MSG-Like ‘Senomyx’ Being Hidden In Food

From Dr. Betty Martini. D. Hum

If you haven’t heard about Senomyx think of a flavor enhancer like MSG. The bad news doesn’t stop there, but the FDA says they don’t have to label it. It comes under artificial flavors. Of course, we’ve told all consumers never to use processed foods, and especially anything that says artificial and/or natural flavors which is where they hid aspartame and MSG.

What is Senomyx made of?

This is so disturbing, I would say to boycott all companies that use it like Nestles and Coke.

We are familiar with sucralose, a chlorocarbon poison. Here is Dr. James Bowen’s paper, The Lethal Science of Splenda:

So now they are adding Senomyx to Sucralose. Remember that Dr. Bowen also said when he wrote the above paper that if you go from aspartame to Splenda you will maintain the reactions to aspartame and pick up those from Splenda. With regard to reports on reactions from Splenda that is just what is happening. Poison plus poison equal poison and now this disgusting Senomyx is being added which according to the above report starts out with aborted fetus cells. Be warned.

Read on below:

Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder
Mission Possible International
770 242-2599,,
Aspartame Toxicity Center,

Senomyx Receives GRAS Determination For S2383 Sucralose Enhancer

Senomyx, Inc., a leading company focused on using proprietary technologies to discover and develop novel flavor ingredients for the food, beverage and ingredient supply industries, announced today that it has been notified by the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) that its sucralose enhancer, S2383, has been determined to be Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, administered by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). S2383, which was discovered and developed by Senomyx, is an extremely effective enhancer of the high-intensity sweetener sucralose. The GRAS determination by FEMA allows S2383 to be incorporated into products in the U.S. and in numerous other countries.

“Receiving GRAS determination for our S2383 sucralose enhancer is an important milestone for Senomyx,” stated Kent Snyder, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company. “Senomyx previously received GRAS status for our savory flavor ingredients, which are currently incorporated into products being marketed by Nestle. In addition to enabling commercialization of our flavor ingredients, these regulatory determinations substantiate Senomyx’s discovery, development, and regulatory expertise.”

S2383 is intended to enhance the taste of sucralose, a high-intensity sweetener used in a wide variety of beverages and foods such as confectionaries, baked goods, desserts, and dairy products, as well as over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products and dietary supplements. In taste tests, S2383 allowed the amount of sucralose in product prototypes to be reduced by up to 75% while maintaining the desired sweet taste. By enabling the reduction of sucralose, S2383 may allow manufacturers to decrease their costs of goods and potentially improve the taste characteristics of certain products.

“The rapid progress made with S2383 is indicative of Senomyx’s leadership in the science of taste,” noted Mark Zoller, Ph.D., Senomyx’s Chief Scientific Officer and Executive Vice President of Discovery and Development. Senomyx scientists have made several key discoveries relating to the human sweet taste receptor and developed patented methods for utilizing the receptor in assays designed to identify new sweet taste enhancers. “S2383 was identified in 2007, and the same methodology resulted in the 2008 discovery of S6973, an exceptionally effective enhancer of sucrose (table sugar). S6973 enables up to 50% reduction of table sugar in numerous food and beverage product prototypes without compromising taste. We are currently conducting development activities needed to support regulatory filings for S6973, and we believe that our experience with S2383 will be helpful as we move forward,” Dr. Zoller added.

About Senomyx, Inc. (

Senomyx is a leading company using proprietary taste receptor technologies to discover and develop novel flavor ingredients in the savory, sweet, salt, bitter, and cooling areas. Senomyx has entered into product discovery and development collaborations with seven of the world’s leading food, beverage, and ingredient supply companies: Ajinomoto Co., Inc., Cadbury plc, Campbell Soup Company, The Coca-Cola Company, Firmenich SA, Nestle SA, and Solae. Nestle is currently marketing products that contain one of Senomyx’s flavor ingredients. For more information, please visit

Forward-Looking Statements

Statements contained in this press release regarding matters that are not historical facts are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Because such statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding: the capabilities and potential for Senomyx’s new flavor ingredients, including S2383 and S6973; Senomyx’s plans and ability to commercialize S2383 and to complete the development of S6973; the ability of S2383 and S6973 to reduce the amount of sucralose and sucrose, respectively, in food and beverage products; and the extent to which the company’s collaborators or other packaged food and beverage manufacturers will incorporate the company’s new flavor ingredients into packaged food and beverage products.

Risks that contribute to the uncertain nature of the forward-looking statements include: Senomyx is dependent on its product discovery and development collaborators for all of Senomyx’s revenue; Senomyx is dependent on its current and any future product discovery and development collaborators to develop and commercialize any flavor ingredients Senomyx may discover; Senomyx may be unable to develop flavor ingredients useful for formulation into products; new flavor ingredients must undergo safety review and not all new flavor ingredients may be safe for their intended uses; Senomyx or its collaborators may be unable to obtain and maintain the regulatory approval required for flavor ingredients to be incorporated into products that are sold; even if Senomyx or its collaborators receive a regulatory approval and incorporate Senomyx flavor ingredients into products, those products may never be commercially successful; and Senomyx’s ability to compete in the flavor ingredients market may decline if Senomyx does not adequately protect its proprietary technologies.

These and other risks and uncertainties are described more fully in Senomyx’s most recently filed SEC documents, including its Annual Report on Form 10-K and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, under the headings “Risks Related to Our Business” and “Risks Related to Our Industry.” All forward-looking statements contained in this press release speak only as of the date on which they were made. Senomyx undertakes no obligation to update such statements to reflect events that occur or circumstances that exist after the date on which they were made.


The people’s brakes on war

Historic protests couldn’t stop the invasion of Iraq, but the legacy will be felt if conflict grows with Iran

The Guardian

Seven years ago today, it was hard to believe how many people were on the streets trying to prevent the Iraq war. There was anger and foreboding, but also a feeling of exhilaration. Surely a march this big would have some effect. As we know, it didn’t.

Yet the numbers on that 15 February 2003 march, the biggest demonstration ever held in Britain (joined by more than 10 million people in over 60 countries in what became the largest worldwide demonstration in history), do matter. Because what they pointed to was something unique. For every regular protester, there were a vast number of people who’d never marched before.

So was the protest a failure? Given that we know now that Tony Blair had decided for war, any number of millions might not have deterred him. But the protesters have succeeded in making opposition to war a part of mainstream political debate. Not just in parliament, where the vote for war was won by only 12 MPs, but in the traditionally conser­vative press. The Daily Mail pointed to the anti-war demonstrators gathered for Blair’s appearance before the Chilcot inquiry, and a poll showing that 80% of people polled thought Blair was lying, to state the country now shared the sentiments of the protesters.

The protest also shattered the myth of political apathy. While whole series of demonstrations have been largely ignored by the media, in a bedrock of growing public disillusionment, even the most unsympathetic could hardly fail to take note of the size of that turnout.

No movements succeed overnight. The civil rights movement in the United States eventually led to the end of segregation, and the Suffragettes in Britain got the vote. In the case of Iraq, as far back as 2002 Barack Obama declared his opposition to the war at a rally in Chicago, just as President Bush and Congress announced their agreement on the joint resolution authorising it. Obama and Hillary Clinton jockeyed for the anti-war position, even if he felt he needed to balance it with supporting a surge in Afghanistan. That was possible because opposition to war has become an accepted part of US political debate.

The effects and lessons of that protest look especially pertinent today. Britain still finds itself in one war wrought in the aftermath of 9/11, and at the weekend the hostilities in Afghanistan intensified. Luckily, Blair is no longer prime minister or – going by what he said 58 times to the Chilcot inquiry – Britain would be well on the path to war with Iran, too. But will people take to the streets again if moves against Iran escalate?

Opposition to war in Iran is widespread even within the establishment. In 2008, Admiral William Fallon, then head of US central command, resigned in part because of his opposition to threats against Iran. Obama was able to make opposition to aggression a main plank of his campaign, even if in practice he has fallen short of his promises. Several Nobel prizewinners, including the Iranian Shirin Ebadi, oppose such an attack, as do the Non-Aligned Movement of more than 100 countries. Numerous polls show nearly 70% of Americans oppose it too.

And the legacy of 2003 is that today, many – on both the right and left – feel that it would be impossible for any government, even one convinced of a case for a just war, to carry the nation with it.

Trust between the people and politicians has broken down, but the demon strations should give us reasons for hope, not disillusionment. Most major political advances in the UK and abroad have come through protest, whether it is women’s rights or civil rights. Wars corrode our political system. But protest is the engine of democracy, and may again be our best, if not only, hope.

Beware – Aspartame Has Been Renamed ‘AminoSweet’

And is now being marketed as a ‘natural’ sweetener!
By Ethan Huff
Citizen Journalist

In response to growing awareness about the dangers of artificial sweeteners, what does the manufacturer of one of the world’s most notable artificial sweeteners do? Why, rename it and begin marketing it as natural, of course. This is precisely the strategy of Ajinomoto, maker of aspartame, which hopes to pull the wool over the eyes of the public with its rebranded version of aspartame, called “AminoSweet”.

Over 25 years ago, aspartame was first introduced into the European food supply. Today, it is an everyday component of most diet beverages, sugar-free desserts, and chewing gums in countries worldwide. But the tides have been turning as the general public is waking up to the truth about artificial sweeteners like aspartame and the harm they cause to health. The latest aspartame marketing scheme is a desperate effort to indoctrinate the public into accepting the chemical sweetener as natural and safe, despite evidence to the contrary.

Aspartame was an accidental discovery by James Schlatter, a chemist who had been trying to produce an anti-ulcer pharmaceutical drug for G.D. Searle & Company back in 1965. Upon mixing aspartic acid and phenylalanine, two naturally-occurring amino acids, he discovered that the new compound had a sweet taste. The company merely changed its FDA approval application from drug to food additive and, voila, aspartame was born.

G.D. Searle & Company first patented aspartame in 1970. An internal memo released in the same year urged company executives to work on getting the FDA into the “habit of saying yes” and of encouraging a “subconscious spirit of participation” in getting the chemical approved.

G.D. Searle & Company submitted its first petition to the FDA in 1973 and fought for years to gain FDA approval, submitting its own safety studies that many believed were inadequate and deceptive. Despite numerous objections, including one from its own scientists, the company was able to convince the FDA to approve aspartame for commercial use in a few products in 1974, igniting a blaze of controversy.

In 1976, then FDA Commissioner Alexander Schmidt wrote a letter to Sen. Ted Kennedy expressing concern over the “questionable integrity of the basic safety data submitted for aspartame safety”. FDA Chief Counsel Richard Merrill believed that a grand jury should investigate G.D. Searle & Company for lying about the safety of aspartame in its reports and for concealing evidence proving the chemical is unsafe for consumption.

Despite the myriad of evidence gained over the years showing that aspartame is a dangerous toxin, it has remained on the global market with the exception of a few countries that have banned it. In fact, it continued to gain approval for use in new types of food despite evidence showing that it causes neurological brain damage, cancerous tumors, and endocrine disruption, among other things.

The details of aspartame’s history are lengthy, but the point remains that the carcinogen was illegitimately approved as a food additive through heavy-handed prodding by a powerful corporation with its own interests in mind. Practically all drugs and food additives are approved by the FDA not because science shows they are safe but because companies essentially lobby the FDA with monetary payoffs and complete the agency’s multi-million dollar approval process.

Changing aspartame’s name to something that is “appealing and memorable”, in Ajinomoto’s own words, may hoodwink some but hopefully most will reject this clever marketing tactic as nothing more than a desperate attempt to preserve the company’s multi-billion dollar cash cow. Do not be deceived.


Ajinomoto brands aspartame ‘AminoSweet’ –

Aspartame History Highlights – Janet Starr Hull

FDA’s approval of aspartame under scrutiny – The Globe and Mail (Canada)

An Overdue Ban On A Dangerous Sweetener – Huffington Post