Aspartame - Would you ban it?

[Mini-Me]

I haven't read the thread, just the initial post, but I'd like to register an opinion:

• The federal government should certainly stay out of it, because it has no Constitutional authority.
• State and local governments would also be wise to just butt out.
• Consumers should make their own choice about what to buy, so long as they can find someone willing to sell what they want.
• Companies should make their own choice about what they feel comfortable selling. After all, I believe all drugs should be completely legal - it's up to you what you want to do with your own body - but if I owned a drug store, that doesn't mean I'd ever stoop so low as selling hard drugs like heroin. In principle, aspartame is no different: If the owners of any store decide they are not willing to sell it, that's their right.
  
  Very simple, really...and besides, without government intervention on behalf of Monsanto, that f'ing company would be free to drive its own disgusting ass out of business.
  
  Also, in case the discussion has veered in this direction:
  In the absence of the FDA, there would not be mass poisoning of the population through the food supply. Enough health-conscious consumers exist that there's a market for guaranteeing the safety of food, which means that private, independent inspection agencies would rise up that could get the job done cheaper, more fairly, and more efficiently than the FDA. If one of them screwed up and certified a dangerous product that harmed people, they'd never be trusted again and go out of business - unlike the FDA, whose existence is guaranteed and perpetual and not contingent upon their accountability to the public. It wouldn't take long before consumers as a whole found the best few certification agencies and only bought products with their seal of approval (in addition to whatever information must appear on the box to carry that seal, e.g. ingredients, nutritional facts, etc.). It's kind of like how Kosher certification works - after all, private independent kosher certification is so good that kosher plants are often outright exempt from federal regulations, since they're totally superfluous. The only difference is that the market for safe, clean food is MUCH bigger than the market for Kosher food.

 

[sratiug]

http://www.stevia.com/SteviaArticle.asp?ID=2415

Try a Natural, Non-Toxic, Calorie-Free Sweetener
Stevia is an herb that has been used as a sweetener in South America for hundreds of years. It is calorie - free, and the powdered concentrate is 300 times sweeter than sugar. Stevia is widely used all over the world. In Japan, for example, it claims 41% of the sweetener market, including sugar, and was used in Japanese Diet Coke until the company replaced it with aspartame to "standardize" worldwide. There have not been any reports of toxicity with stevia, which is consumed by millions of people daily.

 

[buffalokid777]

I haven't read the thread, just the initial post, but I'd like to register an opinion:

• The federal government should certainly stay out of it, because it has no Constitutional authority.
• State and local governments would also be wise to just butt out.
• Consumers should make their own choice about what to buy, so long as they can find someone willing to sell what they want.
• Companies should make their own choice about what they feel comfortable selling. After all, I believe all drugs should be completely legal - it's up to you what you want to do with your own body - but if I owned a drug store, that doesn't mean I'd ever stoop so low as selling hard drugs like heroin. In principle, aspartame is no different: If the owners of any store decide they are not willing to sell it, that's their right.
  
  Very simple, really...and besides, without government intervention on behalf of Monsanto, that f'ing company would be free to drive its own disgusting ass out of business.
  
  Also, in case the discussion has veered in this direction:
  In the absence of the FDA, there would not be mass poisoning of the population through the food supply. Enough health-conscious consumers exist that there's a market for guaranteeing the safety of food, which means that private, independent inspection agencies would rise up that could get the job done cheaper, more fairly, and more efficiently than the FDA. If one of them screwed up and certified a dangerous product that harmed people, they'd never be trusted again and go out of business - unlike the FDA, whose existence is guaranteed and perpetual and not contingent upon their accountability to the public. It wouldn't take long before consumers as a whole found the best few certification agencies and only bought products with their seal of approval (in addition to whatever information must appear on the box to carry that seal, e.g. ingredients, nutritional facts, etc.). It's kind of like how Kosher certification works - after all, private independent kosher certification is so good that kosher plants are often outright exempt from federal regulations, since they're totally superfluous. The only difference is that the market for safe, clean food is MUCH bigger than the market for Kosher food.

• 
  
  I agree with you 1000%, people should decide what goes into their bodies.....
  
  The problem is evil Nazi-Like corporations like Monsanto seek to ban alternatives to their product through gestappo like tactics via lawsuits and putting their minions into positions of power inside the FDA.....
  
  Stop this evil......
  
  Learn the truth and join the Millions against Monsanto campaign to stop their evil.....
  
  http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm
  
  I know I just posted this link 2 posts ago, but for every person who seeks to bury it by not reading the entire thread....I will post it again so those of us who really support freedom will learn the truth about monsanto,,,,,,
  
  I have NO affiliation with organic consumers dot org.....I really just admire their efforts to expose the evil known as MONSANTO,,,,,,,,

 

[Luft97]

I hope so....Monsanto is in my opinion ONE OF THE MOST EVIL CORPORATIONS ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH........If I have ever seen a corporation that holds the Nazi philosphy....IT IS MONSANTO......

If I had the power to destroy 1 corporation of my choice on the face of the entire earth....IT WOULD BE MONSANTO.....THEY ARE PURE EVIL IN THE FORM OF A CORPORATION.......

If you want the truth to fight this evil join the millions against monsanto campaign.....

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm

Maybe so, but you are only dealing with a symptom and not the problem. Corporations are the problem. Maybe we should rethink the entire "idea" of allowing corporations.

In my perfect world there would be none. No publicly traded stock exchange either. If you start up a company great own your own company. But at the end of the day the OWNER is responsible and if he loses it all, he has nowhere to hide. Responsibility and accountability is key.

It also opens up the door for new people to enter the market because if the owner dies and someone else takes over and the business fails then someone else can step up, start a company, and fill the spot. Most likely you would not have many huge Mega companies either.

Corporations are the evil we deal with if you ask me. They are for all intents and purposes are immortal and the larger they grow the less viable it becomes for someone to try and compete.

Besides, why should people be able to speculate for a living anyway? They don't produce or make anything but reap the benefits. Maybe a commodities trading market but then again it might not be so necessary if our money had solid value, there we be very little fluctuation in commodities pricing.

Speculation is a way for the rich to get richer and take advantage of the little fish.

 

[buffalokid777]

Maybe so, but you are only dealing with a symptom and not the problem. Corporations are the problem. Maybe we should rethink the entire "idea" of allowing corporations.

In my perfect world there would be none. No publicly traded stock exchange either. If you start up a company great own your own company. But at the end of the day the OWNER is responsible and if he loses it all, he has nowhere to hide. Responsibility and accountability is key.

It also opens up the door for new people to enter the market because if the owner dies and someone else takes over and the business fails then someone else can step up, start a company, and fill the spot. Most likely you would not have many huge Mega companies either.

Corporations are the evil we deal with if you ask me. They are for all intents and purposes are immortal and the larger they grow the less viable it becomes for someone to try and compete.

Besides, why should people be able to speculate for a living anyway? They don't produce or make anything but reap the benefits. Maybe a commodities trading market but then again it might not be so necessary if our money had solid value, there we be very little fluctuation in commodities pricing.

Speculation is a way for the rich to get richer and take advantage of the little fish.

I agree 1000% corporations are the problem......they can use stock to assemble superior capital than individuals.....while allowing a small amount of people to maneuver that capital for their own benefit.....giving corporations(groups) a greater power than individuals which is against the philosphy of a consititutional republic where the groups can't infringe upon the rights of an indivudial.....that is the root of all our problems......until the masses understand this...we won't find a solution,,,,,

But monsanto is still evil so join the fight......until we have a constitutional republic again......

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm

 

[sratiug]

Maybe so, but you are only dealing with a symptom and not the problem. Corporations are the problem. Maybe we should rethink the entire "idea" of allowing corporations.

In my perfect world there would be none. No publicly traded stock exchange either. If you start up a company great own your own company. But at the end of the day the OWNER is responsible and if he loses it all, he has nowhere to hide. Responsibility and accountability is key.

It also opens up the door for new people to enter the market because if the owner dies and someone else takes over and the business fails then someone else can step up, start a company, and fill the spot. Most likely you would not have many huge Mega companies either.

Corporations are the evil we deal with if you ask me. They are for all intents and purposes are immortal and the larger they grow the less viable it becomes for someone to try and compete.

Besides, why should people be able to speculate for a living anyway? They don't produce or make anything but reap the benefits. Maybe a commodities trading market but then again it might not be so necessary if our money had solid value, there we be very little fluctuation in commodities pricing.

Speculation is a way for the rich to get richer and take advantage of the little fish.

Imagine...

Ron Paul Revolution takes Delaware and begins dismantling Fortune 500 corporations as their charters expire and are not renewed by the state. After today's expiration of the Coca-Cola corporation, a spokesman for the new Delaware Coke Company released a statement saying that aspartame would be discontinued immediately from Diet Coke in favor of Stevia. A spokesman said that the Delaware Coke Company does not wish to kill its customers with unsafe neocon artificial sweeteners. The spokesman then went on to say that the change will avoid a potential chem-trail problem from the Diet Coke/Mentos Carbonic Technology Rocket propulsion system of the soon to be launched Ron Paul Rocket to outer space. The new 100% natural fallout will have a calming effect and stabilize blood sugar, so the Revolution Space Agency announced new revised plans to fly the rocket directly over Washington DC.

 

[howmanysheepcanyouherd]

Yes, I would ban it. Along with HFCS.

These chemicals put a burden on the whole of society.

Would you condone putting any toxic chemicals in food, such as ammonia or bleach or heavy doses of cyanide?

That would be murder. So, why would aspartame or HFCS not be considered murder? It's just slower. And, costs alot more money as the victims go down.

Libertarian beliefs and individualism is the belief an individual can make his or her own choices, and then reap the rewards OR consequences of the choice and action. So when I hear a market chain throwing out aspartame from it's stores I do a little victory dance because I'm in favor of banning aspartame.

But wait... Is this really what a individualist would support? Would an individualist support barring low/no calorie foods with aspartame from people who really want them in their diet?

This is a store owned by people, not the government. [Link] They have the full right to choose what products they should stock and what they don't stock. They're simply choosing not to stock products with aspartame in them. This isn't really banning, persay, it's their choice to stock what they/their customers want.

:o

 

[howmanysheepcanyouherd]

Most people, even you strict "individualists" would be outraged and horrified to find out a company suddenly decided to put ammonia in the food they sell and 100's of people died right away.

Those of us in favor of banning this stuff are outraged now...we don't need to see people die immediately to be horrified by the evil of knowingly putting deadly or illness causing chemicals in food.

 

[buffalokid777]

Most people, even you strict "individualists" would be outraged and horrified to find out a company suddenly decided to put ammonia in the food they sell and 100's of people died right away.

Those of us in favor of banning this stuff are outraged now...we don't need to see people die immediately to be horrified by the evil of knowingly putting deadly or illness causing chemicals in food.

You are the wisest person who posted on this thread.......

Why? Because you understand the golden rule.....treat others as you wish to be treated.....if the people who reside in this world would understand this.....most of our problems would dissappear..........

I pray that you will reap the rewards you deserve for being enlightned.....and I have no doubt you will no matter how I pray......because you have seen the correct path unlike many bloodthirsty others.....

The bloodthirsty ones will be destroyed in the winepress of righteousness,,,,,and those who wanted what is righteous will rejoice when it happens.....

 

[Kludge]

Most people, even you strict "individualists" would be outraged and horrified to find out a company suddenly decided to put ammonia in the food they sell and 100's of people died right away.

Those of us in favor of banning this stuff are outraged now...we don't need to see people die immediately to be horrified by the evil of knowingly putting deadly or illness causing chemicals in food.

*rolls eyes* This is the same argument socialists made to Ron Paul in his 1988 campaign. "Eliminate Drugs?!?! Do you know how many people would die?!"


People may die, but it will be their choice to make. Obviously we don't advocate murder as was suggested in your straw man - but that government has no right to enforce against potential threats.

Sure, it's possible that you'll kill someone while "under the influence", but that's why you're punished for it later if a consequence arises and shouldn't be when you're "under the influence" while driving.

 

[howmanysheepcanyouherd]

*rolls eyes* This is the same argument socialists made to Ron Paul in his 1988 campaign. "Eliminate Drugs?!?! Do you know how many people would die?!"


People may die, but it will be their choice to make. Obviously we don't advocate murder as was suggested in your straw man - but that government has no right to enforce against potential threats.

Sure, it's possible that you'll kill someone while "under the influence", but that's why you're punished for it later if a consequence arises and shouldn't be when you're "under the influence" while driving.

it is not the same argument. if people want to sell aspartame, that's fine. putting it in food that is being promoted as general nutrition and hiding the fact that it is harmful is murder.

again, you cannot even conceive of someone dropping cyanide in someones food and not being held accountable. but because the poison is less concentrated, you allow yourself the room to apply "individual freedom" to it.

most people who are aggressively marketed to and eat this stuff do not know it is harmful. so, when you all talk about choice, you are arguing another topic. people cant make a choice without information.

if someone wants to ingest a pound of aspartame and die on the spot, sure that's their choice....but it's not someones "right" to poison others slowly all the while telling them they are doing them a service.

by your argument, i could gather that if the knife i stabbed you with didn't kill you, it was only a "potential threat" and therefore I should not be held legally accountable. or maybe it is the intending to kill vs. not being concerned if you happen to die thing you are stuck on.

these companies know usually a decade before the general public that they are using harmful chemicals.

and let's just put it on a personal level. if you come over to my house for dinner, and i drop some cocaine in your food without telling you, you have a heart condition and die on the spot, should i be held accountable? i wasn't trying to kill you, but i did know there was a potentially harmful additive to your food and i didn't tell you. you had no choice.

 

[Kludge]

it is not the same argument. if people want to sell aspartame, that's fine. putting it in food that is being promoted as general nutrition and hiding the fact that it is harmful is murder.

again, you cannot even conceive of someone dropping cyanide in someones food and not being held accountable. but because the poison is less concentrated, you allow yourself the room to apply "individual freedom" to it.

most people who are aggressively marketed to and eat this stuff do not know it is harmful. so, when you all talk about choice, you are arguing another topic. people cant make a choice without information.

if someone wants to ingest a pound of aspartame and die on the spot, sure that's their choice....but it's not someones "right" to poison others slowly all the while telling them they are doing them a service.

by your argument, i could gather that if the knife i stabbed you with didn't kill you, it was only a "potential threat" and therefore I should not be held legally accountable. or maybe it is the intending to kill vs. not being concerned if you happen to die thing you are stuck on.

these companies know usually a decade before the general public that they are using harmful chemicals.

and let's just put it on a personal level. if you come over to my house for dinner, and i drop some cocaine in your food without telling you, you have a heart condition and die on the spot, should i be held accountable? i wasn't trying to kill you, but i did know there was a potentially harmful additive to your food and i didn't tell you. you had no choice.

Why would it be okay to buy poison, but not poisoned food?

If the market is truly free, a third-party watch organization ought to form and test products/alert the public. Brand name is a major asset to companies.

If someone buys food which is poisoned, it is simply the weak being purged from the system - and when the public is alerted to the poison, the company and it's owners will be purged from the system.

 

[sratiug]

Why would it be okay to buy poison, but not poisoned food?

If the market is truly free, a third-party watch organization ought to form and test products/alert the public. Brand name is a major asset to companies.

If someone buys food which is poisoned, it is simply the weak being purged from the system - and when the public is alerted to the poison, the company and it's owners will be purged from the system.

Because poisoning food is attempted murder. Kind of like it's ok to sell bullets but not to shoot at people.

 

[pinkmandy]

If someone reads a label and it says "cyanide" and said person proceeds with eating the food containing cyanide, well, that's natural selection imho. One less idiot reproducing. Yes, I'm mean sometimes.

Labels say aspartame. Not the same as cyanide but not good for you. It is on the label. If people decide, via their own free will, to consume it then it isn't my problem. Same with high fructose corn syrup, saturated fats, dyes, etc. I would object if people weren't free to choose aspartame-free food but that just isn't the case. Instead, people want to eat their Big Macs and wash them down with an aspartame Diet Coke.

Foods with aspartame say "low fat" or "sugar free". That's a clear indicator to check the label. Foods with cyanide would probably say "instantly kills" or something similar.

 

[Kludge]

Because poisoning food is attempted murder. Kind of like it's ok to sell bullets but not to shoot at people.

I didn't make you eat it, and as pinkmandy said - aspartame is labeled on the product.

 

[buffalokid777]

Imagine...

Ron Paul Revolution takes Delaware and begins dismantling Fortune 500 corporations as their charters expire and are not renewed by the state. After today's expiration of the Coca-Cola corporation, a spokesman for the new Delaware Coke Company released a statement saying that aspartame would be discontinued immediately from Diet Coke in favor of Stevia. A spokesman said that the Delaware Coke Company does not wish to kill its customers with unsafe neocon artificial sweeteners. The spokesman then went on to say that the change will avoid a potential chem-trail problem from the Diet Coke/Mentos Carbonic Technology Rocket propulsion system of the soon to be launched Ron Paul Rocket to outer space. The new 100% natural fallout will have a calming effect and stabilize blood sugar, so the Revolution Space Agency announced new revised plans to fly the rocket directly over Washington DC.

What are you smoking? It's like you took everything that is factual on this thread and converted into a convoluted insane post......are you one of centcoms propaganda minions? I think so.....I hope you starve after watching your family starve first.....that will be your reward for promoting evil.....

And as you die of starvation....I hope you see my laughing face before you pass....that will be justice for your kind........

 

[Kludge]

What are you smoking? It's like you took everything that is factual on this thread and converted into a convoluted insane post......are you one of centcoms propaganda minions? I think so.....I hope you starve after watching your family starve first.....that will be your reward for promoting evil.....

And as you die of starvation....I hope you see my laughing face before you pass....that will be justice for your kind........

wtf....?

 

[buffalokid777]

wtf....?

This is obviously someone who is unstable....

wtf is this

The spokesman then went on to say that the change will avoid a potential chem-trail problem from the Diet Coke/Mentos Carbonic Technology Rocket propulsion system of the soon to be launched Ron Paul Rocket to outer space

In my opinion either someone unstable, or someone who doent want corporations to stop poisoning us for eugenics directives....I really don't care.......whoever wrote this is not a Ron Paul supporter IMO......

This is like taking every conspiracy theory to make Ron Paul supporters look insane and I'm gonna call it out...I have an obligation to do what is right that I can't avoid.....

 

[Kludge]

This is obviously someone who is unstable....

wtf is this

PRETTY sure he wasn't being serious about the "Ron Paul Rocket (ROTKET)"

In my opinion either someone unstable, or someone who doent want corporations to stop poisoning us for eugenics directives....I really don't care.......whoever wrote this is not a Ron Paul supporter IMO......

This is like taking every conspiracy theory to make Ron Paul supporters look insane and I'm gonna call it out...I have an obligation to do what is right that I can't avoid.....

You fight our image of insanity by telling a supporter you hope he and his family starve and he sees your laughing face as he dies......? Hm.

 

[buffalokid777]

PRETTY sure he wasn't being serious about the "Ron Paul Rocket (ROTKET)"



You fight our image of insanity by telling a supporter you hope he and his family starve and he sees your laughing face as he dies......? Hm.

You know what kludge, maybe I went over the top.....

But I REALLY hate evil....

I don't think he was joking....there was just too many conspiracy theories rolled into one post to make me think otherwise......

I wish good people good things.....I wish evil people evil things they would place on good people.....

I really think this one is evil........

I may be wrong....and if i am....I only wish.....I don't judge.....If my observations are incorrect....they will mean nothing........because I don't have the power to bring judgement....only to observe.....but evil has overrun the earth......and I TRULY wish...they get what they deserve.....

If he is joking.....let him say what he really meant....If he works for the people who wish to subjugate us....I refuse to take back one word.....

My job is to observe....not to judge.......Because I am quite nasty against what I perceive as evil....that is why judgement is placed in hands much greater than mine......I just observe.....and make suggestions based upon what I have observed.......sometimes going over the top like this is the only way to make evil's minions turn away from their evil masters.........when they think of the consequences of losing their family for the part they played in giving their masters power......someone who is good in heart but works for evil can be converted.....I know it is toughlove......but sometimes it saves those who are good at heart.....