It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Natural and Artificial flavors?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   
What do these ingredients actually consist of? They seem to be in everything I eat and drink. Is this just the FDA helping out companies, and allowing them to put whatever the hell they want in foods. Does anyone know anything about these ingredients?



Thanks!




posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Here is a pretty comprehensive paper from the FDA regarding color food additives. Its a bit old, but has some good background information

www.cfsan.fda.gov...

another site from the University of Maryland



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Thanks for the link!

Thats some good information

Is there any more info out there on what companies can actually consider as natural and artificial flavors. Or does that mean they can add whatever flavors they want because every flavor is either natural or artificial?



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Okay man, seriously think about this one. Natural flavor means....natural flavor. It means the flavor is derived from a chemical extracted from a natural source. Artificial flavor means it is derived from a chemical made in a laboratory. I know in my second year organic chemistry class, we actually made a benzene compound that smelled and tasted like bananas. Same compound used in some sweets. Totally non-toxic and easy to make. You can vary the flavor by changing the side chains attached to the benzene group.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Don't eat artificial foods. We are adapted to natural foods, which as we all know can be dangerous enough by themselves. When you begin synthesizing foods, you risk inclusion of toxic byproducts and exclusion of necesarily complex (and often still undiscovered) nutrients.

We should not eat for flavour, aroma, or looks- but for fresh, wholesome nutrition.

If you choose wholesome natural foods, they will taste and look just fine without the risk of artificial ingredients. Don't be a test pilot.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 02:11 AM
link   
So you don't think we should eat foods that have vitamin additives, have been genetically altered to produce more protein or nutrients, or that have been grown artificially in laboratories? Wow, you, sir, are incredibly naive if you think anything you buy even in Green Life organic grocery stores is "natural".



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc
So you don't think we should eat foods that have vitamin additives, have been genetically altered to produce more protein or nutrients, or that have been grown artificially in laboratories?


Good to see I made myself clear to you.


Wow, you, sir, are incredibly naive if you think anything you buy even in Green Life organic grocery stores is "natural".


Sigh. Naive. Thanks for the compliment, its like being carded for beer. I am an old American Indian, and I rarely 'buy' food. I 'grow' it. Remember that? Growing food? Heh. Try it, it is educational and quite delicious.

The medicine IS the food...



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Oh, you grow your food? Using chemical fertilizers? Or maybe natural dung fertilizers from animals that have been fed "artificial" foods and steroids? And you grow it in the ground that receives water from where? Oh, the rain? The rain that contains chemicals from surrounding cities? Face it, you cannot avoid hazardous chemicals. They are in the food we eat, water we drink, and air we breathe. That's why so much research is going into treating conditions caused by excessive levels of certain chemicals. But hey, thanks to all this, people my age (21-30) have a higher tolerance to mercury, arsenic, selenium, and lead!



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   


Okay man, seriously think about this one. Natural flavor means....natural flavor. It means the flavor is derived from a chemical extracted from a natural source. Artificial flavor means it is derived from a chemical made in a laboratory.


Exactly. One of the worst chemicals ever created was and is Aspertame..aka Nutrasweet. This is known to have three poisons in it, one of them wood alcohol. It's highly addictive and quite poisonous. It's in every diet soda besides other artificially sweetened products. It was denied approval over and over again by the FDA because of the fact it was laced with 3 poisons. When Reagan became president he fired the head of the FDA, put his own man in the ofice and magically Aspertame was approved. This was the biggest money maker for Searle and Monsanto. I'm sure Reagan made a killing off of that stuff by getting it approved by the FDA.

And who was the head of Searle at the time? Donald Rumsfeld. Now, again, I don't believe in coincidences....



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Hmm...the aspartame issue is touchy. I don't deny at all that it is bad for you, and it is definitely addictive. I'm a total diet coke addict; I get a headache if I go a few days without one. The "poisons" in aspartame though aren't really poisons, per se. The "wood alcohol" you were referring to is actually called methanol, a common by product of human metabolism which is broken down into formaldehyde by the small intestine. Radiolabeling studies of these chemicals haven't shown immense concentrations in people treated with aspartame pills, and very little of it has shown any cumulative effect in the kidneys or liver.

The other "poison" you are probably referring to is phenylalanine, which is only a risk if you have the genetic disorder phenylketonuria. Phenylalanine is actually a vital amino acid. The reason people with phenylketonuria are at risk due to this amino acid is that they have a deficiency in the anabolic pathways of their metabolism that allow this compound to be built into intermediates in the Kreb's cycle < /med student mode>

The main thing I would say is harmful in aspartame is the aspartic acid. This acid is classified as an excitotoxin, which, in high levels, causes interference and damage at the blood brain barrier. This is probably the only part of aspartame that I would concern myself with, honestly.

Ci vediamo!
~Matt

[edit on 24-12-2005 by bsl4doc]

[edit on 24-12-2005 by bsl4doc]



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   


The "wood alcohol" you were referring to is actually called methanol, a common by product of human metabolism which is broken down into formaldehyde by the small intestine.


Methanol...aka wood alcohol is poisonous...and so is formaldehyde. Are you kidding? A common by product of human metabolism? Totally untrue. I would love to see documentation from you, because I can find a ton that disproves everything you are saying here.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   
You haven't taken a biochemistry class, have you? It shows. I have my medical biochemistry text from last year in front of me right now, and on page 396 it says: "Formalin, more commonly known as formaldehyde, is commonly produced in small amounts in human metabolism. When oxidized, it forms formic acid, a common product in the metabolism of alpha fatty acids, ultimately producing acetyl CoA."

You can also find this quote on the CDC's web site www.atsdr.cdc.gov... : "Formaldehyde can also be converted to carbon dioxide and breathed out of the body. It can also be broken down so the body can use it to make larger molecules needed in your tissues, or it can attach to deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or to protein in your body. Formaldehyde is not stored in fat."

I never denied that formaldehyde, in high amounts, is harmful. It can cause acidosis and perhaps some cancers. You, however, denied that fact that formaldehyde exists in our normal metabolism. It is a necessary chemical for many processes. Any chemical, be it methionine, proteinase K, or formaldehyde, can cause problems in high amounts. That's the basic premise of homeostasis, which you should have learned back in high school.

This myth is busted.

[edit on 24-12-2005 by bsl4doc]

[edit on 24-12-2005 by bsl4doc]

Mod Edit: Fixed Link.

[edit on 24/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   


That's the basic premise of homeostasis, which you should have learned back in high school.



Having to stoop to making comments like this make one not care about the content of your post. You lose credibility if you have to make a statement like this. It shows a lack of confidence and self esteem, which you try to make up by putting down others. It's a common problem.

Makes you seem unintelligent and thus not credible.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Which is: Medical Issues & Conspiracies » Natural and Artificial flavors?

Not individual members at ATS.

For reference:

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   


Hmm...the aspartame issue is touchy. I don't deny at all that it is bad for you, and it is definitely addictive.


Exactly....for example: some reasons why it is bad for you:

Toxicity Effects of Aspartame Use
Selection of adverse effects from short-term and/or long-Term use
Note: It often takes at least sixty days without *any* aspartame or nutrasweet to see a significant improvement. Improvement in health is also often accompanied by weight loss. Check all labels very carefully (including vitamins and pharmaceuticals). Look for the word "aspartame" on the label and avoid it. (Also, it is a good idea to avoid "acesulfame-k" or "sunette.") Finally, avoid getting nutrition information from junk food industry PR organizations such as IFIC or organizations that accept large sums of money from the junk and chemical food industry such as the American Dietetic Association.

Side effects of aspertame consumption:

seizures and convulsions
dizziness
tremors
migraines and severe headaches (Trigger or Cause From Chronic Intake)
memory loss (common toxicity effects)
slurring of speech
confusion
numbness or tingling of extremities
chronic fatigue
depression
insomnia
irritability
panic attacks (common aspartame toxicity reaction)
marked personality changes
phobias
rapid heart beat, tachycardia (another frequent reaction)
asthma
chest pains
hypertension (high blood pressure)
nausea or vomitting
diarrhea
abdominal pain
swallowing pain
itching
hives / urticaria
other allergic reactions
blood sugar control problems (e.g., hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia)
menstrual cramps and other menstraul problems or changes
impotency and sexual problems
food cravings
weight gain
hair loss / baldness or thinning of hair
burning urination & other urination problems
excessive thirst or excessive hunger
bloating, edema (fluid retention)
infection susceptibility
joint pain
brain cancer (Pre-approval studies in animals)
death

Aspartame Disease Mimmicks Symptoms or Worsens the Following Diseases:

fibromyalgia
arthritis
multiple sclerosis (MS)
parkinson's disease
lupus
multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS)
diabetes and diabetic Complications
epilepsy
alzheimer's disease
birth defects
chronic fatigue syndrome
lymphoma
lyme disease
attention deficit disorder (ADD and ADHD)
panic disorder
depression and other psychological disorders

Notice how they call it "Aspertame Disease"

lots more information here: www.holisticmed.com...



The Holistic Med site has excellent information on aspartame/NutraSweet. You will not believe how this stuff ever got approved. Out of 74 studies submitted by G.D. Searle to the FDA, none found significant problems. Out of 90 independent studies, 83 found problems.

Some of the things pulled by this company are appalling:

"[The manufacturer] lied and they didn't submit the real nature of their observations because had they done that it is more than likely that a great number of these studies would have been rejected simply for adequacy. What Searle did, they took great pains to camouflage these shortcomings of the study. As I say filter and just present to the FDA what they wished the FDA to know and they did other terrible things for instance animals would develop tumors while they were under study. Well they would remove these tumors from the animals."

- FDA Toxicologist and Task Force member, Dr. Andrian Gross (Wilson 1985)

The FDA scientific panel was against approving it, but was overruled by the FDA commissioner who later took a job with G.D. Searle.

Two studies appeared to be downright fraudulent. In one, blood was reported to have been drawn from hamsters at week 38 of the study when in fact those animals were already dead. A grand jury was convened, but the statute of limitations ran out before any indictments were issued. The US District Attorney who was in charge was already talking to Searle's law firm about a job before the time limit ran out.

According to information I found, the FDA has received over 10,000 complaints about aspartame compared to less than 4,000 complaints for all other consumer products combined! The FDA estimates that only one percent of all people who have bad reactions report them! This means there have been over one million known bad reactions. This does not include people who had bad reactions, but did not realize they were caused by aspartame. This could easily amount to millions more.

A number of people I know have told me that when they tried aspartame/NutraSweet, they immediately noticed light-headedness or headaches. These people were lucky. They discovered right away they could not tolerate this stuff.

Do you still think this stuff is safe?


more info here: www.cfs-recovery.org...



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I just really can't put much stock in "alternative medicine". I've seen and helped treat several people who have had horrendous problems due to "holistic" approaches to certain diseases. The worst case I've seen was someone who thought and herbal approach was the best treatment for gingivitis. This not only did NOT stop the bacterial infection in the gentleman's gums, but allowed it to set up an even bigger infection causing him to slip into bacteremia, which is a massive titer of bacteria in the blood. This often leads to shock, which did occur in this man's case. The mouth is especially prone to this as there is a massive blood supply going to the head, thus more opportunities for bacteria to set up an infection. Holisitc medicine sometimes does hit the nail on the head with some very common things such as the cold, etc. But when it comes to life threatening conditions, it's best to leave it to professionals. As for aspartame worsening lupus, MS, lyme disease, etc, I'm going to have to see studies on that. It totally defies logic that lyme disease would be worsened by aspartame, but, if you can produce an article, I'll read it. Also, I find it hard to believe aspartame's side effects include memory loss, phobias, and hair loss in the amount the average person ingests it. If someone were to eat a gallon of aspartame a day, I might buy that, but the average person drinking even two diet sodas a day would not experience these symptoms, otherwise we'd see a lot more phobia/rapid hair loss/dementia patients in hospitals I would imagine. So, unless you can back this up with someone other than a random dot com (since, as we all know, ANYONE can put a dot com up and say anything, it's the online equivalent of a bathroom stall door), I'm afraid I'm going to have to call your bluff.

EDIT: Just found this study ( neurology.org... ) in my med school's study database while searching for Parkinson's information. Turns out, aspartame has been shown to produce NO effect in parkinson's patients even in excess amounts, and in some cases, relieves some minor symptoms of Parkinson's. I would probably trust Georgetown's Neurology Department over some holistic medicine dot com.

[edit on 26-12-2005 by bsl4doc]

Last Edit, I promise: Found another journal article ( bmj.bmjjournals.com... ) by Profs. Michael Jean and Catherine Hankey of the University of Glasgow which not only states "Evidence does not support links between aspartame and cancer, hair loss, depression, dementia, behavioural disturbances, or any of the other conditions appearing in websites" and "Instead, manufacturers are encouraged to use cocktails of sweeteners so it becomes difficult for anyone to reach the acceptable daily intake of any sweetener individually—adults need at least 10 cans of a drink fully sweetened with aspartame alone to reach the acceptable daily intake of 40 mg/kg/day. When using combinations of sweeteners, even high level consumers rarely exceed 10 mg/day. Intakes over 1g/day were needed to alter brain neurotransmitters and provoke seizures in monkeys, and randomised controlled trials of high doses in humans have not shown any behavioural or other effects." It also mentions holisticmed.com in the article as a sensationalist site known to state uncited facts.

[edit on 26-12-2005 by bsl4doc]

Mod Edit: Fixed Links.

[edit on 26/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   


I would probably trust Georgetown's Neurology Department over some holistic medicine dot com.



Georgetown's Neurology Department which is probably funded by Searle, or Monsanto or one of the other big chemical companies. Yeah....I'd believe them over an independent organization that has nothing to gain by printing the truth or lies. So, more than likely, will print the truth. That's only common logic.



"Instead, manufacturers are encouraged to use cocktails of sweeteners so it becomes difficult for anyone to reach the acceptable daily intake of any sweetener individually—adults need at least 10 cans of a drink fully sweetened with aspartame alone to reach the acceptable daily intake of 40 mg/kg/day. When using combinations of sweeteners, even high level consumers rarely exceed 10 mg/day. Intakes over 1g/day were needed to alter brain neurotransmitters and provoke seizures in monkeys, and randomised controlled trials of high doses in humans have not shown any behavioural or other effects."


Why are manufacturers encouraged to use a mixture of artificial sweeteners if aspartame isn't harmful? Seems to me they'd just keeping using it as always instead of showing weakness in their story by suggesting mixing it with other checmicals so it isn't as potent. That's quite curious, wouldn't you agree?

You'll have to do better than this.....

The above statement is like saying if you break apart your cigarette and mix some of the tobacco with non-poisonous, non-deadly materials, it will be less likely to give you cancer and/or emphyzema and/or whatever else. No kidding.

But, if it's not dangerous, why even suggest it?

Again, YOU need to do better....

[edit on 26-12-2005 by Excitable_Boy]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   
"Georgetown's Neurology Department which is probably funded by Searle, or Monsanto or one of the other big chemical companies. Yeah....I'd believe them over an independent organization that has nothing to gain by printing the truth or lies. So, more than likely, will print the truth. That's only common logic."

Unless you can find evidence that Georgetown is being funded by big corporations, I find it hard to believe their entire neurology department is publishing lies for Monsanto. They have a very good reputation to keep, which would definitely be tarnished by an independant lab, of which there are many, discrediting much of their research. I don't see why it's common logic to assume that a private institution would automatically lose credibility at all.


"Why are manufacturers encouraged to use a mixture of artificial sweeteners if aspartame isn't harmful? Seems to me they'd just keeping using it as always instead of showing weakness in their story by suggesting mixing it with other checmicals so it isn't as potent. That's quite curious, wouldn't you agree?"

No, I don't find that quite curious at all. In fact, many drugs, such as penicillin, tetracyclin, etc. are actually cocktails of several drugs. This is also the basic premise of intravenous drugs. Many common drugs are harmful in the amounts it would take to leave an impact on the person, so it it given in smaller quantities in conjunction with other drugs that complement it. It's actually an extremely common practice in modern medicine. And as far as aspartame being harmful, it's really not. The aspartic acid is the harmful part. In high doses, higher than 1g/day (each can of soda contain about 10mg I belive), it can accumulate in the liver and brain and cause acidosis in some cases. The phenylalanine is, in fact, not harmful at all unless you have phenylketonuria, which is an inability to catabolise the common amino acid phenylalanine.

"The above statement is like saying if you break apart your cigarette and mix some of the tobacco with non-poisonous, non-deadly materials, it will be less likely to give you cancer and/or emphyzema and/or whatever else. No kidding."

Actually, that's exactly true. If you take a cigarette containing 5g of chemical soaked tobacco, remove 2.5g of that tobacco, mix the remaining 2.5g with 2.5g of non-hazardous material, and then seal the new 5g cigarette containing only half the amount of tobacco, it would only pose half the risk. Simple logic, as you would say. Ironically, this is also the same method our body uses to ensure bad copies of DNA are only replicated in small amounts. It's called the semi-conservative model. Every new copy of DNA consists of one newly synthesized strand and one old strand, thus any mistakes in the old copy are dealt with by having a functional copy available.

In conclusion, I have worked with several researchers in my time, many of which have in fact received grants funded by big business, but that has most often not reflected in their work whatsoever. Yes, obviously is will occur sometimes, it would be naive of me to ignore that, but I personally find it a little offensive when someone suggests all doctors and researchers can be bought out, as if the second you receive an MD or PhD, you lose all spine and integrity. Some of the greatest research I have read, even the research that flies in the face of business interests, has come from places funded by corporations such as Vanderbilt, Johns Hopkins, etc. .

Also, I think someone should mod Excitable_Boy's comment saying "Again, YOU should do better". I said much less than that to him and was modded, so I think it's only fair. Thanks!

Ciao, a presto!
~MFP



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   
The "poisons" in aspartame though aren't really poisons, per se.


A rose by any other name is still a rose. Read up on aspartame poisoning. It's pretty informative. Avoid things that are FDA APPROVED!!!



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Okay, I'll say this again. The actual, atom for atom composition of aspartame is 1 unit of phenylalanine (a common amino acid) and 1 unit aspartic acid. There are no "poisons" in aspartame, there are two molecules that make up this compound. The side effects that are supposedly linked to aspartame are due to excessive amounts of aspartic acid. As for not trusting anything that's FDA approved...that would mean virtually all ingested, topical, and otherwise applied drugs sold anywhere in the United States are suspect. That seems a little TOO cautious, doesn't it? I mean, yes, the government has it's corruption, but honestly, do you think the FDA wants to kill off the taxpayers who fund it and who also fund the companies who pay them as well? Seems a tad daft. Oh, and I have read up on aspartame poisoning.

www.snopes.com...
www.alz.org...
www.cancer.org...
www.greenfacts.org...
www.oprah.com...


[edit on 26-12-2005 by bsl4doc]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join