By Dr. Royal Lee
Summary: It is obvious why companies would opt for selling synthetic vitamins (made in a laboratory) over natural ones (found only in food): the former have a considerably higher profit margin. But just how synthetic vitamins became equated with natural ones is downright perplexing, given that there are such obvious and important differences between the two. In this profound report, Dr. Royal Lee presents some long-ignored distinctions between vitamins as made by nature and vitamins as made by human beings. For one, he points out, a natural vitamin is never a single compound, but rather it is a conglomerate of substances—or a “complex”—that work together to deliver a nutritive effect to the body. A synthetic vitamin, on the other hand, is merely one compound in such a conglomerate that has been deemed, somewhat arbitrarily, the “active” ingredient of the complex. Moreover, such an active ingredient, when produced in the lab, is never an exact replica of its natural counterpart but instead is often a mirror opposite of it, with very different and possibly toxic biochemical functioning. That these facts continue to be ignored—that synthetic vitamins are not recognized as crude and incomplete imitations of natural ones—is truly one of the great scandals of modern nutrition. Published by the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, 1948.
How and Why Synthetic Poisons Are Being Sold as Imitations of Natural Foods and Drugs[spacer height=”20px”]
An honestly enforced food and drug law is just as essential to the proper operation of commerce in foods and drugs as the rules—and an umpire to administer them—are in a ball game. It is obvious to all that such a law should stop the sale of poisonous imitations of common foods and drugs except where proper labeling warns the buyer of just what he is getting. New synthetic products are constantly appearing and are sold without proper tests or proper investigation of what their real properties are.
In fact, the food and drug laws seem to be suspended where synthetic imitations of good foods are concerned, and they are often actually perverted to persecute makers and sellers of real products, as we shall later show.
Let us get to the bottom of this question how synthetic products differ from natural. There are two ways in which a difference may exist: 1) the synthetic product may not be the same thing but instead something that resembles the natural product 2) the synthetic product is a simple chemical substance, while the natural is a complex mixture of related and similar materials.
The first situation, where the synthetic material is not the same thing, is common. Take lactic acid, which was originally made from souring milk and is now made synthetically in large quantities. In sour milk, lactic acid consists entirely of molecules that are “right handed” in character [i.e., the molecules rotate polarized light clockwise], as indicated by the prefix “dextro” or d-. Synthetic lactic acid is a mixture of equal parts right-handed molecules (dextro-lactic acid, or d–lactic acid) and left-handed molecules (levo-lactic acid, or l-lactic acid) [which rotate polarized light counterclockwise]. Such mixtures of left- and right-handed molecules are known as racemic compounds and are indicated by the prefix r-. In catalogs and science literature, the prefixes l-, d-, and r- are used before the name of the substance [to indicate whether its molecules are purely left-handed (l-), purely right-handed (d-), or a mixture of the two (r-)].
About thirty years ago, Dr. Crofton, an English endocrinologist, explained how digestive enzymes could only act on part of the food available. Here are his words:
“It will not be unprofitable now to inquire into the raison d’être of this curious adapter mechanism. How is it that the ferments of the tissue cells themselves cannot deal with the comparatively simple food material presented to them without the aid of adapters?
“Pasteur first discovered that there are certain compounds of carbon that, while identical in every other respect—having the same chemical formulae and the same chemical reactions—differ only in their behavior to polarized light, that is, one compound rotates the light to the right, the other to the left. Such compounds have the same specific gravity, molecular volume, melting point, solubility, and heat of solution, of combustion, and of neutralization. They have the same amount of chemical affinity and index of refraction. Their absorption spectra are the same, and they have the same chemical action, yet one body rotates the light to the right as much as the other to the left. Pasteur‘s discovery was made with ammonium tartrates, and he found that if the common mold Penicillium glaucum was made to grow in a solution of both (ammonium racemate), it lived on the dextro isomer, but it now appears it is broken up to a small extent [sic].”1 (This requirement of the living cells for the major amount of the salt to be in the dextro form and a minute amount to be in the levo form is explained by Lee and Hanson in their discussion of cell reactions in their book, Protomorphology, Lee Foundation, 1947.2)
Few people know that dextro-lactic acid is a food and levo-lactic acid is a poison. (One is converted into sugar in digestion; the other is a waste product.)
Lactic acid once was found useful as a source of carbohydrate as a milk modifier for babies and began to get into use in special cases where sugars were not well tolerated. In Halifax some time ago, a number of babies died from the administration of lactic acid in milk, and here was a case where the synthetic product was inadvertently used in place of the natural because of inadequate labeling precautions.3 The doctors who recommended its use probably did not even know there is a difference between synthetic and natural lactic acid, although the drug catalog of Eli Lilly and Company of 1938 offers some information on the subject (page 195).
The basic trouble is that the makers of synthetic products do not want a stigma of inferiority to be put on their imitation products and will not label their imitations as different unless forced to do so by conscientious food and drug inspectors. And it is a notorious fact that the law is being ignored in many ways.
Where a food product must be composed of, say, only right-handed molecules, the use of the left-handed might be compared to using left-hand bolts and nuts in machinery where right-hand versions are required. If you need right-hand cap screws to put the head of your auto engine back on, for instance, then left-hand screws will only serve to cause confusion and probably a failure to get the machine back into operation—unless you can find among them enough of the right-hand screws to finish the job. To feed racemic, or “wrong-handed,” food products to people is just as foolish. In the case of the babies in Halifax, it caused death to feed the racemic product.
In 1895 Paul Walden of the University of Rostock, Germany, announced his discovery of the “Walden effect,” the phenomenon of optical inversion [from left-handed to right-handed and vice versa] of natural organic substances that are isolated in crystal purity over a period of time, apparently a result of removal from their normal environment and association with other protective and colloidal factors.
In a series of lectures at Cornell University (1927–28), Walden stated:
“The phenomenon of autoracemization is of interest in connection with the question of permanency of optically active substances. Let us consider a pure organic substance such as the dextrorotatory bromosuccinic ester. When it is kept for some time in a closed flask at ordinary temperatures, it undergoes spontaneous intramolecular rearrangement and a gradual decrease of the optical rotation results; in other words, it racemizes. Several examples may be cited to illustrate this remarkable fact…Might we not speak of dying molecules, much as we speak of dead catalysts?…The effect of these reactions is, as we may express it, a complete turning inside out of the molecule.”
Dr. Emil Fischer, the Nobel laureate chemist, said in 1906, “This discovery is the most surprising observation in the field of optically active substances since the fundamental investigations of Pasteur.”
Amino acids are also useless—if not toxic—when present in synthetic forms. Only left-handed (levo-) amino acids can be assimilated. And all synthetic amino acids are racemic.
Adrenaline is an outstanding example of a synthetic product that is being commercialized in disregard of the differences in physiological action [of d-, l-, and r- isomers]. The natural l-adrenaline is fifteen times as active as the synthetic dextro form in its effect on blood vessels,4 while dextro-adrenaline is eighteen times as effective in promoting glycosuria (excess glucose in urine, a sign of diabetes).
Now, since the most common use of adrenaline is to promote the vascular changes that relieve the asthmatic patient, the glycosuria effect is definitely not wanted. But to get the same vascular effect, [fifteen times as much of the synthetic form as the natural form must be used, which means a 15 x 18, or 270, fold increase in] the unwanted effect of forcing sugar into the urine.5
The cost to the asthmatic patient of calling a doctor and getting a shot of adrenaline when he is struggling for a breath of air is far too much to offset the two-cent saving created by the pharmaceutical manufacturer who puts synthetic adrenaline in the ampule used by that doctor. Yet if neither the doctor nor the patient knows the difference, the synthetic stuff certainly will be the one he gets. Although natural adrenaline can be made as a by-product in the processing of glands in making adrenocortin, makers of this material tell us there is no market for natural adrenaline because of the low price of the synthetic product.
Pantothenic acid is a vitamin now commercially available only in the synthetic form. This is probably the reason for its effect of causing a loss of sex function, particularly in females. This castrating action has been found both in test animals and in human patients receiving the “vitamin,” according to unpublished reports to us.
Pure natural vitamin E complex was found to be three times as potent as pure synthetic vitamin E.6
Of course, the poisonous nature of the synthetic vitamin D sold as Viosterol and Vigantol is well established. In children it causes blood in the urine very quickly via its destructive action to the kidneys. Medical literature reports deaths from the ordinary dosages used to “protect” from rickets.7
Why do the people and medical men not know these facts? Is it because the commercial promoters of cheap imitation food and drug products spend enough money to stop the leaking out of information?
Here is a good example of how hard it is to get the facts. In Good Housekeeping of September 1943, in the “Question Box?” department, the question was asked, “Are synthetic vitamins as beneficial as those from food sources?” The answer was made: “Manufactured vitamins are identical with those found in foods. They are just as beneficial.”
When asked what references they could offer to substantiate that statement, Good Housekeeping quoted the Journal of the American Medical Association, December 21, 1940, page 2185: “There is no detectable difference between the synthetic chemical vitamin and the natural one. Ascorbic acid is just as good vitamin C as one gets from an orange.” (See Appendix C. [Appendices B and C not included in archived document].)
When pressed for actual experimental evidence instead of swivel chair opinions, the editor of Good Housekeeping referred the question to a group of “experts.” Here are their opinions:
Dr. E.V. McCollum of Johns Hopkins: “…each and every one of these synthetic vitamins is identical with the natural product.”
Dr. Henry C. Sherman, Columbia University: “In some cases the natural and synthetic forms seem to be identical, while in other cases there may be more than one natural or more than one synthetic form.”
When asked for factual evidence from experimental work to prove that the synthetic vitamins in “enriched” flour were equal to the natural, Dr. Sherman replied, “I think any answers that a scientific worker would give you would be based on facts and that nothing would be gained by spending time on library researches in order to attach specific references to our answers.”
Dr. George R. Cowling, Yale University School of Medicine: “In answering the question raised in your letter about relative values of synthetic as compared with ‘natural’ vitamins, one should keep clearly in mind the meaning of the terms involved. There is no difference between these two sources of the vitamins as such. However, in many nutritional experiments, one works with highly artificial diets containing the synthetic vitamins, and there is no supply of various unknown factors that are missing; obviously some malnutrition will result, but it seems clear in this situation that one is not thereby justified in concluding that the synthetic vitamins are inferior to the ‘natural’ vitamins.
“This is the position taken by most of the authorities in the vitamin field. Thiamine as thiamine will meet the body‘s needs for this vitamin whether it is the synthetic variety or if it comes as a part of a food like a whole-grain breakfast food. The natural food, of course, may contain the unknown factors that are missing from a specific mixture of vitamins and therefore be superior to this extent.”
(Dr. Cowgill is not aware of the fact that natural thiamine cannot be separated from vitamin B4, the vitamin that prevents some kinds of heart disease.8 Therefore, it is impossible to compare natural thiamine with synthetic thiamine. He is comparing the synthetic B1 to a purely hypothetical product that is not known to science and not available for tests.)
We also obtained the opinion of Dr. S. Ansbacher, U.S. Vitamin Corporation, New York: “There is no difference whatsoever in the physiological activity of vitamins from natural sources and the ones made synthetically.”
Dr. Ansbacher here differs from a book his own firm published, Vitamin and Mineral Therapy, by H.E. Dublin and Casimir Funk, 1936. (Dr. Funk was the discoverer of vitamin B and the man who invented the word “vitamin.”) On page 65 of this book appears the following comment: “Synthetic vitamins: These are highly inferior to vitamins from natural sources; also, the synthetic product is well known to be far more toxic.”
Dr. Funk’s opinion is significantly different from that of Dr. Ansbacher, present research director of the company.
Why is it that none of these men seem able to refer to any concrete reason for their present opinions? Could it be that the profits involved in the sale of synthetic foods and drugs are so great that there is a constant campaign on to cover up the facts?
In the September 1948 issue of Reader‘s Digest is an article by Paul de Kruif titled “Harry Steenbock Trapped the Sun” that appears to be for the express purpose of reviving the reputation of Steenbock and Viosterol, the synthetic and poisonous form of vitamin D. Aside from the dangerous nature of Steenbock‘s “vitamin,” its promotion by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation was an unconscionable racket. Its nature is well exposed in the appended reprint from This Month, June 1945. (See Appendix A.)
Viosterol is still on the market. It will still poison your child if you do not watch out. Your doctor has not yet been informed by his medical society (if he is a member of the AMA) that it made a mistake in approving it as real vitamin D, although all vitamin authorities—including Steenbock himself, who first published the fact—know that Viosterol is not vitamin D.9
The same issue of Reader‘s Digest carries an article on the nickel-cadmium storage battery, a common article in Europe for the last 40 years. It is completely unknown in this country. Why? Simply because the American makers of lead storage batteries have succeeded in keeping any knowledge of this battery out of all American territories and have stopped any production of it in this country by hook or crook (as the article tells it, by acquiring control of the European concerns), all to protect their racket of selling a short-lived battery to their customers when a long-lived one is available. Even the Encyclopaedia Britannica and all American engineering textbooks ignore the nickel-cadmium battery.
In Canada the adulteration of white flour with synthetic vitamins is a criminal offense. In this country it is an approved and mandatory practice, and the makers of synthetic vitamins have reaped a fat harvest for their contribution to the advertising propaganda of the flour millers. The real vitamins are removed to keep insects and molds out of the flour; synthetic vitamins are added to fool the public, which knows that white flour without vitamins is unfit to eat.
The fact that insects and molds cannot live on the “enriched” flour any better than before the synthetic vitamins were added is not mentioned. Neither is the fact mentioned that test animals fed enriched diets (“enriched” with synthetic imitations of natural vitamins) die sooner than control animals fed the deficient diets.10 This is proof that synthetic vitamins are worse than none as food fortifiers and proof that they are put into foods to defraud the buyer and cheat him out of his health and life as well as his money.
This situation cannot be an accident. It must be a carefully planned conspiracy, with varying degrees of guilt for all the pseudoscientists who have varying degrees of knowledge of the real situation and who do not dare to expose the truth.
Food and Drug [Administration] inspectors and officials are as helpless to combat this overwhelming influence as they were with the sale of bootleg whiskey during Prohibition days. To keep their jobs they have to keep one eye shut.
Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, the first head of the federal Food and Drug Administration, tried to stop the use of synthetic sugar—known as glucose of corn sugar—in preserved fruits and canned goods. He felt that it was a fraudulent practice to load up such foods with synthetic materials of unknown effect on the human body. Furthermore, where people eat sugar as a sweetener, the synthetic sugar is far less sweet than cane sugar. So when making preserves or candy, etc., one must use much more corn-sugar glucose to get the desired sweetness. Consequently, people end up eating much more glucose than they would if using cane sugar.
Dr. Wiley lost out in his effort to have a label on containers warning that the product carried synthetic sugar. In fact, he lost his job in 1912 because he tried to protect the public. Only this year have supporting tests confirmed Dr. Wiley‘s fears. On May 10, 1948, the University of Pennsylvania released the news to the Associated Press that they have found that feeding corn-sugar glucose to test animals causes diabetes (Dr. Francis D.W. Lukens and Dr. F. Curtis Dohan).
Dr. Wiley thought that synthetic glucose was a poison, but he had no way to prove it. He felt that the makers of glucose should not be permitted to experiment on the whole population of the United States to find out.
It is the use of corn-sugar glucose in candy, soft drinks, bakery goods, ice cream, canned fruit, commercial peanut butter, etc., that enables companies to undersell all competitors who may try to use better sugars and thus put them out of business. It is a clear case where the public should be protected by a law, but, as Dr. Wiley said when he was forced to leave his job, “thus the very law that the Supreme Court has said was enacted chiefly to protect the public health has been turned into a measure to threaten public health and to defraud the purchaser…”11
When you add up the industries that depend on their foisting of synthetics as foods alone (not even considering drugs), you will find you have a list of the biggest in the country. Naturally, they are watching all loopholes where their rackets might start to crack. It is probably impossible for any research worker operating under the auspices of a university or in a government laboratory to be free from their indirect influence. Such items as have been quoted here are leaks that have commonly been quickly suppressed. No further work is done on these important questions.
If a book such as Dr. Daniel W. Quigley‘s The National Malnutrition (Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1943, $2.00), which exposes these food racketeers, gets into public libraries, these influences get it off the shelves. This happened in Rochester, New York, where twelve of the Quigley books were donated by request to the library and its branches. Later, when it was found that the books had been taken off the circulating list, the librarian admitted that no book inimical to local industries could remain on the library shelves. Later, that same librarian was written up in the local paper as a “champion of free libraries,” i.e., libraries where no outside influence could alter the nature of the “free speech” of the library (Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, November 21, 1944). Was this a deliberate attempt to nullify a truth by circulating a lie? Or maybe just a coincidence?
The Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission, instead of getting the facts in this situation and protecting the public against these dangerous imitations of natural foods, are bending their energies, it seems, to cover up for the racketeers. We cannot find a single instance in which a maker of synthetic imitation vitamins has been prosecuted by the Food and Drug Administration for improper claims on his labels or advertising.
But many makers of natural products have been prosecuted for making claims identical to what the makers of synthetic products are constantly and continually promoting. Why the selection of the makers of natural products for persecution?
In one case, of which we have the transcript in hand, the prosecuting attorney was successful in getting the testimony of a key witness reversed in the process of printing the record, which the court of appeals was able to use to support their argument to uphold the original judgment. Without this help, it is hard to see how the original verdict could have been sustained, obtained as it was by obvious fraud, with government “experts” declaring that no vitamin deficiency could create either a degenerative, infectious, or functional disease.
The Federal Trade Commission has issued orders and interpretations to makers of natural vitamins to “cease and desist” stating that a synthetic vitamin is in any way inferior to a natural.
Pages could be filled with examples of misuse of authority of this kind, by which special business interests are being protected by police activity. And if one asks the question, why do [these agencies] prosecute one concern for a violation and then let far bigger ones continue to use the prohibited advertising—if it is wrong for one to make a statement, why is it not wrong for another?, the answer you get is “action can only be taken where a complaint is made; no one has filed a complaint against these concerns.”
If a police authority can stop a murderer only after someone files a complaint, then let‘s get busy and start filing complaints. For a lot of people are being murdered, slowly maybe in most cases but nonetheless surely, by food racketeers who are constantly finding ways to make a poor product worse and sell it for less, thereby driving better ones off the market. On top of this, they are using the police power to stop the maker of better products from telling the truth on his label as to the difference.
Just why should the truth be subservient to the opinions of hired crooks who sell their reputations as expert witnesses? Can you imagine a better way to protect racketeers under the federal laws? Or a better way for them to discredit their competitors?
Bibliography
1. Crofton, W.M. An Outline of Endocrinology, 2nd edition. William Wood & Company, New York, 1929.
2. Lee, R., and W.A. Hanson. Protomorphology. Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1947.
3. Young, E.G., and R.P. Smith. “Lactic Acid: A Corrosive Poison.” Journal of American Medical Association, 125:1179–1181, 1944.
4. Harrow and Sherman. The Chemistry of the Hormones, p. 122. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, Maryland, 1934.
5. Dyson, M.G. The Chemistry of Chemotherapy, p. 66. The Chemical Publishing Company, Brooklyn, New York, 1928.
6. “The Relative Activity of Natural and Synthetic Vitamin E.” Nutrition Reviews, 5:251-253, 1947.
7. Bauer, J.M., and R.H. Freyberg. “Vitamin D Intoxication with Metastatic Calcification.” Journal of American Medical Association, 130:1208–1215, 1946.
8. Stepp, W., Kuhnau, J., and H. Schroeder. The Vitamins and Their Clinical Applications, English translation, p. 24. The Vitamin Products Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1938.
9. Steenbock, H., Kletzein, S.N.F,. and J.G. Halpin. “The Reaction of the Chicken to Irradiated Ergosterol and Irradiated Yeast as Contrasted with the Natural Vitamin D of Fish Liver Oil.” Journal of Biological Chemistry, 97:249, 1932; DeSanctis, A., and J.D. Craig. “Five-Year Clinical Study of the Prophylactic Value of Antirachitic Agents.” New York Journal of Medicine, 34:712–714, 1934.
10. Morgan, Agnes Fay. “The Effect of Imbalance in the ‘Filtrate Fraction’ of the Vitamin B Complex in Dogs.” Science, March 14, 1941, p. 261.
11. Wiley, H.W. The History of a Crime Against the Pure Food Law, p. 391. Self-published, 1929.
Appendix A
[Comment by Dr. Lee:] The following article fails to report the fact that Steenbock‘s “vitamin D” was not the same thing as the cod liver oil vitamin but a dangerously toxic synthetic imitation that may have killed many unsuspecting victims. (See: 1. Brehm, Ohio Surgical & Medical Jol, 33:990, 1937 and 2. Steenbock et al., Jol. Biol. Chem., 97:249, 1932.)
Profit Hungry Group Sabotages Medical Advance
By Dyson Carter. Reprinted by permission from This Month, June 1945, 247 Park Ave., New York, NY, by the Vitamin Products Company (Standard Process Laboratories).
Everyone has heard of rickets. This dread disease deforms the spine, ribs, hips, legs, and arms of children; it attacks pregnant and nursing mothers. For centuries science was powerless to help the victims. Before the Great War, nine out of every ten children living in big city slums were “rachitic” while medical researchers hunted for the microbe of the disease.
Then came the historic and sensational discovery of Dr. Kurt Huldschinsky. He made deformed babies straighten up and become almost normal just by putting them under a quartz-mercury ultraviolet lamp for a few minutes each day.
After Huldschinsky medical science was on the verge of making one of the greatest discoveries in history. Unfortunately, the next advance came from a biochemist named Dr. Harry Steenbock, working at the University of Wisconsin. Steenbock, unlike Pasteur, Banting, Huldschinsky, and all other great benefactors of humanity, refused to give his discovery freely to the world.
What was his contribution? Briefly, he showed how to manufacture concentrated vitamin D by irradiating certain oils, fats, and chemicals with ultraviolet light. He also showed how to put vitamin D into foods. With such enriched foods, he cured and prevented rickets. These discoveries were hailed with universal enthusiasm, for doctors realized that the scourge of rickets could be quickly wiped out all over Earth.
Twenty years ago, Dr. Steenbock patented his discoveries. He offered the patents to the University of Wisconsin, whose governors refused to touch the idea. Then Steenbock and George I. Haight, a prominent Chicago patent lawyer, along with several others, organized “The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.” The U.S. Department of Justice has repeatedly pointed out that the foundation was not sponsored or controlled by the University of Wisconsin and that the name was used simply to maintain a fictitiously “official” front.
The foundation had but one aim: to exploit vitamin D to the absolute limit of its profit-making possibilities. Quickly, royalties paid to the foundation soared to $3,000 per day. It would be difficult to criticize Steenbock for collecting enormous royalties from the business of licensing foods that cure and prevent rickets provided such foods were made available to the public and that they did cure or prevent rickets.
From its inception, however, the foundation was interested in other matters. Its directors won these successes:
1. Created a worldwide cartel in cooperation with the notorious Farben Cartel of Germany, controlling vitamin D production and sale and rigidly restricting the output.
2. Forced the public, the drug trade, and the medical profession to pay unbelievable prices for this health-giving substance. One million units of their vitamin D costing 15 cents to make was sold to drug wholesalers at $3 to $7 and to the public and doctors for $5 to $15. Retail prices now range from $1.25 up to $18.45 per million units—for 15 cents worth!
3. Prevented the use of vitamin D in everyday foods except when the manufacturer agreed not to put in enough of the vitamin to cure or prevent rickets.
4. Stopped any reduction of vitamin D prices by blacklisting drug wholesalers who wanted to sell the vitamin at reasonable prices.
5. Suppressed scientific research and patents that showed how to make vitamin D cheaper than by the Steenbock method.
The chances are that your family doctor, probably even your local pediatrician, has to this day not heard a word regarding this situation. Suppression of the outrageous facts in this case is still almost totally effective. The “conspiracy” (it was given that label by American courts) was exposed by the Department of Justice in October 1944 in the Federal District Court of Chicago. On November 24, 1944, judges Denman, Stephens, and Healy, of the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, denounced the vitamin D cartel with caustic verdicts, opinions, and facts.
By Dr. Royal Lee. Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Special Report 6, 1948.
Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research
Milwaukee 3, Wisconsin
Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research is a nonprofit, public-service institution, chartered in the state of Wisconsin in 1941 to investigate and disseminate nutritional information. The attached publication is not literature or labeling for any product, nor shall it be employed as such by anyone. In accordance with the right of freedom of the press guaranteed to the Foundation by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the attached publication is issued and distributed for informational purposes.
