Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Replies
-
Can't use the stuff, it triggers terrible mind fugue and migraines for me.0
-
I limit my intake of foods containing aspartame due the side effects it causes me.
Aspartame has a negative effect on my sleep, causing me severe insomnia, and also give me headaches.
Now that I am TTC, I will further limit food additives, especially any that are controversial.0 -
You do realize the only thing that makes it artificial is the fact that they took the two amino acids and put them together, right? The amino acids themselves are natural, as they are created by bacteria. And plenty of natural substances are patented. Do you really think all these various cultivars of apples aren't patented by their creators? They are. Please stop talking if you don't know what you are actually talking about.Are there people who may be negatively affected by aspartame? Sure, they may have allergic reactions (it's a protein after all.) People are also negatively affected by strawberries, peanuts, shellfish, eggs, and milk, but that doesn't make any of those foods bad for the rest of the population.
Exactly!
For every product on the market, someone some place will have a negative reaction. This doesn't mean the product is bad. I can't take aspirin because of stomach sensitivity but I won’t run around screaming the sky is falling. It simply means I can’t take freaking aspirin.
There is a broader question at hand. And that is, do we really want to do an experiment where we unnecessarily expose the populace to a host of synthetic chemicals that have only been part of the physical milieu for less than a dozen decades? (As just one "minor" illustration, even aspirin, in high doses, is linked to cerebral hemorrhage and other bleeding disorders.) There is no assurance that any of these chemicals are safe in the longer term--and NO ONE has any idea whether the COMBINATION of these synthetic chemicals is safe. As a further concern, epigenetics tells us that we may not only be endangering ourselves but future generations as well. Should we not question the unnecessary exposure to synthetic chemicals? Aspartame may or may not be "scary" but is it really necessary?
1. I'm not an expert on epigenetics, but from what I understand of it I don't think that's really how that works.
2. Most of these chemicals, including aspartame, are made up of components that we encounter all the time. There is zero reason to think that somehow because the chemicals were put together in a lab setting instead of synthesized in a plant that our bodies will somehow respond to them differently.
3. This thread is going to roll on the next post. I will not be commenting again because I just want this damn thing off my recent topics list.
1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.
From "What is epigenetics?" The field of epigenetics is quickly growing and with it the understanding that BOTH THE ENVIRONMENT AND INDIVIDUAL LIFESTYLE CAN ALSO DIRECTLY INTERACT WITH THE GENOME TO INFLUENCE EPIGENETIC CHANGE. These changes may be reflected at various stages throughout a person’s life AND EVEN IN LATER GENERATIONS. For example, human epidemiological studies have provided evidence that prenatal and early postnatal environmental factors influence the adult risk of developing various chronic diseases and behavioral disorders.[1] Studies have shown that children born during the period of the Dutch famine from 1944-1945 have increased rates of coronary heart disease and obesity after maternal exposure to famine during early pregnancy compared to those not exposed to famine.
2. "...Aspartame is an ARTIFICIAL, non-saccharide sweetener used as a sugar substitute in some foods and beverages... Aspartame is a methyl ester of the aspartic acid/phenylalanine dipeptide. It was first sold under the brand name NutraSweet; It was first SYNTHESIZED in 1965 and the PATENT expired in 1992..."
Natural substances are not termed "artificial" nor are they patentable.
The fact that they do not occur together in nature should give one pause for thought. And there is currently a lot of controversy over what should be patentable and what should not. I have no doubt that monied interests will make sure to patent whatever they can get away with patenting. But there are many ethical considerations.
From the Rand Corporation website: "In this essay, the authors discuss the issues surrounding patenting products of nature. The central legal problem is how to distinguish a natural substance, for example, naturally occurring DNA, from a patentable invention. The authors suggest that the gbssubstantial transformation test (STT) used in customs law might be able to make this distinction. If adopted by Congress or the judiciary, the STT would maintain the patent law's integrity while resolving many of the economic and ETHICAL POLICY concerns surrounding current patent practices, they note." (emphasis mine)
Brave New World--and there are many cheerleaders for it but it doesn't make their cause a worthy or safe one.1 -
Why would not occurring in nature be a problem? This seems to be presented as true on face value and I do not see it. My lifestyle is full of clothing, medicine and foods that are artificial and the only thing really attacking me and making me sick right now is 100% natural tree pollen.2
-
Keep eating all the poisons....fools.
MyFitnessPal Site-wide Community Guidelines
1. No Attacks or Insults and No Reciprocation
a) Do not attack, mock, or otherwise insult others. You can respectfully disagree with the message or topic, but you cannot attack the messenger. This includes attacks against the user’s spelling or command of written English, or belittling a user for posting a duplicate topic.
b) If you are attacked by another user, and you reciprocate, you will also be subject to the same consequences. Defending yourself or a friend is not an excuse! Do not take matters into your own hands – instead, use the Report Post link to report an attack and we will be happy to handle the situation for you.0 -
Keep eating all the poisons....fools.
Like Conium maculatum? Otherwise known as hemlock. Totally natural, so it must be good, right?0 -
:laugh: I used to have an arsenic specimen too. It's got a beautiful crystalline structure and natural too.Keep eating all the poisons....fools.
Like Conium maculatum? Otherwise known as hemlock. Totally natural, so it must be good, right?0 -
look i think it's not dangerous BUT some people can just be sensitive to it, have an allergic reaction, or just a bad reaction. Like how nuts are good for you and some are allergic to it and how cigarettes are bad and yet my grannie's 100 yrs old and was smoking since she was 16. The human body is an amazing complicated system and what science already knows about it just scraps the surface. Theres no point in getting to aggressive about this people.
I'm allergic to beef ffs.0 -
Does the fact that smoked salmon does not occur in nature indicate that we should also avoid it on those grounds? Does distilled, bottled water also give pause for thought?
You do realize the only thing that makes it artificial is the fact that they took the two amino acids and put them together, right? The amino acids themselves are natural, as they are created by bacteria. And plenty of natural substances are patented. Do you really think all these various cultivars of apples aren't patented by their creators? They are. Please stop talking if you don't know what you are actually talking about.Are there people who may be negatively affected by aspartame? Sure, they may have allergic reactions (it's a protein after all.) People are also negatively affected by strawberries, peanuts, shellfish, eggs, and milk, but that doesn't make any of those foods bad for the rest of the population.
Exactly!
For every product on the market, someone some place will have a negative reaction. This doesn't mean the product is bad. I can't take aspirin because of stomach sensitivity but I won’t run around screaming the sky is falling. It simply means I can’t take freaking aspirin.
There is a broader question at hand. And that is, do we really want to do an experiment where we unnecessarily expose the populace to a host of synthetic chemicals that have only been part of the physical milieu for less than a dozen decades? (As just one "minor" illustration, even aspirin, in high doses, is linked to cerebral hemorrhage and other bleeding disorders.) There is no assurance that any of these chemicals are safe in the longer term--and NO ONE has any idea whether the COMBINATION of these synthetic chemicals is safe. As a further concern, epigenetics tells us that we may not only be endangering ourselves but future generations as well. Should we not question the unnecessary exposure to synthetic chemicals? Aspartame may or may not be "scary" but is it really necessary?
1. I'm not an expert on epigenetics, but from what I understand of it I don't think that's really how that works.
2. Most of these chemicals, including aspartame, are made up of components that we encounter all the time. There is zero reason to think that somehow because the chemicals were put together in a lab setting instead of synthesized in a plant that our bodies will somehow respond to them differently.
3. This thread is going to roll on the next post. I will not be commenting again because I just want this damn thing off my recent topics list.
1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.
From "What is epigenetics?" The field of epigenetics is quickly growing and with it the understanding that BOTH THE ENVIRONMENT AND INDIVIDUAL LIFESTYLE CAN ALSO DIRECTLY INTERACT WITH THE GENOME TO INFLUENCE EPIGENETIC CHANGE. These changes may be reflected at various stages throughout a person’s life AND EVEN IN LATER GENERATIONS. For example, human epidemiological studies have provided evidence that prenatal and early postnatal environmental factors influence the adult risk of developing various chronic diseases and behavioral disorders.[1] Studies have shown that children born during the period of the Dutch famine from 1944-1945 have increased rates of coronary heart disease and obesity after maternal exposure to famine during early pregnancy compared to those not exposed to famine.
2. "...Aspartame is an ARTIFICIAL, non-saccharide sweetener used as a sugar substitute in some foods and beverages... Aspartame is a methyl ester of the aspartic acid/phenylalanine dipeptide. It was first sold under the brand name NutraSweet; It was first SYNTHESIZED in 1965 and the PATENT expired in 1992..."
Natural substances are not termed "artificial" nor are they patentable.
The fact that they do not occur together in nature should give one pause for thought. And there is currently a lot of controversy over what should be patentable and what should not. I have no doubt that monied interests will make sure to patent whatever they can get away with patenting. But there are many ethical considerations.
If yes, why? If not, what makes them distinct from aspartame?0 -
Does the fact that smoked salmon does not occur in nature indicate that we should also avoid it on those grounds? Does distilled, bottled water also give pause for thought?
You do realize the only thing that makes it artificial is the fact that they took the two amino acids and put them together, right? The amino acids themselves are natural, as they are created by bacteria. And plenty of natural substances are patented. Do you really think all these various cultivars of apples aren't patented by their creators? They are. Please stop talking if you don't know what you are actually talking about.Are there people who may be negatively affected by aspartame? Sure, they may have allergic reactions (it's a protein after all.) People are also negatively affected by strawberries, peanuts, shellfish, eggs, and milk, but that doesn't make any of those foods bad for the rest of the population.
Exactly!
For every product on the market, someone some place will have a negative reaction. This doesn't mean the product is bad. I can't take aspirin because of stomach sensitivity but I won’t run around screaming the sky is falling. It simply means I can’t take freaking aspirin.
There is a broader question at hand. And that is, do we really want to do an experiment where we unnecessarily expose the populace to a host of synthetic chemicals that have only been part of the physical milieu for less than a dozen decades? (As just one "minor" illustration, even aspirin, in high doses, is linked to cerebral hemorrhage and other bleeding disorders.) There is no assurance that any of these chemicals are safe in the longer term--and NO ONE has any idea whether the COMBINATION of these synthetic chemicals is safe. As a further concern, epigenetics tells us that we may not only be endangering ourselves but future generations as well. Should we not question the unnecessary exposure to synthetic chemicals? Aspartame may or may not be "scary" but is it really necessary?
1. I'm not an expert on epigenetics, but from what I understand of it I don't think that's really how that works.
2. Most of these chemicals, including aspartame, are made up of components that we encounter all the time. There is zero reason to think that somehow because the chemicals were put together in a lab setting instead of synthesized in a plant that our bodies will somehow respond to them differently.
3. This thread is going to roll on the next post. I will not be commenting again because I just want this damn thing off my recent topics list.
1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.
From "What is epigenetics?" The field of epigenetics is quickly growing and with it the understanding that BOTH THE ENVIRONMENT AND INDIVIDUAL LIFESTYLE CAN ALSO DIRECTLY INTERACT WITH THE GENOME TO INFLUENCE EPIGENETIC CHANGE. These changes may be reflected at various stages throughout a person’s life AND EVEN IN LATER GENERATIONS. For example, human epidemiological studies have provided evidence that prenatal and early postnatal environmental factors influence the adult risk of developing various chronic diseases and behavioral disorders.[1] Studies have shown that children born during the period of the Dutch famine from 1944-1945 have increased rates of coronary heart disease and obesity after maternal exposure to famine during early pregnancy compared to those not exposed to famine.
2. "...Aspartame is an ARTIFICIAL, non-saccharide sweetener used as a sugar substitute in some foods and beverages... Aspartame is a methyl ester of the aspartic acid/phenylalanine dipeptide. It was first sold under the brand name NutraSweet; It was first SYNTHESIZED in 1965 and the PATENT expired in 1992..."
Natural substances are not termed "artificial" nor are they patentable.
The fact that they do not occur together in nature should give one pause for thought. And there is currently a lot of controversy over what should be patentable and what should not. I have no doubt that monied interests will make sure to patent whatever they can get away with patenting. But there are many ethical considerations.
If yes, why? If not, what makes them distinct from aspartame?
Frankly, I wouldn't eat a lot of anything smoked because I don't enjoy those foods enough to want to put up with the potential risk of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. I don't eat a lot of barbequed food either because of the potential risk of heterocyclic amines. And, drinking distilled water would give pause for thought because of the way it is packaged--in plastic bottles, which leach pthalates, BPA and lexan resin into the water. In addition, those bottles are bad for the environment. But I have no particular objection to drinking distilled water itself. Even though some would tell you that it is unhealthy because it is "de-mineralized", since we get the vast majority of our minerals from food, it really doesn't matter if we elected to drink distilled water (provided we did not buy it in plastic bottles).
It is about personal choice and I object strongly to the idea that it would be removed from me by a lack of labeling which the monied interests are apparently determined to avoid (and are willing to spend large sums of money to that end). I don't drink aspartame-sweetened drinks because I don't believe that the "benefit" outweighs the potential risk. Unfortunately, in these days when scientific opinion is often open for corporate hire, one never knows whether one can trust that opinion. And, even if you knew that there was no potential for corruption, science is often pretty clueless about many of the long-term consequences of chemical contaminants in food and drink. It is always wise to go for more caution rather than less. I am personally committed to moving in the direction of fewer chemical additives (even "natural" ones)--and that is a reasonable choice.1 -
Have you explained your expertise in epigenetics yet? Did I miss that bit?0
-
Have you explained your expertise in epigenetics yet? Did I miss that bit?
I would assume that you are speaking to me? I would have to say that I don't go on these forums to answer questions about myself. However, since you seem to be looking for someone with expertise in epigenetics, here's one and what he has to say would appear to agree with what I have said : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/jirtle-epigenetics.html1 -
Have you explained your expertise in epigenetics yet? Did I miss that bit?
I would assume that you are speaking to me? I would have to say that I don't go on these forums to answer questions about myself. However, since you seem to be looking for someone with expertise in epigenetics, here's one and what he has to say would appear to agree with what I have said : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/jirtle-epigenetics.html
Well you did say1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.
Implying that you ARE an expert and that your words on the matter were more reliable than anyone else's. Apparently not.1 -
Have you explained your expertise in epigenetics yet? Did I miss that bit?
I would assume that you are speaking to me? I would have to say that I don't go on these forums to answer questions about myself. However, since you seem to be looking for someone with expertise in epigenetics, here's one and what he has to say would appear to agree with what I have said : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/jirtle-epigenetics.html
Well you did say1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.
Implying that you ARE an expert and that your words on the matter were more reliable than anyone else's. Apparently not.
I implied no such thing with what I said. You merely inferred that and you still don't know whether I am or am not an expert.
By the way, I simply reflected back what she said about herself. 0 -
Aspartic acid and phenylalanine occur together in nature in every food that contains protein. Again, please stop talking if you don't know what you are talking about. As for the ethics of whether natural things SHOULD be patented or not, that's completely irrelevant to your claim which was "Natural substances are not termed "artificial" nor are they patentable." As I've presented, they certainly ARE patentable. It was a nice attempt at moving the goal posts, however. I anxiously await your next logical fallacy.
You do realize the only thing that makes it artificial is the fact that they took the two amino acids and put them together, right? The amino acids themselves are natural, as they are created by bacteria. And plenty of natural substances are patented. Do you really think all these various cultivars of apples aren't patented by their creators? They are. Please stop talking if you don't know what you are actually talking about.Are there people who may be negatively affected by aspartame? Sure, they may have allergic reactions (it's a protein after all.) People are also negatively affected by strawberries, peanuts, shellfish, eggs, and milk, but that doesn't make any of those foods bad for the rest of the population.
Exactly!
For every product on the market, someone some place will have a negative reaction. This doesn't mean the product is bad. I can't take aspirin because of stomach sensitivity but I won’t run around screaming the sky is falling. It simply means I can’t take freaking aspirin.
There is a broader question at hand. And that is, do we really want to do an experiment where we unnecessarily expose the populace to a host of synthetic chemicals that have only been part of the physical milieu for less than a dozen decades? (As just one "minor" illustration, even aspirin, in high doses, is linked to cerebral hemorrhage and other bleeding disorders.) There is no assurance that any of these chemicals are safe in the longer term--and NO ONE has any idea whether the COMBINATION of these synthetic chemicals is safe. As a further concern, epigenetics tells us that we may not only be endangering ourselves but future generations as well. Should we not question the unnecessary exposure to synthetic chemicals? Aspartame may or may not be "scary" but is it really necessary?
1. I'm not an expert on epigenetics, but from what I understand of it I don't think that's really how that works.
2. Most of these chemicals, including aspartame, are made up of components that we encounter all the time. There is zero reason to think that somehow because the chemicals were put together in a lab setting instead of synthesized in a plant that our bodies will somehow respond to them differently.
3. This thread is going to roll on the next post. I will not be commenting again because I just want this damn thing off my recent topics list.
1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.
From "What is epigenetics?" The field of epigenetics is quickly growing and with it the understanding that BOTH THE ENVIRONMENT AND INDIVIDUAL LIFESTYLE CAN ALSO DIRECTLY INTERACT WITH THE GENOME TO INFLUENCE EPIGENETIC CHANGE. These changes may be reflected at various stages throughout a person’s life AND EVEN IN LATER GENERATIONS. For example, human epidemiological studies have provided evidence that prenatal and early postnatal environmental factors influence the adult risk of developing various chronic diseases and behavioral disorders.[1] Studies have shown that children born during the period of the Dutch famine from 1944-1945 have increased rates of coronary heart disease and obesity after maternal exposure to famine during early pregnancy compared to those not exposed to famine.
2. "...Aspartame is an ARTIFICIAL, non-saccharide sweetener used as a sugar substitute in some foods and beverages... Aspartame is a methyl ester of the aspartic acid/phenylalanine dipeptide. It was first sold under the brand name NutraSweet; It was first SYNTHESIZED in 1965 and the PATENT expired in 1992..."
Natural substances are not termed "artificial" nor are they patentable.
The fact that they do not occur together in nature should give one pause for thought. And there is currently a lot of controversy over what should be patentable and what should not. I have no doubt that monied interests will make sure to patent whatever they can get away with patenting. But there are many ethical considerations.
From the Rand Corporation website: "In this essay, the authors discuss the issues surrounding patenting products of nature. The central legal problem is how to distinguish a natural substance, for example, naturally occurring DNA, from a patentable invention. The authors suggest that the gbssubstantial transformation test (STT) used in customs law might be able to make this distinction. If adopted by Congress or the judiciary, the STT would maintain the patent law's integrity while resolving many of the economic and ETHICAL POLICY concerns surrounding current patent practices, they note." (emphasis mine)
Brave New World--and there are many cheerleaders for it but it doesn't make their cause a worthy or safe one.2 -
Aspartic acid and phenylalanine occur together in nature in every food that contains protein. Again, please stop talking if you don't know what you are talking about. As for the ethics of whether natural things SHOULD be patented or not, that's completely irrelevant to your claim which was "Natural substances are not termed "artificial" nor are they patentable." As I've presented, they certainly ARE patentable. It was a nice attempt at moving the goal posts, however. I anxiously await your next logical fallacy.
You do realize the only thing that makes it artificial is the fact that they took the two amino acids and put them together, right? The amino acids themselves are natural, as they are created by bacteria. And plenty of natural substances are patented. Do you really think all these various cultivars of apples aren't patented by their creators? They are. Please stop talking if you don't know what you are actually talking about.Are there people who may be negatively affected by aspartame? Sure, they may have allergic reactions (it's a protein after all.) People are also negatively affected by strawberries, peanuts, shellfish, eggs, and milk, but that doesn't make any of those foods bad for the rest of the population.
Exactly!
For every product on the market, someone some place will have a negative reaction. This doesn't mean the product is bad. I can't take aspirin because of stomach sensitivity but I won’t run around screaming the sky is falling. It simply means I can’t take freaking aspirin.
There is a broader question at hand. And that is, do we really want to do an experiment where we unnecessarily expose the populace to a host of synthetic chemicals that have only been part of the physical milieu for less than a dozen decades? (As just one "minor" illustration, even aspirin, in high doses, is linked to cerebral hemorrhage and other bleeding disorders.) There is no assurance that any of these chemicals are safe in the longer term--and NO ONE has any idea whether the COMBINATION of these synthetic chemicals is safe. As a further concern, epigenetics tells us that we may not only be endangering ourselves but future generations as well. Should we not question the unnecessary exposure to synthetic chemicals? Aspartame may or may not be "scary" but is it really necessary?
1. I'm not an expert on epigenetics, but from what I understand of it I don't think that's really how that works.
2. Most of these chemicals, including aspartame, are made up of components that we encounter all the time. There is zero reason to think that somehow because the chemicals were put together in a lab setting instead of synthesized in a plant that our bodies will somehow respond to them differently.
3. This thread is going to roll on the next post. I will not be commenting again because I just want this damn thing off my recent topics list.
1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.
From "What is epigenetics?" The field of epigenetics is quickly growing and with it the understanding that BOTH THE ENVIRONMENT AND INDIVIDUAL LIFESTYLE CAN ALSO DIRECTLY INTERACT WITH THE GENOME TO INFLUENCE EPIGENETIC CHANGE. These changes may be reflected at various stages throughout a person’s life AND EVEN IN LATER GENERATIONS. For example, human epidemiological studies have provided evidence that prenatal and early postnatal environmental factors influence the adult risk of developing various chronic diseases and behavioral disorders.[1] Studies have shown that children born during the period of the Dutch famine from 1944-1945 have increased rates of coronary heart disease and obesity after maternal exposure to famine during early pregnancy compared to those not exposed to famine.
2. "...Aspartame is an ARTIFICIAL, non-saccharide sweetener used as a sugar substitute in some foods and beverages... Aspartame is a methyl ester of the aspartic acid/phenylalanine dipeptide. It was first sold under the brand name NutraSweet; It was first SYNTHESIZED in 1965 and the PATENT expired in 1992..."
Natural substances are not termed "artificial" nor are they patentable.
The fact that they do not occur together in nature should give one pause for thought. And there is currently a lot of controversy over what should be patentable and what should not. I have no doubt that monied interests will make sure to patent whatever they can get away with patenting. But there are many ethical considerations.
From the Rand Corporation website: "In this essay, the authors discuss the issues surrounding patenting products of nature. The central legal problem is how to distinguish a natural substance, for example, naturally occurring DNA, from a patentable invention. The authors suggest that the gbssubstantial transformation test (STT) used in customs law might be able to make this distinction. If adopted by Congress or the judiciary, the STT would maintain the patent law's integrity while resolving many of the economic and ETHICAL POLICY concerns surrounding current patent practices, they note." (emphasis mine)
Brave New World--and there are many cheerleaders for it but it doesn't make their cause a worthy or safe one.
If Aspartic acid and phenylalanine occur together then why was G.D. Searle able to patent Aspartame? Some tweaking was necessary or they wouldn't have been given a patent. And the "tweaking", is the dangerous part as you probably know. The first part of my statement was correct--they wouldn't be called "artificial" if they occurred in nature AND the second part SHOULD be true. Why is natural bio-identical progesterone unable to be patented as a natural substance but synthetic progestins are? Natural (as in occurring in nature) and patents which are granted to human beings on the basis of their own intellectual input, really are contradictory terms. You are defending an industry that is morally indefensible. One would think you were being paid by them. Are you?1 -
Tiger'sword: " I anxiously await your next logical fallacy."
By the way, there was nothing illogical in anything I said. Perhaps it was technically a bit misinformed, but not illogical. There is nothing illogical in assuming that natural substances are not patentable because there would be no "intellectual property" for a human to claim. It is illogical to grant a patent to some food tinkerers and call it "natural" and then deny a patent to a drug manufacturer because the hormone is "bio-identical" to the substance that is naturally produced by a woman's body. I am not the one being illogical here. Either something is "natural" (that is, it exists in that form in nature) or it is "artificial". It is nonsensical to assert that it can be both.0 -
Have you explained your expertise in epigenetics yet? Did I miss that bit?
I would assume that you are speaking to me? I would have to say that I don't go on these forums to answer questions about myself. However, since you seem to be looking for someone with expertise in epigenetics, here's one and what he has to say would appear to agree with what I have said : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/jirtle-epigenetics.html
Well you did say1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.
Implying that you ARE an expert and that your words on the matter were more reliable than anyone else's. Apparently not.
I implied no such thing with what I said. You merely inferred that and you still don't know whether I am or am not an expert. By the way, I simply reflected back what she said about herself.
So I gave it a few days rest but this damn thing popped back up in the main threads......:grumble:
I am not an expert on epigenetics, I am however an expert on evolution and phylogenetics and can tell quite easily by the content of your posts your level of expertise. I objected to your statement that this could somehow cause damage to future generations however far down the line. This is not what epigenetics is about. You seem to be confusing actual changes in the genetic make up with changes in which the expressed phenotype is altered due to environmental conditions. The genotype itself is not changed and no genotypic change is passed on to future generations. If the genes of the individual are never exposed to the necessary conditions, the phenotype is never expressed. So even if it were found that aspartame somehow caused an epigenetic effect, stopping the use of aspartame would stop the issue immediately (within that generation) no inherent harm would be passed on.0 -
Aspartic acid and phenylalanine occur together in nature in every food that contains protein. Again, please stop talking if you don't know what you are talking about. As for the ethics of whether natural things SHOULD be patented or not, that's completely irrelevant to your claim which was "Natural substances are not termed "artificial" nor are they patentable." As I've presented, they certainly ARE patentable. It was a nice attempt at moving the goal posts, however. I anxiously await your next logical fallacy.
You do realize the only thing that makes it artificial is the fact that they took the two amino acids and put them together, right? The amino acids themselves are natural, as they are created by bacteria. And plenty of natural substances are patented. Do you really think all these various cultivars of apples aren't patented by their creators? They are. Please stop talking if you don't know what you are actually talking about.Are there people who may be negatively affected by aspartame? Sure, they may have allergic reactions (it's a protein after all.) People are also negatively affected by strawberries, peanuts, shellfish, eggs, and milk, but that doesn't make any of those foods bad for the rest of the population.
Exactly!
For every product on the market, someone some place will have a negative reaction. This doesn't mean the product is bad. I can't take aspirin because of stomach sensitivity but I won’t run around screaming the sky is falling. It simply means I can’t take freaking aspirin.
There is a broader question at hand. And that is, do we really want to do an experiment where we unnecessarily expose the populace to a host of synthetic chemicals that have only been part of the physical milieu for less than a dozen decades? (As just one "minor" illustration, even aspirin, in high doses, is linked to cerebral hemorrhage and other bleeding disorders.) There is no assurance that any of these chemicals are safe in the longer term--and NO ONE has any idea whether the COMBINATION of these synthetic chemicals is safe. As a further concern, epigenetics tells us that we may not only be endangering ourselves but future generations as well. Should we not question the unnecessary exposure to synthetic chemicals? Aspartame may or may not be "scary" but is it really necessary?
1. I'm not an expert on epigenetics, but from what I understand of it I don't think that's really how that works.
2. Most of these chemicals, including aspartame, are made up of components that we encounter all the time. There is zero reason to think that somehow because the chemicals were put together in a lab setting instead of synthesized in a plant that our bodies will somehow respond to them differently.
3. This thread is going to roll on the next post. I will not be commenting again because I just want this damn thing off my recent topics list.
1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.
From "What is epigenetics?" The field of epigenetics is quickly growing and with it the understanding that BOTH THE ENVIRONMENT AND INDIVIDUAL LIFESTYLE CAN ALSO DIRECTLY INTERACT WITH THE GENOME TO INFLUENCE EPIGENETIC CHANGE. These changes may be reflected at various stages throughout a person’s life AND EVEN IN LATER GENERATIONS. For example, human epidemiological studies have provided evidence that prenatal and early postnatal environmental factors influence the adult risk of developing various chronic diseases and behavioral disorders.[1] Studies have shown that children born during the period of the Dutch famine from 1944-1945 have increased rates of coronary heart disease and obesity after maternal exposure to famine during early pregnancy compared to those not exposed to famine.
2. "...Aspartame is an ARTIFICIAL, non-saccharide sweetener used as a sugar substitute in some foods and beverages... Aspartame is a methyl ester of the aspartic acid/phenylalanine dipeptide. It was first sold under the brand name NutraSweet; It was first SYNTHESIZED in 1965 and the PATENT expired in 1992..."
Natural substances are not termed "artificial" nor are they patentable.
The fact that they do not occur together in nature should give one pause for thought. And there is currently a lot of controversy over what should be patentable and what should not. I have no doubt that monied interests will make sure to patent whatever they can get away with patenting. But there are many ethical considerations.
From the Rand Corporation website: "In this essay, the authors discuss the issues surrounding patenting products of nature. The central legal problem is how to distinguish a natural substance, for example, naturally occurring DNA, from a patentable invention. The authors suggest that the gbssubstantial transformation test (STT) used in customs law might be able to make this distinction. If adopted by Congress or the judiciary, the STT would maintain the patent law's integrity while resolving many of the economic and ETHICAL POLICY concerns surrounding current patent practices, they note." (emphasis mine)
Brave New World--and there are many cheerleaders for it but it doesn't make their cause a worthy or safe one.
If Aspartic acid and phenylalanine occur together then why was G.D. Searle able to patent Aspartame? Some tweaking was necessary or they wouldn't have been given a patent. And the "tweaking", is the dangerous part as you probably know. The first part of my statement was correct--they wouldn't be called "artificial" if they occurred in nature AND the second part SHOULD be true. Why is natural bio-identical progesterone unable to be patented as a natural substance but synthetic progestins are? Natural (as in occurring in nature) and patents which are granted to human beings on the basis of their own intellectual input, really are contradictory terms. You are defending an industry that is morally indefensible. One would think you were being paid by them. Are you?
Oh aspartame thread, why can I not quit you.
Aspartic acid and phenylalanine occur as a dipeptide aspartly-phenalanine very commonly in nature. Pretty much any protein source is going to have it. If you doubt this just go ahead and look up the sequences of proteins...anywhere where there is a D next to a F that is aspartyl-phenylalanine. Your inability to believe this does not change this reality.
As for patents there is absolutely nothing stopping people from patenting natural substances. Many of the drugs that are marketed are natural products that were purified and patented by the pharmaceutical industry. The sweetener Stevia is a natural product and yet there are patents for it. The reason is because natural products have to be purified, they have to be processed and that processing can be patented just as much as any synthetic has to be processed.
Aspartyl-phenylalanine could be extracted from natural products, you could get it out of chicken breast or nuts or pretty much any protein but the process would be laborious and costly. Much cheaper to synthesize it and the result is exactly the same. Whether it is made synthetically or comes from nature doesn't matter, the chemical structure is identical and so the biochemistry is identical.
Since I'm guessing you won't believe me about Aspartyl-phenylalanine occuring naturally I will try to walk through it giving links and citations as needed.
There are 20 amino acids, each is given a single letter code. Aspartate is D and phenylalanine is F. In proteins these amino acids are linked together in peptide bonds. Aspartyl-phenylalanine is the linkage of aspartate to phenylalanine via a peptide bond. Proteins are long chains of amino acids and their sequences are given in code by the single letter codes.
So for example LLVSDFLTTS would be leucine-leucine-valine-serine-aspartate-phenylalanine-leucine-threonine-threonine-serine and it contains aspartyl-phenylalanine.
So with that said, what is the most common proteins in muscle tissue which is what we think of when we think meat. Well muscle tissue is pretty much entirely comprised of actin and myosin. What are the amino acid sequences of actin and myosin?
Here is myosin from the species Gallus gallus, also know as chickens:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/protein/NP_001013415.1
MASPDAEMAAFGEAAPYLRKSEKERIEAQNKPFDAKSSVFVVHPKESFVKGTIQSKEGGKVTVKTEGGET
LTVKEDQVFSMNPPKYDKIEDMAMMTHLHEPAVLYNLKERYAAWMIYTYSGLFCVTVNPYKWLPVYNPEV
VLAYRGKKRQEAPPHIFSISDNAYQFMLTDRENQSILITGESGAGKTVNTKRVIQYFATIAASGEKKKEE
QSGKMQGTLEDQIISANPLLEAFGNAKTVRNDNSSRFGKFIRIHFGATGKLASADIETYLLEKSRVTFQL
PAERSYHIFYQIMSNKKPELIDMLLITTNPYDYHYVSQGEITVPSIDDQEELMATDSAIDILGFSADEKT
AIYKLTGAVMHYGNLKFKQKQREEQAEPDGTEVADKAAYLMGLNSAELLKALCYPRVKVGNEFVTKGQTV
SQVHNSVGALAKAVYEKMFLWMVIRINQQLDTKQPRQYFIGVLDIAGFEIFDFNSFEQLCINFTNEKLQQ
FFNHHMFVLEQEEYKKEGIEWEFIDFGMDLAACIELIEKPMGIFSILEEECMFPKATDTSFKNKLYDQHL
GKSNNFQKPKPAKGKAEAHFSLVHYAGTVDYNISGWLEKNKDPLNETVIGLYQKSSVKTLALLFATYGGE
AEGGGGKKGGKKKGSSFQTVSALFRENLNKLMANLRSTHPHFVRCIIPNETKTPGAMEHELVLHQLRCNG
VLEGIRICRKGFPSRVLYADFKQRYRVLNASAIPEGQFMDSKKASEKLLGSIDVDHTQYRFGHTKVFFKA
GLLGLLEEMRDDKLAEIITRTQARCRGFLMRVEYRRMVERRESIFCIQYNVRSFMNVKHWPWMKLFFKIK
PLLKSAESEKEMANMKEEFEKTKEELAKSEAKRKELEEKMVVLLQEKNDLQLQVQAEADSLADAEERCDQ
LIKTKIQLEAKIKEVTERAEDEEEINAELTAKKRKLEDECSELKKDIDDLELTLAKVEKEKHATENKVKN
FTEEMAVLDETIAKLTKEKKALQEAHQQTLDDLQVEEDKVNTLTKAKTKLEQQVDDLEGSLEQEKKLRMD
LERAKRKLEGDLKLAHDSIMDLENDKQQLDEKLKKKDFEISQIQSKIEDEQALGMQLQKKIKELQARIEE
LEEEIEAERTSRAKAEKHRADLSRELEEISERLEEAGGATAAQIEMNKKREAEFQKMRRDLEEATLQHEA
TAAALRKKHADSTAELGEQIDNLQRVKQKLEKEKSELKMEIDDLASNMESVSKAKANLEKMCRTLEDQLS
EIKTKEEQNQRMINDLNTQRARLQTETGEYSRQAEEKDALISQLSRGKQGFTQQIEELKRHLEEEIKAKN
ALAHALQSARHDCELLREQYEEEQEAKGELQRALSKANSEVAQWRTKYETDAIQRTEELEEAKKKLAQRL
QDAEEHVEAVNAKCASLEKTKQRLQNEVEDLMVDVERSNAACAALDKKQKNFDKILAEWKQKYEETQTEL
EASQKESRSLSTELFKMKNAYEESLDHLETLKRENKNLQQEIADLTEQIAEGGKAVHELEKVKKHVEQEK
SELQASLEEAEASLEHEEGKILRLQLELNQIKSEIDRKIAEKDEEIDQLKRNHLRIVESMQSTLDAEIRS
RNEALRLKKKMEGDLNEMEIQLSHANRMAAEAQKNLRNTQGTLKDTQIHLDDALRTQEDLKEQVAMVERR
ANLLQAEVEELRGALEQTERSRKVAEQELLDATERVQLLHTQNTSLINTKKKLETDIVQIQSEMEDTIQE
ARNAEEKAKKAITDAAMMAEELKKEQDTSAHLERMKKNMDQTVKDLHVRLDEAEQLALKGGKKQLQKLEA
RVRELEGEVDSEQKRSAEAVKGVRKYERRVKELTYQCEEDRKNILRLQDLVDKLQMKVKSYKRQAEEAEE
LSNVNLSKFRKIQHELEEAEERADIAESQVNKLRVKSREIHGKKIEEEE
I have taken the liberty to highlight the 4 occurrences of that thing you said doesn't happen in nature aspartyl-phenylalanine in myosin, the primary protein by weight in muscle in the amino acid sequence found in chickens. The full sequence is 1939 amino acids. That means that approximately by weight the 8 amino acids of DF vs the sum total 1939aa is 0.4% of the protein. So if you eat a 8oz chicken breast with 50g of protein you have ingested 200mg of aspartyl-phenylalanine which is more than is found in a can of soda.
This of course being an underestimation of the ACTUAL consumption because of course as soon as aspartyl-phenylalanine hits your stomach it is decomposed by the acid and peptidases into aspartate and phenylalanine which are present in myosin as single amino acids at a much higher amount. The aspartate and phenylalanine content of a chicken breast is MUCH higher than that found in a soda.
So what about actin you might ask. Well actin actually has a higher ratio of DF per weight than myosin so I actually gave you the best case scenario there.
Oh and by the way I didn't search for a protein that had a high DF content, I just assumed that most proteins would have at least one DF in them given just probability and so I started writing this post even before I grabbed the myosin sequence off the pdb. Seriously you can likely grab most any protein off there an it is going to have DF in it. Not every protein of course, I mean probability also says that some proteins won't.
So yeah.0 -
Oh aspartame thread, why can I not quit you.
It's your grown up baby, you wanted to check in and see how it was getting on. I unfortunately have no excuse other than the fact that I'm a little bored tonight and felt like an argument, and also (I suspect this might be an issue for you as well) I can't abide seeing my general area of study mutilated.0 -
I can't abide seeing my general area of study mutilated.
Yeah it was pretty much the "aspartyl-phenalalanine doesn't occur in nature" statement that suckered me back in for exactly that reason. My background is protein biochemistry.0 -
Have you explained your expertise in epigenetics yet? Did I miss that bit?
I would assume that you are speaking to me? I would have to say that I don't go on these forums to answer questions about myself. However, since you seem to be looking for someone with expertise in epigenetics, here's one and what he has to say would appear to agree with what I have said : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/jirtle-epigenetics.html
Well you did say1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.
Implying that you ARE an expert and that your words on the matter were more reliable than anyone else's. Apparently not.
I implied no such thing with what I said. You merely inferred that and you still don't know whether I am or am not an expert. By the way, I simply reflected back what she said about herself.
So I gave it a few days rest but this damn thing popped back up in the main threads......:grumble:
I am not an expert on epigenetics, I am however an expert on evolution and phylogenetics and can tell quite easily by the content of your posts your level of expertise. I objected to your statement that this could somehow cause damage to future generations however far down the line. This is not what epigenetics is about. You seem to be confusing actual changes in the genetic make up with changes in which the expressed phenotype is altered due to environmental conditions. The genotype itself is not changed and no genotypic change is passed on to future generations. If the genes of the individual are never exposed to the necessary conditions, the phenotype is never expressed. So even if it were found that aspartame somehow caused an epigenetic effect, stopping the use of aspartame would stop the issue immediately (within that generation) no inherent harm would be passed on.
MmHm--except that female babies are born with all the eggs they will ever have and, if those eggs are damaged, it WILL affect future generations. Famine is one of those situations and chemical exposure is another.
Perhaps you are right and aspartame is harmless (I said perhaps--I remain unconvinced). But, I still prefer to avoid the addition of synthetic chemicals to my food and I would suggest that others do the same. No one has the knowledge of how all of these various synthetic materials act in the long term and certainly not in combination.1 -
Have you explained your expertise in epigenetics yet? Did I miss that bit?
I would assume that you are speaking to me? I would have to say that I don't go on these forums to answer questions about myself. However, since you seem to be looking for someone with expertise in epigenetics, here's one and what he has to say would appear to agree with what I have said : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/jirtle-epigenetics.html
Well you did say1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.
Implying that you ARE an expert and that your words on the matter were more reliable than anyone else's. Apparently not.
I implied no such thing with what I said. You merely inferred that and you still don't know whether I am or am not an expert. By the way, I simply reflected back what she said about herself.
So I gave it a few days rest but this damn thing popped back up in the main threads......:grumble:
I am not an expert on epigenetics, I am however an expert on evolution and phylogenetics and can tell quite easily by the content of your posts your level of expertise. I objected to your statement that this could somehow cause damage to future generations however far down the line. This is not what epigenetics is about. You seem to be confusing actual changes in the genetic make up with changes in which the expressed phenotype is altered due to environmental conditions. The genotype itself is not changed and no genotypic change is passed on to future generations. If the genes of the individual are never exposed to the necessary conditions, the phenotype is never expressed. So even if it were found that aspartame somehow caused an epigenetic effect, stopping the use of aspartame would stop the issue immediately (within that generation) no inherent harm would be passed on.
MmHm--except that female babies are born with all the eggs they will ever have and, if those eggs are damaged, it WILL affect future generations. Famine is one of those situations and chemical exposure is another.
Could you possibly speak in specifics rather than vagueries? I honestly am not even sure what you are going on about anymore. Are you suggesting that aspartame somehow increases the rate of DNA mutation above the basal rate? Is this something else we should be worrying about according to you? I must say you have a long list of things to worry about and a very short list of facts supporting reasons to worry. What exactly is the supportive evidence to the notion that aspartame increases the basal rate of mutation?
Because for one thing that isn't epigenetics and for another I've never heard of such a thing.1 -
Have you explained your expertise in epigenetics yet? Did I miss that bit?
I would assume that you are speaking to me? I would have to say that I don't go on these forums to answer questions about myself. However, since you seem to be looking for someone with expertise in epigenetics, here's one and what he has to say would appear to agree with what I have said : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/jirtle-epigenetics.html
Well you did say1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.
Implying that you ARE an expert and that your words on the matter were more reliable than anyone else's. Apparently not.
I implied no such thing with what I said. You merely inferred that and you still don't know whether I am or am not an expert. By the way, I simply reflected back what she said about herself.
So I gave it a few days rest but this damn thing popped back up in the main threads......:grumble:
I am not an expert on epigenetics, I am however an expert on evolution and phylogenetics and can tell quite easily by the content of your posts your level of expertise. I objected to your statement that this could somehow cause damage to future generations however far down the line. This is not what epigenetics is about. You seem to be confusing actual changes in the genetic make up with changes in which the expressed phenotype is altered due to environmental conditions. The genotype itself is not changed and no genotypic change is passed on to future generations. If the genes of the individual are never exposed to the necessary conditions, the phenotype is never expressed. So even if it were found that aspartame somehow caused an epigenetic effect, stopping the use of aspartame would stop the issue immediately (within that generation) no inherent harm would be passed on.
MmHm--except that female babies are born with all the eggs they will ever have and, if those eggs are damaged, it WILL affect future generations. Famine is one of those situations and chemical exposure is another.
And there are billions of other possible things that can cause "damage", and yes if that damage occurs in the gametes as opposed to the somatic cells then offspring born with that "damage" will carry the "damage" in all of their own future somatic cells and pass it on in their own gametes. But see, that sort of damage is called mutation, and it's an important part of this process called Evolution via Natural Selection, because in point of fact, not all "damage" to the DNA is bad. Every once in a while it is actually quite good. And without any damage to DNA from things like radiation, and chemicals, and a whole bunch of other scary words, there would never be any change, and we would have never moved out of the primordial ooze. And that's still not epigenetics.1 -
Have you explained your expertise in epigenetics yet? Did I miss that bit?
I would assume that you are speaking to me? I would have to say that I don't go on these forums to answer questions about myself. However, since you seem to be looking for someone with expertise in epigenetics, here's one and what he has to say would appear to agree with what I have said : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/jirtle-epigenetics.html
Well you did say1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.
Implying that you ARE an expert and that your words on the matter were more reliable than anyone else's. Apparently not.
I implied no such thing with what I said. You merely inferred that and you still don't know whether I am or am not an expert. By the way, I simply reflected back what she said about herself.
So I gave it a few days rest but this damn thing popped back up in the main threads......:grumble:
I am not an expert on epigenetics, I am however an expert on evolution and phylogenetics and can tell quite easily by the content of your posts your level of expertise. I objected to your statement that this could somehow cause damage to future generations however far down the line. This is not what epigenetics is about. You seem to be confusing actual changes in the genetic make up with changes in which the expressed phenotype is altered due to environmental conditions. The genotype itself is not changed and no genotypic change is passed on to future generations. If the genes of the individual are never exposed to the necessary conditions, the phenotype is never expressed. So even if it were found that aspartame somehow caused an epigenetic effect, stopping the use of aspartame would stop the issue immediately (within that generation) no inherent harm would be passed on.
MmHm--except that female babies are born with all the eggs they will ever have and, if those eggs are damaged, it WILL affect future generations. Famine is one of those situations and chemical exposure is another.
And there are billions of other possible things that can cause "damage", and yes if that damage occurs in the gametes as opposed to the somatic cells then offspring born with that "damage" will carry the "damage" in all of their own future somatic cells and pass it on in their own gametes. But see, that sort of damage is called mutation, and it's an important part of this process called Evolution via Natural Selection, because in point of fact, not all "damage" to the DNA is bad. Every once in a while it is actually quite good. And without any damage to DNA from things like radiation, and chemicals, and a whole bunch of other scary words, there would never be any change, and we would have never moved out of the primordial ooze. And that's still not epigenetics.
Well then, let's just pollute willy-nilly and hope for the best shall we? Who knows, maybe we will become a race of super-humans. And just think, all it took to raise life up out of the primordial ooze was damage to DNA! The only thing is, the overwhelming number of mutations are BAD. Since this is not a thread on evolution, I will quit there.1 -
Have you explained your expertise in epigenetics yet? Did I miss that bit?
I would assume that you are speaking to me? I would have to say that I don't go on these forums to answer questions about myself. However, since you seem to be looking for someone with expertise in epigenetics, here's one and what he has to say would appear to agree with what I have said : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/jirtle-epigenetics.html
Well you did say1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.
Implying that you ARE an expert and that your words on the matter were more reliable than anyone else's. Apparently not.
I implied no such thing with what I said. You merely inferred that and you still don't know whether I am or am not an expert. By the way, I simply reflected back what she said about herself.
So I gave it a few days rest but this damn thing popped back up in the main threads......:grumble:
I am not an expert on epigenetics, I am however an expert on evolution and phylogenetics and can tell quite easily by the content of your posts your level of expertise. I objected to your statement that this could somehow cause damage to future generations however far down the line. This is not what epigenetics is about. You seem to be confusing actual changes in the genetic make up with changes in which the expressed phenotype is altered due to environmental conditions. The genotype itself is not changed and no genotypic change is passed on to future generations. If the genes of the individual are never exposed to the necessary conditions, the phenotype is never expressed. So even if it were found that aspartame somehow caused an epigenetic effect, stopping the use of aspartame would stop the issue immediately (within that generation) no inherent harm would be passed on.
MmHm--except that female babies are born with all the eggs they will ever have and, if those eggs are damaged, it WILL affect future generations. Famine is one of those situations and chemical exposure is another.
And there are billions of other possible things that can cause "damage", and yes if that damage occurs in the gametes as opposed to the somatic cells then offspring born with that "damage" will carry the "damage" in all of their own future somatic cells and pass it on in their own gametes. But see, that sort of damage is called mutation, and it's an important part of this process called Evolution via Natural Selection, because in point of fact, not all "damage" to the DNA is bad. Every once in a while it is actually quite good. And without any damage to DNA from things like radiation, and chemicals, and a whole bunch of other scary words, there would never be any change, and we would have never moved out of the primordial ooze. And that's still not epigenetics.
Well then, let's just pollute willy-nilly and hope for the best shall we? Who knows, maybe we will become a race of super-humans. And just think, all it took to raise life up out of the primordial ooze was damage to DNA! The only thing is, the overwhelming number of mutations are BAD. Since this is not a thread on evolution, I will quit there.
Before you talk in vague generalized terms about the dangers of polluting our environment or food supply you should first bother to establish that the topic at hand, aspartame, is a pollutant. I have yet to see you do anything other than to assert it is unnatural which of course doesn't automatically make it dangerous.
Speak in specifics. I think aspartame posses a risk to our health and/or environment because...1 -
Have you explained your expertise in epigenetics yet? Did I miss that bit?
I would assume that you are speaking to me? I would have to say that I don't go on these forums to answer questions about myself. However, since you seem to be looking for someone with expertise in epigenetics, here's one and what he has to say would appear to agree with what I have said : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/jirtle-epigenetics.html
Well you did say1. Since you are not an "expert", what you "think" isn't really relevant.
Implying that you ARE an expert and that your words on the matter were more reliable than anyone else's. Apparently not.
I implied no such thing with what I said. You merely inferred that and you still don't know whether I am or am not an expert. By the way, I simply reflected back what she said about herself.
So I gave it a few days rest but this damn thing popped back up in the main threads......:grumble:
I am not an expert on epigenetics, I am however an expert on evolution and phylogenetics and can tell quite easily by the content of your posts your level of expertise. I objected to your statement that this could somehow cause damage to future generations however far down the line. This is not what epigenetics is about. You seem to be confusing actual changes in the genetic make up with changes in which the expressed phenotype is altered due to environmental conditions. The genotype itself is not changed and no genotypic change is passed on to future generations. If the genes of the individual are never exposed to the necessary conditions, the phenotype is never expressed. So even if it were found that aspartame somehow caused an epigenetic effect, stopping the use of aspartame would stop the issue immediately (within that generation) no inherent harm would be passed on.
MmHm--except that female babies are born with all the eggs they will ever have and, if those eggs are damaged, it WILL affect future generations. Famine is one of those situations and chemical exposure is another.
And there are billions of other possible things that can cause "damage", and yes if that damage occurs in the gametes as opposed to the somatic cells then offspring born with that "damage" will carry the "damage" in all of their own future somatic cells and pass it on in their own gametes. But see, that sort of damage is called mutation, and it's an important part of this process called Evolution via Natural Selection, because in point of fact, not all "damage" to the DNA is bad. Every once in a while it is actually quite good. And without any damage to DNA from things like radiation, and chemicals, and a whole bunch of other scary words, there would never be any change, and we would have never moved out of the primordial ooze. And that's still not epigenetics.
Well then, let's just pollute willy-nilly and hope for the best shall we? Who knows, maybe we will become a race of super-humans. And just think, all it took to raise life up out of the primordial ooze was damage to DNA! The only thing is, the overwhelming number of mutations are BAD. Since this is not a thread on evolution, I will quit there.
As a scientist actively working towards marine conservation and awareness, I refer you to my avatar. You don't help when you overblow and overstate. Climate change awareness has not been aided by the proliferation of fear mongering, it is a valuable and important field of research that is now ridiculed by a significant portion of society because good intentioned people make over-zealous claims that they can't actually substantiate. Climate Change Science is *slowly* fighting against the negative perceptions but it is difficult to undo the damage done.0 -
As a scientist actively working towards marine conservation and awareness, I refer you to my avatar. You don't help when you overblow and overstate. Climate change awareness has not been aided by the proliferation of fear mongering, it is a valuable and important field of research that is now ridiculed by a significant portion of society because good intentioned people make over-zealous claims that they can't actually substantiate. Climate Change Science is *slowly* fighting against the negative perceptions but it is difficult to undo the damage done.
Oh hey...the Abyss. Overlooked and underrated. Although looooooong.0 -
SanteMulberry I'm sorry but this is basically what you sound like to me:
I think X is dangerous because danger exists and it would be foolish not to recognize that danger exists therefore you are foolish to not realize that X is dangerous.2 -
As a scientist actively working towards marine conservation and awareness, I refer you to my avatar. You don't help when you overblow and overstate. Climate change awareness has not been aided by the proliferation of fear mongering, it is a valuable and important field of research that is now ridiculed by a significant portion of society because good intentioned people make over-zealous claims that they can't actually substantiate. Climate Change Science is *slowly* fighting against the negative perceptions but it is difficult to undo the damage done.
Oh hey...the Abyss. Overlooked and underrated. Although looooooong.
Well......James Cameron.....long *kitten* movies, it's really sort of his thing after all. I've been obsessed with this movie since childhood, my nickname in high-school was Queen ***** of the Universe, but for some reason they wouldn't let me have it as the nickname on my Letterman's jacket. :grumble:0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions