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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 06:57 AM
link   


And no, Excitable_Boy, it does say aspartame is poisonous on the labels


Sorry Doc...it most certainly DOES NOT say it is poisonous on the label of any product that contains it....and you say your the expert.


And I don't consume Aspartame, because it is poison. My health is important to me. I wish the health of the American people was important to our government, but it's not. What IS important to our government is where they can get the next kick back.

And using analogies like your car is dangerous because you could crash it into a tree is a very poor comparison. That is called an accident. Putting poison in diet products was no accident by the FDA and by the companies that produce these products...it was all done out of GREED!

And you discussed alcohol. Alcohol is quite bad. Do you know how many alcoholics there are in the world today? The numbers are staggering. But alcohol is big business and good luck doing anything about that. Alcohol is by far more dangerous than marijuana, but marijuana is still illegal, not because it makes you high, but because back in the 40's Monsanto (there's that name again) wanted to produce artificial plastic fibers for POLYESTER and Hemp was going to eat into their profits, so they managed to have their friends in the government make marijuana/hemp illegal because it was a mind altering drug. That's when the propaganda videos came out like "Reefer Madness." White people were told that if their daughters smoked pot it would make them want to have sex with black men...LMAO!

Doc....you need to put the text books down and start learning about what is really going on in the world. Who do you think writes those text books? Who do you think offers grants to the text book writers?




posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
Sorry Doc...it most certainly DOES NOT say it is poisonous on the label of any product that contains it....and you say your the expert.


I'm looking at my diet coke can right now. It says, and I quote, "PHENYLKETONURICS:CONTAINS PHENYLALANINE" This is enough to tell you that if they are going to point out a certain ingredient, it's probably not good for you.



And using analogies like your car is dangerous because you could crash it into a tree is a very poor comparison. That is called an accident. Putting poison in diet products was no accident by the FDA and by the companies that produce these products...it was all done out of GREED!


So you don't think marketing sports cars with massive engines to teenagers isn't a possible ploy to get them to drive fast and use more gas, thus earning more mone for the oil company, and thus tieing us once again to oil powered travel? And you don't think that driving fast increases the risk of death, just like drinking more diet sodas increases your risk of health problems from aspartame? Sounds the same to me. In fact, there was just a study on CNN this morning showing that increasing the speed limits has caused a higher death rates in certain areas.


And you discussed alcohol. Alcohol is quite bad. Do you know how many alcoholics there are in the world today? The numbers are staggering. But alcohol is big business and good luck doing anything about that.


So, you are just ignoring alcohol because it's "big business and good luck doing anything about that". That's a bit defeatist, no? You don't think the artificial sweetener industry is "big business"? It seems to me like you just don't WANT to suggest anything bad about alcohol.


Doc....you need to put the text books down and start learning about what is really going on in the world. Who do you think writes those text books? Who do you think offers grants to the text book writers?


Actually, most of the things I know, and the same goes for many medical students, comes from my professors' lectures (minus anatomy for obvious reasons). Now, if the government has managed to bribe every professor in the nation and thus controlled every medical student, bravo. They deserve a gold star. However, I find it very impossible considering not even the CIA can recruit every asset they want every time. There will always be people who refuse to workbeing for the government despite being bribed and the government won'go around killing professors at medical schools.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Well there seem to be three things I think about when it comes to Aspartame for me.

First, my wife and I switched from sugar to Aspartame about five years ago. We both have had our blood pressure drop to a safer level, or percentage of LDL cholesterol drop significantly, we've each lost about 30 pounds, (although we still have at least that much much to go) and we both are, at least based on our annual health examinations, in better health than we were five years ago.

Second, there are a lot of people who say that Aspartame is a poison and a lot of people who say that Aspartame is okay for you in reasonable doses. Of course, the people who have a particular agenda (the people who run the Aspartame providing companies and the people who make a living writing books saying it's bad) are not to be trusted; but even if you leave them out of the equation, most of the people who say that Aspartame is okay are physicians and pharmacologists; the people who say Aspartame is not okay have little training in either medicine or pharmacology. I prefer to go with people whom I feel have the best knowledge about such things, and they tend to believe that Aspartame is not a poison or a disease causing agent, as long as you don't eat a half pound a day.

Third (and most important) is that whether or not Aspartame is good or bad for me, as a reasonably competent adult, is really none of your or the Government's business. Now I know there are a whole raft of people who believe that the people on this board are too stupid to make our own decisions about what we consume -- whether it's Aspartame, marijuana, big macs, cigarettes, alcohol, and so on -- and that, since we're so stupid, they should be able to make those decisions and tell us what to do with our bodies and how to live our lives.

It appears that Mr. Bigpapadiaz, the original poster on this thread, along with his colleague Mr. Excitable Boy, trusts the government implicitly to make those decisions for us. This is the same government which gave us the Iraq War, the incredibly incompetent response to Hurricane Katrina, and a runaway budget. And you trust these guys?

I don't. If you don't want to do Aspartame or cigarettes or alcohol or fattening food, that is certainly your business. But I resent you trying to use your Big Government to tell the rest of us how to run our lives.

[edit on 30-12-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Great post, Off_The_Street. I completely agree with every point you make. The government was not created to control every aspect of our lives. It is supposed to aid us when necessary (i.e. welfare, medicare), but leave us alone otherwise. I also agree with your point on which sources to trust. Every source I've found supporting aspartame has been a medical or scientific journal. Every source I've found against aspartame has been a dot com, a website written with an obvious agenda, or a personal site with not sources cited.
~MFP

P.S. You get a way above vote. Congrats.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Water is a good soft drink...
It's good for you to..but in large amounts, it will kill you ..!

question:

Has anyone tried a natural sweetner called Stevia?

I have a bottle of the liquid form...I use it in some things..



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   


I'm looking at my diet coke can right now. It says, and I quote, "PHENYLKETONURICS:CONTAINS PHENYLALANINE" This is enough to tell you that if they are going to point out a certain ingredient, it's probably not good for you.


LMAO.....the average consumer would have no idea that they were pointing out a poison here because it doesn't say it's a poison.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   


So, you are just ignoring alcohol because it's "big business and good luck doing anything about that". That's a bit defeatist, no? You don't think the artificial sweetener industry is "big business"? It seems to me like you just don't WANT to suggest anything bad about alcohol.


What are you babbling about? I say good luck about alcohol because it's the truth. The same for Asparatame....that crap has been on the market for about 25 years now. The UK has finally wised up and is working on banning all products containing it. They obviously care more about their citizens than the US does.

I'm an alcoholic and been sober over 5 years. I know how bad alcohol is. I'm also a certified Alcohol and Other Drug Couselor...so I have a bit more experience in this area than you. I don't want to suggest anything bad about alcohol? LMAO! The stuff is horrible. Worse than Aspartame.

Alcoholism is a disease...a very bad disease. People don't choose to be alcoholics, just like people don't choose to get cancer or diabetes or anything else.

Ignore big business? Not me Doc. I hate big business. It has kept this country from being a democracy for a long time. It makes billions upon billions while people die. They are in the business of death. I ignore big business.....ROTFLMFAO!



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   


It appears that Mr. Bigpapadiaz, the original poster on this thread, along with his colleague Mr. Excitable Boy, trusts the government implicitly to make those decisions for us


Street...what are you talking about. Have you read anything? I trust the government? Try the opposite. I don't trust our government at all. Our government is in the pocket of all the mega corporations that produce poisons like Aspartame. How could you possibly read through this thread and come up with a conslusion that I trust our government implicitly? Unless of course you didn't bother to read the thread and decided to jump in and put in your two cents without knowing what you were talking about. That must be it!!


The med student likes you....



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Off the Street...
For the record
I am glad that your use of Aspartame has helped reduce sugar related illness from you and your wife...

My dad is a Pharmacist (retired) and he drinks diet cola... and agrees that it can cause significant harm in some people but it is very much a person to person thing...

some have little trouble with it...
some develop large spots on their brains (from the acids that the aspartame forms within some human biotypes), after infrequent use...

So If you start to feel "strokey" or loopy (not trying to set up a joke here) switch back to sugar... but otherwise, enjoy, and live long and prosper...

peace



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Lazarus:
You are right, it does cause these effects in people. They are called phenlyketonurics, meaning they cannot process the keto group in the amino acid phenylalanine.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   


But I resent you trying to use your Big Government to tell the rest of us how to run our lives.


My big government?


Just providing information Street. You can do whatever you want with it. Where am I trying to tell you how to run your life? Did you post this on the wrong thread?



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   

My big government?

Just providing information Street. You can do whatever you want with it. Where am I trying to tell you how to run your life? Did you post this on the wrong thread?


Where do you suggest the government should ban/control aspartame? Hmm, let's see...


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?


And...


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.


And...


And I don't consume Aspartame, because it is poison. My health is important to me. I wish the health of the American people was important to our government, but it's not. What IS important to our government is where they can get the next kick back.


In all of those quotes, you suggest that "you wish health was important to the goernment", which implies that you wish the government would step in and do something about aspartame, which means you trust the government to take action on this issue. So, why did you ask where you suggested you trust the government?

Also, I'd like to see some sources on this quote below, since you don't really give sources for anything you say:


But alcohol is big business and good luck doing anything about that. Alcohol is by far more dangerous than marijuana, but marijuana is still illegal, not because it makes you high, but because back in the 40's Monsanto (there's that name again) wanted to produce artificial plastic fibers for POLYESTER and Hemp was going to eat into their profits, so they managed to have their friends in the government make marijuana/hemp illegal because it was a mind altering drug. That's when the propaganda videos came out like "Reefer Madness." White people were told that if their daughters smoked pot it would make them want to have sex with black men...LMAO!


Also, I liked this quote:


I hate big business. It has kept this country from being a democracy for a long time. It makes billions upon billions while people die. They are in the business of death. I ignore big business....


You ignore big business, huh? Sooo...which ISP are you using? And where do you buy groceries? And what antibiotics do you buy if you get sick? And what brand clothing do you wear? And what shampoo/soap do you use? There are endless question like this, but it's off topic. Anyways, answer my questions about you and the government, as well as the one bout Monsanto and marijuana. Ciao e a presto!

~MFP



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Look at this crap. This is exactly I'm talking about. Since when did ever pursuing freedom mean that it had to come hand in hand with blatant ignorance? To allow aspartame to continue to exist, as well as thousands of other products and practices worldwide, is to simply ignore the little guy who is often times much more learned and of better judgement.

In this democracy, I'm going to wind up getting what Excitable_Boy and Streets deserve, simply because they outnumbered me. And when did that ever become fair? I know not one person would disagree with me when I say the majority of people just don't care, or are just too stupid because look where we are and what is getting done.

So when I say the government should ban it, it's not because I trust the government, it's because the crap should be banned. Period. Anyone too silly to realize that chemical sweeteners are bad for them obviously haven't educated themselves right, and that's when YOU step in to tell them.

All I'm saying is that before I give someone the freedom to mess with my well-being and vote in my country, I need to take away their right to remain ignorant. That's what I'm fighting against. Whatever conspiracy it may be that brought you to ATS and that you wonder why it was never uncovered, it's because we let it become stifled under the stupidness abound.

And for the people that say aspartame worked for them, well you can't deny that there was probably a better way, like not drinking cokes at all. But you have the right to do what you want with your body and know what you want to know.

[edit on 1-1-2006 by bigpappadiaz]



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   
So, bigpappadias, you think that because YOU feel aspartame is too much of a risk to your health, but not necessarily to others as I have shown through scientific studies (no studies have been presented by anyone else disproving the sources I've given), you should have the right to tell everyone in the nation "Alright everyone, I personally feel aspartame is risky, so we're banning it and no one is allowed to use it anymore." Why, then, don't you go after cigarettes, alcohol, sports cars, iron and certain vitamins in the B family (high amounts cause death), foods with high cholesterol content, foods with high trans fat content, etc.

See, you just don't seem to grasp the idea that NO ONE has the right to tell me that just because something is harmful to my health in large amounts, I shouldn't be allowed to have ANY. I drink 1 diet coke a day, no adverse effects. I speed in my car from time to time, but I'm smart and do it on dry, straight roads outside the city, no wrecks or tickets. I take my iron and vitamins, but I don't overdose on them, so my health actually improves. I enjoy a few drinks with friends once or twice a month, but I don't get drunk and I don't drive when I've been drinking. Why is it so hard for you to believe that some people can actually control their actions and shouldn't be penalized by someone like you who is no authority whatsoever on biochemistry, medicine, or aspartame for that matter.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   


In this democracy, I'm going to wind up getting what Excitable_Boy and Streets deserve, simply because they outnumbered me.


Could you explain what you are talking about, because I haven't got a clue. You say Aspartame should be banned...well, so do I!



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   
You drink a diet coke a day because it tastes good, and because some scientists have apparently done some research saying that it's safe. And that is good enough for you. In this day and age however, I feel that it's prudent to be skeptical of any new chemical or medicine that is created because there is a bad science that we've established ourselves around, and increasing cancer/autism/birth deformities and health abnormalities that are stemming from it. The same FDA that has approved Acetaminophen and Lipitor and Aspartame will continue to approve these things until we get to the root of the problem.

This science of observing without knowing what underlying chemical processes are taking place is bunk. They show us the metabolic pathways of these substances, but my common sense tells me that our bodies are soup, and that these are just a few of many, many possible different reactions that can take place inside our bodies. The approval of Aspartame was hardly science, it was Good Ol' Boy shuffling.

Your opinion on the matter still doesn't change the fact that the MP is calling for an emergency ban of Aspartame for his continent, and I'm sure there is some information in his 1,000 page dosier that you might of missed. Give me a break dude. Do you love Diet Sodas that much, or are you just defending your right to make the mistake of drinking them?

We're being broken down from every possible angle, from our health to our economy to the very planet we live on, and in the grand scheme of things and the big picture, where does drinking sodas fit in? Why don't people choose to educate themselves and see that everything about the snack food industry is choked with wrongness, from the factories that pollute our water to the distribution of an unhealthy products, and that it should not exist? Because the powers that be love to constantly remind you that you have every right to indulge.

Had the good guys actually won way back in the day those might be friendly reminders, telling us instead that we owe it to ourselves to make wise choices. Which is why I think we've already lost whatever apocalypse might be coming.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   

because some scientists have apparently done some research saying that it's safe. And that is good enough for you.


Some researchers, aka Harvard, Cambridge, Stanford, FDA, independant labs, etc.


In this day and age however, I feel that it's prudent to be skeptical of any new chemical or medicine that is created because there is a bad science that we've established ourselves around, and increasing cancer/autism/birth deformities and health abnormalities that are stemming from it.


You don't feel that environmental factors, greater genetic mixing, high populations, poorer living conditions in some areas, lack of health care, poor diet, etc. could be contributing to this, just bad chemicals and medicines? You can't attribute every case of cancer, autism, birth defects, and health abonormalities to a few classes of drugs and chemicals approved by the FDA.


The same FDA that has approved Acetaminophen and Lipitor and Aspartame will continue to approve these things until we get to the root of the problem.


Whoa whoa whoa, acetaminophen? Are you seriously calling that into question? You do know acetaminophen is Tylenol, right? I don't see how anyone could ever consider Tylenol dangerous. A line from my one of my favorite shows, Scrubs, sums up the medical philosophy on Tylenol: "Did you seriously just page me to see what dosage of Tylenol to give? Oh...my god. It's non-prescription, Tylenol. Open her mouth, empty the bottle into your hand, and throw it at her mouth. Whatever sticks, that works. It won't hurt anyone."


This science of observing without knowing what underlying chemical processes are taking place is bunk. They show us the metabolic pathways of these substances, but my common sense tells me that our bodies are soup, and that these are just a few of many, many possible different reactions that can take place inside our bodies


Your "common sense" doesn't understand metabolism. In the human body, there are exactly seven reaction classes that occur: nucleophilic addition, nucleophilic acyl substitutions, transaldolase-transketolase, Claisen decarboxylation, keto-enol tautomerism, oxidation-reduction, and acid-base. That's it. Not "many many possible different reactions. Ever chemical and substance we put into our body is either broken down into an intermediate for metabolism, entering into either the Kreb's cycle, Beta-oxidation, glycolysis, or anabolism. The human metabolic cycle is actually much simpler than you would think. Why would it be energy efficient for a body to have hundreds of different reactions to energize if a molecule of glucose onle provides, on average, 36 ATP, most of which is used for biosynthesis and emergency hormone release. You also say that it's not necessary to understand the biochemistry of the body before you make a judgement call on a new chemical or drug. That's half true. If you are willing to accept what the media says and trust what happened to your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate (nod to Mel Brooks, no? hehe). If, however, you want to understand the chemical or drug on a primary source basis, which is always more reliable, it might be worth your while to pick up a biochemistry summary book. You can get a study guide that summarizes the basic premises, and it will help immensely when reading articles. Also, I'm not totally sure how it is in America, but I know in Italy, you can often audit classes at the university level for lower costs. Ok, back to the topic at hand, sorry.


Your opinion on the matter still doesn't change the fact that the MP is calling for an emergency ban of Aspartame for his continent, and I'm sure there is some information in his 1,000 page dosier that you might of missed. Give me a break dude. Do you love Diet Sodas that much, or are you just defending your right to make the mistake of drinking them?


Did you read the entire article? Here's a good quote:


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.


Now, if you are willing to trust an MP in the UK House of Commons, of which there are 646 members, why aren't you willing to believe a UK expert committee on toxicity? Taking the word of one member of parliament would be like allowing one United States Representative, who obviously will have special interests at heart just like MPs, run the whole House of Representatives. Also, and you may not be European and thus not into European politics like I am, but this is the same MP who cast a nay against the UK higher education bill providing money to certain schools to reduce tuition and voted against a ban on using dogs to hunt animals. Also, the only reason he brought this bill up about aspartame is because he was given parliamentary privilege to intiate a debate on the subject. Could this timing be due to the fact that he knew it wouldn't go through otherwise?

My next point is the actual Ramazzini Foundation research. You can find the actual study the MP was referring to HERE. In the article, they state that the carcinogenic effects were seen in doses as low as 20 mg/kg body weight. A few pages later, they state that surverys conduct in both the USA and UK show that the average daily consumption amone individuals in these nations is 2-3 mg/kg. Not quite 20 mg/kg, wouldn't you say? The study also shows that the pathways used, oddly enough the same ones I've stated before, for each unit are as follows: phenylalanine -> tyrosine and phenylpyruvate (a metabolic intermediate, high energy), aspartate -> aspartic acid -> oxaloacetate (a VERY high energy metabolic intermediate necessary in our diet), and methanol -> formaldehyde -> formic acid -> excretion.

The Ramazzini study exposed the rats to diets consisting of 5,000 , 2,500 , 500, 100, 20, 4, and 0 mg/kg body weight daily for 151 weeks. On page 14, they state that no difference in body weight or survival was noted between any of the groups, regardless of dosage. Also, and this is the part I thought was the funniest, if you go to the last pages of the study where they present their tables and graphs, look at the table listing number and type of tumors based on dosage group. Notice anything funny? The zero dosage group produced 4 more malignant tumors than the highest dosage group in males and 4 more in females! What does that data tell someone like you who bases their decisions on common sense?


Why don't people choose to educate themselves and see that everything about the snack food industry is choked with wrongness, from the factories that pollute our water to the distribution of an unhealthy products, and that it should not exist? Because the powers that be love to constantly remind you that you have every right to indulge.


So you think it is the evil, evil "powers that be" telling people it is their choice to educate and defend themselves? It must be those darn communists, huh? Didn't you Americans try to purge any freethought in the 1950s and 1960s with Senator McCarthy? Couldn't it just be that people don't want to be pushed around and that natural selection and survival of the fittest will determine who will live a healthier life?

Ciao,
~MFP



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Excitable Boy says:


“… 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? … 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.


No.

That is not the way the Constitution works. The Constitution’s job is to limit the powers of government. We have no “right” to be free of poison, or any “right” to safety, any more than we all have a “right” to a 2006 Honda Civic SI or a "right" to make a hundred thousand dollars a year.

If you believe that people should be “protected” from something that you think is bad for them, I do not see any way that you could do that except by asking the government to pass laws against those things that you happen to be against.

In other words, you want the Government to ban certain things. Allowing the Government to ban Things That Excitable Boy Doesn’t Like is simply giving it more power to run everyone’s life.

Now do you want to government to have the right to tell us how to live our lives, or should those decisions be up to each of us?

You can’t have it both ways.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Meraviglioso massagio, Street. I couldn't agree more. While I do not know as much about the American Consitution as obviously and American like you would, it seems that the obvious reason for a Constituion, whether it be in the USA, EU, or Italy is exactly that, to show which powers consitute a government. That's what makes a democracy still somewhat viable in today's world, that the government will always have limitations. Now, they do try to exceed those limitations, but they also face harsh consequences when they are found out, evidence is presented, and the people align behind them, as we can only hope will happen to the cowboy king Bush.

You get a vote for way above, congratulazioni!

Ciao,
~MFP



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 06:48 AM
link   


Now do you want to government to have the right to tell us how to live our lives, or should those decisions be up to each of us?

You can’t have it both ways.


I'm not looking to have anything both ways friend. I'm also not looking to argue a point simply for the sake of arguing. Anyone with any sense would understand that it is wrong for our government to KNOWINGLY allow poisons to be main ingredients (or minor ingredients, or any ingredients at all) in products consumed in massive quanitities (or in any quatities) by the masses.

I'm looking to have it one way. I'm looking for an organization like the FDA to protect us not to cause us harm - not to commit genocide. ONE WAY!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join