.”
So for her to say it doesn’t, is meaningless. On the other hand, the claim
has been made that the free glutamic acid in AuxiGro will cause the same
brain lesions, neuroendocrine disorders, adverse reactions and other diverse
disease conditions that are caused by the free glutamic acid in “monosodium
glutamate” and the other food additives that contain processed free glutamic
acid. That claim is true, but Andersen does not address it. How do you
refute someone who ignores legitimate questions and spews out irrelevant
statements as though they pertained to your legitimate questions? You don’t.
The EPA defense of its approval of use of processed free glutamic acid
in plant “growth enhancers” and its registration of AuxiGro has two parts
to it: 1) ignoring those who question EPA actions, and 2) making the irrelevant
statement that AuxiGro does not contain MSG (monosodium glutamate).

Neither Andersen nor anyone else at the
EPA ever addressed the criticism that approvals given by the EPA to allow
the use of free glutamic acid and the product AuxiGro were inappropriate.

The EPA, which approved the used of processed
free glutamic acid in plant “growth enhancers,” made a grievous error.
But instead of recognizing and remedying that error once it was pointed
out to them, the EPA began a cover-up. That cover-up included use of ambiguous
words and phrases, half-truths, and downright lies told to consumers. The
cover-up continued (and continues still) with a variation of those ambiguous
words and phrases, half-truths, and downright lies told to legislators
who inquire about spraying MSG into the environment.

You might find the Emerald
BioAgriculture sales literature interesting

Sales literature promoting AuxiGro
was once found on their Web site, but is now long gone. While Federal
Register notices included the fact that there is processed free glutamic
acid (MSG) in AuxiGro, the sales literature from Auxein Corporation did
not mention the fact that their product contains free glutamic acid until
the Truth in Labeling Campaign began to broadcast that information. In
November, 1999, Auxein added deceptive, misleading, and untrue statements
in an elaboration of its Product Page, wherein they essentially make the
untrue assertion that the glutamic acid used in AuxiGro is chemically and
biologically identical to that found in plants and animals.

Sales literature did (on September 12,
2000), however, contain the following:

“PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS

HAZARDS TO HUMAN AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS –
CAUTION”

If you think you might be reacting to AuxiGro
sprayed on crops, you might want to try to (contact Emerald BioAgriculture
(formerly Auxein Corporation) at the addresses that follow. (A friend recently
told us that he tried to contact them by e-mail, but his e-mail was returned
unopened.) By law, the company is required to forward reports of
adverse reactions to the EPA. You might want to ask the EPA if Emerald
BioAgriculture did so.

John L. Mclntyre, Ph.D.

President & CEO

Emerald BioAgriculture (formerly Auxein
Corporation)

3125 Sovereign Drive, Ste. B

Lansing, MI 48911-4240

Phone: (888) 828-9346

Fax: (517) 882-7521

E-Mail: mailto:%[email protected]

(From time to time, their web page, http://www.auxein.com
, can be accessed by password only.)

Please feel free to copy and distribute this
material, including our Web address, for those who might be interested.