• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Aspartame

Status
Not open for further replies.
What is your answer to this one then,Martin.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">ADA: Splenda Brand Sweetener is the only artificial, no-calorie sweetener made from sugar. It contains sucralose and has no effect on blood glucose levels. Equal brand sweetener contains aspartame and will also not increase your glucose levels.<b> Aspartame should not be used by people with a rare hereditary disorder called phenylketonuria.</b> Splenda and Equal are both appropriate sweeteners for people with diabetes.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">



Knowledge is the key to control
 
SS- please look up phenylketonuria on google. It is a gene linked enzyme deficiency. When you have this metabolic defiency, you really have it. Thats why all foods are labelled in reference to it.

Marty B
 
Fair point Martin,but I have seen reference to Aspatame and phenylalanine on several medical sites that I regularly use for reference,enough to be thought provoking.I'm old enough to have seen the damage Thalidimide did to babies,no one thought that an anti-morning sickness pill was harmful!I'd say,if there's the slightest doubt,don't take it!

Knowledge is the key to control
 
Yup- one has to have a healthy scepticism regarding PLC drug companies whose main responsibilty is to the shareholder. Look at the recent debacle over withheld adverse reactions to certain anti-depressants.

Marty B
 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by martinbuchan</i>
<br />Yup- one has to have a healthy scepticism regarding PLC drug companies whose main responsibilty is to the shareholder. Look at the recent debacle over withheld adverse reaction reporting to certain anti-depressants.

Marty B
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Marty B
 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by martinbuchan</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by martinbuchan</i>
<br />Yup- one has to have a healthy scepticism regarding PLC drug companies whose main responsibilty is to the shareholder. Look at the recent debacle over withheld adverse reaction reporting to certain anti-depressants.

Marty B
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Marty B
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The sad thing about that is that those reactions have been known about for quite some time!!

Knowledge is the key to control
 
Well to start with it is a non disputed fact that Aspartame, when it dissolves into the different chemical substances, that formaldehyde is one of the by products that it leaves behind in our system,this as you know is a very toxic substance and rarely found in living organisms, and is a very carcinogenic substance (cancer causing substance.) the use of this substance has been banned in many different countries.At concentrations above 0.1 ppm in air, formaldehyde can irritate the eyes and mucous membranes,So why are we putting something into our mouths that creates this substance in the body.One can only imagine what damage it is doing as it breaks down in our system
The FDA was mentioned in other post, well here is something that was sent In an open letter to the FDA by The late FDA Toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross, testified to the Senate: "In view of all these indications that the cancer-causing potential of aspartame is a matter that had been established way beyond any reasonable doubt, one can ask: What is the reason for the apparent refusal by the FDA to invoke for this food additive the so-called Delaney Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act? Is it clear beyond any shadow of a doubt that aspartame has caused brain tumors or brain cancer in animals?

"Given that this is so (and I cannot see any kind of tenable argument opposing the view that aspartame causes cancer) how would the FDA justify its position that it views a certain amount of aspartame (50mgm/kgm body weight) as constituting an ADI (Allowable Daily Intake) or "safe" level of it? Is that position not equivalent to setting a "tolerance" for this food additive and thus a violation of that law? And if the FDA itself elects to violate the law, who is left to protect the health of the public?" Your toxicologist admitted you broke the law by approving aspartame!!!
FDA broke other laws, as shown in the National Soft Drink Associations long protest against approval, found in the Senate Congressional Record of 5/7/85 Pages S5507-9: Section 402 of the FDC Act 21 provides a food is adulterated if it contains, in whole or in part a decomposed substance or if it is otherwise unfit for food. Searle has not demonstrated to a reasonable certainty that aspartame and its degradation products are safe for use in soft drinks. ... Aspartame is inherently markedly and uniquely unstable in aqueous media. In a liquid such as a soft drink aspartame will degrade as a function of temperature and pH.When responsible scientists, physicians and legislators try to protect us from these criminals the industry with bottomless checkbooks annihilate our rights and welfare. Arizona DHS studies showed aspartame in beverages breaks down into free methanol, wood alcohol, formaldehyde, diketopiperazine, formic acid (among other toxins), and a ban of aspartame was being considered. In 1985 Dr. Woodrow Monte, Director of Food Science and Nutrition Lab, Arizona State University, petitioned for a hearing to ban aspartame, because high temperatures in that state accelerate methanol and formaldehyde formation. By an unusual maneuver the legislature altered the text in a Toxic Waste Bill so to ban regulation of FDA-approved food additives. This scuttled the hearing Dr Monte had been promised.

So as you can plainly see, there is a massive cover up going on over Aspartame and as been going on for years. we as ordinary people are being poisoned. thats not just my opnion.

Regards

claire





The Truth is out there
 
Aye- the companies knew about it for a long time and the medics have been gathering robust data to prove it. In the meantime these companies made a fortune and kept the shareholders happy.

What we need is evidence without COI.

Marty B
 
50mg per kg upper limit. That is over 1100 sachets of canderel for me. Who the hell eats all that? Psychiatrist intervention is needed for that.

You might as well eat the lower limb of a preserved cadaver to ingest all that formaldehyde.
 
Does seems excessive yes, i agree. Two points to remember here though. firstly, who actually tells us what are the safe limits of intake, of course it's the people who make the stuff in the first place.So can we really trust that source given the nature of the cover up. Secondly, The intake and production of the toxic chemicals build up over time. if you eat less of this stuff it just takes longer until it has an effect on your biology. although saying that, if you take a normal persons diet who are sugar free because of diabetes for instance, its not excessive to have two canderal in your tea, 6 to 8 cups a day, works out at 72 to 96 tablets a week, not to mention the bits that are included in the food products like pudding, fruit drinks ect. bet that soon adds up in the week, it is'nt just a case for most people that they just put it in tea or coffee, its in most sugar free and low sugar products.

regards

claire

The Truth is out there
 
Sparkle - sorry but it is not the manufacturers who define the safe consumption limit - it is the result of the tox testing. Strangely enough it is well known that consume too much of anything and it will kill you - too much carbs - too much fat - too much sugar, etc, etc. And before we get into arguements about animal testing - don't. It's a separate issue! The point is - the limits are not some conspiracy to make you consume loads of sweetener or protect someone's business

As for acspamulation of the chemicals in our body - fair point - but the tox studies also take this into acount
 
Re:

sparkle73 said:
Tell me martin, why are you soooooooooo dedicated to proving us wrong, even on the other post saying that our baby site is just a baby site it doesnt prove anything. (indicating that yet again i am fake, my baby site is made up) Seems to me that you are going out of your way with this.. its ok you quoting things from sites, i could do the same damming Aspartame left right and center in the end you can quote all you like, you cant take away the facts that this stuff breaks down into very toxic chemicals in the body,or are you going to tell us all next that the stuff they embalm dead bodies with, which is a chemical that Aspartame makes in our body as it breaks down, is good for us. it has been banned in many different countries. why is that excatly if its so safe. Dont tell me, its 'cos they are all stupid,and in the pay of the sugar companies. your aurgument for Aspartame is flawed. you ignore the true fact that is not disputed, ie, the chemical breakdown substances in the body, and then try and tell us there can be no truth in what i am saying. You dont have to be sherlock holmes to see, just on that evidence alone, at the very least there is reason to be suspicious of it. Lets take on another way of looking at this. Forget you know anything about Aspartame,it doesnt exist,it isnt in any of our favourite drinks or cakes and sweets, then one day you hear of someone selling a tablet that is 200 times sweeter than sugar,but as a downside that it breaks down to all this nasty chemical stuff in your body. who would buy such stuff and deliberatly eat that. i wouldnt think anybody would. We never got a choice though before it was in everything. A sayings spring to mind here.

No smoke without fire. and there is plenty of fire.

http://sugarfreepoison.myfreeforum.org/about13.html
http://sugarfreepoison.myfreeforum.org/about14.html

regards
claire


The Truth is out there
Click to expand...
i think the moderators need to take a look at this thread for it is getting out of hand.
 
I think everone has now had their say on this subject and I am going to lock the topic! New board,new beginning!Let's move on....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top