What's Really In The Food? The A to Z of the Food Industry's Most Evil Ingredients

reply to post by Jigore


I found out a bunch about aspartame from this documentary Sweet Misery, which also has interviews with a wise neurosurgeon and what his observations are with aspartame. Also at this link:

The approval of aspartame in foods in 1981 was done under questionable circumstances, with some in the FDA recommending that it not be approved. In 1996, one of the FDA's own toxicologists, Dr. Adrian Gross, warned of it's potential to cause brain tumors and cancer.
.... and in 1995 the FDA was forced to release a list of 92 possible symptoms related to aspartame intake.

Leading Italian researcher Dr. Morando Soffritti concluded from his first study in 2005 that aspartame leads to higher rates of lymphoma and leukemia in rats. He found that aspartame consisting of two amino acids and a methanol binding agent caused the cancer. The FDA concluded after a review of the study that there was no data to support his claims. The European Food Safety Authority came to the same conclusions. Results of a second study through the Ramazzini Institute backed up the findings of the first one. It dealt with the negative health effects associated with low doses of aspartame that would be equivalent to the intake of diet drinks on a daily basis. Dr. Soffritti's second study also confirmed that it is carcinogenic.

I didn't mention Splenda being just as bad.

The FDA has no definition for “natural,” so please bear with us for a biochemistry moment: Splenda is the trade name for sucralose, a synthetic compound stumbled upon in 1976 by scientists in Britain [bold]seeking a new pesticide formulation[/bold]. It is true that the Splenda molecule is comprised of sucrose (sugar) — except that [bold]three of the hydroxyl groups in the molecule have been replaced by three chlorine atoms.[/bold]

While some industry experts claim the molecule is similar to table salt or sugar, other independent researchers say it has more in common with pesticides. That’s because the bonds holding the carbon and chlorine atoms together are more characteristic of a chlorocarbon than a salt — and most pesticides are chlorocarbons. The premise offered next is that just because something contains chlorine doesn’t guarantee that it’s toxic. And that is also true, but you and your family may prefer not to serve as test subjects for the latest post-market artificial sweetener experiment — however “unique.”

from this link


Forgot to add as a side note, that they have also managed to shove Saccharin back into the system. Just got a packet from a buffet last week that shows Sodium Saccharin as the main ingredient.

reply to post by OuttaTime


Im not really familiar with sucralose. From what I could see, it's a strange looking molecule.
Usually sugars are made of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, while this one conutain also chloride.

This is sucrose, common table sugar



This is sucralose.



See those clhorine atoms there.That's really unusual. But it's not a sign of toxicity.

This particular abstract state that ''13 safety studies have been conducted on sucralose and its hydrolysis products. The results of these studies demonstrate the safety of sucralose for human consumption.

reply to post by Jigore


From the link I read, it explained how it was discovered as a they were researching pesticides and discovered it . And even though 'they' say it's safe, I just can't bring myself to trust a sweetener that can be chemically compared to pesticide. I have no prob at all with sucrose as it is a natural sweetener just like dextrose, maltose, and fructose. But as soon as they start synthesizing anything to be a foodstuff, I leave it on the grocer's shelf.

reply to post by OuttaTime


I just read some stuff about sucralose.

Since it got thoses stranges moleculars characteristics, most bacterias cant metabolize it. The normal bacterial flora in the intestine often metabolize undigested sugar.

So a sucalose diet will harm this normal flora. It open the field for some soil anaerobics bacterias that can metabolize it.

Changing a normal flora with abnormal one can have some effect on someone health.

But for that, you have to eat only sucralose based product.

reply to post by Jigore


True. From what I've read about ANY artificial sweetener, it's many time worse for you than plain table sugar. I tend to sway towards sugar, agave juice, and possibly stevia if need be, but I'm not real big on sweets

reply to post by OuttaTime


That's the way to go. Table sugar taste good and there is no health hazards. Synthetic sweetener taste awfully bad. The only reason I would buy some aspartame rich cola is to make a rocket with some mentos.

reply to post by Jigore


So far that's the only thing I'd do with mentos, but it's better to watch Kari Byron do it on mythbusters

Originally posted by DeepThoughtCriminal
What's with the little attack on genetically modified foods in that list? I challenge anyone to show me definitive proof that genetically modified foods lead to ... "severe infertility problems and may even cause the bacteria in your body to produce and release a pesticide in your own gut."

I like how they referenced themselves and other "natural" lifestyle products. The whole "organic" industry is a scam.

Organics is not the scam...it's the GMO and food additives that are the scam.

Basically, all additives in processed food today are NOT there to help but hinder...in a corporate world, worker units will reach an end and new units will be added...this is how humans are seen by industry...worker units that once their productivity is over they are no longer viable are sent to the bone yard. The question is how many years should we last? With all the additives in the foods that are pushed on the public, they can't really guarantee much more than 20 or 30 years good hard labor. They keep us fat and happy sheep with foods that taste great...make us feel comfortable...and convince us that we can't live without this Franken Food. Much like animals on a farm...enjoying our comfort illusion while our bodies slowly fade away.

These foods confuse, passify, and cloud reality....just like the drugs they are. They are a necessary ingredient for the three "C's" (Conform, Control, Confine) Plan to work.

Organic foods, on the other hand are real foods. They cleanse, and purify our bodies...they help our brains remain clear and help us focus on all that is happening around us. An informed and intelligent society that can think and act is a danger for those that are attempting to control us.

All of the additives in foods make it more and more difficult to know what to eat and what not to eat. If your mind is clear enough and you can still think..you will know what you should do...

Reply to post by stoptheinsanity2012

My thoughts exactly. lol


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Meh. Read most of the thread.

Feast mongering at its best.




Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Jigore
reply to post by OuttaTime

 

I tried to find some studies about aspartame toxicity in humans. I did'nt find one who explicitly stated that it is bad for humans.

the truth about aspartame - Dr Russell Blaylock



Hope it helps

reply to post by RUSSO


That's it! . He's featured in the Sweet Misery video.

Natural News is nothing but a biased, fear-mongering, vegetarian based "health" site. They've been exposed multiple times for sensationalizing, stretching the truth and outright lying. For example:

Aspartame - Chemical sweetener that causes neurological disorders, seizures, blurred vision and migraine headaches.

There is no definitive proof that Aspartame in in small amounts is causing said symptoms. Most of the data are ambiguous.

Casein - Milk proteins. Hilariously, this is widely used in "soy cheese" products that claim to be alternatives to cow's milk. Nearly all of them are made with cow's milk proteins.

The only reason Casein protein is considered dangerous is because of ONE man. T. Collin Campbell, author of The China Study. Based on poorly conducted experiments with rats, he concludes that Casein is causing cancer in people (he forgets to tell people how plant proteins are just as Cancerous, and sometimes more so). It's just more vegetarian misrepresentation b.s.

Sodium (Salt) - The processed white salt lacking in trace minerals. In the holistic nutrition industry, we call it "death salt" because it promotes disease and death. Real salt, on the other hand, such as "dirty" sea salt or pink Himalayan salt, is loaded with the trace minerals that prevent disease, such as selenium (cancer), chromium (diabetes) and zinc (infectious disease). Much like with bread and sugar, white salt is terrible for your health. And don't be fooled by claims of "sea salt" in grocery stores. All salt came from the sea if you go far back enough in geologic time, so they can slap the "sea salt" claim on ANY salt!

NaCl....sodium...table salt...whatever, is NOT a promoter of death and disease unless you're genetically predisposed to sodium sensitivity. Once again, the problem with the "dangers of salt" is the ambiguity of the data. Most of the research suggests that dietary salt is not the problem for the general public. See here for more information: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sodium Nitrite - A cancer-causing red coloring chemical added to bacon, hot dogs, sausage, beef jerky, ham, lunch meats, pepperoni and nearly all processed meats. Strongly linked to brain tumors, pancreatic cancers and colon cancers (www.naturalnews.com...). The USDA once tried to ban it from the food supply but was out-maneuvered by the meat industry, which now dominates USDA regulations. Sodium nitrite is a complete poison used to make meats look fresh. Countless children die of cancer each year from sodium nitrite-induced cancers.

Just so it's clear, Nitrites are found most abundantly in green leafy vegetables, not processed meats. Knowing this, so I guess we should all stop eating these deleterious food stuffs? No...because plenty of research suggests that nitrites are quite BENEFICIAL.

Some of the items on the list are indeed no bueno, but NaturalNews typically mixes truths with half-truths with lies. So...take it with a grain of salt.

Originally posted by OuttaTime
reply to post by RUSSO

 

That's it!

. He's featured in the Sweet Misery video.

Ok, I did a little researches for you. I hope you read and watch carefully.

A study of about half a million people, published in 2006, compared people who drank aspartame-containing beverages with those who did not. Results of the study showed that increasing levels of consumption were not associated with any risk of lymphomas, leukemias, or brain cancers in men or women. (Question 2)
Researchers examined the relationship between aspartame intake and 1,888 lymphomas or leukemias and 315 malignant brain cancers among the participants of the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study from 1995 until 2000. Development of these cancers was not associated with estimated aspartame consumption, refuting a recent animal study with positive findings for lymphomas and leukemias and also contradicting claims regarding brain cancer risk.

National Cancer Institute

Does aspartame cause cancer?
Aspartame Consumption in Relation to Childhood Brain Tumor Risk: Results From a Case–Control Study
Study Links Aspartame To Cancer
Aspartame and Cancer
New Study - LOW DOSES Of Aspartame Cause CANCER
Dangers of aspartame
Step Aside, High Fructose Corn Syrup: 6 Name-Changing Foods

Aspartame, Brain Cancer & the FDA Approval Process (Sugarfree Light Diet Coke Zero E951)

reply to post by RUSSO


You're preaching to the choir my friend

I remember reading this article when it first came out

When Searle was absorbed by Monsanto in 1985, Rumsfeld reportedly received a $12 million bonus.

that little snippet spoke volumes, and still does.

If the general population realized what chemicals are actually introduced to processed foods for the organoleptic attributes - they would most likely never eat processed foods again.

I work for a chemical company that sells chemicals to the Flavors Industry. The Flavor Industry is a huge behind the scenes money making machine. I am not sure how to include a link to the FDA GRAS ingredients but I will try.
www.fda.gov...

GRAS is Generally Recognized As Safe products that can be used in foods. The FDA requires that the entity that submits a chemical for its organoleptic properties conduct a scientific study on its safety. Once the study is conducted the FDA can add a subtance to the GRAS list.

FEMA - Not the FEMA most folks are familiar with - it is the association that submits most of the materials for GRAS. FEMA is the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association. The board members for FEMA are from the same flavor producers that stand to gain profit from the chemicals submitted .
www.femaflavor.org...

The majority of the chemicals used in flavoring will not be found on any label. The chemicals are used parts per million (PPM) to introduce the sought after sensory result.

The Flavor Industry is a somewhat secretive industry. There are some articles out there on the web if you search. It is a world wide industry that makes billions of dollars.

Originally posted by fworkman
If the general population realized what chemicals are actually introduced to processed foods for the organoleptic attributes - they would most likely never eat processed foods again.

The problem is, they would.

They worry about it for five minutes, but when they get hungry, they'll still eat the same pizzas, hot dogs and soft drinks that they like eating.

Food has basically become a drug in the industrialized society, and it takes a little bit more than just a scare for people to go cold turkey.

In our society today, one woman out of three and one man out of two will get cancer in their lives, whereas in some underdeveloped countries where people live close to nature, cancer is almost unheard of.

It's tragic to see the pharmaceutical industry pump in astronomical amounts of money into research on 'cancer cures', when the solution to this scurge is blatantly simple. It's our life styles, what we eat, drink and inhale that makes us sick.

reply to post by Heliocentric

You may be correct that many of us will continue to eat processed foods knowing that it contains chemicals for the convenience of the food item itself.

I have a real moral/ethical dilemma with my current career choice for the past several years. I do believe that many of these chemicals may ultimately cause cancer but I need an income. The more I find out how the synthetic chemicals are used the more I struggle with what I am selling. I would like to reveal the things I know one day about this industry but it will wait until I am either able to retire or find other employement I will make a stand hopefully sooner than later.

The danger is real and causing problems with our health and children's health. The chemicals are in so called "healthy" beverages and foods that are labeled as healthy.

reply to post by RUSSO


i worked in the food industry for over 16 years, mostly for a large multinational distributor and producer.

we were inspected by the private firms, to please the supermarket chains and the government.

the inspectors that did the most to help quality assurance were the rabbis for the kosher inspection.

i'm not jewish, but i recommend buying kosher foods when possible.