Why Aspartame Isn't Scary
Options
Replies
-
Mercola has been discredited because he has a habit of refusing to let facts get in the way of his fear mongering. He has a very specific point of view, and has been known to completely fabricate evidence in order to push his viewpoint and sell his products. He's listed on quackwatch.org for a reason. And he's not a "medical reporter." He's a merchant. He's in the business of selling products, and one way he does that is by making false claims about competitive products, so that he can then push his product as the "healthy alternative." His other method is to just make fantastical claims about his own products, that are unsupported by science.
Yes, footnoted with sources that are known to be biased, untrustworthy, and discredited. HuffPo isn't a scientific journal, it's a magazine. Any article that lists a guy like Mercola, who has been soundly discredited many times, as a source is not a valid article for debate. And Betty Martini is also a fraud.The story of the approval process for aspartame (in spite of the many objections from the medical community) is an entertaining read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html
I have just two questions: If aspartame is so safe, why was the FDA's own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross convinced that it was indeed toxic? And why are so many other physicians and neuroscientists convinced that it is harmful?
Can't comment without a citation, too vague.
People please, if you want a comment about something provide some sort of link to what you are talking about. Don't just hand-wave.
If where you got this information is someones blog then at least try to dig deeper to find the original source material and cite that, I don't want to have to dig for you. It has been 17 pages of thread and I am admittedly getting a bit tired of this.
Um, if you will check the link, it is an article from the Huffington Post and it is footnoted.
Say you and your friends. G.D. Searle was similarly disposed to slander those who did not agree with them as "unscientific". I repeat: I have two questions. Why did the FDA's own toxicologist insist that aspartame was unsafe? Why are so many other neuroscientists and physicians convinced that it is harmful? There are a number of PubMed articles on its questionable safety. Here is just one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17684524
ETA: Why crucify medical reporters? How can Mercola be "discredited"? He, as far as I know, is not engaged in any research efforts of his own. He functions as a medical reporter who highlights news from the world of science. You may not agree with the findings of any individual researcher but you are obligated to provide your own scientific findings in refuting any individual research findings.
Here:
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html
This is off the subject a bit and my apologies to the OP but the readers should understand that the pharmaceutical industry is very corrupt and the same people who "govern" the pharmaceutical industry are allowing unsafe chemicals to be added to the food supply. http://www.naturalnews.com/036417_Glaxo_Merck_fraud.html
There is a great deal of money involved. Few have the integrity to resist the tsunami of money that is showered on those who promote the lies of Big Chem and Big Food and Big Pharma. They have interlocking directorates and they dominate our government. There are many honest scientists and civil servants who try to protect the people but they are often voices crying in the wilderness.
Do you know who funds "quackwatch"?
From alternativecancer.us:
"If you have read Quackwatch written by Stephen Barrett and suspect that alternative cancer treatments represent a fraud, consider this information from the 'Who Funds Quackwatch' page of the actual Quackwatch web site written by Stephen Barrett:
Neither Quackwatch nor I have any financial ties to any commercial or industrial organization.
My viewpoints are not for hire. Even if they were, none of my imaginary funders would actually have a reason to hire me.
However, in court* Stephen Barrett had to admit ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission and the Food Drug Administration. In the same court appearance, Barrett was forced to admit that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam. This was a major demonstration of Barrett's integrity and honesty since he had provided “expert testimony” as a psychiatrist and had testified in numerous court cases. Barrett also had said that he was a legal expert even though he had no formal legal training. It was also determined that Barrett had filed defamation lawsuits against almost 40 people across the country within the past few years and had not won one single case at trial. "
He's an obvious liar and why would you ever believe anything Barrett has to say?1 -
My point is... the OP of this article may also be suffering from confirmation bias. It all amounts to who's research you trust.1
-
This is off the subject a bit and my apologies to the OP but the readers should understand that the pharmaceutical industry is very corrupt and the same people who "govern" the pharmaceutical industry are allowing unsafe chemicals to be added to the food supply.
This applies to every product on the market. Unless a person produces their foods or drugs then that person will never know the exact items they consumed, despite any "healthy", "unprocessed", "real", or "clean" label applied.0 -
Mercola has been discredited because he has a habit of refusing to let facts get in the way of his fear mongering. He has a very specific point of view, and has been known to completely fabricate evidence in order to push his viewpoint and sell his products. He's listed on quackwatch.org for a reason. And he's not a "medical reporter." He's a merchant. He's in the business of selling products, and one way he does that is by making false claims about competitive products, so that he can then push his product as the "healthy alternative." His other method is to just make fantastical claims about his own products, that are unsupported by science.
Yes, footnoted with sources that are known to be biased, untrustworthy, and discredited. HuffPo isn't a scientific journal, it's a magazine. Any article that lists a guy like Mercola, who has been soundly discredited many times, as a source is not a valid article for debate. And Betty Martini is also a fraud.The story of the approval process for aspartame (in spite of the many objections from the medical community) is an entertaining read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html
I have just two questions: If aspartame is so safe, why was the FDA's own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross convinced that it was indeed toxic? And why are so many other physicians and neuroscientists convinced that it is harmful?
Can't comment without a citation, too vague.
People please, if you want a comment about something provide some sort of link to what you are talking about. Don't just hand-wave.
If where you got this information is someones blog then at least try to dig deeper to find the original source material and cite that, I don't want to have to dig for you. It has been 17 pages of thread and I am admittedly getting a bit tired of this.
Um, if you will check the link, it is an article from the Huffington Post and it is footnoted.
Say you and your friends. G.D. Searle was similarly disposed to slander those who did not agree with them as "unscientific". I repeat: I have two questions. Why did the FDA's own toxicologist insist that aspartame was unsafe? Why are so many other neuroscientists and physicians convinced that it is harmful? There are a number of PubMed articles on its questionable safety. Here is just one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17684524
ETA: Why crucify medical reporters? How can Mercola be "discredited"? He, as far as I know, is not engaged in any research efforts of his own. He functions as a medical reporter who highlights news from the world of science. You may not agree with the findings of any individual researcher but you are obligated to provide your own scientific findings in refuting any individual research findings.
Here:
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html
This is off the subject a bit and my apologies to the OP but the readers should understand that the pharmaceutical industry is very corrupt and the same people who "govern" the pharmaceutical industry are allowing unsafe chemicals to be added to the food supply. http://www.naturalnews.com/036417_Glaxo_Merck_fraud.html
There is a great deal of money involved. Few have the integrity to resist the tsunami of money that is showered on those who promote the lies of Big Chem and Big Food and Big Pharma. They have interlocking directorates and they dominate our government. There are many honest scientists and civil servants who try to protect the people but they are often voices crying in the wilderness.
Do you know who funds "quackwatch"?
From alternativecancer.us:
"If you have read Quackwatch written by Stephen Barrett and suspect that alternative cancer treatments represent a fraud, consider this information from the 'Who Funds Quackwatch' page of the actual Quackwatch web site written by Stephen Barrett:
Neither Quackwatch nor I have any financial ties to any commercial or industrial organization.
My viewpoints are not for hire. Even if they were, none of my imaginary funders would actually have a reason to hire me.
However, in court* Stephen Barrett had to admit ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission and the Food Drug Administration. In the same court appearance, Barrett was forced to admit that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam. This was a major demonstration of Barrett's integrity and honesty since he had provided “expert testimony” as a psychiatrist and had testified in numerous court cases. Barrett also had said that he was a legal expert even though he had no formal legal training. It was also determined that Barrett had filed defamation lawsuits against almost 40 people across the country within the past few years and had not won one single case at trial. "
He's an obvious liar and why would you ever believe anything Barrett has to say?
Natural News? Alternativecancer.us?
You can't be serious.3 -
My point is... the OP of this article may also be suffering from confirmation bias. It all amounts to who's research you trust.
^^^THIS^^^ In addition, there are often financial reasons why someone would support a product (Note: I am NOT saying that OP does have a financial interest in defending aspartame).1 -
Mercola has been discredited because he has a habit of refusing to let facts get in the way of his fear mongering. He has a very specific point of view, and has been known to completely fabricate evidence in order to push his viewpoint and sell his products. He's listed on quackwatch.org for a reason. And he's not a "medical reporter." He's a merchant. He's in the business of selling products, and one way he does that is by making false claims about competitive products, so that he can then push his product as the "healthy alternative." His other method is to just make fantastical claims about his own products, that are unsupported by science.
Yes, footnoted with sources that are known to be biased, untrustworthy, and discredited. HuffPo isn't a scientific journal, it's a magazine. Any article that lists a guy like Mercola, who has been soundly discredited many times, as a source is not a valid article for debate. And Betty Martini is also a fraud.The story of the approval process for aspartame (in spite of the many objections from the medical community) is an entertaining read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html
I have just two questions: If aspartame is so safe, why was the FDA's own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross convinced that it was indeed toxic? And why are so many other physicians and neuroscientists convinced that it is harmful?
Can't comment without a citation, too vague.
People please, if you want a comment about something provide some sort of link to what you are talking about. Don't just hand-wave.
If where you got this information is someones blog then at least try to dig deeper to find the original source material and cite that, I don't want to have to dig for you. It has been 17 pages of thread and I am admittedly getting a bit tired of this.
Um, if you will check the link, it is an article from the Huffington Post and it is footnoted.
Say you and your friends. G.D. Searle was similarly disposed to slander those who did not agree with them as "unscientific". I repeat: I have two questions. Why did the FDA's own toxicologist insist that aspartame was unsafe? Why are so many other neuroscientists and physicians convinced that it is harmful? There are a number of PubMed articles on its questionable safety. Here is just one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17684524
ETA: Why crucify medical reporters? How can Mercola be "discredited"? He, as far as I know, is not engaged in any research efforts of his own. He functions as a medical reporter who highlights news from the world of science. You may not agree with the findings of any individual researcher but you are obligated to provide your own scientific findings in refuting any individual research findings.
Here:
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html
This is off the subject a bit and my apologies to the OP but the readers should understand that the pharmaceutical industry is very corrupt and the same people who "govern" the pharmaceutical industry are allowing unsafe chemicals to be added to the food supply. http://www.naturalnews.com/036417_Glaxo_Merck_fraud.html
There is a great deal of money involved. Few have the integrity to resist the tsunami of money that is showered on those who promote the lies of Big Chem and Big Food and Big Pharma. They have interlocking directorates and they dominate our government. There are many honest scientists and civil servants who try to protect the people but they are often voices crying in the wilderness.
Do you know who funds "quackwatch"?
From alternativecancer.us:
"If you have read Quackwatch written by Stephen Barrett and suspect that alternative cancer treatments represent a fraud, consider this information from the 'Who Funds Quackwatch' page of the actual Quackwatch web site written by Stephen Barrett:
Neither Quackwatch nor I have any financial ties to any commercial or industrial organization.
My viewpoints are not for hire. Even if they were, none of my imaginary funders would actually have a reason to hire me.
However, in court* Stephen Barrett had to admit ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission and the Food Drug Administration. In the same court appearance, Barrett was forced to admit that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam. This was a major demonstration of Barrett's integrity and honesty since he had provided “expert testimony” as a psychiatrist and had testified in numerous court cases. Barrett also had said that he was a legal expert even though he had no formal legal training. It was also determined that Barrett had filed defamation lawsuits against almost 40 people across the country within the past few years and had not won one single case at trial. "
He's an obvious liar and why would you ever believe anything Barrett has to say?
Natural News? Alternativecancer.us?
You can't be serious.
I am not defending everything that appears on either website. However, are you saying that the allegations of fraud against the big pharmaceutical houses (and they paid enormous fines as a result) are not true? Are you saying that Barrett is not a proven liar?1 -
Wow. All this talk about a crap ingredient. The energy wasted (to put it lightly) on this topic could of been used to kick *kitten* in the gym or do something productive.1
-
My point is... the OP of this article may also be suffering from confirmation bias. It all amounts to who's research you trust.
This is absolutely correct and I want to emphasize it both to those here who have disagreed with me as well as to those of you who have agreed. No one is free from confirmation bias. This is why I have always endevoured to provide a link to the primary literature that I am referring to and encourage everyone to read that and come to their own conclusions. I feel strongly that if you only rely on opinion pieces for your information and never take the time to look at the actual data you will be easily lead astray.
I also feel strongly that if you cite a study that implies you have read and comprehended that study and that if you have not done so you are being intellectually dishonest. Before anyone knee-jerk reacts to this please realize I am not directing this towards any one individual or group or side I apply this generally including to myself. Think of how much less misinformation would be out there if people, especially the media, only cited studies they had actually read. So many times I have read articles or discussed with someone online where it becomes obvious that all they have done is performed a google search or any other search for what they wanted to say, scooped up all the citations of studies that others cited to support a claim and just dumped them into their own citations without ever reading a word of the studies themselves. I feel this has become so commonplace that people don't even see that as wrong anymore.
The reason I cite what I cite or discuss only certain studies other people refer to is because those are the studies I have actually read. When someone google-dumps 20 citations and demands a response I'm not going to give one at least immediately because chances are I haven't read them. The reason I started to get frustrated is people seemed to expect me to go to the time of reading each study (which for me takes hours per study) and respond. Because of this I decided before doing so I would first ascertain if the questioner had read the study themselves and what specific data they felt was supportive of their point. When I did that however it was met with anger and claims of rudeness at which point I just couldn't be bothered.
I'm trying to be fair and intellectually honest. To me that means only commenting and discussing topics for which I have read the primary source and could provide citations. To do otherwise would be to demand that people rely on my opinion of things and conformation bias rather than the data in the studies themselves. I have and continue to encourage people to read the primary literature and look at the data and not rely soley on the opinion of others including my own.1 -
My point is... the OP of this article may also be suffering from confirmation bias. It all amounts to who's research you trust.
^^^THIS^^^ In addition, there are often financial reasons why someone would support a product (Note: I am NOT saying that OP does have a financial interest in defending aspartame).
I make the big bucks working in collaboration with Big Pharma at a non profit research institute dedicated to the development of therapies and diagnostics for orphaned diseases (those for which the ROI is low but the casualties are high). Specifically I work in drug development in collaboration with some of the biggest of scary ole Pharma.
ETA: note "big bucks" was meant sarcastically I probably make less than a manager at MacDonalds3 -
I'm not sure I completely agree with that. Agreeing with the majority scientific consensus isn't really confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is intentionally ignoring information that disproves your specific viewpoint, and only seeking information that agrees with the conclusion you already have. Like you said earlier, you think aspartame is bad, so you purposely seek out and agree with the information that says aspartame is bad. while discounting the mountain of evidence that says it isn't. And it is a mountain. Aspartame has been studied almost constantly, by 94 different countries, over the last 60 years. Thousands of studies have been done, hundreds of meta analyses have been done, and the vast majority of data shows aspartame as being perfectly safe in average human dosages. In fact, the upper safe limit that is set for aspartame is far higher than most people would even be able to consume in a day. And those limits are 100 times LOWER than the smallest concentration that has shown negative effects in studies. To put that as a hard number, in order for me to hit the upper limit (50mg per kg body weight) I would have to drink 27 cans of diet soda EVERY DAY. To reach the lowest concentration that could cause negative effects, I'd have to drink 2700 cans of diet soda EVERY DAY.My point is... the OP of this article may also be suffering from confirmation bias. It all amounts to who's research you trust.
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.1 -
My mother used to drink a lot of drinks with aspartame and was having terrible back pains. When she switched to Diet Coke with splenda, her terrible back pain went away.
A year or so later, she switched to a powder kool-aid that had aspartame in it. All she knew was it had zero calories, she never read the label to see it had aspartame. She drank it for a few months without problem, and then her back got so bad she couldn't get out of bed and was in a lot of pain. I had looked at the back of the koolaid pack a few weeks earlier and saw that it had aspartame. I never said anything because I figured her problems were all pschological. But when she got the back pain, I told her about the koolaid. When she switched to a splenda based koolaid, the pain went away. Since this happended to her twice, and the second time was like a blind study of the effects of aspartame on her back, I'm convinced that aspartame is something that my mother should stay away from.0 -
I'm not sure I completely agree with that. Agreeing with the majority scientific consensus isn't really confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is intentionally ignoring information that disproves your specific viewpoint, and only seeking information that agrees with the conclusion you already have. Like you said earlier, you think aspartame is bad, so you purposely seek out and agree with the information that says aspartame is bad. while discounting the mountain of evidence that says it isn't. And it is a mountain. Aspartame has been studied almost constantly, by 94 different countries, over the last 60 years. Thousands of studies have been done, hundreds of meta analyses have been done, and the vast majority of data shows aspartame as being perfectly safe in average human dosages. In fact, the upper safe limit that is set for aspartame is far higher than most people would even be able to consume in a day. And those limits are 100 times LOWER than the smallest concentration that has shown negative effects in studies. To put that as a hard number, in order for me to hit the upper limit (50mg per kg body weight) I would have to drink 27 cans of diet soda EVERY DAY. To reach the lowest concentration that could cause negative effects, I'd have to drink 2700 cans of diet soda EVERY DAY.My point is... the OP of this article may also be suffering from confirmation bias. It all amounts to who's research you trust.
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.
I think the consensus of a community is humanities only viable way of minimizing conformation bias, minimize...not eliminate. As an individual I most certainly do have confirmation bias. Did it effect me here? I can't really say I exist in my own head so hard to see my own biases. Up to the reader to decide. All I ask is that if you want to say I'm wrong then come prepared and back it up with a study I and others can read, otherwise you are just asking people to substitute my bias for yours and my bias at least comes with links to the studies I have read on which I base my opinion.1 -
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.1 -
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 -
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.0 -
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?
I don't think there is a broader question at hand because science has already proven that aspartame is safe for most of the population. Secondly, at what point is aspartame so synthetic that it causes adverse health consequences to the mass population? Your aspirin example only means that some people shouldn’t consume aspirin and that is the reason we have aspirin alternatives. It doesn’t mean the population at large shouldn’t consume aspirin. The scientific community has given as much assurance as I need to know in order to continue drinking diet soda. Epigenetic hasn’t told me anything because epigenetic has yet to prove to me that by me drinking diet soda, my future off springs will be in danger of bad health. No one has every claimed aspartame is necessary. However, if people chose to consume it then what is the problem with consuming it in moderation? Afterall, we are talking about accountability here aren’t we?0 -
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.1 -
At what point was the synthesized process deemed harmful to the general public?
Many natural substances are still very dangerous.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.0 -
In on the roll...and seemingly at an interesting point in the discussions!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions