webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Searle

---

17 tags 3 22 #2 funder to donors trust

IHS KOCHADEMIA GMU MERCATUS lAW AND eCON freedomworks

DENIAL HEARTLnd PERC PAC RES TPPF

pharma co --> RW funder Freedom Trustfree mkteer

stephen moore vedder

==

judge junket/ws

---

---

===

FAM FDN DENIAL CO2 COALITION

Among the foundations, which operate independently but bankroll many of the same groups, are the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Searle Freedom Trust and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.

e nad e

Meet the ‘dead industrialists’ funding climate denialism

:{By Scott Waldman | 06/26/:{2020 }: TRUMP TERM 1

Some of the most prolific funders of today’s climate science denial groups died decades before the general public knew climate change was transforming the planet.

Sarah Mellon Scaife and Daniel C. Searle. University of Pittsburgh/Historic Pittsburgh (Scaife); Searle Freedom Trust

Some of the most prolific funders of today’s climate science denial groups died decades before the general public knew climate change was transforming the planet.

While much of the attention on opposition to mainstream climate science has focused in recent years on funding from fossil fuel companies, there’s growing support for foes of carbon regulation from conservative foundations that are not widely known.

Foundations formed by now-dead industrialists have been instrumental in promoting rollbacks of regulations that protect the public from deadly air pollution and spreading misinformation around climate science.

Fueled by hundreds of millions of dollars in assets, the foundations have supported groups that worked with the Trump White House to roll back vehicle emissions standards and to ease restrictions on power plant pollution and water protections, public tax filings show. They have quietly funded presidential advisers who worked to conduct a hostile White House review of climate science and to restrict EPA’s use of scientific research when crafting public health protections.

Among the foundations, which operate independently but bankroll many of the same groups, are the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Searle Freedom Trust and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.

Robert Brulle, a Drexel University sociologist who studies and tracks climate denial funding, said such foundations have been quietly shaping public life for decades. They offer a way, he said, for "dead industrialists" to transfer economic power into cultural and political power that can last in perpetuity. The power of such foundations lies in their ability to operate for generations without any check on their power, he said.

"These foundations are totally unaccountable to anybody," he said. "A foundation can pretty much do whatever the hell it wants regardless of the consequences. Foundations have undemocratic and plutocratic power."

None of the foundations responded to requests for comment.

The foundations fuel more than just climate policy battles. They also support media organizations that promote misleading climate information and create confusion around climate science. That includes the conservative Daily Caller News Foundation as well as the Prager University Foundation.

The Daily Caller News Foundation provides articles for the Daily Caller, the conservative website founded by Fox News host Tucker Carlson. A Prager University video series has featured climate deniers saying that global warming concerns are overblown and that NASA, NOAA and the world’s major science agencies are wrong.

They have pumped millions of dollars into groups that have worked closely with the Trump administration and Congress to weaken climate policy and create confusion around climate science, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), CO2 Coalition, Heritage Foundation, Heartland Institute, Cato Institute and Texas Public Policy Foundation.

And the foundations have been a source of "baseload" funding for organizations that have battled the government for the last 40 years, said Kert Davies, director of the nonprofit Climate Investigations Center.

Even before fossil fuel companies and the Koch brothers began pumping money into organizations that oppose climate regulations, the foundations were quietly supporting such work, he said. And as the fossil fuel industry faces increasing scrutiny over its role in climate misinformation and has backed away from some public funding, the foundations have continued their support, Davies noted.

"They don’t have any material interest in fossil fuels, but they are fundamentalists about hating the government, hating regulation and trying to stop any progress on things like climate change because they see it as almost a step toward communism, it’s almost that stark," he said.

To be sure, not all foundations linked to dead industrialists oppose climate science. The fortune of John D. Rockefeller of Standard Oil is now funding climate action. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund spends more than $10 million annually supporting climate causes and funding groups that promote regulation of fossil fuel.

3 big donors

One of the largest donors to anti-climate policy causes is the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which has spent millions of dollars annually on groups that try to sow doubt about climate change and that work to weaken climate regulations.

Public tax filings show that the Wisconsin-based foundation has assets of about $1 billion and was named for two brothers — Lynde, who died in 1942, and Harry, a member of the far-right John Birch Society, who died in 1965. The family made its fortune in electronic controls.

The foundation was expanded into a conservative powerhouse in 1985, when a sale of the family company expanded the foundation’s assets to $290 million.

In recent years, the foundation has pumped millions of dollars into groups that worked closely with the Trump White House to roll back most of the Obama administration’s climate policy; to increase the voice of industry researchers in order to diminish air pollution regulations; and to steer federal agencies such as the Interior Department, EPA and the Department of Energy toward the interests of fossil fuel companies.

Last year alone, the Bradley Foundation spent more than $2 million funding CEI, the Cato Institute, the CO2 Coalition, the Heritage Foundation, FreedomWorks, the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council. Former employees of those groups have served in senior positions at the White House, Interior, DOE and EPA, and on President Trump’s transition teams for those agencies.

Millions of dollars to the same groups has also flowed from the Searle Freedom Trust, public tax filings show. The trust was founded by Daniel C. Searle, who died in 2007 and was a fourth-generation CEO of a family pharmaceutical company that was sold to Monsanto.

In 2018 alone, tax filings show, the Searle trust gave more than $2 million to groups that worked with the Trump administration to roll back environmental regulations, including the CO2 Coalition, CEI, Cato and the Heritage Foundation.

In addition to policy support, the foundation funds public outreach for climate denialism. In 2018 alone, it spent more than $300,000 on groups that publish and promote climate misinformation, including the Daily Caller News Foundation and the Prager University Foundation, tax filings show.

The work of the Bradley Foundation and Searle trust is complemented by funding from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, which is named after Sarah Mellon Scaife, an heiress to the fortune of her father, Richard Mellon, a banker and industrialist.

Scaife, who died in 1965, focused her support on funding for hospitals, disability and poverty issues, and environmental causes. Her money was even used to fund the University of Pittsburgh laboratory where the polio vaccine was developed by Dr. Jonas Salk in the early 1950s.

After Scaife’s death, her son, Richard Mellon Scaife, turned the foundation into a powerhouse for conservative issues, spending tens of millions of dollars on the Heritage Foundation alone before his death in 2014. Scaife steered the family’s fortune toward conservative causes so thoroughly that Hillary Clinton once pinpointed him as the figurehead of a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

The Sarah Scaife Foundation now funnels millions to groups that oppose environmental regulations and that attack climate science. That includes more than $3 million in its most recent filing, including to Cato, CEI, the CO2 Coalition, FreedomWorks, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute, according to tax filings.

---

3 22

All nonprofits identified by CMD that gave $10,000 or more to the top climate misinformation groups from 2014–20 are listed in the table below.

:{

}:

tABLE 2

Top Nonprofit Climate Denial Funders, 2014-20

Numerous charities, private foundations, and trade associations have bankrolled the climate misinformation movement.

 Page 1 of 4  

Table with 9 columns and 53 rows. Currently displaying rows 1 to 15.

Donor    2014 2015 2016   2017 2018   2019 2020   TOTAL

1 DonorsTrust/Donors Capital Fund $3,293,850 $3,816,850 $3,676,750 $2,422,000 $3,830,200 $2,101,732 $1,416,500 20,557,882

2 Searle Freedom Trust $839,500 $589,500 $1,140,000 $940,000 $1,096,000 $754,000 $985,000 6,344,000

3 Sarah Scaife Foundation $350,000 $610,000 $842,000 $875,000 $960,000 $715,000 $1,245,000 5,597,000

4 Mercer Family Foundation $885,000 $100,000 $1,075,000 $970,000 3,030,000

5 Dunn Foundation $1,200,000 $250,000 $325,000 $200,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 3,025,000

6 Bradley Foundations $344,376 $318,876 $458,500 $519,000 $280,000 $475,000 $110,000 2,505,752

7 American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers $365,000 $275,000 $470,000 $400,000 1,510,000

8 Koch Foundations $100,128 $431,891 $333,028 $413,016 $84,000 $99,049 $18,749 1,479,861

9 Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program $38,500 $228,500 $265,000 $230,000 $235,000 997,000

10 Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund $35,525 $21,350 $27,867 $241,355 $212,310 $231,055 $201,952 971,414

11 National Philanthropic Trust $150,000 $175,000 $175,500 $176,000 $200,000 876,500

12 Bartley J. Madden Foundation $45,000 $270,000 $270,000 $250,000 $30,000 865,000

13 Thomas W. Smith Foundation $150,000 $175,000 $200,000 $200,000 725,000

14 The 85 Fund $700,000 700,000

15 Ed Uihlein Family Foundation $10,500 $129,000 $35,000 $115,000 $115,000 $140,000...

----

https://www.mediamatters.org/facebook/mark-zuckerberg-spread-misinformation-about-facebooks-fact-checking-program-during-his

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg gave a false answer when asked during a congressional hearing about a division of right-wing website The Daily Caller being involved in Facebook’s fact-checking efforts.

Zuckerberg deflected Facebook’s responsibility by suggesting an outside entity is in charge of which organizations Facebook uses as fact-checkers. But that isn’t true: Who gets to fact-check on Facebook is decided by Facebook. Additionally, reporting has shown that a Facebook executive previously agitated for The Daily Caller’s inclusion in the fact-checking project.

Zuckerberg appeared before the House Financial Services Committee on October 23 to testify about Facebook’s efforts to launch a new cryptocurrency, how Facebook has been used to post ads that violate federal housing discrimination laws, and other topics related to the company. One of those topics was Facebook’s fact-checking project, which has been maligned for its ineffectiveness.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) asked Zuckerberg why a division of The Daily Caller is included in the Facebook fact-checking project given the publication is “well-documented with ties to white supremacists.” Zuckerberg demurred on the question of Facebook’s role, and instead claimed, “We actually don’t appoint the independent fact-checkers, they go through an independent organization called the Independent Fact-Checking Network that has a rigorous standard for who they allow to serve as a fact-checker.” That is false. Facebook requires its partners to be accredited by the organization, which is actually called the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), but it is Facebook, not IFCN, who decides which organizations Facebook uses in its fact-checking project.

[vid?]

As explained by Vox, “IFCN certification is a necessary condition for partnering with Facebook, but once a site is certified, it’s up to Facebook to decide whether to partner with it. There are currently 62 organizations with IFCN certification globally, but Facebook only partners with six in the United States.”

Judd Legum, who publishes the Popular Information newsletter, asked IFCN about Zuckerberg’s response to Ocasio-Cortez’ question. IFCN Director Baybars Örsek confirmed that Zuckerberg’s claim that IFCN appoints Facebook fact-checkers was false:

Zuckerberg repeated this falsehood during a follow-up question after Ocasio-Cortez asked, “So you would say that white supremacist-tied publications meet a rigorous standard for fact-checking?” Again, Zuckerberg falsely claimed that IFCN, not Facebook, was “assessing that standard” for inclusion in Facebook’s fact-checking project.

In fact, a Facebook executive previously attempted to ensure that The Daily Caller’s fact-checking division, which is called Check Your Fact, was included in Facebook’s fact-checking project. According to The Wall Street Journal, Facebook executive and former George W. Bush administration official Joel Kaplan started pushing for it to be included in the summer of 2018. But other executives at Facebook were opposed to its inclusion because of falsehoods promoted by The Daily Caller, and debate over the matter ended when Check Your Fact lost its IFCN accreditation in November 2018. But in April, after Check Your Fact regained its IFCN accreditation, it was named as a Facebook fact-checking partner.

In order to be recertified, Check Your Fact had to comply with disclosure requirements about the source of its funding. That disclosure indicated that Check Your Fact is funded via the bigoted Daily Caller's general operating budget, the website's own ad revenue, and a $100,000 grant from The Daily Caller News Foundation that was provided by the right-wing Searle Freedom Trust foundation.

Zuckerberg’s testimony about the project misled Congress and made clear that he may not even be aware of the basic logistics of how Facebook’s fact-checking operation works.

(Disclosure: In March 2018, Check Your Fact fact-checked a claim that I made about the National Rifle Association, rating the claim “true.”)

==

Project on Fair Representation is a legal defense fund founded and led by Ed Blum with an agenda "dedicated to reversing race-based legal protections".[1] The Project is financially supported by Donors Trust. [2]

The Project on Fair Representation funded the challenges in Supreme Court cases Shelby County v. Holder and Fisher v. University of Texas with funds from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation funneled through Donors Trust. Both challenges were organized by Ed Blum. In Shelby County v. Holder the Court's ruling severely limited the Voting Rights Act and Fisher v. University of Texas, which attacked university affirmative admissions programs, was differed to a lower court.[1]

Resources

Related Sourcewatch pages

External Articles

References

  1. ↑ ^Jump ^up to:1.0 1.1 Brendan Fischer, For Bradley Foundation, Challenging Affirmative Action & Voting Rights Is Part of Long-Term Crusade, PR Watch, June 27, 2013.
  2. :{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:↑ Project on Fair Representation, About Us, Fund website, accessed August 22, 2013.

==

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/06/12142/bradley-foundation-challenging-affirmative-action-voting-rights-part-long-term-cr

The Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation is one-for-two in legal challenges to civil rights and racial equality this term, with the U.S. Supreme Court striking down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in one case bankrolled by Bradley, and in another, remanding an affirmative action case to a lower court, turning back the Bradley-backed challenge. The cases represent the latest in the Bradley Foundation's long-term effort to dismantle the gains of the civil rights era.

In the 5-4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, the Court effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act, which had required states with a history of legalized racial discrimination to get pre-approval from the federal government before making changes to either voting laws or procedures. One day earlier, in Fisher v. University of Texas, the Court punted on a challenge to affirmative action, sending the case back to a lower court rather than outright prohibiting the consideration of race in college admissions.

The challenges to both the Voting Rights Act and university affirmative action programs were organized by the same activist, who has acknowledged that he receives funding from the Bradley Foundation -- a Milwaukee-based funder of right-wing causes that has long targeted racial equity.

Same Group and Donors Behind Fisher and Shelby County Cases

The group that brought both challenges is the Project on Fair Representation, a legal defense fund dedicated to reversing race-based legal protections and whose website says it devotes "all of its efforts to influencing jurisprudence, public policy, and public attitudes regarding race and ethnicity."The Project was founded and led by one person, Ed Blum, who coordinated the challenges in both the Fisher and Shelby County cases.

Blum has likened his role in high-profile litigation to "Yenta the matchmaker." "I find the plaintiff, I find the lawyer, and I put them together, and then I worry about it for four years," he said.

Blum urged Shelby County, Alabama, to bring its Section 5 challenge after the Department of Justice blocked its effort to dilute the voting power of its growing African-American population. He also connected with Abigail Fisher, a white student who was denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin and claimed it was because of her race. Blum was also behind the last Voting Rights Act challenge to make it to the Supreme Court, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder.

The Project on Fair Representation covered the legal fees in both the Shelby County and Fisher cases using funds filtered through the secretive Donors Trust, which has been described as a "Dark Money ATM" since it stealthily funnels money from the Kochs, Bradley and other funders to organizations in the right-wing network.

Typically, the identity of Donors Trust funders remain secret, but two of Blum's donors have been revealed: the Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation, which gave at least $100,000 to bankroll Blum's latest legal challenges, and the Searle Freedom Trust, which for years has funded the Project on Fair Representation.

Bradley, which is headed by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's campaign chair Michael Grebe, hands out $30 million in grants each year, and its support of Blum's group is only one example of its long-term effort to roll-back both voting rights and affirmative action.

With Bradley-Funded Challenge, Court Eviscerates Voting Rights Act

"Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions," Roberts wrote in the Shelby County case, joined by four other conservative justices. "African- American voter turnout has come to exceed white voter turnout in five of the six States originally covered by §5 [of the Act], with a gap in the sixth State of less than one half of one percent."

But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the four dissenting justices, said: "In the Court's view, the very success of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act demands its dormancy." Invoking the words of Martin Luther King, Jr, she wrote: "'The arc of the moral universe is long,' he said, but 'it bends toward justice,' if there is a steadfast commitment to see the task through to completion. That commitment has been disserved by today's decision."

"Hubris is a fit word for today's demolition of the VRA."

Bradley's role in attacking voting rights is not limited to its support for Blum and his Project on Fair Representation.

In advance of the 2012 elections, Bradley was revealed as the secret funder that had bankrolled giant billboard ads, exclusively in neighborhoods of color, stating "Voter Fraud is a Felony" during a period when voter ID was on hold in Wisconsin and many were confused as to its status. It funded groups that employed James O'Keefe, whose heavily-edited undercover videos hyped voter fraud allegations and helped take down ACORN, which had helped millions of low-income people register to vote. It also funded the legal advocacy group that represented O'Keefe.

Both Bradley and Searle have funded the American Legislative Exchange Council, which promoted voter ID laws in states across the country. And in the wake of Shelby County, ALEC-inspired voter ID bills and other restrictions will likely take effect across the South. As many as eleven percent of registered voters don't have government-issued photo ID and would be unable to vote under the laws, with those percentages even higher among communities of color and students.

Bradley also backs state-based conservative think tanks like Wisconsin's MacIver Institute, which have advanced unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud to drum-up support for restrictive laws like voter ID. And it has given millions to groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society, which have long hyped voter fraud and called for more restrictive voting measures.

Shelby County Means ALEC-Inspired Voter ID Law Will Be Implemented in Multiple States

As J. Christian Adams writes in a publication from the Bradley-funded Federalist Society: "those states that fall under Section 5 will be able to enact voter identification laws without seeking clearance from the federal government."

Indeed, just hours after Shelby County was published, Texas' Attorney General announced the state's ALEC-inspired voter ID law, which could disenfranchise up to 800,000 registered voters but was blocked by a federal court under Section 5 last year, would immediately take effect; so will the state's problematic redistricting map, which had been blocked by a federal court due to its discriminatory impact.

Mississippivoters will also be subjected to a voter ID requirement, since state officials need not wait for federal pre-clearance to implement a 2011 constitutional amendment. South Carolina's voter ID law, which was initially stalled by the DOJ, will also take effect. A strict voter ID law passed in Virginia this year -- which likely would not have been pre-cleared under Section 5 -- can also be implemented without federal approval.

True the Vote,whose poll watchers have been accused of voter suppression and which was awarded a $35,000 grant from Bradley in 2011 (later rescinded because the group hadn't received its 501(c)(3) status), stated:

"This is without doubt a step in the right direction for our Republic."

Hiccup for Bradley's Long Fight Against Affirmative Action

The Bradley-funded effort to end affirmative action in the Fisher case was less successful than the attack on Section 5. The challenge to the University of Texas' admissions program was kicked back to a lower court for further proceedings, albeit with instructions that the court more strictly scrutinize the university policy. Affirmative action supporters didn't celebrate the decision, but breathed a sigh of relief that the Court didn't entirely ban consideration of race in college admissions.

The case was only one front in the Bradley-funded war on affirmative action.

It has been a top funder of the Center for Individual Rights, a right-wing legal organization that has challenged affirmative action laws across the country (and where Ann Coulter worked as a litigator in the 1990s). CIR litigated two of the most significant affirmative action cases in recent decades, Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, both decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003. It had a major victory in the 1996 Hopwood v. Texas case in the 5th Circuit that radically reshaped diversity programs at the University of Texas -- potentially even banning recruitment of people of color -- until the decision was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. The group represented the sponsors of Proposition 209, the 2001 California referendum that eliminates affirmative action in state programs, among other efforts. Bradley has given at least $2 million to CIR since 1989.

The Bradley Foundation has also given millions to Ward Connerley's anti-affirmative action "American Civil Rights Institute," including $700,000 in 2001 to support the Proposition 209 ballot initiative, and in 2005 awarding Connerley a $250,000 "Bradley Prize." And it has consistently funded the National Association of Scholars, giving millions to the group whose mission is fighting affirmative action by building scholar networks and organizing conferences and panels on college campuses across the country.

Bradley has also given over one million dollars to the "Center for Equal Opportunity," whose activities include traveling the country urging Republican legislators to crack down on affirmative action programs, which it claims constitute "reverse discrimination."

In 2011, a Center for Equal Opportunity representative claimed the University ofWisconsinwas guilty of "severe racial discrimination" -- a questionable assertion given that just 2.6 percent of the university's 42,180 students are African-American and 3.8 percent are Hispanic -- prompting protests from students already energized in opposition to the agenda of Governor Scott Walker, whose campaign chair and transition team leader was Bradley CEO and President Michael Grebe.

Bradley Foundation Is Not Going Away, and Neither Are These Fights

The Bradley Foundation is one of the largest "philanthropic" organizations in the country and has funded an array of organizations advancing right-wing causes, ranging from school privatization (as documented by One Wisconsin Now at BradleyWatch.org) to Islamophobia, union-busting, "tort reform" and other issues. Between 2001 and 2010 it gave over $350 million to hundreds of institutions, which is nearly as much as the seven Koch and Scaife family foundations combined.

(See a full list of Bradley Foundation contributions here).

Which means the Bradley Foundation is not going anywhere anytime soon -- and battles over racial equity, voting rights, affirmative action and a range of other issues will continue to be funded and fought for years to come.

==

judicial junket update:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/03/28/12368/corporations-pro-business-nonprofits-foot-bill-judicial-seminars

==

Kimberly O. Dennis, Searle Freedom Trust, Washington D.C.

"Dennis is president of the Searle Freedom Trust. She is also president of the board of Donors Trust, a trustee of the Earhart Foundation, and a member of the board of the Philanthropy Roundtable. Her previous positions include: director of the National Research Initiative, a program of the American Enterprise Institute; executive director of the Philanthropy Roundtable; and program officer for the John M. Olin Foundation." [1]

Resources and articles

Related Sourcewatch

References

Directors, Property and Environment Research Center, accessed June 13, 2010.

==

Rumy

It's important to further note that, before ACSH stopped revealing donors in 1991, this online source reports that the “Monsanto Fund”was a corporate donor of $25,000 and above. Another donor was “The NutriSweet Company,”which was owned by G.D. Searle & Co., which in turn also funded Enzine-linked STATS. Pfizer, which held the NutriSweet brand, was also a donor to ACSH. This source is called the “Integrity in Science Project.”

==

donor trust 14%

scaife 7%, bradley 5 plus 1% ed, koch 5, howard charatible fdn 4, john w pope 4, searle 4, templeton 4%, dunn's fdn for the adv of rt thinking 2, smith richardson 2, vanguard 2, ...annenbeg kohler 2, Lilly 2%

It’s important to further note that, before ACSH stopped revealing donors in 1991, this online source reports that the “Monsanto Fund”was a corporate donor of $25,000 and above. Another donor was “The NutriSweet Company,”which was owned by G.D. Searle & Co., which in turn also funded Enzine-linked STATS. Pfizer, which held the NutriSweet brand, was also a donor to ACSH. This source is called the “Integrity in Science Project.”

guardian

Several hundred miles to the north east in Massachusetts,the Beacon Hill Institute requested $38,825 from Searle to weaken or roll back a five-year effort by states in the region to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.The institute said it would carry out research into the economic impact of the cap-and-trade system operating in nine states known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

BHI appeared to have already arrived at its conclusions in advance, admitting from the outset that the aim of the research was to arm opponents of cap-and-trade with data for their arguments, and to weaken or destroy the initiative. "Success will take the form of media recognition, dissemination to stakeholders, and legislative activity that will pare back or repeal RGGI," the funding proposal says.

The Beacon Hill Institute, technically an affiliate rather than a full member of the SPN, operates out of the economics department of Suffolk University in Boston. David Tuerck, its executive director, denied the group had engaged in lobbying. "There is never any lobbying," he told the Guardian. "Maybe I need to look up the definition again, but lobbying consists of buttonholing legislators and other policymakers to get a particular result on a particular issue, and we never do that."

But Suffolk University, which hosts the Beacon Hill Institute as a research arm of its economics department, sharply criticised the research proposal to the Searle Foundation. In a statement to the Guardian, the university said the grant bid had not been submitted to the university, as required, and that the university would never have approved the proposal. "The stated research goals, as written, were inconsistent with Suffolk University's mission."

Watchdogs that monitor the work of SPN and other conservative networks in the US said that the centralised coordination of state-level campaigns showed a significant attempt to build local activism into a nationwide movement. Lisa Graves, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, which issued a recent report on SPN, said that the local identity of the network's members belied a larger purpose. "They appear to be advocating purely local interests but what they are promoting is part of a larger national template to radically remake our government in a way that undermines public institutions and the rights of workers," she said.

The SPN said that its co-ordinating role was justified because local and state issues were increasingly impinging on national politics. "There's no mystery here," Sharp said. "The whole idea of a state policy network is that individual thinktanks can be in communication, share best practices and analysis, and combine their efforts when they see a benefit from doing so."

Some of the grant bids to Searle focus specifically on prominent local politicians the thinktanks hope to influence. The grant bid that emanated from New Jersey, from theCommon Sense Institute (CISNJ), another tax-exempt "research and education organization", floats the idea of a campaign to support the efforts of the Republican governor Chris Christie inending the ability of public employees to claim untaken sick days and vacation leave in their retirement packages.

"Governor Chris Christie has been waging a war to eliminate this practice; and CSINJ would like to provide ammunition," the proposal says. The thinktank plans to produce a "research study" which it would call "Busting the Boat Checks" – an allusion to the phrase Christie uses to denote the watercraft retirees are claimed to buy on the back of sick and holiday leave payments.

The institute conceives a "media campaign" with its aim being the "full elimination of unused sick and vacation leave payouts".

"We believe our study can be used to sway public sentiment further and be used as a brandisher for reform in Trenton," it says.

:{

}:

CSINJ's president, Jerry Cantrell, denied that the grant bid involved any element of lobbying, insisting instead that his group was providing a service that in the past might have been done by the decimated local media.

"CSINJ is an education organization focused on providing the public with facts and the truth. We don't represent any interest besides the folks who are burdened by this practice – the taxpayers," he said.

He said the proposal was focused on the "abusive practice of accumulating sick or vacation day payments over an entire career and using them as retirement bonus. We've seen too many instances of high level individuals working out the door with $500,000-$750,000 claiming to have never missed a day in 30 years of employment."

The proposal from the Illinois Policy Institute for a campaign to deal with Chicago's government worker pensionscrisis by switching to 401(k)-style retirement plans similarly focuses on a politician – in this case Mayor Rahm Emanuel. The proposal says that "Mayor Emanuel has privately expressed the need for 401(k)-style changes to truly achieve reform."

alernet:

Aspartame is not food. It’s defined as [14] a synthetic compound of two amino acids (l-aspartyl-l-phenylalanine o-methyl ester). The compound was discovered accidentally in 1965, by James M. Schlatter, a chemist at G.D. Searle Company. Schlatter was testing an anti-ulcer drug. When he licked his finger and discovered that his concoction tasted sweet, the market for artificial sweeteners was born.

Is aspartame safe? Not according to multiple studies conducted over decades. And, at one time, not according to the FDA. In 1975, the FDA put a hold on aspartame’s approval, citing deficiencies in the studies conducted by Searle and its contractors. An analysis [12] of 164 studies of aspartame’s potential impact on human safety found that of the 90 non-industry-sponsored studies, 83 identified one or more problems with aspartame. Of the 74 industry-sponsored studies, all 74 claimed that aspartame was safe.

So how did aspartame get into our food supply? We have Donald Rumsfeld, former U.S. Secretary of Defense to thank. In 1981, Rumsfeld, who had previously served as CEO of Searle, hand-picked [15] Reagan’s new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr. It was Hull who ultimately gave aspartame the green light.

Here’s how it went down. On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame as a sweetener in beverages. Hull, the brand new FDA commissioner, recommended by Rumsfeld, appointed a five-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's prior decision. (A board of inquiry had been formed in 1975 when the FDA first questioned the validity of Searle’s studies on aspartame). When it became clear that the Scientific Commission was on track to uphold the 1975 ban by a 3-2 decision, Hull installed a sixth member on the commission. That led to a deadlocked vote. Hull then personally cast the tie-breaking vote. Voila. Aspartame was approved.

Hull soon left the FDA and eventually landed at Burston-Marsteller, the PR firm for Searle and for years, Monsanto. In 1985, Monsanto bought Searle and later spun off the company under the name NutraSweet. But not before Rumsfeld earned a handsome $12-million bonus, presumably for his role in greasing the wheels for aspartame’s approval.

In an article [16] published earlier this year in the New York Times, entitled “The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food,” Michael Moss exposed the junk food industry for employing chemists to concoct additives intended to hook people on the very food that is making us, including our children, not only obese, but chronically ill.

How Aspartame Became

Legal - The Timeline

From Rich Murray

rmforall@att.net

12-24-2

From Norfolk Genetic Information Network (Taken from Welcome to the Spin Machine by Michael Manville http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/2001/04/biotech/ http://www.freezerbox.com/ )

In 1985 Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame's clouded past, including a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it "might induce brain tumors."

The FDA had actually banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld (currently the Secretary of Defense) vow to "call in his markers," to get it approved.

On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener, and Reagan's new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's decision.[rumy head of trans team?]

It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision, but Hull then installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame's favor. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame.

The Aspartame/NutraSweet Timeline

http://www.swankin-turner.com/aspartame.html http://www.swankin-turner.com/hist.html

Aspartame/NutraSweet: The History of the Aspartame Controversy

By James Turner, ESQ. Director of the National Institute of Science, Law, and Public Policy (NISLAPP)

National Institute of Science, Law, and Public Policy 1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 330, Washington, DC 20036 (202) 462-8800 Fax: (202) 265-6564 nislapp@swankin-turner.com

Timeline

December 1965-- While working on an ulcer drug, James Schlatter, a chemist at G.D. Searle, accidentally discovers aspartame, a substance that is 180 times sweeter than sugar yet has no calories.

Spring 1967-- Searle begins the safety tests on aspartame that are necessary for applying for FDA approval of food additives.

Fall 1967-- Dr. Harold Waisman, a biochemist at the University of Wisconsin, conducts aspartame safety tests on infant monkeys on behalf of the Searle Company. Of the seven monkeys that were being fed aspartame mixed with milk, one dies and five others have grand mal seizures.

November 1970-- Cyclamate, the reigning low-calorie artificial sweetener -- is pulled off the market after some scientists associate it with cancer. Questions are also raised about safety of saccharin, the only other artificial sweetener on the market, leaving the field wide open for aspartame.

December 18, 1970-- Searle Company executives lay out a "Food and Drug Sweetener Strategy' that they feel will put the FDA into a positive frame of mind about aspartame. An internal policy memo describes psychological tactics the company should use to bring the FDA into a subconscious spirit of participation" with them on aspartame and get FDA regulators into the "habit of saying, "Yes"."

Spring 1971-- Neuroscientist Dr. John Olney (whose pioneering work with monosodium glutamate was responsible for having it removed from baby foods) informs Searle that his studies show that aspartic acid (one of the ingredients of aspartame) caused holes in the brains of infant mice. One of Searle's own researchers confirmed Dr. Olney's findings in a similar study.

February 1973-- After spending tens of millions of dollars conducting safety tests, the G.D. Searle Company applies for FDA approval and submits over 100 studies they claim support aspartame's safety.

March 5, 1973-- One of the first FDA scientists to review the aspartame safety data states that "the information provided (by Searle) is inadequate to permit an evaluation of the potential toxicity of aspartame". She says in her report that in order to be certain that aspartame is safe, further clinical tests are needed.

May 1974-- Attorney, Jim Turner (consumer advocate who was instrumental in getting cyclamate taken off the market) meets with Searle representatives to discuss Dr. Olney's 1971 study which showed thataspartic acid caused holes in the brains of infant mice.

July 26, 1974--The FDA grants aspartame its first approval for restricted use in dry foods.

August 1974-- Jim Turner and Dr. John Olney file the first objections against aspartame's approval.

March 24, 1976-- Turner and Olney's petition triggers an FDA investigation of the laboratory practices of aspartame's manufacturer, G.D. Searle. The investigation finds Searle's testing procedures shoddy, full of inaccuracies and "manipulated" test data. The investigators report they "had never seen anything as bad as Searle's testing."

January 10, 1977-- The FDA formally requests the U.S. Attorney's office to begin grand jury proceedings to investigate whether indictments should be filed against Searle for knowingly misrepresenting findings and "concealing material facts and making false statements" in aspartame safety tests. This is the first time in the FDA's history that they request a criminal investigation of a manufacturer.

January 26, 1977-- While the grand jury probe is underway, Sidley & Austin, the law firm representing Searle, begins job negotiations with the U.S. Attorney in charge of the investigation, Samuel Skinner.

March 8, 1977-- G. D. Searle hires prominent Washington insider Donald Rumsfeld as the new CEO to try to turn the beleaguered company around. A former Member of Congress and Secretary of Defense in the Ford Administration, Rumsfeld brings in several of his Washington cronies as top management.

July 1, 1977-- Samuel Skinner leaves the U.S. Attorney's office and takes a job with Searle's law firm. (see Jan. 26th)

August 1, 1977-- The Bressler Report, compiled by FDA investigators and headed by Jerome Bressler, is released. The report finds that 98 of the 196 animals died during one of Searle's studies and weren't autopsied until later dates, in some cases over one year after death. Many other errors and inconsistencies are noted. For example, a rat was reported alive, then dead, then alive, then dead again; a mass, a uterine polyp, and ovarian neoplasms were found in animals but not reported or diagnosed in Searle's reports.

December 8, 1977-- U.S. Attorney Skinner's withdrawal and resignation stalls the Searle grand jury investigation for so long that the statue of limitations on the aspartame charges runs out. The grand jury investigation is dropped.

June 1, 1979-- The FDA established a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) to rule on safety issues surrounding NutraSweet.

September 30, 1980-- The Public Board of Inquiry concludes NutraSweet should not be approved pending further investigations of brain tumors in animals. The board states it "has not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive."

January 1981-- Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of Searle, states in a sales meeting that he is going to make a big push to get aspartame approved within the year. Rumsfeld says he will use his political pull in Washington, rather than scientific means, to make sure it gets approved.

January 21, 1981-- Ronald Reagan is sworn in as President of the United States. Reagan's transition team, which includes Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of G. D. Searle, hand picks Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. to be the new FDA Commissioner.

March, 1981-- An FDA commissioner's panel is established to review issues raised by the Public Board of Inquiry.

May 19, 1981-- Three of six in-house FDA scientists who were responsible for reviewing the brain tumor issues, Dr. Robert Condon, Dr. Satya Dubey, and Dr. Douglas Park, advise against approval of NutraSweet, stating on the record that the Searle tests are unreliable and not adequate to determine the safety of aspartame.

July 15, 1981-- In one of his first official acts, Dr. Arthur Hayes Jr., the new FDA commissioner, overrules the Public Board of Inquiry, ignores the recommendations of his own internal FDA team and approves NutraSweet for dry products. Hayes says that aspartame has been shown to be safe for its' proposed uses and says few compounds have withstood such detailed testing and repeated close scrutiny.

October 15, 1982-- The FDA announces that Searle has filed a petition that aspartame be approved as a sweetener in carbonated beverages and otherliquids.

July 1, 1983-- The National Soft Drink Association (NSDA) urges the FDA to delay approval of aspartame for carbonated beverages pending further testing because aspartame is very unstable in liquid form. When liquid aspartame is stored in temperatures above 85 degrees Fahrenheit, itbreaks down into DKP and formaldehyde, both of which are known toxins.

July 8, 1983-- The National Soft Drink Association drafts an objection to the final ruling which permits the use of aspartame in carbonated beverages and syrup bases and requests a hearing on the objections. The association says that Searle has not provided responsible certainty that aspartame and its' degradation products are safe for use in soft drinks.

August 8, 1983-- Consumer Attorney, Jim Turner of the Community Nutrition Institute and Dr. Woodrow Monte, Arizona State University's Director of Food Science and Nutritional Laboratories, file suit with the FDA objecting to aspartame approval based on unresolved safety issues.

September, 1983-- FDA Commissioner Hayes resigns under a cloud of controversy about his taking unauthorized rides aboard a General Foods jet. (General foods is a major customer of NutraSweet) Burson-Marsteller, Searle's public relation firm (which also represented several of NutraSweet's major users), immediately hires Hayes as senior scientific consultant.

Fall 1983-- The first carbonated beverages containing aspartame are sold for public consumption.

November 1984-- Center for Disease Control (CDC) "Evaluation of consumer complaints related to aspartame use." (summary by B. Mullarkey)

November 3, 1987-- U.S. hearing, "NutraSweet: Health and Safety Concerns," Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Senator Howard Metzenbaum, chairman.

********************

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/857 RTM: www.dorway.com: original documents and long reviews of flaws in aspartame toxicity research 7.31.2 rmforall

http://www.dorway.com/upipart1.txt UPI reporter Gregory Gordon: 96K 3-part expose Oct 1987

"Survey of aspartame studies: correlation of outcome and funding sources," 1998, unpublished: http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html Walton found 166 separate published studies in the peer reviewed medical literature, which had relevance for questions of human safety. The 74 studies funded by industry all (100%) attested to aspartame's safety, whereas of the 92 non-industry funded studies, 84 (91%) identified a problem. Six of the seven non-industry funded studies that were favorable to aspartame safety were from the FDA, which has a public record that shows a strong pro-industry bias. Ralph G. Walton, MD, Prof. of Clinical Psychology, Northeastern Ohio Universities, College of Medicine, Dept. of Psychiatry, Youngstown, OH 44501, Chairman, The Center for Behavioral Medicine, Northside Medical Center, 500 Gypsy Lane, P.O. Box 240 Youngstown, OH 44501 330-740-3621 rwalton193@aol.com http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/Psychiatry/walton.htm

The Searle Freedom Trust, formerly called the D&D Foundation, is a conservative organization that funds Americans for Prosperity, the American Enterprise Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Heartland Institute, State Policy Network, and other right-wing groups. Kimberly O. Dennis is its executive director.[1]

Contents [hide]

Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

Searle Freedom Trust gave $125,000 to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2011.[1] The organization funded the research and publication of at least the 3rd and 5th editions of ALEC's Rich States, Poor States: ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index report.[2]

About ALEC
ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed.org, and check out breaking news on our PRWatch.org site.

Funding the Right Wing

Searle Freedom Trusts grantees in 2010 included a veritable who's who of right wing organizations and causes:[1]

Personnel

Trustees

Grant Advisors

Family Advisors

Staff

Kimberly O. Dennis

President and CEO

(202) 375-7822

kdennis -at- searlefreedomtrust.org

Courtney Myers

Program Officer

(202) 375-7834

cmyers -at- searlefreedomtrust.org

Richard Tren

Program Officer

(202) 375-7824

rtren -at- searlefreedomtrust.org

Gerard Alexander

Consultant

(202) 375-7826

galexander -at- searlefreedomtrust.org

Teresa Brown

Consultant

tbrown -at- searlefreedomtrust.org

Jennifer Eakle

Office Manager

(202) 375-7827

jeakle -at- searlefreedomtrust.org[4]

Contact

The address given on the organization's most recent (2010) IRS Form 990 is:[1]

303 W. Madison Ave., Ste. 1800

Chicago, IL 60606

However, the contact information given on the organization's website as of November 2012 is:[4]

1055 Thomas Jefferson St., NW, Suite L 26

Washington, DC 20007

Phone: 202-375-7820

Fax: 202-375-7821

Web: http://searlefreedomtrust.org/

Email: See above.

Articles and Resources

Related SourceWatch articles

External Resources

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Searle Freedom Trust, 2010 Form 990, organizational IRS filing, November 15, 2011.
  2. ↑ American Legislative Exchange Council, *Rich States, Poor States: ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index*, organizational report, July 2012.
  3. ↑ Paul Abowd, "Donors use charity to push free-market policies in states: Nonprofit group lets donors fly 'totally under the radar,' Center for Public Integrity, Feb 14, 2013.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Searle Freedom Trust, Contact Us, organizational website, accessed November 2012.
This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.

Categories:

Early life

Daniel Searle was born in Evanston, Illinois on May 6, 1926.[2][5] His great-grandfather was Gideon Daniel Searle, who founded G. D. Searle & Company in 1888.[1][5] His father was John Gideon Searle, CEO of the family business from 1936 to 1972.[8] He had a sister, Suzanne Dixon and a brother, William L. Searle.[1][9][10] He attended boarding school in Arizona and the Deerfield Academy in Massachusetts.[1] He served in the United States Navy Reserve and graduated from Yale University, where he played polo.[1][2][4][5] In 1952, he received an MBA from Harvard Business School.[1][2][4][5]

Career

He was appointed President of G. D. Searle & Co in 1966 and Chief Executive Officer in 1970.[1][2][4][5][7] In 1977, he recruited Donald Rumsfeld, whose congressional campaign he had financed.[1][2][7] In 1985, G. D. Searle & Co. was sold to Monsanto for US$2.7 billion.[5][7] The Searle family owned 34% of the company.[1] He later invested in the Milwaukee Braves and the Chicago Bulls.[1]

Philanthropy

He set up the Searle Freedom Trust to support free market economics.[1][2] The trust was worth US$100 million in 2007.[2] The trust will be depleted and closed by 2025 after the model of the John M. Olin Foundation, to avoid the money being misused for left-wing causes as the Ford Foundation was.[2] Through the trust, he was one of the largest donors to the American Enterprise Institute.[2] The trust has also donated to the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, the Pacific Research Foundation, the Reason Foundation, the State Policy Network, the Federalist Society, Donors Trust, Philanthropy Roundtable, the Institute for Humane Studies, the Collegiate Network, the Political Theory Project at Brown University, etc.[2][6][11] He was a trustee of the Hudson Institute.[12] He also sat on the Board of Trustees of the Art Institute of Chicago.[4]

He joined the Board of Trustees of Northwestern University in 1966 and became Life Trustee in 2000.[4][7] He served as an Adviser to the Searle Funds at The Chicago Community Trust and donated grants to the Searle Biomedical Awards at the Feinberg School of Medicine, the Searle Leadership Fund in the Life Sciences, the Chicago Biomedical Consortium and the Searle Hall, home of the Northwestern University Health Center.[4][7] He was a trustee of the John G. Searle Family Trust, which funded the Searle Center for Teaching Excellence and the Searle Center at the Northwestern University School of Law.[4][7]

Personal life

He was married to Dain Searle.[1] They had two sons, D. Gideon and Michael, and a daughter, Anne Bent.[1][4] They lived in Hobe Sound, Florida and maintained his parents's family home in Winnetka, Illinois.[1][7][13] He was a member of the Augusta National Golf Club.[14] He died of emphysema on a pheasant hunting trip in Scotland on October 30, 2007.[1][2][3][4]

The Searle Freedom Trust was founded by Daniel C. Searle in 1998 to foster research and education on public policy issues that affect individual freedom and economic liberty. Through its grantmaking, the foundation seeks to develop solutions to the country�s most important and challenging domestic policy issues.

Recognizing that good policymaking relies on the availability of high-quality research, the foundation invests primarily in scholarship that results in the publication of books, journal articles, and policy papers. Funding is typically provided in the form of research grants, fellowships, and other types of targeted project support. 

The Searle Freedom Trust also provides funding for public interest litigation and supports outreach to the public through a variety of forums, including sponsorship of research conferences and seminars, film and journalism projects, and new media initiatives.

With the foundation's assistance, university and think tank scholars investigate a wide range of issues, including:

� Tax and budget policy

� Cost-benefit analysis of regulatory practices and proposals

� The workings of the legal system

� Environmental policy

� Social welfare reform

� K-12 and higher education policy

G. D. Searle & Company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

G.D. Searle & Company or just Searle was a company focusing on life sciences, specifically pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and animal health. It is now part of Pfizer.

[edit] History

Searle was founded in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1888. The founder was Gideon Daniel Searle. In 1908, the company was incorporated in Chicago. In 1941, the company established headquarters in Skokie, Illinois. It was acquired by the Monsanto Company in 1985. Pharmacia Corporation was created in April 2000 through the merger of Pharmacia & Upjohn (itself the result of the merger of Pharmacia and Upjohn) with the Monsanto Company and its G.D. Searle unit. The merged company was based in Peapack, New Jersey. Pfizer acquired Pharmacia in 2003 and retired the Searle name.

Robert B. Shapiro acted as general counsel for the firm from 1979 onwards, where he went on develop Searle's aspartame product under the brand name NutraSweet. He became CEO of its NutraSweet subsidiary in 1982.

G.D. Searle & Company's chairman was William L. Searle until 1985. He was a University of Michigan graduate and Naval reservist, and was an officer in the Army Corps in the early 1950s.[1] Directors of G.D. Searle included Andre M. de Staercke, Reuben Richards, and Arthur Wood.

Donald Rumsfeld served as CEO, and then as President, of Searle between 1977 and 1985. During his tenure at Searle, Rumsfeld downsized the number of employees in the company by 60%. The resulting spike in the company's bottom-line financials earned him awards as the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981). In 1985, he played an instrumental role in the acquisition of G.D. Searle & Company by Monsanto.

[edit] Notable products

The company manufactured prescription drugs and nuclear medicine imaging equipment. Searle is known for its release of Enovid, the first commercial oral contraceptive, in 1960. It is also known for its release of the first bulk laxative, Metamucil, in 1934; Dramamine, for motion sickness; the COX-2 inhibitor Bextra; Ambien for insomnia; and NutraSweet, an artificial sweetener, in 1965. It was released in 1981 by FDA.

In 1996, the FDA removed all restrictions on the use of aspartame, which enabled its use in heated and baked goods. G.D. Searle's patent on aspartame was extended in 1981 and ultimately expired in December 1992.[2]

[edit] References

  1. ^ William L. Searle obituary The New York Times
  2. ^ Managing Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Technology-based Firms by Michael J. C. Martin

[edit] External links

[hide]

Pharmaceutical companies of the United States

List of pharmaceutical companies