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.

 

MP calls for ban on 'unsafe' sweetener

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 12:26 AM
link   
I did a search on ATS before I posted this, but I thought someone would have already so I'm still not sure. I like how he said that at first he had been unconvinced by the "internet conspiracy theories" but that after a year's worth of studying what he had found had "truly horrified" him. Gee, thanks for that buddy. What took me little more than a friends word, an afternoon of research and some common sense takes other people a year. We need some Common Sense laws, before these epidemics of cancer and autism and birth deformities overwhelm us, because we can't afford to wait for these old, PC guys to take their slow #&% time investigating these things. And if someone built their livelihood around these things, tough titty kitty because the milk will be much cleaner.

But at least it's finally getting done, and in Europe nonetheless...



Felicity Lawrence, consumer affairs correspondent
Thursday December 15, 2005
The Guardian

A member of the parliamentary select committee on food and the environment yesterday called for emergency action to ban the artificial sweetener aspartame, used in 6,000 food, drink and medicinal products.
The Liberal Democrat MP Roger Williams said in an adjournment debate in the Commons that there was "compelling and reliable evidence for this carcinogenic substance to be banned from the UK food and drinks market altogether". In licensing aspartame for use, regulators around the world had failed in their main task of protecting the public, he told MPs.

Mr Williams highlighted new concerns about the additive's safety, raised by a recent Italian study that linked it to cancer in rats. He said the history of aspartame's licensing put "regulators and politicians to shame", with the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary and former head of Searle, the company that discovered the sweetener, "calling in his markers" to get it approved.
Responding for the government, the public health minister, Caroline Flint, said a thorough independent review of safety data had been conducted as recently as 2001 and the Food Standards Agency advice remained the same: aspartame is safe for use in food. She said the government took food safety very seriously.

The European Food Safety Authority would be reviewing the Italian study as soon as it had full data on it, but an initial review by the UK's expert committee on toxicity had not been convinced by its authors' interpretation of their data. "I am advised that aspartame does not cause cancer," she said, adding that artificial sweeteners also help to control obesity.


The original article can be found here



[edit on 29-12-2005 by bigpappadiaz]

Mod Edit: Reduced Big Quote.



[edit on 29/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Great to see somebody is taking notice, there is some great information here on ATS about that crap and what it does to people, check out my post three fourths of the way down this page...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   
"moderate regular consumption of aspartame led to a repeated incidence of malignant tumours in rats"

I'd be interested to see the "Italian study" and what they consider a moderate amount. Aspartame has been linked to cancer in humans when ingested amounts exceed 1g/day. As a comparison, there are about 10mg in a can of diet soda.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   
So they'd need to drink at least 3-4 cases a day if that study is to believed. I know some people who drink up to 2 cases of diet cola a day and they ain't getting any thinner
Something else to ponder is alot of people use this stuff in their coffie and other things as well. Who knows what the daily consumption is of someone who uses it primarily as a sugar substitute. I bet it's much more then 1 gram a day.

Learning how to cook is safer IMO and limiting yourself to 1 can of regular Cola a day.

[edit on 29-12-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Actually, all companies are required, at least in America, to use a blend of different sweeteners, so you probably don't really get that much aspartame in your diet. I remember reading a study, and if I can dig it up I'll edit my post and put it here, but the average daily consumption was something like 50mg I think? Like I said, if I can find it, I'll post it. Otherwise, don't tie me to that figure, lol.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 02:45 AM
link   
How bout the Average Daily consumption of someone who uses it as a substitute? That is where I see the primary danger and with Obesity on the rise it could have some unpleasant effects for many many people. Cancer is just one risk that I've heard attributed to Asperatame btw, some have hypothesised that a digested byproduct of Asperatame can build up in the system after extensive and prolonged use.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 04:05 AM
link   
That's where people begin to misunderstand aspartame. Aspartame is actually made of only two components: aspartic acid and phenylalanine. I've made it personally in my college level biochemistry lab class. Phenylalanine is a naturally occuring amino acid necessary for normal body function. Aspartic acid is also a normal product in your body. This acid, however, can accumulate if you ingest large amounts (over 1g/day). It mostly accumulates in the liver and brain tissue, and sometimes can also cause acidosis. Some pseudoscience experiments, all of which are still under review, suggest that ingestion of aspartame leads to a build up of methanol and DKP. These studies couldn't be repeated by independant labs, and thus are not noteworthy as of now.

Oh! I found the actual measurement of the "safe zone" for aspartame consumption. It is 40mg/ ( www.fda.gov... ) meaning someone like me, 5'7" and 79 kilos could have 3.16g of aspartame, or roughly 32 cans of soda everyday. If you are drinking that much soda or coffee artificially sweetened, eating that much candy artificially sweetened, or ingesting that much anything artificially sweetened with aspartame, your main concern should be cholesterol and obesity from the excess carbs and fats you are ingesting, not the aspartic acid.

Mod Edit: Fixed Link.

[edit on 29/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I'd like to draw everyone's attention to this thread which is currently running and has a lot of information on aspartame:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It appears bsl4doc, *SNIP*has made himself an authority on the substance, yet ignores all the material on its dangers and the fact that it contains THREE known poisons.

There is another good thread on here on Aspartame. I'm going to go find it and come back and edit it in...

Here it is: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also,*SNIP* answer this for me: If it is so safe, why is the UK working to remove all products that contain it?

[edit on 29-12-2005 by Excitable_Boy]

Mod Edit: Removed Baiting.

[edit on 29/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Here's an interesting excerpt from the second link I posted in my last post...



This report became part of the Congressional Record in l985.. The reason aspartame is so dangerous is that it is a molecule composed of three components, all of which are neurotoxic: aspartic acid (40 percent), methanol (10 percent), and phenylalanine (50 percent). Aspartic acid and phenylalanine are neurotoxic as isolates, unaccompanied by other amino acids in food to block them from going directly into the brain. Methanol or wood alcohol is a severe metabolic poison. Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials states that methanol is "a human poison by ingestion." It's also classified as a narcotic. Aspartame breaks down to diketopiperazine, a brain-tumor agent. A confidential internal memo at Searle (the company that developed aspartame) indicated concern over lack of complete toxicological data on DKP.

FDA Commissioner Alexander Schmidt, M.D., approved aspartame only for dry foods on July 26, l974, and the following month consumer attorney James Turner and Washington University researcher Dr. John Olney filed objections to the FDA's approval, citing evidence of brain lesions and neuroendocrine disorders in animal studies and concerns the substance may cause brain damage and mental retardation in humans. They also requested a hearing on the safety of aspartame.

On January 10, l977, in a 33-page letter, FDA Chief Counsel Richard Merrill recommended to US Attorney Sam Skinner that a grand jury investigate Searle for "apparent violations of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 331 (e), and the False Reports to the Government Act, l8 U.S.C. 355 (i) and for concealing material facts and making false statements in reports of animal studies conducted to establish the safety of aspartame." The FDA called special attention to studies investigating the effect of NutraSweet on monkeys and hamsters.


What's your response to this *SNIP*?

Mod Edit: Reduced Big Quote, Removed Baiting.

[edit on 29/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   


Actually, all companies are required, at least in America, to use a blend of different sweeteners, so you probably don't really get that much aspartame in your diet


This contradicts what you said in the other thread, the one about sweeteners....you said they were considering doing this (BTW, aspartame is aspartame....I've never seen it listed as "aspartame blend" anywhere). I asked you why, if it's not poisonous or dangerous, would anyone suggest blending it with other things to make it less potent and less deadly? Seems they'd be admitting they have lied and care more about money than people. Do you think any entity that has one billion dollars or more cares the least bit about any member of the human race?

[edit on 29-12-2005 by Excitable_Boy]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Wow, you really haven't read any of my threads, have you? I said all companies DO blend ALL their sweeteners, you can call them yourself and ask them, and they do this because aspartame is harmful in LARGE quantities. If you blend it, it is less likely people will hit that danger zone amount.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   


they do this because aspartame is harmful


Then why use it at all? Why did the FDA approve it? Why are there so many products on the supermarket shelves today that contain poison? Shouldn't our Constitution permit us a life free of poison? Or, at least, free of knowingly being poisoned by our own government? Aren't we afforded some level of safety by the Constitution?

[edit on 29-12-2005 by Excitable_Boy]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   
There is plenty of information all over showing you that if you guzzle aspartame, it is hazardous. By the same method, eating an excess of foods and supplements containing iron can kill you, same for vitamin A, vitamin B3, vitamin B6, and in some cases, vitamin D. I guess we should just ban those and charge the FDA with poisoning us with vitamins, too, because people in America can't learn to eat in moderation. I swear, you need to move to Europe. Foods are fresh, and when they aren't you eat in moderation, drink lots of water, walk everywhere. Lots less heart disease and obesity.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   


There is plenty of information all over showing you that if you guzzle aspartame, it is hazardous.


Really? Is it on any of the labels of the products that contain it?



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Actually, yeah, it is. I'm looking at a diet coke can right now that says it contains it. As does my coffee sweetener. And the fat free cookies in my cupboard. Wow, they hid it really well on that small print ingredients list. Damn them for typing it so small....



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   


Actually, yeah, it is. I'm looking at a diet coke can right now that says it contains it. As does my coffee sweetener. And the fat free cookies in my cupboard. Wow, they hid it really well on that small print ingredients list. Damn them for typing it so small....


LMAO! And you are supposed to be the intellectual med student that has all the best sources. What I asked was if it says on the label of these products that IT IS POISONOUS AND THUS, HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH? Much like the labels that are on cigarettes.

The answer, of course, is no. Why is that? You said there is information EVERYWHERE about how this stuff is dangerous. If you took a survey of 1000 people walking by in Manhattan, hardly any of those people would even know what Aspartame was never mind that it is known to contain at least 3 poisons.

So, the information might be out in space somehwere or cyber-space, but if people don't know to look for it, what good is it? It should be on the label of the products they are consuming so they can make a choice if they want to consume poison or not. Again, I mentioned a long time ago, that our Consitution is supposed to allow us the right to safety and the right to not be murdered by our own government so that companies like Searle and Monsanto can make billions of trillions of dollars and line the pockets of the politicians they own with millions upon millions.

Aspartame is mass genocide no matter how you look at it!



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   
This thread is hilarious. Next, we should discuss flouride. That'll surely result in a few thousand posts.
And, no, the Constitution does not ensure our "safety" from potentially dangerous food additives. The Founders assumed we would have heads on our shoulders and actually know how to use them.

Interestingly enough, did you know that if you eat enough almonds you could die? They contain cyanic acid. Odd, how come they don't have a warning label? You can also buy bitter almond oil at the grocer and it doesn't have a warning label, nevermind the fact that if you manage to choke enough down it will kill you rather quickly.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Thank you linoleumpoppyz, that is exactly the point I am making. Anything in massive amounts can kill you. And no, Excitable_Boy, it does say aspartame is poisonous on the labels, which isn't what I said Mr. Spin Master, because it's not poisonous. A poison is something entirely toxic in small amounts whose sole purpose is to kill, which aspartame is not. The labels DO, however, clearly state that the product contains aspartame. If you're so concerned with it, why not just stop buying it and let people like me continue to buy these harmless products? If you ban it, aren't you just enforcing your will on others? Same reason I think cigarettes should remain legal. I can't stand the smell and would never smoke myself, but who am I to tell someone not to?



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Gee, large quantities cause cancer, but the "safe zone" is perfectly safe because the scientists tell us that. But what happens when everything you consume and drink has "safe" levels of all these harmful substances? Would you drink water that has the maximum amount of all the toxins regulated and allowed by the EPA? According to the law, it's still fit to drink, but your common sense ought to tell you that you should pass. Combine all the toxins we absorb on a daily basis with crappy diets, lifestyles, not brushing that crap off our tongues or flossing, and things we think we understand but really don't and we will have a body that will slowly break down us. For some it happens faster because they were making more wrong choices, and all these problems get passed on to the next generation with little notice that they're there. Just because the crap hasn't appeared to cause any problems doesn't mean that it isn't.

It ought to be banned, bsl4doc, because ignorant people consume these products with little or no understanding of the damage they're inflicting on future generations, and just "pass the buck." If you truly adhere to the ignorant, freedom-loving US ideology that we've been raised into, as "aren't you just enforcing your will on others?" would lead me to believe, then you should at least be worried about how your taxes could be affected by a cancer/autistism/deformity-ridden society. Who are you to tell someone not to smoke? Why, someone who's obviously smarter because I'm sure you don't smoke also because you know it causes cancer. You choose not to say anything because you know they'll be an (MOD EDIT) and get pissed at you instead of thank you for your concern while they still puff happily away choosing vice over health because the law allows it and these rich dudes make it.

The ignorance these days...


Mod Edit: Please, NO profanity in the forums...

[edit on 29-12-2005 by kinglizard]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   

It ought to be banned, bsl4doc, because ignorant people consume these products with little or no understanding of the damage they're inflicting on future generations, and just "pass the buck.


First, you start off saying it should be banned because people are ignorant and will harm themselves. Okay, so should we ban alcohol because people are ignorant and will drink and drive? Or better yet, should we ban cars because people will be ignorant, speed, and kill themselves when they slam into a wall?


Who are you to tell someone not to smoke? Why, someone who's obviously smarter because I'm sure you don't smoke also because you know it causes cancer. You choose not to say anything because you know they'll be an (Mod Edit) and get pissed at you instead of thank you for your concern while they still puff happily away choosing vice over health because the law allows it and these rich dudes make it.


No, I don't tell people to stop smoking because it is their free will. It says right there on the package, as well as all over the news and internet, as does info for aspartame, that smoking is dangerous. If they willingly buy the cigarettes and smoke them, oh well. People have been slowly killing themselves since we learned to roast meat (overcooking leads to the production of carcinogens in trace amounts). So, really, why should I tell someone something they already know?

When do I become responsible for every decision my neighbor makes? I think welfare is a good thing, and I think we should educate children on healthy diet, healthy life choices, the importance of exercise and athleticism, but I don't think we should tell people what they can and cannot eat, smoke, drink, etc. Isn't that a bit 1984? I thought that's what this forum fought to STOP, not CREATE?




Mod Edit: to add quote boxes



[edit on 29-12-2005 by kinglizard]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join