PDA

View Full Version : Unlabeled and hidden Aspartame in your Milk. WTF?



BoneDaddy
03-14-2013, 12:27 PM
So the FDA is thinking of F'ing you in your A hole yet again. You damn well better not use hormones or steroids, but hey....drink this.

U.S. dairy industry petitions FDA to approve aspartame as hidden, unlabeled additive in milk, yogurt, eggnog and cream (http://www.naturalnews.com/039244_milk_aspartame_FDA_petition.html)

Coolazice
03-14-2013, 12:38 PM
They won't be happy til we're all weak, sick and pussified.

Freepressright
03-14-2013, 12:43 PM
Aspartame is a product I'm particularly interested in and have a passion for discussing because it is the most controversial food additive in this history of the United States. The Food and Drug Administration has more adverse reaction complaints on file for aspartame than any other food additive, ever.

Its approval was highly controversial, ALL NON-industry-sponsored studies show connections to neurological ailments and cancers. A recent human study says it causes lymphoma and other cancers, Donald Rumsfeld was involved in its approval, Monsanto is involved, there was a criminal investigation into the approval process that looked like it would result in indictments for falsifying study data before a deputy U.S. attorney general stalled the case past the statute of limitations. He later took a job with the PR firm for GD Searle, the company responsible for discovering and marketing aspartame.

Arthur Hall Hayes, Reagan's FDA commissioner, left his post for a job with Searle not long after aspartame was approved.

Here's some really cool info off an aspartame timeline:

In 1967, initial safety tests begin on aspartame, the artificial sweetener later patented as Nutra-Sweet and used in all kinds of products, from diet soda to snacks. In December of that year, Dr. Harold Waisman, a biochemist at the University of Washington, conducted aspartame safety tests on infant monkeys on behalf of G.D. Searle Co.

The result?

Of the seven monkeys that were being fed aspartame mixed with milk, one died and five others had grand mal seizures.

On Dec. 18, 1970, Searle executives laid out a "Food and Drug Sweetener Strategy" that they feel will put the FDA into a positive frame of mind about aspartame. An internal policy memo described psychological tactics the company should use to bring the FDA into a subconscious spirit of participation with them on aspartame and get the FDA regulators into the habit of saying "yes."

Meanwhile in the Spring of 1971, Dr. John Olney, the man whose work with monosodium glutamate was responsible for having it removed from baby foods, informed Searle that his studies showed that aspartic acid, one of th emain ingredients of aspartame, caused holes in the brains of infant mice. One of Searle's own researchers confirmed Dr. Olney's findings in a similar study.

In February 1973, Searle applied for FDA approval, submitting over 100 studies that they claimed supported aspartame's safety. In March, one of the first FDA scientists to review the aspartame safety data stated that the information provided by Searle was inadequate to permit an evaluation of the potential toxicity of aspartame. She said in her report that in order to be certain that aspartame is safe, further clinical tests would be needed.

------ For more info past 1973, check out the timeline here:

http://media.mercola.com/assets/images/mercola/aspartame-timeline.jpg

60 Minutes had a great documentary on it back before CBS stopped doing real investigative journalism:

Aspartame, Brain Cancer the FDA Approval Process (dangers side effects Diet Coke Zero Sucralose) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn5slnNB8h0)

As did Fox5 out of Washington, D.C.

The Dangers of Aspartame (Diet Coke Zero Side Effects Poisoning Pepsi Max Nutrasweet Sucralose) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvFRLIjOLOU)

Here's an article on the recent human study:

Aspartame is linked to leukemia and lymphoma in new landmark study on humans (http://www.naturalnews.com/037772_aspartame_leukemia_lymphoma.html)

longBallLima
03-14-2013, 12:51 PM
lobbying is gonna kill us all

naeydrin
03-14-2013, 02:15 PM
Good read, scary shit thinking what else they are not telling you....
I quit drinking milk a couple years ago and we are slowly moving away from all dairy products in my house as of the last couple weeks.

longBallLima
03-14-2013, 02:26 PM
LOL i love the argument in the petition.

kids dont like reading reduced calories and it will be easier to identify nutritional value in milk if they dont disclose all the ingredients...

jesus christ....

weekend
03-14-2013, 02:28 PM
I don't understand how selling evil chemicals that sweeten in such small doses can make that much money... Seems like population control to me

longBallLima
03-14-2013, 02:31 PM
I don't understand how selling evil chemicals that sweeten in such small doses can make that much money... Seems like population control to me

not that small if you ask me

Cobalt
03-14-2013, 02:47 PM
Nice, now I'll be able to use the FDA if this shit happens.

weekend
03-14-2013, 09:20 PM
not that small if you ask me

Oh shit I thought a soda only contained 1-2 mg... It's 200 mg!

Freepressright
03-15-2013, 08:12 AM
This is a great article that appeared in my Facebook news feed this morning:

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Aspartame Pathway (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/aspartame-and-health_b_2783732.html)

BoneDaddy
03-15-2013, 08:50 AM
"Methanol acts as a Trojan horse: It's carried into susceptible tissues in your body, like your brain and bone marrow, where the alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) enzyme converts it into formaldehyde, which wreaks havoc with sensitive proteins and DNA."

Awesome.

longBallLima
03-15-2013, 10:43 AM
"Methanol acts as a Trojan horse: It's carried into susceptible tissues in your body, like your brain and bone marrow, where the alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) enzyme converts it into formaldehyde, which wreaks havoc with sensitive proteins and DNA."

Awesome.


just what you'd want!

Fat Bill Dwyer
03-15-2013, 11:06 AM
So the FDA is thinking of F'ing you in your A hole yet again. You damn well better not use hormones or steroids, but hey....drink this.

U.S. dairy industry petitions FDA to approve aspartame as hidden, unlabeled additive in milk, yogurt, eggnog and cream (http://www.naturalnews.com/039244_milk_aspartame_FDA_petition.html)

I'm not normally the food hysteria type but... OH GOD JESUS WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

Jiigzz
03-19-2013, 10:22 PM
Most rat studies on Aspartme involve stupidly high doses of the sweetener, obviously something bad is bound to happen. Articial sweeteners have more safety studies done than ANY supplement you ingest. They have been tested at megadoses with no ill effect.

Here is a fun fact: there is not a single piece of placebo-controlled, double-blind, and randomized trial which demonstrates that 'artificial' sweeteners do, or are even capable of, leading to tangible adverse health effects in humans.

here is a link from the National Cancer Institure about the link between Artificial Sweeteners and Cancer: Artificial Sweeteners and Cancer - National Cancer Institute
(http://m.cancer.gov/topics/factsheets/artificial-sweeteners)

Heres a sum up : FDA has completed its review concerning the long-term carcinogenicity study of aspartame entitled, "Long-Term Carcinogenicity Bioassays to Evaluate the Potential Biological Effects, in Particular Carcinogenic, of Aspartame Administered in Feed to Sprague-Dawley Rats," conducted by the European Ramazzini Foundation (ERF), located in Bologna, Italy. FDA reviewed the study data made available to them by ERF and finds that it does not support ERF's conclusion that aspartame is a carcinogen. Additionally, these data do not provide evidence to alter FDA's conclusion that the use of aspartame is safe."

Jiigzz
03-19-2013, 10:31 PM
This is a great article that appeared in my Facebook news feed this morning:

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Aspartame Pathway (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/aspartame-and-health_b_2783732.html)

Dr. Joseph Mercola has been warned many times (by the FDA) over many things, mainly about misleading people. He thinks that AIDS is not directly caused by HIV but rather by physiological stress and claims that AIDS specialists are part of conspiracy theory.

He advises against infant vaccinations and sunblock and that Swine Flu was just scare tactics.

Joseph Mercola - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola)

Why would you trust his opinion?

Cobalt
03-20-2013, 09:36 AM
I could give a shit less about studies.

Every fucking time I put Aspartame into my system, I feel like total shit. This was before I even knew about how bad it is.

Some artificial sweeteners aren't so bad, but Aspartame? Pure toxic whale shit.

Freepressright
03-20-2013, 01:25 PM
Most rat studies on Aspartme involve stupidly high doses of the sweetener, obviously something bad is bound to happen. Articial sweeteners have more safety studies done than ANY supplement you ingest. They have been tested at megadoses with no ill effect.

Here is a fun fact: there is not a single piece of placebo-controlled, double-blind, and randomized trial which demonstrates that 'artificial' sweeteners do, or are even capable of, leading to tangible adverse health effects in humans.

here is a link from the National Cancer Institure about the link between Artificial Sweeteners and Cancer: Artificial Sweeteners and Cancer - National Cancer Institute
(http://m.cancer.gov/topics/factsheets/artificial-sweeteners)

Heres a sum up : FDA has completed its review concerning the long-term carcinogenicity study of aspartame entitled, "Long-Term Carcinogenicity Bioassays to Evaluate the Potential Biological Effects, in Particular Carcinogenic, of Aspartame Administered in Feed to Sprague-Dawley Rats," conducted by the European Ramazzini Foundation (ERF), located in Bologna, Italy. FDA reviewed the study data made available to them by ERF and finds that it does not support ERF's conclusion that aspartame is a carcinogen. Additionally, these data do not provide evidence to alter FDA's conclusion that the use of aspartame is safe."

The fact that ALL NON-industry-sponsored studies show serious issues, the controversy and potential criminal elements surrounding its approval and fudging of studies, the obvious collusion between government officials and Searle, the fact that the FDA has more adverse reaction complaints on file for aspartame than ANY other food additive in history... this thing is a helluva lot bigger than Joe Mercola.

Making this about Joe Mercola in an attempt to make it look like this stuff is OK is like pointing at GW Bush and the Iraq war as a justification for Benghazi, Fast and Furious and Lybia.

The sum total of data indicating that aspartame is unhealthy far outweighs any corrupt data that states otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

And who, in God's name, is naive enough to actually trust the FDA to ensure our safety? Money absolutely talks when it comes to this farce of an agency.

Saying the FDA says something is OK almost makes me want to run from it. Just look at how many prescription drugs kill people every year when used correctly, and then look at the barrage of lawsuits that follow, and then the black box warnings years later -- yeah, I can trust those guys to give me a straight answer!

Jiigzz
03-20-2013, 08:26 PM
There is controversy surrounding it, that is undeniable. But the studies in rats have shown to work on different mechanisms hence why it has not be deemed unsafe.

I just had to post considering you used Joeseph Mercola as a resource.

Studies on that Aspartme may be considered safe and not carcinogens:

Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on cur... [Crit Rev Toxicol. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17828671)
Artificial sweeteners and cancer risk in a network... [Ann Oncol. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17043096)
Artificial sweeteners--do they bear a carcinogenic... [Ann Oncol. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15367404)
Aspartame: review of safety. [Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2002] - PubMed - NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12180494)
Aspartame. Review of safety issues. Council on Scientif... [JAMA. 1985] - PubMed - NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2861297)
Effects of three sweeteners on rat urinary bladder carc... [Gann. 1984] - PubMed - NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6500232)


Intolerance being behind some adverse reactions
Aspartame intolerance. [Ann Allergy. 1988] - PubMed - NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3061324)

Jiigzz
04-09-2013, 07:52 PM
Just too add on; consider a can of siet soda containing <150mg of aspartme. When broken down into its constituents you get 75mg phenylalanine, 60mg of L-aspartic acid and 15mg of methanol.

In 100g of steak (small serving) contains we get 1100mg of phenylalanine, 2400mg of l-aspartic acid which is far more than the diet soda.

WRT the methanol, a single apple has ~20-25mg of methanol in it, which is more than a can of diet soda.

Funnly enough, noone ever complains about 'reactions' with apples and steaks like they complainn about aspartme.

josh
05-18-2013, 09:07 AM
I hate Mercola with a passion. So many fall victim to his quackery and pseudoscience rants

Cdsnuts
05-30-2013, 03:40 PM
Just too add on; consider a can of siet soda containing <150mg of aspartme. When broken down into its constituents you get 75mg phenylalanine, 60mg of L-aspartic acid and 15mg of methanol.

In 100g of steak (small serving) contains we get 1100mg of phenylalanine, 2400mg of l-aspartic acid which is far more than the diet soda.

WRT the methanol, a single apple has ~20-25mg of methanol in it, which is more than a can of diet soda.

Funnly enough, noone ever complains about 'reactions' with apples and steaks like they complainn about aspartme.

People love to hear good things about their bad habits.

To compare a poisonous man made chemical to steak and apples is ridiculous. People don't complain about reactions from steak and apples because they're typically non existent.

If it's man made, and it's a chemical, your best chance is to err on the side of caution. It's becoming all to apparent the effects these man made monstrosities are having on the food chain and health in general. I don't need a study to tell me it's bad or good. If there's even a chance it could be bad, I'm out.

And any study from the National Cancer institute I'd take with a gain of salt. All you need to do is follow the money.

longBallLima
05-30-2013, 03:48 PM
People love to hear good things about their bad habits.

To compare a poisonous man made chemical to steak and apples is ridiculous.

If it's man made, and it's a chemical, your best chance is to err on the side of caution. It's becoming all to apparent the effects these man made monstrosities are having on the food chain and health in general. I don't need a study to tell me it's bad or good. If there's even a chance it could be bad, I'm out.

And any study from the National Cancer institute I'd take with a gain of salt.

I honestly dont even give a shit about the breakdown of steak, apples or aspartame. if i buy steak, i want it to be steak, and if i buy pure milk, i want it to be pure milk. milk + aspartame is not pure milk

Cdsnuts
05-30-2013, 03:53 PM
I honestly dont even give a shit about the breakdown of steak, apples or aspartame. if i buy steak, i want it to be steak, and if i buy pure milk, i want it to be pure milk. milk + aspartame is not pure milk

Aspartame + anything = no good.

machdaddy
05-30-2013, 06:14 PM
The truth is out there, Scully. I look at it this way, if the government says any thing is ok do more research.

Government officials = Whores(can be bought)
Lobbyist = pimps( and sometimes johns)
Tax payers = screwed

Cdsnuts
05-30-2013, 06:28 PM
People need to unplug themselves from the matrix. Too many sheeple......

Freepressright
06-03-2013, 09:56 AM
I hate Mercola with a passion. So many fall victim to his quackery and pseudoscience rants

As compared to the hundreds of thousands of people who die each year from correctly-practiced Western medicine which is supposedly founded on science? Oh wait, that's right, the science gets polluted with money, profit and motives.

Whether you like or don't like Joe Mercola - whether you disagree with him on certain points, aspartame is THE most controversial food additive in history with a story of approval laden with collusion, controversy and outright dishonesty.

You also cannot dispute that there are more adverse effects reported to the FDA on aspartame than any other food additive in the history of the FDA. Still, the FDA does nothing.

And to the guy who compared the methanol in steak and apples, I'd suggest doing more research, because methanol in fruits and veggies differs from methanol in aspartame

Aspartame is primarily made up of aspartic acid and phenylalanine. The phenylalanine has been synthetically modified to carry a methyl group, which provides the majority of the sweetness. That phenylalanine methyl bond, called a methyl ester, is very weak, which allows the methyl group on the phenylalanine to easily break off and form methanol. This is in sharp contrast to naturally-occurring methanol found in certain fruits and vegetables, where it is firmly bonded to pectin, allowing the methanol to be safely passed through your digestive tract.

Methanol acts as a Trojan horse: It's carried into susceptible tissues in your body, like your brain and bone marrow, where the alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) enzyme converts it into formaldehyde, which wreaks havoc with sensitive proteins and DNA.

All other animals have a protective mechanism that allows methanol to be broken down into harmless formic acid, but there's a major biochemical problem with methanol in humans, because of the difference in how it's metabolized compared to all other animals. This is why toxicology testing on animals is a flawed model. It doesn't fully apply to humans.

I've had two friends suffer ill effects from excessive aspartame consumption. Both individuals saw their symptoms resolve when they kicked their heavy diet soda use.

One was thought to have MS, too.

You will never convince me this stuff's safe. And if it was so damn safe, you wouldn't have food and supplement companies running from it and using sucralose (Splenda) and ace K.

Cdsnuts
06-03-2013, 10:48 AM
And if it was so damn safe, you wouldn't have food and supplement companies running from it and using sucralose (Splenda) and ace K.

Whose safety is still open for debate.

Cobalt
06-03-2013, 11:18 AM
FPR is my hero.

BoneDaddy
06-03-2013, 12:13 PM
As compared to the hundreds of thousands of people who die each year from correctly-practiced Western medicine which is supposedly founded on science? Oh wait, that's right, the science gets polluted with money, profit and motives.

Whether you like or don't like Joe Mercola - whether you disagree with him on certain points, aspartame is THE most controversial food additive in history with a story of approval laden with collusion, controversy and outright dishonesty.

You also cannot dispute that there are more adverse effects reported to the FDA on aspartame than any other food additive in the history of the FDA. Still, the FDA does nothing.

And to the guy who compared the methanol in steak and apples, I'd suggest doing more research, because methanol in fruits and veggies differs from methanol in aspartame

Aspartame is primarily made up of aspartic acid and phenylalanine. The phenylalanine has been synthetically modified to carry a methyl group, which provides the majority of the sweetness. That phenylalanine methyl bond, called a methyl ester, is very weak, which allows the methyl group on the phenylalanine to easily break off and form methanol. This is in sharp contrast to naturally-occurring methanol found in certain fruits and vegetables, where it is firmly bonded to pectin, allowing the methanol to be safely passed through your digestive tract.

Methanol acts as a Trojan horse: It's carried into susceptible tissues in your body, like your brain and bone marrow, where the alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) enzyme converts it into formaldehyde, which wreaks havoc with sensitive proteins and DNA.

All other animals have a protective mechanism that allows methanol to be broken down into harmless formic acid, but there's a major biochemical problem with methanol in humans, because of the difference in how it's metabolized compared to all other animals. This is why toxicology testing on animals is a flawed model. It doesn't fully apply to humans.

I've had two friends suffer ill effects from excessive aspartame consumption. Both individuals saw their symptoms resolve when they kicked their heavy diet soda use.

One was thought to have MS, too.

You will never convince me this stuff's safe. And if it was so damn safe, you wouldn't have food and supplement companies running from it and using sucralose (Splenda) and ace K.



740

O_RYAN_007
06-05-2013, 08:23 AM
So I'm curious to what types of soaps and toothpastes you use CDs. As I'm reading more about all the chemicals in all our soaps, toothpastes, shampoos and conditioners, and lotions I just think what I could use as alternatives and where I could source them. I can get soaps and lotions(made without these harsh cancer causing chemicals) from the farmers market, but I'm still thinking about toothpastes, dish soaps, multi-purpose house cleaners, etc.

Freepressright
06-05-2013, 09:46 AM
Melaleuca products are great. I've used many of them in the past. Their cleaning products are all eco-friendly.

O_RYAN_007
06-05-2013, 10:31 AM
Melaleuca products are great. I've used many of them in the past. Their cleaning products are all eco-friendly.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll look into them, and stock up.

Cdsnuts
06-05-2013, 11:53 AM
So I'm curious to what types of soaps and toothpastes you use CDs. As I'm reading more about all the chemicals in all our soaps, toothpastes, shampoos and conditioners, and lotions I just think what I could use as alternatives and where I could source them. I can get soaps and lotions(made without these harsh cancer causing chemicals) from the farmers market, but I'm still thinking about toothpastes, dish soaps, multi-purpose house cleaners, etc.

Typically I use Toms of Maine tooth paste. I don't stick with just one brand. As long as it doesn't have fluoride and other foamers in them, I'll use it.

For the other products, I use Melaleuca as well.

O_RYAN_007
06-05-2013, 02:01 PM
I was checking out Toms of Maine just a little earlier. As for the Melaleuca, do I need to become a member to buy it from their site?

Cdsnuts
06-05-2013, 04:27 PM
I was checking out Toms of Maine just a little earlier. As for the Melaleuca, do I need to become a member to buy it from their site?

You need to register with them first.

I don't know if you get alot of sun in the warmer months, but if you ever need any type of after sun lotion, this new stuff I just picked up is great.

Solar Recover - The Only Animals We Test on are Ourselves (http://www.solarrecover.com/applications.php)

josh
07-12-2013, 04:38 PM
When did this board turn into such a conspiracy board full of fanatics?

Cdsnuts
07-12-2013, 05:11 PM
I don't really consider wanting to make sure I'm not being poisoned and fucked over by the food industry, Big Pharma and other corporate conglomerates in the name of their bottom line being fanatical. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't work anymore.

To me it's normal to want to know, and avoid these things.

machdaddy
07-12-2013, 09:18 PM
When did this board turn into such a conspiracy board full of fanatics?

At start up(hehe).

Freepressright
07-15-2013, 09:58 AM
When did this board turn into such a conspiracy board full of fanatics?

Would you prefer it be full of naive people who take the word of an industry that leads to the deaths of over 100,000 people per year at face value? Industry-sponsored studies deserve to be evaluated critically and heavily scrutinized due to their very conflicting nature.

The fact remains that aspartame is the single most controversial food additive in FDA history with a list of reported adverse effects longer than any other. Criminal investigations were launched into the approval of aspartame and a case was prepared to be presented to a grand jury. Sadly, the assistant prosecutor on the case let the statute of limitations expire..... before he took a job with Searle, the company responsible for aspartame.

It's all documented. I don't know how facts, and a rather large trail of oddities, lies, misrepresentations and dozens of experts from reputable institutions can be discounted as empty conspiracy. I guess you haven't objectively looked at all the data with respect to the origins of aspartame, the controversial approval process, the conflicts of interest between government folks and Searle and all the non-industry-sponsored studies that found adverse health effects as a result of consuming aspartame.

josh
07-15-2013, 10:37 AM
If I was a mod here I would ban you

weekend
07-15-2013, 10:51 AM
If I was a mod here I would ban you

after this gem of a comment, if I was a mod I would ban YOU!

burlyman30
07-15-2013, 11:07 AM
If I was a mod here I would ban you

Censorship is a slippery slope. once you begin to censor comments some members because your opinion differs, it's likely that the same will come back to you.

josh
07-15-2013, 11:19 AM
Its not censorship.. its holding members to a certain degree of sanity. Fanaticism spreads like wildfire. If you are going to make an outrageous claim then you should be expected to back that claim up with at the very least a kinimal amount of evidence

burlyman30
07-15-2013, 11:56 AM
Its not censorship.. its holding members to a certain degree of sanity. Fanaticism spreads like wildfire. If you are going to make an outrageous claim then you should be expected to back that claim up with at the very least a kinimal amount of evidence

Concerns with aspartame have been around since the mid 80s, when it was first released and are well known. I didn't see fanaticism in the statement made, rather, I saw a strong opinion based on the research that FPR has personally done. Have you done research on the subject that brings you to a different opinion?

markam
07-15-2013, 12:00 PM
Sorry, but I couldn't stop myself posting this.


Its not censorship.. its holding members to a certain degree of sanity.

Driftwood: Oh, that? Oh, that's the usual clause. That's in every contract. That just says uh, it says uh, "If any of the parties participating in this contract is shown not to be in their right mind, the entire agreement is automatically nullified."
Fiorello: Well, I don't know...
Driftwood: It's all right, that's, that's in every contract. That's, that's what they call a 'sanity clause'.
Fiorello: Ha ha ha ha ha! You can't fool me! There ain't no Sanity Clause!

BoneDaddy
07-15-2013, 12:30 PM
Fanaticism doesn't spread nearly as fast as ignorance.

Freepressright
07-15-2013, 12:38 PM
Josh is obviously a troll. His answers are short, non-explanatory and contain no data one way or another to refute any claim.

He's more than welcome to dismantle my statement if he wishes, but I assert my position as rooted in fact. The approval of aspartame is far from a straightforward story of a company playing by the rules.

You have the unmitigated gall to call for me to be censored for making a series of true statements? If I didn't know any better, I'd say you represent one of the parties involved, but I feel that you're just a troll. No legitimate person can be that ignorant, gullible and bitter toward a person's statement and wish for them to be silenced.

Freepressright
07-15-2013, 12:43 PM
Perhaps CBS 60 Minutes and Fox5 DC should be banned from broadcast for releasing these documentaries that have interviews with experts, physicians, scientists and other researchers who refute the idea that aspartame is safe. Likewise, they contain interviews and information surrounding the controversial approval of aspartame, as well as citations of FDA data showing more adverse effects reported on aspartame than any other food additive in history.

Also referenced is the federal investigation into aspartame which was halted because an assistant U.S. attorney let the statute expire and then took a job with Searle. Oh yeah, and Dr. Arthur Hall Hayes, the FDA commissioner who UNILATERALLY overruled an FDA board and approved aspartame -- yeah, he took a job with Searle's PR firm not long after.

But what do I know? I'm just a 'fanatical' conspiracy theorist, just like the folks at CBS and Fox, back when real reporting was still in fashion.

Aspartame NutraSweet - 60 Minutes News Segment - December 29, 1996.flv.flv - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCoBuTr0Or0)

The Dangers of Aspartame (Diet Coke Zero Side Effects Poisoning Pepsi Max Nutrasweet Sucralose) - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvFRLIjOLOU)

h2s
07-15-2013, 01:01 PM
Josh is obviously a troll. His answers are short, non-explanatory and contain no data one way or another to refute any claim.

He's more than welcome to dismantle my statement if he wishes, but I assert my position as rooted in fact. The approval of aspartame is far from a straightforward story of a company playing by the rules.

You have the unmitigated gall to call for me to be censored for making a series of true statements? If I didn't know any better, I'd say you represent one of the parties involved, but I feel that you're just a troll. No legitimate person can be that ignorant, gullible and bitter toward a person's statement and wish for them to be silenced.

Everyone calm down.

I hate to break it to everyone here, but Josh is not a troll, he is extremely scientifically literate, and for that exact reason was someone whom I personally invited over to this site.

Face it, many people in this thread do have an extreme view one way or the other. Discuss the science, but lose the troll accusations (and conspiracy accusations, I guess).

To be completely honest there have been members who have come over to this site from a reference I made, only to PM me on the original site asking me if these guys are serious about some of their food industry views. I am not saying anyone is wrong at all, I haven't done the research, I really don't have the time to, and I respect everyone in this thread, but to someone looking in, it does come off a bit extremist.

Freepressright
07-15-2013, 01:03 PM
Josh's attitude of berating forum members as fanatics won't earn him a whole lot of respect from the folks who frequent this forum. I haven't said a thing that isn't well documented and rooted in fact, as my post prior to yours illustrates. His behavior was indicative of trolling. If he isn't a troll, good for him, but don't treat the rest of us like we're a bunch of idiots for thinking that, based on his poor attitude.

h2s
07-15-2013, 01:05 PM
Josh's attitude of berating forum members as fanatics won't earn him a whole lot of respect from the folks who frequent this forum. I haven't said a thing that isn't well documented and rooted in fact, as my post prior to yours illustrates. His behavior was indicative of trolling. If he isn't a troll, good for him, but don't treat the rest of us like we're a bunch of idiots for thinking that, based on his poor attitude.

I told him to lose the conspiracy accusation as well. I'd rather see you two go back and forth on science than either of you label each other.

Freepressright
07-15-2013, 01:33 PM
Sounds fair. Thank you.

burlyman30
07-15-2013, 01:51 PM
Insert pic of two men hugging here.

josh
07-15-2013, 02:42 PM
Couple quick notes.

Yes I realize I could have elaborated more on why the evidence aganist aspartame is pretty shaky at best instead quickly dismissing your view on the matter. Allow me to offer some quick points about what we currently know about aspartame.

The current available studies on aspartame that have shown cancerogenous and other deleterious effects were either in animal models or done in vitro. What this translates to for human in vivo consumption would be about a truck full of diet soda. A lot of confusion about aspartame comes from it being classified as an excitotoxin. Individuals and groups, such as natural news, like to manipulate this but the reality is, even though it is indeed an excitotoxin, unless you are pinnung aspartame there is absolutely no chance it will reach your bloodstream. When aspartame is consumed it is broken down by the gut into phenylalanine and aspartic acid which are then metabolized. Now there is some individual reaction to phenylalanine, but them aside aspartame is largely benign to the majority of us. Now back to the excitotoxicity point. There is no question whatsoever about excitotoxicity. We know this occurs. The issue really revolves around the question, is aspartame an excitotoxic in vivo, and the bulk of the available crediabld research, that is highly unlikely if not virtually impossible.

Freepressright
07-15-2013, 08:38 PM
That's all fine and wonderful, but it still remains:

1. Aspartame is the no. 1 food additive for adverse effects reported to the FDA. This is a matter of public record.

2. Aspartame was the most controversial food additive ever to get FDA approval, having been rejected numerous times.

3. FDA advisory boards felt it was not safe and continually ruled against its approval until Ronald Reagan's FDA commissioner, who was a close ally of Donald Rumsfeld (then the CEO of GD Searle), overruled the panel and unilaterally approved aspartame.

4. The studies on aspartame were riddled with errors, inconsistencies and what was widely believed to be outright lies -- to the point that a grand jury was investigating.

5. The United States attorney prosecuting the case conveniently let the statute of limitations expire, and then left to take a job with Searle.

6. Dr. Arthur Hall Hayes, the FDA commissioner, went on to work for Searle and refused to answer any questions regarding aspartame.

I hear you about the studies, but the one thing you need to remember is that they're industry sponsored. If you put me in charge of investigating me, I'm going to find no evidence of wrongdoing every time.

The non-industry sponsored studies have found aspartame not to be a safe substance -- and not just from the question of excitotoxicity.

You can't look at all of the above and just write it off as coincidence or conspiracy. Watch the two mainstream-media produced documentaries from two decades ago. They have the documents and interviews.

I will never believe this stuff is safe when consumed regularly. I, therefore, avoid it. I do not want it being secretly added to any of my food. I want my food to be real food and not a bunch of chemicals that a self-policing company proclaims to be safe.

That's not unreasonable, in my opinion.

josh
07-15-2013, 10:19 PM
There was nothing of substance in your post for me to respond to. It wad entirely conspiracy theory. I can not speak as to why so and so left his job, I will not try and read inbetween lines and make up a reason as to why so and so left one job for another, etc. You have failed to postulate any mechanism as to why aspartame is dangerous. There is sufficient evidence to suggest it is not so the burden of proof falls on you, the one making the claim (aspartame is harmful) and all I see or conspiracy theories, which btw you are free to think and believe and whatever you want. My problem arises when you start to spead nonsense, especially when you try and make it seem the nonsense is backed by science, to this I emphatically object. Show me the clinical evidence aspartame poses a threat. If you can not then all you are left with is far fetched conspiracy theories and your irrational fear.

weekend
07-15-2013, 10:40 PM
^ I'm interested freepress, hook up the medi-proof

Freepressright
07-16-2013, 06:15 AM
So, the FDA database with information about adverse reactions is conspiracy theory?

The Food and Drug Administration has admitted that three-fourths of all its non-drug complaints are for the unwanted ill effects from aspartame use.

In 1998, Ralph G. Walton, MD, a Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at Northeastern Ohio University's College of Medicine, analyzed 164 studies relevant to human safety questions associated with aspartame. Of those studies, 74 studies had aspartame industry-related sponsorship and 90 were funded without any industry money.

Of the 90 non-industry-sponsored studies, 83 (92 percent) identified one or more problems with aspartame. Of the seven studies that did not find a problem, the FDA conducted six of those studies.

Of the 74 aspartame industry-sponsored studies, all 74 (100%) claimed that no problems were found with aspartame.

But getting back to the U.S. attorney and the FDA commissioner taking jobs with Searle after aspartame's controversial approval - any logical person would be at least mildly suspicious. Again, I choose not to consume products that contain aspartame because I believe (and based on research) that its cumulative effects are a health hazard. I am able to avoid it because it is labeled.

As a consumer, I want freedom of choice. I do not want a potentially toxic chemical added to common foods and hidden. Again, what's conspiratorial or nutty about wanting disclosure and real food?

Again, I would ask you to go beyond industry-sponsored studies and watch both of these mainstream-media produced documentaries from two decades ago and tell me how, based on the cronyism and controversial approval process, any logical person wouldn't legitimately question aspartame's safety.

josh
07-16-2013, 03:11 PM
Im done as you fail to understand what is relevant and what isnt. you made a claim, now back your claim. All you have is a bunch of what if's and this looks shady. There is nothing of substance.

One more time. Aspartame breaks down in the gut into two constituents. Do you disagree with this? Yes, then why? What else would happen? What else is it broken down into? Does something happen before it reaches the gut?

Or do you agree? If so then we are left with aspartic acid and phenylalanine. Do you understand how these are metabolized? If so, explain. If you agree that these are the endproducts when we consume aspartame then which is the culprit to deleterious effects? Is their evidence of this or at the very least a mechanistic hypothesis?

What exactly makes aspartame dangerous? Where along the line from consumption to when its metabolized starts the chain that leads to health problems? I even gave you a freebie (excitotoxicity) and you dismissed it saying there are other concerns. Well what are they?

I dont care about why someone left a job or why paoerwork wasnt filed. Its irrelevant. I dont even care about the studies that have questionable sponsoring. If the studybwas shit then you should be able to explain why its shit via the materials and methods instead of copping out by just saying so and so was involved. And lastly, I dont care what joe schmoes complaints were they he logged with the fda. Caffeine sometime gices me headaches, shall I deduce coffee is dangerous?

If you claim aspartame is dangerous at the very least provide just a speck of actual evidence instead of this conspiracy bullshit. And yes it is a conspiracy as conspiracies are defined by having a lack of actual evidence. If you had the evidence it wouldnt be a conspiracy but since you fail to provide any then this is no different than you shooting we faked the moon landing.

I am done unless you respond with evidence.

olddawg
07-16-2013, 03:29 PM
Aspartame, worse than we thought (http://www.swolesource.com/forum/diet-nutrition/1396-aspartame-worse-than-we-thought.html)

Cdsnuts
07-16-2013, 04:27 PM
To be completely honest there have been members who have come over to this site from a reference I made, only to PM me on the original site asking me if these guys are serious about some of their food industry views. I am not saying anyone is wrong at all, I haven't done the research, I really don't have the time to, and I respect everyone in this thread, but to someone looking in, it does come off a bit extremist.

And this is exactly why they (food industry) continue to get away with the things they get away with. Because people like us who show an interest in what actually goes into the foods we consume are labeled as extreme. I consider it extreme to be the other way. But as long as we are in the minority and the rest just go along thinking "it's no big deal" the way things are will continue to be status quo.

josh
07-16-2013, 04:42 PM
And this is exactly why they (food industry) continue to get away with the things they get away with. Because people like us who show an interest in what actually goes into the foods we consume are labeled as extreme. I consider it extreme to be the other way. But as long as we are in the minority and the rest just go along thinking "it's no big deal" the way things are will continue to be status quo.

No. Standing on the rooftops screaming something is evil and when asked why you can not provide a single shred of actual evidence and all you can muster together is a bunch of situtaions that like they might be somewhat shady which you then use as concrete evidence in order to persuade others your beliefs must be true, this is what makes someone an extremist and alarmists.

Think about this, before we understood meteorology, how many people ran around screaming the sky was falling after their first time experiencing a hail storm? Now the sky may have very well been falling but it turned out it wasnt. The ones who see hail and yell everyone must live underground in order to avoid be crushed by clouds is the alarmist and extremist. The one who says hmmm.. thats interesting and then collects the hail stones and tries to figure out whats going on, is the sane and rational thinker.

So you can avoid going outside for the rest of your life in fear of getting crushed by falling clouds, or you can exercise some objective thinking and realize its just frozen rain.

burlyman30
07-16-2013, 04:50 PM
I would consider notable negative physical effects as less benign than hail, but I understand what you are saying.

Cdsnuts
07-16-2013, 04:56 PM
No. Standing on the rooftops screaming something is evil and when asked why you can not provide a single shred of actual evidence and all you can muster together is a bunch of situtaions that like they might be somewhat shady which you then use as concrete evidence in order to persuade others your beliefs must be true, this is what makes someone an extremist and alarmists.

Think about this, before we understood meteorology, how many people ran around screaming the sky was falling after their first time experiencing a hail storm? Now the sky may have very well been falling but it turned out it wasnt. The ones who see hail and yell everyone must live underground in order to avoid be crushed by clouds is the alarmist and extremist. The one who says hmmm.. thats interesting and then collects the hail stones and tries to figure out whats going on, is the sane and rational thinker.

So you can avoid going outside for the rest of your life in fear of getting crushed by falling clouds, or you can exercise some objective thinking and realize its just frozen rain.

Always easier when people stick their heads in the sand. Us extremists must be getting all up in arms for no reason. Dude....if you wanna eat your poison go ahead. No ones stopping you.

rockstarjacked
07-16-2013, 05:11 PM
Whether or not it's bad for you doesn't seem to be the issue to me... To me, the issue is this: what purpose is served by putting aspartame in milk?? As far as i'm aware, even if there is no harm from aspartame, there is also no benefit from it. Isn't the cow's milk sweet enough already? Why the constant need to alter nature?? And my main question here is this: If there really is no evidence to back up the deleterious effects of aspartame, then why wouldn't it be labeled for everyone to see?

Freepressright
07-18-2013, 06:27 AM
Good point.

1. Why does it need to be in milk?

2. Why does it need to be hidden?

3. If aspartame was so damn great and safe, why are food and supplement companies dumping it in favor of sucralose (Splenda) and proudly declaring on many products "ASPARTAME FREE" or "CONTAINS NO ASPARTAME" ?