FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Aspartame ...nutrasweet
Aspartame ...nutrasweet
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"I would really not like to consume added sugar or sweeteners x it's very very very very very very very difficult x possible of course but a serious pain" Not too difficult if you eat all fresh food and drink water. Healthy too | |||
| |||
"I would really not like to consume added sugar or sweeteners x it's very very very very very very very difficult x possible of course but a serious pain" It is very difficult because added sugar and/or sweeteners are in nearly every processed food. However I've managed to cut out nearly all processed food so it can be done. I think everything, including aspartame, in moderation is just fine. We shouldn't worry about what we eat as much as how much we eat. | |||
 | |||
"I would really not like to consume added sugar or sweeteners x it's very very very very very very very difficult x possible of course but a serious pain It is very difficult because added sugar and/or sweeteners are in nearly every processed food. However I've managed to cut out nearly all processed food so it can be done. I think everything, including aspartame, in moderation is just fine. We shouldn't worry about what we eat as much as how much we eat." Exactly, I cook everything fresh and know the only thing I have sweetener in is my one can of cherry Pepsi max I have every day. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
" Exactly, I cook everything fresh " Can I come for tea, I can bring ducky eggs and cherry pop? | |||
| |||
"I like Pepsi Max. I'll take the risk." | |||
| |||
"I would really not like to consume added sugar or sweeteners x it's very very very very very very very difficult x possible of course but a serious pain Not too difficult if you eat all fresh food and drink water. Healthy too "Very true which I mainly do however I'm no fan of water I would like a change from skimmed milk sometimes , or on the road. it is difficult to make Absolutely everything Inc all sauces I use protein powders can't buy in shops, have to buy pure on line Can't buy coconut milk have to make my own , can't buy any nut or oat milks Can't buy yogurt from every store without Can't buy cranberrys or their juice without If I'm hungry and not prepared it's very hard to find non processed food or drinks I'm pretty strict and eat clean It's not easy eespecially for the uninitiated xx | |||
"Most foodstuffs not eaten in moderation is bad for you. Just because you say you eat fresh un processed foods does not mean it is healthy. Ask any diabetic. Natural sugar, whether granulated or found in most foodstuffs is bad for you. Plain boiled rice, if eaten to excess will kill you, as well as make you pile the pounds on. Its about the type of food, quantity and preparation of meals that will give you a balanced diet. There has been no reputable scientific report that says artificial sweeteners are bad for you. In fact they have benefits over natural sugars in that they have hardly any calories and carbs, The bad press artificial sweeteners get stems from urban legend. " That's why I said it's not what you eat, but how much you eat. You could gain weight only eating lettuce. It would take you a while and you'd probably die of boredom, but you could. A balanced, unprocessed (as much as possible - I aint giving up cheese for anybody), varied diet is best. Not fads and fasting. I have no opinion about sweeteners. I've used saccharine for 20 years without effect, but only two a day in my tea. Maybe if I ate a tube a day I would feel iller, but not everyone suffers the same effects from things as others. | |||
"It's not in everything sugar-free. Other sweeteners are available." this | |||
"Most foodstuffs not eaten in moderation is bad for you. Just because you say you eat fresh un processed foods does not mean it is healthy. Ask any diabetic. Natural sugar, whether granulated or found in most foodstuffs is bad for you. Plain boiled rice, if eaten to excess will kill you, as well as make you pile the pounds on. Its about the type of food, quantity and preparation of meals that will give you a balanced diet. There has been no reputable scientific report that says artificial sweeteners are bad for you. In fact they have benefits over natural sugars in that they have hardly any calories and carbs, The bad press artificial sweeteners get stems from urban legend. "
Ive got type 2 diabetes, low carb and artificial sugar is my life  | |||
"Most foodstuffs not eaten in moderation is bad for you. Just because you say you eat fresh un processed foods does not mean it is healthy. Ask any diabetic. Natural sugar, whether granulated or found in most foodstuffs is bad for you. Plain boiled rice, if eaten to excess will kill you, as well as make you pile the pounds on. Its about the type of food, quantity and preparation of meals that will give you a balanced diet. There has been no reputable scientific report that says artificial sweeteners are bad for you. In fact they have benefits over natural sugars in that they have hardly any calories and carbs, The bad press artificial sweeteners get stems from urban legend. That's why I said it's not what you eat, but how much you eat. You could gain weight only eating lettuce. It would take you a while and you'd probably die of boredom, but you could. A balanced, unprocessed (as much as possible - I aint giving up cheese for anybody), varied diet is best. Not fads and fasting. I have no opinion about sweeteners. I've used saccharine for 20 years without effect, but only two a day in my tea. Maybe if I ate a tube a day I would feel iller, but not everyone suffers the same effects from things as others." Exactly, apart from maybe the lettuce thing as I think you may use more calories actually eating it than you get from it. But that is essentially it, a balanced diet. But you shouldn't think that because something is unprocessed it is going to be good for you because it's not always the case. | |||
| |||
"Most foodstuffs not eaten in moderation is bad for you. Just because you say you eat fresh un processed foods does not mean it is healthy. Ask any diabetic. Natural sugar, whether granulated or found in most foodstuffs is bad for you. Plain boiled rice, if eaten to excess will kill you, as well as make you pile the pounds on. Its about the type of food, quantity and preparation of meals that will give you a balanced diet. There has been no reputable scientific report that says artificial sweeteners are bad for you. In fact they have benefits over natural sugars in that they have hardly any calories and carbs, The bad press artificial sweeteners get stems from urban legend.
Ive got type 2 diabetes, low carb and artificial sugar is my life "S you know how dangerous natural sugars in unprocessed food can be. | |||
"But you shouldn't think that because something is unprocessed it is going to be good for you because it's not always the case." My point is, its probably not bad for you either, in moderation. | |||
 .
I prefer butter to marg and I am known to read the odd label on a tin, much to the annoyance of the other half.
Or as she says.... Shut it and eat it | |||
"But you shouldn't think that because something is unprocessed it is going to be good for you because it's not always the case. My point is, its probably not bad for you either, in moderation." I know that's what you meant, I should have said everyone instead of you in that sentence. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I don't think because people have been consuming it for 30 years means it's safe. We used asbestos for a hundred years before we knew it caused lung cancer. There's very little long term research ever done on this type of stuff as it's nobody's interest" They haven't, they have been consuming it for almost 50 years. It is one of the most tested food substances in the world, has been classed as 'safe' by almost a hundred countries worldwide yet there is still this controversy that follows it. | |||
"I don't think because people have been consuming it for 30 years means it's safe. We used asbestos for a hundred years before we knew it caused lung cancer. There's very little long term research ever done on this type of stuff as it's nobody's interest They haven't, they have been consuming it for almost 50 years. It is one of the most tested food substances in the world, has been classed as 'safe' by almost a hundred countries worldwide yet there is still this controversy that follows it." . Did they presume the same about sugar. I'd like to know who paid for the tests! And how long term did they look. Aspartame was only approved in the 80s , that's not fifty years. | |||
"I don't think because people have been consuming it for 30 years means it's safe. We used asbestos for a hundred years before we knew it caused lung cancer. There's very little long term research ever done on this type of stuff as it's nobody's interest They haven't, they have been consuming it for almost 50 years. It is one of the most tested food substances in the world, has been classed as 'safe' by almost a hundred countries worldwide yet there is still this controversy that follows it." . Was this the same people testing findus lasagne  | |||
"Aspartame was only approved in the 80s , that's not fifty years." Approved here. Other places may have been using it a lot longer. | |||
"I don't think because people have been consuming it for 30 years means it's safe. We used asbestos for a hundred years before we knew it caused lung cancer. There's very little long term research ever done on this type of stuff as it's nobody's interest They haven't, they have been consuming it for almost 50 years. It is one of the most tested food substances in the world, has been classed as 'safe' by almost a hundred countries worldwide yet there is still this controversy that follows it.. Did they presume the same about sugar. I'd like to know who paid for the tests! And how long term did they look. Aspartame was only approved in the 80s , that's not fifty years." You are spot on, stand corrected, that it was approved for mass consumption for 34 years but humans have been consuming it for much longer, from 1965 until 1981 it was clinically trialled with human trials forming a large part of that. So in all that time, almost 50 years, there has not been one scientific study that concludes it is bad. This has been study by government agencies in the USA, here and in Europe. So that would suggest that they have no hidden agenda, we hopefully it does. Therefore in reality we paid for the tests. | |||
" Was this the same people testing findus lasagne "In America it was, yeah, the FDA. It will be the same here too except it would have been the FSA. Don't understand your point really? | |||
" Was this the same people testing findus lasagne
In America it was, yeah, the FDA.
It will be the same here too except it would have been the FSA.
Don't understand your point really?". Would it surprise you that there was countless studies of asbestos and smoking and they found very little "evidence", even today there's very little " evidence "that smoking causes lung cancer!. There's a fine line between clinical evidence and causation and analysis. I very much doubt (but I could be wrong) that any long term wide ranging studies have ever been done over aspartame. I say that out of other studies from subjects I've read like, deleted uranium. | |||
| |||
" Was this the same people testing findus lasagne
In America it was, yeah, the FDA.
It will be the same here too except it would have been the FSA.
Don't understand your point really?.
Would it surprise you that there was countless studies of asbestos and smoking and they found very little "evidence", even today there's very little " evidence "that smoking causes lung cancer!.
There's a fine line between clinical evidence and causation and analysis.
I very much doubt (but I could be wrong) that any long term wide ranging studies have ever been done over aspartame.
I say that out of other studies from subjects I've read like, deleted uranium."Can't be bothered but the FDA, for example has stated that this is a safe product. This is on the back of a substantial amount of empirical research. Just in case you are unaware but I think you will be, the D in FDA stands for Drug. You mention smoking, see if the FDA says that smoking and it's related effects are safe. Be sensible, in a debate. I am not pro or anti aspartame but at some point you just have to trust government bodies to do what is right. Now I am aware that that is not always the case but in the main they are reputable bodies. Look anywhere on the internet and you can find all sorts saying all sorts. Hitler was a good man, the Holocaust never happened, the Lunar Landings were fake, Elvis is alive and playing intimate gigs for Lord Lucan and the Yeti. People can say anything, doesn't make it true. Information from reputable sources is just that, reputable. What have you got against our FSA or the US's FDA? | |||
"theres a good documentary on a well known video upload site that im probably not allowed to mention without getting banned from the forum " You're allowed to link to Youtube videos on here. | |||
"theres a good documentary on a well known video upload site that im probably not allowed to mention without getting banned from the forum You're allowed to link to Youtube videos on here." Unless it is from a recognised scientific body then it is not worth a carrot. | |||
" Was this the same people testing findus lasagne
In America it was, yeah, the FDA.
It will be the same here too except it would have been the FSA.
Don't understand your point really?.
Would it surprise you that there was countless studies of asbestos and smoking and they found very little "evidence", even today there's very little " evidence "that smoking causes lung cancer!.
There's a fine line between clinical evidence and causation and analysis.
I very much doubt (but I could be wrong) that any long term wide ranging studies have ever been done over aspartame.
I say that out of other studies from subjects I've read like, deleted uranium.
Can't be bothered but the FDA, for example has stated that this is a safe product. This is on the back of a substantial amount of empirical research.
Just in case you are unaware but I think you will be, the D in FDA stands for Drug. You mention smoking, see if the FDA says that smoking and it's related effects are safe.
Be sensible, in a debate. I am not pro or anti aspartame but at some point you just have to trust government bodies to do what is right. Now I am aware that that is not always the case but in the main they are reputable bodies.
Look anywhere on the internet and you can find all sorts saying all sorts. Hitler was a good man, the Holocaust never happened, the Lunar Landings were fake, Elvis is alive and playing intimate gigs for Lord Lucan and the Yeti.
People can say anything, doesn't make it true. Information from reputable sources is just that, reputable.
What have you got against our FSA or the US's FDA?". The FDA and FSA are about as unbiased as any other government organisation!. So look at the studies that come out from various bodies, if it's favourable it gets printed, if it isn't it gets buried, that was my whole point about smoking, they knew it was bad for 40 years, they knew asbestos was a killer for 40 years, they were both sold for that time with the tag "no evidence to say it's harmful". They know power lines cause cancer, they know nuclear power stations cause cancer, they know depleted uranium causes cancer, they know 100,000s died from Chernobyl and the same will die from Fukushima but absolute tangible evidence that Elena baltachas cancer 30 years after the fact of Chernobyl was caused by particles she had ingested as a child is a whole different ball game!. Hardly anyone does long term studies certainly not the FSA or FDA most are cheaply funded through universities and there's dozens that indicate problems and they all end in the same way, more research is required. And that's when it gets shelved. I'm neither a firm believer in aspartame nor a denier but from what I've read in other studies I give as much credence to government reports about as i do to hearsay on the internet | |||
" Was this the same people testing findus lasagne
In America it was, yeah, the FDA.
It will be the same here too except it would have been the FSA.
Don't understand your point really?.
Would it surprise you that there was countless studies of asbestos and smoking and they found very little "evidence", even today there's very little " evidence "that smoking causes lung cancer!.
There's a fine line between clinical evidence and causation and analysis.
I very much doubt (but I could be wrong) that any long term wide ranging studies have ever been done over aspartame.
I say that out of other studies from subjects I've read like, deleted uranium.
Can't be bothered but the FDA, for example has stated that this is a safe product. This is on the back of a substantial amount of empirical research.
Just in case you are unaware but I think you will be, the D in FDA stands for Drug. You mention smoking, see if the FDA says that smoking and it's related effects are safe.
Be sensible, in a debate. I am not pro or anti aspartame but at some point you just have to trust government bodies to do what is right. Now I am aware that that is not always the case but in the main they are reputable bodies.
Look anywhere on the internet and you can find all sorts saying all sorts. Hitler was a good man, the Holocaust never happened, the Lunar Landings were fake, Elvis is alive and playing intimate gigs for Lord Lucan and the Yeti.
People can say anything, doesn't make it true. Information from reputable sources is just that, reputable.
What have you got against our FSA or the US's FDA?.
The FDA and FSA are about as unbiased as any other government organisation!.
So look at the studies that come out from various bodies, if it's favourable it gets printed, if it isn't it gets buried, that was my whole point about smoking, they knew it was bad for 40 years, they knew asbestos was a killer for 40 years, they were both sold for that time with the tag "no evidence to say it's harmful".
They know power lines cause cancer, they know nuclear power stations cause cancer, they know depleted uranium causes cancer, they know 100,000s died from Chernobyl and the same will die from Fukushima but absolute tangible evidence that Elena baltachas cancer 30 years after the fact of Chernobyl was caused by particles she had ingested as a child is a whole different ball game!.
Hardly anyone does long term studies certainly not the FSA or FDA most are cheaply funded through universities and there's dozens that indicate problems and they all end in the same way, more research is required.
And that's when it gets shelved.
I'm neither a firm believer in aspartame nor a denier but from what I've read in other studies I give as much credence to government reports about as i do to hearsay on the internet"THE FDA or FSA did not investigate any nuclear accident at Chernobyl or in Japan, so why you would use that as a point to say that aspartame may be unsafe because other government bodies have withheld/changed/destroyed evidence in the past. This sounds like conspiracy based theories to me. If Elena's untimely death was down to ingestion of contaminated particles, then why wasn't it picked up earlier. A professional athlete who had medical after medical, and world class ones at that, throughout her career and nothing was found. If it was so inevitable that she was going to be a victim of Chernobyl, why is her brother still alive and healthy? Indeed why is her father still alive? Surely they should all have suffered the same fate? Now I know that historically things were different. Smoking was thought to be fine, Coke Cola had cocaine in it, if you look at the original advertising for Perrier in extolled the virtue of it's radioactive properties. But what has anyone to gain from saying that after extensive testing that aspartame is safe when it's not? Another manufacturer would leap on this and use this to denigrate aspartame while promoting their product. Also what about the actions that the FDA and FSA have taken against other products? Are they just picking on them? Things are a little more transparent nowadays, not always but in the main. | |||
" Was this the same people testing findus lasagne
In America it was, yeah, the FDA.
It will be the same here too except it would have been the FSA.
Don't understand your point really?.
Would it surprise you that there was countless studies of asbestos and smoking and they found very little "evidence", even today there's very little " evidence "that smoking causes lung cancer!.
There's a fine line between clinical evidence and causation and analysis.
I very much doubt (but I could be wrong) that any long term wide ranging studies have ever been done over aspartame.
I say that out of other studies from subjects I've read like, deleted uranium.
Can't be bothered but the FDA, for example has stated that this is a safe product. This is on the back of a substantial amount of empirical research.
Just in case you are unaware but I think you will be, the D in FDA stands for Drug. You mention smoking, see if the FDA says that smoking and it's related effects are safe.
Be sensible, in a debate. I am not pro or anti aspartame but at some point you just have to trust government bodies to do what is right. Now I am aware that that is not always the case but in the main they are reputable bodies.
Look anywhere on the internet and you can find all sorts saying all sorts. Hitler was a good man, the Holocaust never happened, the Lunar Landings were fake, Elvis is alive and playing intimate gigs for Lord Lucan and the Yeti.
People can say anything, doesn't make it true. Information from reputable sources is just that, reputable.
What have you got against our FSA or the US's FDA?.
The FDA and FSA are about as unbiased as any other government organisation!.
So look at the studies that come out from various bodies, if it's favourable it gets printed, if it isn't it gets buried, that was my whole point about smoking, they knew it was bad for 40 years, they knew asbestos was a killer for 40 years, they were both sold for that time with the tag "no evidence to say it's harmful".
They know power lines cause cancer, they know nuclear power stations cause cancer, they know depleted uranium causes cancer, they know 100,000s died from Chernobyl and the same will die from Fukushima but absolute tangible evidence that Elena baltachas cancer 30 years after the fact of Chernobyl was caused by particles she had ingested as a child is a whole different ball game!.
Hardly anyone does long term studies certainly not the FSA or FDA most are cheaply funded through universities and there's dozens that indicate problems and they all end in the same way, more research is required.
And that's when it gets shelved.
I'm neither a firm believer in aspartame nor a denier but from what I've read in other studies I give as much credence to government reports about as i do to hearsay on the internet
THE FDA or FSA did not investigate any nuclear accident at Chernobyl or in Japan, so why you would use that as a point to say that aspartame may be unsafe because other government bodies have withheld/changed/destroyed evidence in the past.
This sounds like conspiracy based theories to me. If Elena's untimely death was down to ingestion of contaminated particles, then why wasn't it picked up earlier. A professional athlete who had medical after medical, and world class ones at that, throughout her career and nothing was found. If it was so inevitable that she was going to be a victim of Chernobyl, why is her brother still alive and healthy? Indeed why is her father still alive? Surely they should all have suffered the same fate?
Now I know that historically things were different. Smoking was thought to be fine, Coke Cola had cocaine in it, if you look at the original advertising for Perrier in extolled the virtue of it's radioactive properties.
But what has anyone to gain from saying that after extensive testing that aspartame is safe when it's not?
Another manufacturer would leap on this and use this to denigrate aspartame while promoting their product.
Also what about the actions that the FDA and FSA have taken against other products? Are they just picking on them?
Things are a little more transparent nowadays, not always but in the main.". Are you bring serious! Her brother and her father would be dead as well.... That was my whole point in the bringing about tangible direct evidence?. You do realise there's people who smoke that don't get lung cancer or people who worked in asbestos mills where it was lying around everywhere that didn't get lung cancer!. Are you now concluding that these two products don't cause cancer?. The FDA and FSA are no different than any other government quango body, now if a scientist is told test aspartame on rats and see if there's any side affects and they do it, does that make it safe!. What about if they test rats and do small scale human studies, well that could prove short term negative affects. But nobody does long term affect 10-20 year studies, nobody looks at how it reacts with other compounds outside in the real world. It was exactly my point with the other subjects I mentioned, direct correlation between things is very hard to prove, where as stating there's no hard evidence is dangerous is a dammed site easier. | |||
" Was this the same people testing findus lasagne
In America it was, yeah, the FDA.
It will be the same here too except it would have been the FSA.
Don't understand your point really?.
Would it surprise you that there was countless studies of asbestos and smoking and they found very little "evidence", even today there's very little " evidence "that smoking causes lung cancer!.
There's a fine line between clinical evidence and causation and analysis.
I very much doubt (but I could be wrong) that any long term wide ranging studies have ever been done over aspartame.
I say that out of other studies from subjects I've read like, deleted uranium.
Can't be bothered but the FDA, for example has stated that this is a safe product. This is on the back of a substantial amount of empirical research.
Just in case you are unaware but I think you will be, the D in FDA stands for Drug. You mention smoking, see if the FDA says that smoking and it's related effects are safe.
Be sensible, in a debate. I am not pro or anti aspartame but at some point you just have to trust government bodies to do what is right. Now I am aware that that is not always the case but in the main they are reputable bodies.
Look anywhere on the internet and you can find all sorts saying all sorts. Hitler was a good man, the Holocaust never happened, the Lunar Landings were fake, Elvis is alive and playing intimate gigs for Lord Lucan and the Yeti.
People can say anything, doesn't make it true. Information from reputable sources is just that, reputable.
What have you got against our FSA or the US's FDA?.
The FDA and FSA are about as unbiased as any other government organisation!.
So look at the studies that come out from various bodies, if it's favourable it gets printed, if it isn't it gets buried, that was my whole point about smoking, they knew it was bad for 40 years, they knew asbestos was a killer for 40 years, they were both sold for that time with the tag "no evidence to say it's harmful".
They know power lines cause cancer, they know nuclear power stations cause cancer, they know depleted uranium causes cancer, they know 100,000s died from Chernobyl and the same will die from Fukushima but absolute tangible evidence that Elena baltachas cancer 30 years after the fact of Chernobyl was caused by particles she had ingested as a child is a whole different ball game!.
Hardly anyone does long term studies certainly not the FSA or FDA most are cheaply funded through universities and there's dozens that indicate problems and they all end in the same way, more research is required.
And that's when it gets shelved.
I'm neither a firm believer in aspartame nor a denier but from what I've read in other studies I give as much credence to government reports about as i do to hearsay on the internet
THE FDA or FSA did not investigate any nuclear accident at Chernobyl or in Japan, so why you would use that as a point to say that aspartame may be unsafe because other government bodies have withheld/changed/destroyed evidence in the past.
This sounds like conspiracy based theories to me. If Elena's untimely death was down to ingestion of contaminated particles, then why wasn't it picked up earlier. A professional athlete who had medical after medical, and world class ones at that, throughout her career and nothing was found. If it was so inevitable that she was going to be a victim of Chernobyl, why is her brother still alive and healthy? Indeed why is her father still alive? Surely they should all have suffered the same fate?
Now I know that historically things were different. Smoking was thought to be fine, Coke Cola had cocaine in it, if you look at the original advertising for Perrier in extolled the virtue of it's radioactive properties.
But what has anyone to gain from saying that after extensive testing that aspartame is safe when it's not?
Another manufacturer would leap on this and use this to denigrate aspartame while promoting their product.
Also what about the actions that the FDA and FSA have taken against other products? Are they just picking on them?
Things are a little more transparent nowadays, not always but in the main..
Are you bring serious! Her brother and her father would be dead as well.... That was my whole point in the bringing about tangible direct evidence?.
You do realise there's people who smoke that don't get lung cancer or people who worked in asbestos mills where it was lying around everywhere that didn't get lung cancer!. Are you now concluding that these two products don't cause cancer?.
The FDA and FSA are no different than any other government quango body, now if a scientist is told test aspartame on rats and see if there's any side affects and they do it, does that make it safe!.
What about if they test rats and do small scale human studies, well that could prove short term negative affects.
But nobody does long term affect 10-20 year studies, nobody looks at how it reacts with other compounds outside in the real world.
It was exactly my point with the other subjects I mentioned, direct correlation between things is very hard to prove, where as stating there's no hard evidence is dangerous is a dammed site easier.
"No I am not saying that her brother or father should be dead but if Elena's death is a direct consequence of her environment and her family shared the same environment then there may be a higher possibility that they would have suffered as a result but didn't. What is this direct evidence you quote and what is it's source. Oh and by the way while aspartame was found in 1965 but not authorised for mass consumption until 1981, what did you think the company who developed it did. The just waited for 16 years doing nothing. Pretty sure they were testing it. | |||
" Was this the same people testing findus lasagne
In America it was, yeah, the FDA.
It will be the same here too except it would have been the FSA.
Don't understand your point really?.
Would it surprise you that there was countless studies of asbestos and smoking and they found very little "evidence", even today there's very little " evidence "that smoking causes lung cancer!.
There's a fine line between clinical evidence and causation and analysis.
I very much doubt (but I could be wrong) that any long term wide ranging studies have ever been done over aspartame.
I say that out of other studies from subjects I've read like, deleted uranium.
Can't be bothered but the FDA, for example has stated that this is a safe product. This is on the back of a substantial amount of empirical research.
Just in case you are unaware but I think you will be, the D in FDA stands for Drug. You mention smoking, see if the FDA says that smoking and it's related effects are safe.
Be sensible, in a debate. I am not pro or anti aspartame but at some point you just have to trust government bodies to do what is right. Now I am aware that that is not always the case but in the main they are reputable bodies.
Look anywhere on the internet and you can find all sorts saying all sorts. Hitler was a good man, the Holocaust never happened, the Lunar Landings were fake, Elvis is alive and playing intimate gigs for Lord Lucan and the Yeti.
People can say anything, doesn't make it true. Information from reputable sources is just that, reputable.
What have you got against our FSA or the US's FDA?.
The FDA and FSA are about as unbiased as any other government organisation!.
So look at the studies that come out from various bodies, if it's favourable it gets printed, if it isn't it gets buried, that was my whole point about smoking, they knew it was bad for 40 years, they knew asbestos was a killer for 40 years, they were both sold for that time with the tag "no evidence to say it's harmful".
They know power lines cause cancer, they know nuclear power stations cause cancer, they know depleted uranium causes cancer, they know 100,000s died from Chernobyl and the same will die from Fukushima but absolute tangible evidence that Elena baltachas cancer 30 years after the fact of Chernobyl was caused by particles she had ingested as a child is a whole different ball game!.
Hardly anyone does long term studies certainly not the FSA or FDA most are cheaply funded through universities and there's dozens that indicate problems and they all end in the same way, more research is required.
And that's when it gets shelved.
I'm neither a firm believer in aspartame nor a denier but from what I've read in other studies I give as much credence to government reports about as i do to hearsay on the internet
THE FDA or FSA did not investigate any nuclear accident at Chernobyl or in Japan, so why you would use that as a point to say that aspartame may be unsafe because other government bodies have withheld/changed/destroyed evidence in the past.
This sounds like conspiracy based theories to me. If Elena's untimely death was down to ingestion of contaminated particles, then why wasn't it picked up earlier. A professional athlete who had medical after medical, and world class ones at that, throughout her career and nothing was found. If it was so inevitable that she was going to be a victim of Chernobyl, why is her brother still alive and healthy? Indeed why is her father still alive? Surely they should all have suffered the same fate?
Now I know that historically things were different. Smoking was thought to be fine, Coke Cola had cocaine in it, if you look at the original advertising for Perrier in extolled the virtue of it's radioactive properties.
But what has anyone to gain from saying that after extensive testing that aspartame is safe when it's not?
Another manufacturer would leap on this and use this to denigrate aspartame while promoting their product.
Also what about the actions that the FDA and FSA have taken against other products? Are they just picking on them?
Things are a little more transparent nowadays, not always but in the main..
Are you bring serious! Her brother and her father would be dead as well.... That was my whole point in the bringing about tangible direct evidence?.
You do realise there's people who smoke that don't get lung cancer or people who worked in asbestos mills where it was lying around everywhere that didn't get lung cancer!. Are you now concluding that these two products don't cause cancer?.
The FDA and FSA are no different than any other government quango body, now if a scientist is told test aspartame on rats and see if there's any side affects and they do it, does that make it safe!.
What about if they test rats and do small scale human studies, well that could prove short term negative affects.
But nobody does long term affect 10-20 year studies, nobody looks at how it reacts with other compounds outside in the real world.
It was exactly my point with the other subjects I mentioned, direct correlation between things is very hard to prove, where as stating there's no hard evidence is dangerous is a dammed site easier.
No I am not saying that her brother or father should be dead but if Elena's death is a direct consequence of her environment and her family shared the same environment then there may be a higher possibility that they would have suffered as a result but didn't.
What is this direct evidence you quote and what is it's source.
Oh and by the way while aspartame was found in 1965 but not authorised for mass consumption until 1981, what did you think the company who developed it did. The just waited for 16 years doing nothing. Pretty sure they were testing it.". I would suggest that thinking a pharmaceutical company who invented a compound, that they didn't have a use for at the time spent 16 years spending fortunes on research to see if it killed anyone!. Now you can believe what you wish I'm not here to tell you aspartame is deadly nor safe, I'm just trying to inform you that in my opinion from other subjects, it's never safe to say something's safe!. History proves you wrong every time! | |||
| |||
" Was this the same people testing findus lasagne
In America it was, yeah, the FDA.
It will be the same here too except it would have been the FSA.
Don't understand your point really?.
Would it surprise you that there was countless studies of asbestos and smoking and they found very little "evidence", even today there's very little " evidence "that smoking causes lung cancer!.
There's a fine line between clinical evidence and causation and analysis.
I very much doubt (but I could be wrong) that any long term wide ranging studies have ever been done over aspartame.
I say that out of other studies from subjects I've read like, deleted uranium.
Can't be bothered but the FDA, for example has stated that this is a safe product. This is on the back of a substantial amount of empirical research.
Just in case you are unaware but I think you will be, the D in FDA stands for Drug. You mention smoking, see if the FDA says that smoking and it's related effects are safe.
Be sensible, in a debate. I am not pro or anti aspartame but at some point you just have to trust government bodies to do what is right. Now I am aware that that is not always the case but in the main they are reputable bodies.
Look anywhere on the internet and you can find all sorts saying all sorts. Hitler was a good man, the Holocaust never happened, the Lunar Landings were fake, Elvis is alive and playing intimate gigs for Lord Lucan and the Yeti.
People can say anything, doesn't make it true. Information from reputable sources is just that, reputable.
What have you got against our FSA or the US's FDA?.
The FDA and FSA are about as unbiased as any other government organisation!.
So look at the studies that come out from various bodies, if it's favourable it gets printed, if it isn't it gets buried, that was my whole point about smoking, they knew it was bad for 40 years, they knew asbestos was a killer for 40 years, they were both sold for that time with the tag "no evidence to say it's harmful".
They know power lines cause cancer, they know nuclear power stations cause cancer, they know depleted uranium causes cancer, they know 100,000s died from Chernobyl and the same will die from Fukushima but absolute tangible evidence that Elena baltachas cancer 30 years after the fact of Chernobyl was caused by particles she had ingested as a child is a whole different ball game!.
Hardly anyone does long term studies certainly not the FSA or FDA most are cheaply funded through universities and there's dozens that indicate problems and they all end in the same way, more research is required.
And that's when it gets shelved.
I'm neither a firm believer in aspartame nor a denier but from what I've read in other studies I give as much credence to government reports about as i do to hearsay on the internet
THE FDA or FSA did not investigate any nuclear accident at Chernobyl or in Japan, so why you would use that as a point to say that aspartame may be unsafe because other government bodies have withheld/changed/destroyed evidence in the past.
This sounds like conspiracy based theories to me. If Elena's untimely death was down to ingestion of contaminated particles, then why wasn't it picked up earlier. A professional athlete who had medical after medical, and world class ones at that, throughout her career and nothing was found. If it was so inevitable that she was going to be a victim of Chernobyl, why is her brother still alive and healthy? Indeed why is her father still alive? Surely they should all have suffered the same fate?
Now I know that historically things were different. Smoking was thought to be fine, Coke Cola had cocaine in it, if you look at the original advertising for Perrier in extolled the virtue of it's radioactive properties.
But what has anyone to gain from saying that after extensive testing that aspartame is safe when it's not?
Another manufacturer would leap on this and use this to denigrate aspartame while promoting their product.
Also what about the actions that the FDA and FSA have taken against other products? Are they just picking on them?
Things are a little more transparent nowadays, not always but in the main..
Are you bring serious! Her brother and her father would be dead as well.... That was my whole point in the bringing about tangible direct evidence?.
You do realise there's people who smoke that don't get lung cancer or people who worked in asbestos mills where it was lying around everywhere that didn't get lung cancer!. Are you now concluding that these two products don't cause cancer?.
The FDA and FSA are no different than any other government quango body, now if a scientist is told test aspartame on rats and see if there's any side affects and they do it, does that make it safe!.
What about if they test rats and do small scale human studies, well that could prove short term negative affects.
But nobody does long term affect 10-20 year studies, nobody looks at how it reacts with other compounds outside in the real world.
It was exactly my point with the other subjects I mentioned, direct correlation between things is very hard to prove, where as stating there's no hard evidence is dangerous is a dammed site easier.
No I am not saying that her brother or father should be dead but if Elena's death is a direct consequence of her environment and her family shared the same environment then there may be a higher possibility that they would have suffered as a result but didn't.
What is this direct evidence you quote and what is it's source.
Oh and by the way while aspartame was found in 1965 but not authorised for mass consumption until 1981, what did you think the company who developed it did. The just waited for 16 years doing nothing. Pretty sure they were testing it..
I would suggest that thinking a pharmaceutical company who invented a compound, that they didn't have a use for at the time spent 16 years spending fortunes on research to see if it killed anyone!.
Now you can believe what you wish I'm not here to tell you aspartame is deadly nor safe, I'm just trying to inform you that in my opinion from other subjects, it's never safe to say something's safe!. History proves you wrong every time!"Ok so say you are right, your argument, if you follow it to it's logical conclusion means that there is absolutely no product on the market today that is safe. You say this because no product in your opinion has received adequate, if any, testing to establish this. Is this correct or does it only apply to aspartame? Could you please also tell me where I could see the direct evidence from Elena's untimely death as I would like to see this for myself. | |||
| |||
"There isn't any actual evidence aspartame is unsafe. Google aspartame and evidence and check the science based medicine article on it." It is not unsafe, it's just a conspiracy theory. | |||
" Was this the same people testing findus lasagne
In America it was, yeah, the FDA.
It will be the same here too except it would have been the FSA.
Don't understand your point really?.
Would it surprise you that there was countless studies of asbestos and smoking and they found very little "evidence", even today there's very little " evidence "that smoking causes lung cancer!.
There's a fine line between clinical evidence and causation and analysis.
I very much doubt (but I could be wrong) that any long term wide ranging studies have ever been done over aspartame.
I say that out of other studies from subjects I've read like, deleted uranium.
Can't be bothered but the FDA, for example has stated that this is a safe product. This is on the back of a substantial amount of empirical research.
Just in case you are unaware but I think you will be, the D in FDA stands for Drug. You mention smoking, see if the FDA says that smoking and it's related effects are safe.
Be sensible, in a debate. I am not pro or anti aspartame but at some point you just have to trust government bodies to do what is right. Now I am aware that that is not always the case but in the main they are reputable bodies.
Look anywhere on the internet and you can find all sorts saying all sorts. Hitler was a good man, the Holocaust never happened, the Lunar Landings were fake, Elvis is alive and playing intimate gigs for Lord Lucan and the Yeti.
People can say anything, doesn't make it true. Information from reputable sources is just that, reputable.
What have you got against our FSA or the US's FDA?.
The FDA and FSA are about as unbiased as any other government organisation!.
So look at the studies that come out from various bodies, if it's favourable it gets printed, if it isn't it gets buried, that was my whole point about smoking, they knew it was bad for 40 years, they knew asbestos was a killer for 40 years, they were both sold for that time with the tag "no evidence to say it's harmful".
They know power lines cause cancer, they know nuclear power stations cause cancer, they know depleted uranium causes cancer, they know 100,000s died from Chernobyl and the same will die from Fukushima but absolute tangible evidence that Elena baltachas cancer 30 years after the fact of Chernobyl was caused by particles she had ingested as a child is a whole different ball game!.
Hardly anyone does long term studies certainly not the FSA or FDA most are cheaply funded through universities and there's dozens that indicate problems and they all end in the same way, more research is required.
And that's when it gets shelved.
I'm neither a firm believer in aspartame nor a denier but from what I've read in other studies I give as much credence to government reports about as i do to hearsay on the internet
THE FDA or FSA did not investigate any nuclear accident at Chernobyl or in Japan, so why you would use that as a point to say that aspartame may be unsafe because other government bodies have withheld/changed/destroyed evidence in the past.
This sounds like conspiracy based theories to me. If Elena's untimely death was down to ingestion of contaminated particles, then why wasn't it picked up earlier. A professional athlete who had medical after medical, and world class ones at that, throughout her career and nothing was found. If it was so inevitable that she was going to be a victim of Chernobyl, why is her brother still alive and healthy? Indeed why is her father still alive? Surely they should all have suffered the same fate?
Now I know that historically things were different. Smoking was thought to be fine, Coke Cola had cocaine in it, if you look at the original advertising for Perrier in extolled the virtue of it's radioactive properties.
But what has anyone to gain from saying that after extensive testing that aspartame is safe when it's not?
Another manufacturer would leap on this and use this to denigrate aspartame while promoting their product.
Also what about the actions that the FDA and FSA have taken against other products? Are they just picking on them?
Things are a little more transparent nowadays, not always but in the main..
Are you bring serious! Her brother and her father would be dead as well.... That was my whole point in the bringing about tangible direct evidence?.
You do realise there's people who smoke that don't get lung cancer or people who worked in asbestos mills where it was lying around everywhere that didn't get lung cancer!. Are you now concluding that these two products don't cause cancer?.
The FDA and FSA are no different than any other government quango body, now if a scientist is told test aspartame on rats and see if there's any side affects and they do it, does that make it safe!.
What about if they test rats and do small scale human studies, well that could prove short term negative affects.
But nobody does long term affect 10-20 year studies, nobody looks at how it reacts with other compounds outside in the real world.
It was exactly my point with the other subjects I mentioned, direct correlation between things is very hard to prove, where as stating there's no hard evidence is dangerous is a dammed site easier.
No I am not saying that her brother or father should be dead but if Elena's death is a direct consequence of her environment and her family shared the same environment then there may be a higher possibility that they would have suffered as a result but didn't.
What is this direct evidence you quote and what is it's source.
Oh and by the way while aspartame was found in 1965 but not authorised for mass consumption until 1981, what did you think the company who developed it did. The just waited for 16 years doing nothing. Pretty sure they were testing it..
I would suggest that thinking a pharmaceutical company who invented a compound, that they didn't have a use for at the time spent 16 years spending fortunes on research to see if it killed anyone!.
Now you can believe what you wish I'm not here to tell you aspartame is deadly nor safe, I'm just trying to inform you that in my opinion from other subjects, it's never safe to say something's safe!. History proves you wrong every time!
Ok so say you are right, your argument, if you follow it to it's logical conclusion means that there is absolutely no product on the market today that is safe. You say this because no product in your opinion has received adequate, if any, testing to establish this.
Is this correct or does it only apply to aspartame?
Could you please also tell me where I could see the direct evidence from Elena's untimely death as I would like to see this for myself.". Are you actually reading my posts. I'm saying there is no direct evidence to smoking and lung cancer, there's no direct evidence of Elena baltacha and liver cancer... There's never any direct evidence because it's extremely hard to prove direct causation when one person dies and the other person doesn't but many countless studies have thrown up statistics that need more research but the research is rarely done. | |||
" Was this the same people testing findus lasagne
In America it was, yeah, the FDA.
It will be the same here too except it would have been the FSA.
Don't understand your point really?.
Would it surprise you that there was countless studies of asbestos and smoking and they found very little "evidence", even today there's very little " evidence "that smoking causes lung cancer!.
There's a fine line between clinical evidence and causation and analysis.
I very much doubt (but I could be wrong) that any long term wide ranging studies have ever been done over aspartame.
I say that out of other studies from subjects I've read like, deleted uranium.
Can't be bothered but the FDA, for example has stated that this is a safe product. This is on the back of a substantial amount of empirical research.
Just in case you are unaware but I think you will be, the D in FDA stands for Drug. You mention smoking, see if the FDA says that smoking and it's related effects are safe.
Be sensible, in a debate. I am not pro or anti aspartame but at some point you just have to trust government bodies to do what is right. Now I am aware that that is not always the case but in the main they are reputable bodies.
Look anywhere on the internet and you can find all sorts saying all sorts. Hitler was a good man, the Holocaust never happened, the Lunar Landings were fake, Elvis is alive and playing intimate gigs for Lord Lucan and the Yeti.
People can say anything, doesn't make it true. Information from reputable sources is just that, reputable.
What have you got against our FSA or the US's FDA?.
The FDA and FSA are about as unbiased as any other government organisation!.
So look at the studies that come out from various bodies, if it's favourable it gets printed, if it isn't it gets buried, that was my whole point about smoking, they knew it was bad for 40 years, they knew asbestos was a killer for 40 years, they were both sold for that time with the tag "no evidence to say it's harmful".
They know power lines cause cancer, they know nuclear power stations cause cancer, they know depleted uranium causes cancer, they know 100,000s died from Chernobyl and the same will die from Fukushima but absolute tangible evidence that Elena baltachas cancer 30 years after the fact of Chernobyl was caused by particles she had ingested as a child is a whole different ball game!.
Hardly anyone does long term studies certainly not the FSA or FDA most are cheaply funded through universities and there's dozens that indicate problems and they all end in the same way, more research is required.
And that's when it gets shelved.
I'm neither a firm believer in aspartame nor a denier but from what I've read in other studies I give as much credence to government reports about as i do to hearsay on the internet
THE FDA or FSA did not investigate any nuclear accident at Chernobyl or in Japan, so why you would use that as a point to say that aspartame may be unsafe because other government bodies have withheld/changed/destroyed evidence in the past.
This sounds like conspiracy based theories to me. If Elena's untimely death was down to ingestion of contaminated particles, then why wasn't it picked up earlier. A professional athlete who had medical after medical, and world class ones at that, throughout her career and nothing was found. If it was so inevitable that she was going to be a victim of Chernobyl, why is her brother still alive and healthy? Indeed why is her father still alive? Surely they should all have suffered the same fate?
Now I know that historically things were different. Smoking was thought to be fine, Coke Cola had cocaine in it, if you look at the original advertising for Perrier in extolled the virtue of it's radioactive properties.
But what has anyone to gain from saying that after extensive testing that aspartame is safe when it's not?
Another manufacturer would leap on this and use this to denigrate aspartame while promoting their product.
Also what about the actions that the FDA and FSA have taken against other products? Are they just picking on them?
Things are a little more transparent nowadays, not always but in the main..
Are you bring serious! Her brother and her father would be dead as well.... That was my whole point in the bringing about tangible direct evidence?.
You do realise there's people who smoke that don't get lung cancer or people who worked in asbestos mills where it was lying around everywhere that didn't get lung cancer!. Are you now concluding that these two products don't cause cancer?.
The FDA and FSA are no different than any other government quango body, now if a scientist is told test aspartame on rats and see if there's any side affects and they do it, does that make it safe!.
What about if they test rats and do small scale human studies, well that could prove short term negative affects.
But nobody does long term affect 10-20 year studies, nobody looks at how it reacts with other compounds outside in the real world.
It was exactly my point with the other subjects I mentioned, direct correlation between things is very hard to prove, where as stating there's no hard evidence is dangerous is a dammed site easier.
No I am not saying that her brother or father should be dead but if Elena's death is a direct consequence of her environment and her family shared the same environment then there may be a higher possibility that they would have suffered as a result but didn't.
What is this direct evidence you quote and what is it's source.
Oh and by the way while aspartame was found in 1965 but not authorised for mass consumption until 1981, what did you think the company who developed it did. The just waited for 16 years doing nothing. Pretty sure they were testing it..
I would suggest that thinking a pharmaceutical company who invented a compound, that they didn't have a use for at the time spent 16 years spending fortunes on research to see if it killed anyone!.
Now you can believe what you wish I'm not here to tell you aspartame is deadly nor safe, I'm just trying to inform you that in my opinion from other subjects, it's never safe to say something's safe!. History proves you wrong every time!
Ok so say you are right, your argument, if you follow it to it's logical conclusion means that there is absolutely no product on the market today that is safe. You say this because no product in your opinion has received adequate, if any, testing to establish this.
Is this correct or does it only apply to aspartame?
Could you please also tell me where I could see the direct evidence from Elena's untimely death as I would like to see this for myself..
Are you actually reading my posts.
I'm saying there is no direct evidence to smoking and lung cancer, there's no direct evidence of Elena baltacha and liver cancer... There's never any direct evidence because it's extremely hard to prove direct causation when one person dies and the other person doesn't but many countless studies have thrown up statistics that need more research but the research is rarely done."All I am saying is that there is no evidence that it is unsafe. There is evidence however that it is. Over 100 government agencies, using there own testing and standards criteria have said this, so are they all wrong? There is direct evidence that smoking causes cancer. Our government admits this, that is why they even place warnings on the packets of cigarettes. The legality of getting someone to own up to this from the tobacco companies is the problem. That the cigarettes actually caused the cancer in a specific plaintiff. The evidence is there, it's problems with the legal system at present. | |||
"There isn't any actual evidence aspartame is unsafe. Google aspartame and evidence and check the science based medicine article on it. It is not unsafe, it's just a conspiracy theory." . They said the exact same thing about smoking and asbestos!. There was never direct evidence to support smoking caused lung cancer, what happened was over decades doctors noticed that smokers were getting lung cancer at a higher rate than non smokers. This was dispelled as non conclusive by the tobacco companies who had their own scientific reports, but it did trigger higher research and then they noticed that the smokers had the same specific type of lung cancer and over 50 years it was eventually established by medical consensus that smoking causes cancer.... But in the beginning the initial testing proved smoking safe!. That's my point | |||
"There isn't any actual evidence aspartame is unsafe. Google aspartame and evidence and check the science based medicine article on it. It is not unsafe, it's just a conspiracy theory.. They said the exact same thing about smoking and asbestos!. There was never direct evidence to support smoking caused lung cancer, what happened was over decades doctors noticed that smokers were getting lung cancer at a higher rate than non smokers. This was dispelled as non conclusive by the tobacco companies who had their own scientific reports, but it did trigger higher research and then they noticed that the smokers had the same specific type of lung cancer and over 50 years it was eventually established by medical consensus that smoking causes cancer.... But in the beginning the initial testing proved smoking safe!. That's my point" That's not exactly true, there is a whole body of evidence, proper clinical evidence, not consensus that established that smoking is causes cancer. Not just lung cancer either. Smoking has also been proved to be the biggest cause of heart failure. It was evidence that established this, scientific research, from bodies that have nothing to gain but the eradication of cancer, ie Cancer Research UK. You must have heard of them, or are their methods, research and subsequent findings incorrect and misleading too? Companies spend years researching products, some may pass through the net because they have not been regulated yet but those that have, have had to pass stringent, clinical, testing to get to market. Aspartame is one such product. | |||
"There isn't any actual evidence aspartame is unsafe. Google aspartame and evidence and check the science based medicine article on it. It is not unsafe, it's just a conspiracy theory.. They said the exact same thing about smoking and asbestos!. There was never direct evidence to support smoking caused lung cancer, what happened was over decades doctors noticed that smokers were getting lung cancer at a higher rate than non smokers. This was dispelled as non conclusive by the tobacco companies who had their own scientific reports, but it did trigger higher research and then they noticed that the smokers had the same specific type of lung cancer and over 50 years it was eventually established by medical consensus that smoking causes cancer.... But in the beginning the initial testing proved smoking safe!. That's my point That's not exactly true, there is a whole body of evidence, proper clinical evidence, not consensus that established that smoking is causes cancer. Not just lung cancer either. Smoking has also been proved to be the biggest cause of heart failure. It was evidence that established this, scientific research, from bodies that have nothing to gain but the eradication of cancer, ie Cancer Research UK. You must have heard of them, or are their methods, research and subsequent findings incorrect and misleading too? Companies spend years researching products, some may pass through the net because they have not been regulated yet but those that have, have had to pass stringent, clinical, testing to get to market. Aspartame is one such product." . No your confusing a set of rules that declares something safe for sale, to clinical evidence of it causing something. One is write easy to pass which is why we had things like asbestos, cigarettes, lead paint, children's toys containing phthplates, thalidomide... Etc etc. And why they take years to ban because proving direct correlation is bloody hard and everyone that states a claim against it is called a conspiracy nut | |||
"There isn't any actual evidence aspartame is unsafe. Google aspartame and evidence and check the science based medicine article on it. It is not unsafe, it's just a conspiracy theory.. They said the exact same thing about smoking and asbestos!. There was never direct evidence to support smoking caused lung cancer, what happened was over decades doctors noticed that smokers were getting lung cancer at a higher rate than non smokers. This was dispelled as non conclusive by the tobacco companies who had their own scientific reports, but it did trigger higher research and then they noticed that the smokers had the same specific type of lung cancer and over 50 years it was eventually established by medical consensus that smoking causes cancer.... But in the beginning the initial testing proved smoking safe!. That's my point That's not exactly true, there is a whole body of evidence, proper clinical evidence, not consensus that established that smoking is causes cancer. Not just lung cancer either. Smoking has also been proved to be the biggest cause of heart failure. It was evidence that established this, scientific research, from bodies that have nothing to gain but the eradication of cancer, ie Cancer Research UK. You must have heard of them, or are their methods, research and subsequent findings incorrect and misleading too? Companies spend years researching products, some may pass through the net because they have not been regulated yet but those that have, have had to pass stringent, clinical, testing to get to market. Aspartame is one such product.. No your confusing a set of rules that declares something safe for sale, to clinical evidence of it causing something. One is write easy to pass which is why we had things like asbestos, cigarettes, lead paint, children's toys containing phthplates, thalidomide... Etc etc. And why they take years to ban because proving direct correlation is bloody hard and everyone that states a claim against it is called a conspiracy nut" All the stuff you quote has been proved unsafe for years, decades even. So by your logic nothing is safe because it is not tested properly. Crazy... | |||
| |||
"the point is .in tests it was unsafe.the tests were ignored and Donald Rumsfeld was employed by the company that make it to get it on the market .which he did . so now people just accept it and think its better then eating sugar, its drummed into us how bad it is for our health ..which is a bit ironic when u consider the "alternative " people will be happy to go on consuming it . but then theyre be happy to drink fluoridated water and have mercury in their teeth ..because the government tell us its ok, nothing to worry about ...and of course they would never lie to us . ever wonder why theres so many people with mental health problems, kids that cant concentrate at school.sickness in general ..people going nuts all over the place " That's just an internet hoax, look it up | |||
- Amy. x. | |||
"There isn't any actual evidence aspartame is unsafe. Google aspartame and evidence and check the science based medicine article on it. It is not unsafe, it's just a conspiracy theory.. They said the exact same thing about smoking and asbestos!. There was never direct evidence to support smoking caused lung cancer, what happened was over decades doctors noticed that smokers were getting lung cancer at a higher rate than non smokers. This was dispelled as non conclusive by the tobacco companies who had their own scientific reports, but it did trigger higher research and then they noticed that the smokers had the same specific type of lung cancer and over 50 years it was eventually established by medical consensus that smoking causes cancer.... But in the beginning the initial testing proved smoking safe!. That's my point That's not exactly true, there is a whole body of evidence, proper clinical evidence, not consensus that established that smoking is causes cancer. Not just lung cancer either. Smoking has also been proved to be the biggest cause of heart failure. It was evidence that established this, scientific research, from bodies that have nothing to gain but the eradication of cancer, ie Cancer Research UK. You must have heard of them, or are their methods, research and subsequent findings incorrect and misleading too? Companies spend years researching products, some may pass through the net because they have not been regulated yet but those that have, have had to pass stringent, clinical, testing to get to market. Aspartame is one such product.. No your confusing a set of rules that declares something safe for sale, to clinical evidence of it causing something. One is write easy to pass which is why we had things like asbestos, cigarettes, lead paint, children's toys containing phthplates, thalidomide... Etc etc. And why they take years to ban because proving direct correlation is bloody hard and everyone that states a claim against it is called a conspiracy nut All the stuff you quote has been proved unsafe for years, decades even. So by your logic nothing is safe because it is not tested properly. Crazy..." . Your taking my point and twisting it to suit your own stance. Your right it was proven unsafe years ago but NOT by the people marketing it or the overseeing body or by initial scientific examination. and that was my point. | |||
 | |||
| |||
