Aspartame - Would you ban it?

Agent CSL

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2008
Messages
2,241
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
 
You can thank the FDA and Donald Rumsfeld for aspartame. Stevia, on the other hand, a natural no calorie sweetener with no side effects is of course banned by our FDA as a sweetener, and any food product containing stevia must be labeled a nutritional supplement and not just food.

One more reason to eliminate the FDA, it has the opposite effect of its purpose.

Yongel you should see a doctor.
 
The basic question seems to be should products that harm people be allowed to contunue to be sold or is it the right of the manufacturer to harm people? If aspartame causes harm- should it still be sold?
 
It's the right of the people to choose what they put into their bodies and it is the responsibility of individuals to make their own decisions. If they don't like it then they can stop drinking it.

I don't care if Yongrel wants to drink Diet Coke. His body, not mine. He isn't infringing on my rights at all. What business is it of mine if my neighbor likes to drink Diet Coke?
 
You can thank the FDA and Donald Rumsfeld for aspartame. Stevia, on the other hand, a natural no calorie sweetener with no side effects is of course banned by our FDA as a sweetener, and any food product containing stevia must be labeled a nutritional supplement and not just food.

One more reason to eliminate the FDA, it has the opposite effect of its purpose.

Yongel you should see a doctor.

I rarely use any sweeteners, including sugar, but when I do, I use stevia. A natural sweetener used for thousands of years that has had no adverse effects. Available in the United States for a very high price (artificially inflated as to not compete with Donald Rumsfeld's (Aspertame Man) and Montsanto's cancer causing aspertame. ) I have no problem if people want to use aspertame and die a slow death. I just have a problem that they are not informed about the dangers of it.

Legal genocide and population control has become big money....we just aren't suppose to know about it.

Cheers, drink up Yongrel ;)!

How Aspartame Became Legal - The Timeline

From Rich Murray

12-24-2


From Norfolk Genetic Information Network (Taken from Welcome to the Spin Machine by Michael Manville http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/2001/04/biotech/ http://www.freezerbox.com/ )

In 1985 Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame's clouded past, including a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it "might induce brain tumors."

The FDA had actually banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld (currently the Secretary of Defense) vow to "call in his markers," to get it approved.

On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener, and Reagan's new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's decision.

It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision, but Hull then installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame's favor. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame.


The Aspartame/NutraSweet Timeline

http://www.swankin-turner.com/aspartame.html http://www.swankin-turner.com/hist.html

Aspartame/NutraSweet: The History of the Aspartame Controversy

By James Turner, ESQ. Director of the National Institute of Science, Law, and Public Policy (NISLAPP)

National Institute of Science, Law, and Public Policy 1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 330, Washington, DC 20036 (202) 462-8800 Fax: (202) 265-6564 [email protected]

Timeline

December 1965-- While working on an ulcer drug, James Schlatter, a chemist at G.D. Searle, accidentally discovers aspartame, a substance that is 180 times sweeter than sugar yet has no calories.

Spring 1967-- Searle begins the safety tests on aspartame that are necessary for applying for FDA approval of food additives.

Fall 1967-- Dr. Harold Waisman, a biochemist at the University of Wisconsin, conducts aspartame safety tests on infant monkeys on behalf of the Searle Company. Of the seven monkeys that were being fed aspartame mixed with milk, one dies and five others have grand mal seizures.

November 1970-- Cyclamate, the reigning low-calorie artificial sweetener -- is pulled off the market after some scientists associate it with cancer. Questions are also raised about safety of saccharin, the only other artificial sweetener on the market, leaving the field wide open for aspartame.

December 18, 1970-- Searle Company executives lay 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 describes psychological tactics the company should use to bring the FDA into a subconscious spirit of participation" with them on aspartame and get FDA regulators into the "habit of saying, "Yes"."

Spring 1971-- Neuroscientist Dr. John Olney (whose pioneering work with monosodium glutamate was responsible for having it removed from baby foods) informs Searle that his studies show that aspartic acid (one of the 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.

February 1973-- After spending tens of millions of dollars conducting safety tests, the G.D. Searle Company applies for FDA approval and submits over 100 studies they claim support aspartame's safety.

March 5, 1973-- One of the first FDA scientists to review the aspartame safety data states that "the information provided (by Searle) is inadequate to permit an evaluation of the potential toxicity of aspartame". She says in her report that in order to be certain that aspartame is safe, further clinical tests are needed.

May 1974-- Attorney, Jim Turner (consumer advocate who was instrumental in getting cyclamate taken off the market) meets with Searle representatives to discuss Dr. Olney's 1971 study which showed that aspartic acid caused holes in the brains of infant mice.

July 26, 1974-- The FDA grants aspartame its first approval for restricted use in dry foods.

August 1974-- Jim Turner and Dr. John Olney file the first objections against aspartame's approval.

March 24, 1976-- Turner and Olney's petition triggers an FDA investigation of the laboratory practices of aspartame's manufacturer, G.D. Searle. The investigation finds Searle's testing procedures shoddy, full of inaccuracies and "manipulated" test data. The investigators report they "had never seen anything as bad as Searle's testing."

January 10, 1977-- The FDA formally requests the U.S. Attorney's office to begin grand jury proceedings to investigate whether indictments should be filed against Searle for knowingly misrepresenting findings and "concealing material facts and making false statements" in aspartame safety tests. This is the first time in the FDA's history that they request a criminal investigation of a manufacturer.

January 26, 1977-- While the grand jury probe is underway, Sidley & Austin, the law firm representing Searle, begins job negotiations with the U.S. Attorney in charge of the investigation, Samuel Skinner.

March 8, 1977-- G. D. Searle hires prominent Washington insider Donald Rumsfeld as the new CEO to try to turn the beleaguered company around. A former Member of Congress and Secretary of Defense in the Ford Administration, Rumsfeld brings in several of his Washington cronies as top management.

July 1, 1977-- Samuel Skinner leaves the U.S. Attorney's office and takes a job with Searle's law firm. (see Jan. 26th)

August 1, 1977-- The Bressler Report, compiled by FDA investigators and headed by Jerome Bressler, is released. The report finds that 98 of the 196 animals died during one of Searle's studies and weren't autopsied until later dates, in some cases over one year after death. Many other errors and inconsistencies are noted. For example, a rat was reported alive, then dead, then alive, then dead again; a mass, a uterine polyp, and ovarian neoplasms were found in animals but not reported or diagnosed in Searle's reports.

December 8, 1977-- U.S. Attorney Skinner's withdrawal and resignation stalls the Searle grand jury investigation for so long that the statue of limitations on the aspartame charges runs out. The grand jury investigation is dropped.

June 1, 1979-- The FDA established a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) to rule on safety issues surrounding NutraSweet.

September 30, 1980-- The Public Board of Inquiry concludes NutraSweet should not be approved pending further investigations of brain tumors in animals. The board states it "has not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive."

January 1981-- Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of Searle, states in a sales meeting that he is going to make a big push to get aspartame approved within the year. Rumsfeld says he will use his political pull in Washington, rather than scientific means, to make sure it gets approved.

January 21, 1981-- Ronald Reagan is sworn in as President of the United States. Reagan's transition team, which includes Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of G. D. Searle, hand picks Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. to be the new FDA Commissioner.

March, 1981-- An FDA commissioner's panel is established to review issues raised by the Public Board of Inquiry.

May 19, 1981-- Three of six in-house FDA scientists who were responsible for reviewing the brain tumor issues, Dr. Robert Condon, Dr. Satya Dubey, and Dr. Douglas Park, advise against approval of NutraSweet, stating on the record that the Searle tests are unreliable and not adequate to determine the safety of aspartame.

July 15, 1981-- In one of his first official acts, Dr. Arthur Hayes Jr., the new FDA commissioner, overrules the Public Board of Inquiry, ignores the recommendations of his own internal FDA team and approves NutraSweet for dry products. Hayes says that aspartame has been shown to be safe for its' proposed uses and says few compounds have withstood such detailed testing and repeated close scrutiny.

October 15, 1982-- The FDA announces that Searle has filed a petition that aspartame be approved as a sweetener in carbonated beverages and other liquids.

July 1, 1983-- The National Soft Drink Association (NSDA) urges the FDA to delay approval of aspartame for carbonated beverages pending further testing because aspartame is very unstable in liquid form. When liquid aspartame is stored in temperatures above 85 degrees Fahrenheit, it breaks down into DKP and formaldehyde, both of which are known toxins.

July 8, 1983-- The National Soft Drink Association drafts an objection to the final ruling which permits the use of aspartame in carbonated beverages and syrup bases and requests a hearing on the objections. The association says that Searle has not provided responsible certainty that aspartame and its' degradation products are safe for use in soft drinks.

August 8, 1983-- Consumer Attorney, Jim Turner of the Community Nutrition Institute and Dr. Woodrow Monte, Arizona State University's Director of Food Science and Nutritional Laboratories, file suit with the FDA objecting to aspartame approval based on unresolved safety issues.

September, 1983-- FDA Commissioner Hayes resigns under a cloud of controversy about his taking unauthorized rides aboard a General Foods jet. (General foods is a major customer of NutraSweet) Burson-Marsteller, Searle's public relation firm (which also represented several of NutraSweet's major users), immediately hires Hayes as senior scientific consultant.

Fall 1983-- The first carbonated beverages containing aspartame are sold for public consumption.

November 1984-- Center for Disease Control (CDC) "Evaluation of consumer complaints related to aspartame use." (summary by B. Mullarkey)

November 3, 1987-- U.S. hearing, "NutraSweet: Health and Safety Concerns," Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Senator Howard Metzenbaum, chairman.

Aspartame What You Don"t Know Can Hurt You

http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/not_natural.htm
 
It's the right of the people to choose what they put into their bodies and it is the responsibility of individuals to make their own decisions. If they don't like it then they can stop drinking it.

I don't care if Yongrel wants to drink Diet Coke. His body, not mine. He isn't infringing on my rights at all. What business is it of mine if my neighbor likes to drink Diet Coke?
Is it the responsibility of the consumer to know about everything that might be harmful - who has the time for that? Acting responsibly assumes that you have accurate information to act on. They like to be able to rely on organizations like the FDA to keep an eye on things for them. Should every item include a list of the things it might do to harm someone? If everything has a list, nobody would read them.
 
No, the FDA is a JOKE. It should be shut down, not entrusted with more power to "keep us safe".

The information is out there. I'm pretty sure everyone has heard that aspartame is bad for you. If they can't bring themselves to look it up, not my problem. If they know and don't care, their choice. I look at labels when I shop. Aspartame doesn't go into my grocery cart (it is listed on labels) and I don't need the FDA to tell me that it's okay or it isn't okay. As far I'm concerned, they lost all credibility a long time ago.

I won't argue a person's right to know. That right to know, though, is their responsibility- not government's. They have to exercise it, not depend on some big govt agency tied to corporations to tell them what to do, eat, drink, etc.
 
They like to be able to rely on organizations like the FDA to keep an eye on things for them.

Sure, and they do such a fantastic job! I can't even begin to count all the times the FDA has royally f'ed up yet people keep relying on them. That's just stupidity imo. Just like trusting McCain to get us out of war. Relying on MSM for objective journalism and keeping us informed. DHS will keep us safe! DoE will make sure every kid gets a quality education. :rolleyes: We know it's all just a big charade.
 
You guys are funny.

Adpartame is actually a component of breastmilk, although not in concentrations similar to Diet Coke
 
Dr. Thomas Hale (Medications and Mother's Milk 2000) says that in doses 3 to 4 times higher than what would typically be ingested, "the milk levels are too low to produce significant side effects in normal infants".

Aspartame is made from things which occur in much larger quantities in other parts of our diet, and our bodies digest it completely naturally. The principal components of aspartame are two building blocks of protein - phenylalanine and aspartic acid, which are just like those found in eggs, fruit, cheese or fish. And even in mothers' milk.

According to Breastfeeding and Human Lactation, Riordan and Auerbach,

Aspartate (the conjugate base of aspartic acid) is not present in colostrum (days of life 1-5) but is in mature breastmilk >30 days at levels of 110mg/100ml

Phenylalanine is present in colostrum (days of life 1-5) at levels of 105mg/100ml and is in mature breastmilk >30days at levels of 44mg/100ml

To the best of my knowledge, those are the 2 components of aspartame - right?

If I'm wrong, please correct me.
 
Dr. Thomas Hale (Medications and Mother's Milk 2000) says that in doses 3 to 4 times higher than what would typically be ingested, "the milk levels are too low to produce significant side effects in normal infants".

Aspartame is made from things which occur in much larger quantities in other parts of our diet, and our bodies digest it completely naturally. The principal components of aspartame are two building blocks of protein - phenylalanine and aspartic acid, which are just like those found in eggs, fruit, cheese or fish. And even in mothers' milk.

According to Breastfeeding and Human Lactation, Riordan and Auerbach,

Aspartate (the conjugate base of aspartic acid) is not present in colostrum (days of life 1-5) but is in mature breastmilk >30 days at levels of 110mg/100ml

Phenylalanine is present in colostrum (days of life 1-5) at levels of 105mg/100ml and is in mature breastmilk >30days at levels of 44mg/100ml

To the best of my knowledge, those are the 2 components of aspartame - right?

If I'm wrong, please correct me.


but do they exist as aspartame or as individual pieces?
 
Arsenic is natural too and you don't want to consume too much of it. Another of its components is wood alcohol which can be poisonous. When aspertame breaks down, one of the results is formaldehyde.
I one study on aspertame and depression by the NIH, the study had to be halted because of the severe effected noted in subjects.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8373935?dopt=Abstract
Adverse reactions to aspartame: double-blind challenge in patients from a vulnerable population.

Walton RG, Hudak R, Green-Waite RJ.

Department of Psychiatry, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Youngstown.

This study was designed to ascertain whether individuals with mood disorders are particularly vulnerable to adverse effects of aspartame. Although the protocol required the recruitment of 40 patients with unipolar depression and a similar number of individuals without a psychiatric history, the project was halted by the Institutional Review Board after a total of 13 individuals had completed the study because of the severity of reactions within the group of patients with a history of depression. In a crossover design, subjects received aspartame 30 mg/kg/day or placebo for 7 days. Despite the small n, there was a significant difference between aspartame and placebo in number and severity of symptoms for patients with a history of depression, whereas for individuals without such a history there was not. We conclude that individuals with mood disorders are particularly sensitive to this artificial sweetener and its use in this population should be discouraged.
 
I wouldn't ban it, but I read up on it and I'm going with sucralose. They do have version of diet coke that uses that over aspartame now--so I can have soda again.
 
You may be interested in: http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20040630/artificial-sweeteners-damage-diet-efforts
Artificial Sweeteners May Damage Diet Efforts
Sugar Substitutes May Distort the Body's Natural Calorie Counter

WebMD Medical NewsJune 30, 2004 -- Sugar substitutes may offer sweet treats for calorie-conscious dieters, but a new study shows that they may also play tricks on the body and sabotage weight-loss efforts.

Researchers say artificial sweeteners may interfere with the body's natural ability to count calories based on a food's sweetness and make people prone to overindulging in other sweet foods and beverages.

For example, drinking a diet soft drink rather than a sugary one at lunch may reduce the calorie count of the meal, but it may trick the body into thinking that other sweet items don't have as many calories either.

Researchers say the findings show that losing the ability to judge a food's calorie content based on its sweetness may be contributing to the dramatic rise in overweight and obesity rates in the U.S.

But don't ditch your diet drink yet.

"The message is not to give up your diet soda and go drink a regular soda," says researcher Susan Swithers, PhD, associate professor of psychological sciences at Purdue University. "But when you do drink beverages you probably need to pay a little more attention to whether they have calories or not and what the consequences of that fact will be on the rest of your diet."

Sweetness Provides Calorie-Counting Clues
Swithers says that in the past, a food's sweetness provided valuable clues about its caloric content, and something sweet was usually a good source of energy.

"Before things like artificial sweeteners, these relationships would be very reliable," says Swithers. "Animals needed to find good sources of calories and needed to know whether eating something provided them with lots of calories."

"It's only been relatively recently that foods have been introduced that violate those kind of relationships, such as something very sweet that has no calories," Swithers tells WebMD.

According to researchers, the number of Americans who consume sugar-free, artificially sweetened products has grown from less than 70 million in 1987 to more than 160 million in 2000.

At the same time that more people are drinking and eating foods sweetened with low-calorie sweeteners, such as aspartame and saccharin, they're not getting any thinner. In contrast, more people are becoming overweight or obese.

That prompted researchers to test whether not being able to use sensory clues to predict the calorie content of foods might contribute to overeating and weight gain.

Artificial Sweeteners May Trick the Brain
In the study, published in the July issue of the International Journal of Obesity, two groups of rats were fed either a mix of high-calorie, sugar-sweetened, and low-calorie, artificially sweetened liquids; or sugar-sweetened liquids alone. This was fed to the rats in addition their regular diet. After 10 days, they were offered a high-calorie, chocolate-flavored snack.

The study showed that rats fed the mixed liquids ate more of their regular chow after the sweet snack than those who had been fed sugar-sweetened liquids alone.

Researchers say the results show that the experience of drinking artificially sweetened, low-calorie liquids had damaged the rats' natural ability to compensate for the calories in the snack.

Manipulating Food Can Derail Diets
Health psychologist Daniel C. Stettner, PhD, says damaging the body's natural ability to count calories based on food's sweetness is just one way in which food can be manipulated to change eating habits and contribute to obesity.

"We do more to manipulate food than just add artificial sweeteners. The food industry plays with the sugar, the fat, and the salt," Stettner tells WebMD. "It's like a shell game."

Stettner says that when manufacturers lower the sugar content in foods, they typically increase the fat or the salt content to compensate for any change in how it tastes or feels in the mouth. For example, sugar-free ice creams can be made higher in fat content.

"Sugar-free foods can still be calorie-dense, and that can mess up weight," says Stettner, who specializes in weight issues at Northpointe Health Center in Berkley, Mich.

Stettner says the body's natural calorie counter and sense of balance is also affected by genetics, environment, marketing, and physical activity level, which were not taken into account by this study.

"So many factors contribute to obesity," says Stettner. Although artificial sweeteners may alter the eating behavior of rats, he says the same principle may not necessarily apply to humans.

Swithers says that many types of learning processes translate from rats to humans, but she acknowledges that the loss of the ability to judge the calorie content of sweet foods is probably just one of the contributors to the rise in overweight and obesity.

However, she says humans also have a distinct advantage over rats when it comes to controlling how many calories they put into their body.

"Rats can't read the labels, but we can," says Swithers. "We have to take that extra step of reading the labels or asking how many calories are in there. That may be enough so that we can compensate for those sweet calories."


A more recent study: http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=4271246&page=1

Another: http://www.janethull.com/askdrhull/article.php?id=053
Can Splenda Cause Weight Gain?

Yes, all diet sweeteners can cause weight gain for many reasons. The body doesn’t consider Splenda (or any chemical sweetener) as food; therefore, fake sugars don’t satisfy your body’s demand for nourishment, which in turn increases your craving for real food.

Simple carbs (manmade sugars) pass through the intestinal wall into the bloodstream. This means weight gain, increased fat and elevated blood sugar that can lead to weight gain. And Splenda is a simple carbohydrate!

Carbohydrates are the most abundant source of energy found in nature. They are products of plant photosynthesis, which provide the plant’s fuel for life in the form of sugar. When we eat complex carbs, we are eating the plant’s energy, which in turn becomes our own energy. When we eat the right kind of carbs, we are providing our bodies with fuel so we can perform daily activities from thinking about work to walking up a flight of stairs. If you are eating a balanced diet with reasonably sized portions, carbohydrates from natural sugars should not cause weight gain. But these days we are victims of the “fear of carbs and sugar” fad, and the artificial sweetener manufacturers seem to be taking advantage of this with a "sugar-free" marketing frenzy. And don't forget that Splenda is a simple carb.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top