:::Given the facts you stated above and what I can cite at this point, it seems fair. However, as now revised, it drops any mention of the issue of trace compounds that inevitably arise from most synthesis processes. With chlorocarbon chemistry, this issue seems an important one. I believe it’s what underlies chemists’ concerns (but I'm not certain that's the case). I contacted my Ph.D. biochemist friend last night and asked him to review what I wrote. I suspect he didn't have a chance to review the paragraph before you revised it. I don't think that will be a problem though. Remember, this guy was trained in England as a biochemist and got his Ph.D. in the field. As is the custom with British professionals, he has plenty of alphabet soup after "Ph.D." in his title. When I worked with him for seven years, I occasionally had long conversations about biometabolism. What stuck out in my mind when we discussed sucralose a few months ago was how unusually definitive and instantaneous he was in his concern over sucralose's organochloride chemistry. He thought that was foolishly playing with fire and the burden of proof required of the manufacturer to prove its safety was way too low given the inherently dangerous chemistry. I don't know what the idiosyncrasies of the subject are that underpins his concern. I'll see if he is willing to comment in written form here. If not, I'll have to reduce a telephone conversation to written form and post it here. I'll also be sure to ask him to cite any new published scientific articles on the subject. I'm sure it will take a few days — and maybe even a reminder from me — for him to get around to reviewing this article.   (''''