I'm sure drinking water is totally out of the question.
Evan
in ATL
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 | 09:44 AM
Keep in mind that Stevia is illegal in several European countries and has been linked to liver damage with long term use. Just because it has a natural source doesn't make it okay. Poison ivy is a plant too and all natural as well.
Accipiter
in the Northern Hemisphere, unless They have lied. Member
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 | 01:35 PM
You have to be a bit skeptical of some of these studies that declare various food additives to be carcinogens or to damage the liver or whatever. There was one experiment done on something (I can't remember what it was now, but it was something in sodas) that I read a while ago. First, they started on the assumption that a person drank 20 gallons a day, every day, and calculated the amount of whatever substance it was that would be in that. They then figured out what that amount would be proportional to a lab rat. They then multiplied that amount by 200. They injected the rats every day with that amount of whatever it was, and the rats were fine. So they multiplied it by 200 again and the rats were fine. Again they multiplied it by 200, and started injecting the rats with that amount daily. After a few months of that the rats died, and the researchers published an article about how the stuff in sodas causes liver damage (assuming that you drink 160,000,000 gallons a day for several months on end). Personally, I wonder if the rats simply exploded due to so much stuff being injected into them.
It's title is "Killer Diet Drinks" and it seems to describe the Aspartame disease thing as a myth
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA Member
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 | 03:38 AM
Water doesn't have calories.
DFStuckey
in Auckland New Zealand
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 09:38 PM
I don't write off everyone who claims they had a reaction to Aspartame, for one good reason: It is an artificial protein made up of two amino acids, and as we all should know, the key trigger to the human immune system is protein. Mkaes sense, as all life is made of proteins, that the body should disrupt if something suspicious made of amino acids arrives in the system . . .
Still, nothing added to food shows as strong an allergic reaction in as many people as the Food The FDA Wont Let American Vegeterians Eat; The substance sold in Europe under the name Quorn. A random selection of any human population will show 10% of them will have severe reactions to Quorn, compared to 5% for eggs and 2% for peanuts.
But then, if the FDA told you what Quorn was, you seppos might not want to eat it, even out of spite:)
Doug Parks
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 | 06:05 AM
Funny how the sites that claim aspartame is harmless somewhow have more credence than the ones that come out against it. I'll go with my personal experience. I had about 10 symptoms, stopped using NutraSweet, and voila! Doing much better.
DFStuckey
in Auckland New Zealand
Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 | 12:25 AM
Doug, I am happy that you feel better. But I must remind you that there are dozen of other ingredients in those foods and beverages that may also have triggered your reaction. Do without those as well and also voila! No proof at all.
What is needed is a double-blind test; You should try consuming items that you don't know what is in them, administered by someone else you also can't tell you immmediately whether you are having the allergen or not. Tests like this ruule out the possibility of psycosomatic reactions. which are real; I once saw the skin blisters caused by distilled water on the skin of a person who was "allergic" to honey, after she was told that the water contained a dilute amount of honey.
In any case, many people are allergic to antibiotics; Would you have thsoe banned totally to prevent a few abreactions, or merely work around them?
Be_aware
in Canada
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 | 09:49 AM
Just so you are a bit more aware...
This is from another site who's now weirdly enough, only viewable by Google "cached link" option.
Clever, Meagan, but not clever enough. You present yourself as a random person interested in diet soda, but in fact you are working for the Calorie Central Council, "an international association of manufacturers of low-calorie and reduced-fat foods and beverages. [The Council] has approximately 60 members, including the manufacturers of alternative sweeteners, fat replacers and low-calorie bulking agents." The CCC runs aspartame.org, and is a client of the Kellen Company. Meagan's post was from a host in the "kcocommitmenttoexcellence.com" domain, owned by that same Kellen Company.
A Google search on the name "meaganUGA" shows that she has posted on a few other sites about this same issue, each time not disclosing her relationship to this council. That really doesn't make me want to believe her.
davidh
David Henderson (link) - June 24 '05, 16:00
here's her reply...
David,
Yes, I do work on behalf of the Calorie Control Council (CCC) but I'm also a girl who loves diet soda. Who knew you could actually mix work with pleasure! At the CCC, I work alongside registered dieticians who are very knowledgeable about aspartame's safety and benefits as well as low calorie sweeteners in general and weight control topics. I've read a lot of the information and research out there so I'm serving as an informed source with scientific evidence to back up my statements. I care about the facts surrounding the safety of aspartame – because I am a consumer too! I'm here to inform others about a safe low-calorie sweetener that may help them lead a healthier lifestyle. More than 200 studies have proven the safety of aspartame yet it is still being subjected to rumors on the Internet.
meaganUGA (email) - July 01 '05, 20:10
Unfortunately, Meagan, by initially mis-representing yourself as solely a consumer, you lose credibility and end up doing your cause more harm than good, because now, no matter what you say, your message will be tainted by the thought, "but she didn't tell us the whole truth at first, so why should we believe her now". Dissembling is not a good method of disseminating truth.
And, just so you know, everything is subjected to rumors on the internet: aspartame is nothing special in that regard.
Peter - July 02 '05, 21:05
I will let you draw your own conclusions.
Be_aware
in Canada
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 | 09:56 AM
Sorry I forgot to include her original post.
There are tons of rumors and allegations on the Internet about aspartame, almost all of which are false. Go to and click on the "Myths" section and you'll see what I mean! Because I'm obsessed with diet soda and sugar free gum, I did some research on my own about aspartame's safety and found that it has been studied a lot! .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
meaganUGA (email) - June 24 '05, 09:18
Find it with search keyword: meaganUGA
and look for: Omphaloskepsis - It's not just a job... it's a way of life
Dan
in Portland, Oregon
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 | 06:02 PM
I have personally seen people become semi-addicted to diet drinks to the point that they consume several liters a day and are unable to stop.
People need to keep in mind that the problem with aspartame is not that it is an allergen but that is a neurotoxin. Most of the chronic effects attributable to aspartame are due to its apparent neurotoxicity. The other significant effect of aspartame seems to be increased appetite after consuming it. The people that I've seen who were heavy diet drink consumers also generally became more and more obese. After they drink the aspartame-loaded drink, their appetite increases significantly. Don't believe it? Watch your friends drink diet pop when they don't know what you're watching for. After they drink the diet pop, the next thing they will want is a snack or food of some kind, usually within 10 or 15 minutes.
Captain Al
in Alberta, Canada Member
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 | 08:36 PM
"Most of the chronic effects attributable to aspartame are due to its apparent neurotoxicity."
There have never been any harmful effects attributed to aspartame. It's all been a myth spread on the Internet, that wonderful new medium so efficient at spreading rumors. Serious research websites, such as Snopes have traced the history of this urban legend.
If aspartame caused even a small fraction of the problems claimed by the urban legend, there is no way it would be allowed in food products, unless of course your're into conspriracy theories.
Dan
in Boston
Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 | 01:03 PM
I have heard the aspartame hoax myself, and some crackpots on shortwave radio warn about it when they're not giving dire warnings about the New World Order and other conspiracies. The only reasoable warning I've heard is from my neurologist. I take Tegretol for epilepsy, and it can damage the liver, so I would have a problem with it and my medication. Most other people should be fine.
Ed
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 | 10:48 PM
Also, the BIG point many of the anti aspartame folks mention to further enhance the scare,,, > it converts to formaldehyde!! well folks! the biggest source of formaldehyde on planet Earth is........ drum roll......... tomatoes!!!
so any time you heat up spaghetti sauce or eat pizza, your getting MORE formaldehyde than you are from aspartame.
hmmmmmm,,,,, all these internet scare hoaxes, people who blindly forward junk email / scare hoaxes without doing their own research (same applies for all those fake virus alerts via junk email from your best friends, neighbors and relatives!!) none of them think anything of goning to McDonalds and shoving that stuff down their throat,,,,,,,,,, now there's some real poison!!
Barb101
Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 | 02:22 AM
I just got my blood test back from the dr seems i have a high AST and ALT level only thing i do thats bad is drink diet sodas next month im going to have another blood test run im giving up the sodas and going to see what these levels go to will report back here in june and let you people know My ast level is 46 my alt is 54
The so called CSPI which ran all the negative stories and spoke to all the media is funded by quorns main rival. The figures you quote are infact the same figures they quote, which is from a distorted clinical trial, which in reality puts allergic reactions at less than 1 in 100,000, which is far less than most foods - even mushrooms (which is only standing issue over quorn, is it was described as "mushroom based", where as really it's not technically a mushroom it's a fungal derivitive, the difference for the average consumer being trivial).
Interestingly one of the testimonails cited by the CSPI is from a man who suffered several hours of vomiting and diarphea (sp) EIGHT DAYS after consumming the quorn - quite how those two independant incidents could be linked is more than a little dubious.
Quorns been on sale here since the early 90s, and AFAIK hasn't had any health alerts or scares, and is consumed heavily by the vegetarian population (which I guess must be over 10million people, most of which consume it regularly (2x+ a week)) so I'm guessing that if it caused violent reactions in 10% of people we would have heard more about it by now..
DFStuckey
in Auckland New Zealand
Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 | 02:14 PM
UKveggie, maybe you are right. My information came from a WHO treatise on the number of illnesses based on food sources, including food poisoning which also had a surprising result.
What does distort the reporting of some facts is the vested interest of those involved, I agree; And it occurs on both sides of the argument, as witness the macrobiotic diet gurus who attribute all adverse reactions to their regime as "the toxins exiting the body".
For myself, I just find certain sources of food disturbing and I avoid them. Everything in moderation.
T. Eaton
in Illinois
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 | 05:23 PM
I'm a skeptic too, of any e-mail forwarded to me, but I researched this one. Then I told my mother (not a friend) about it. She has rhuematoid arthritis, and has been diagnosed with fibromyalgia. It has been difficult for her to get out of bed in the mornings, and painful to even walk to her car after work. Her feet, legs, arms and shoulders gave her constant pain. She drank 3-6 cans of diet soda a day. Two weeks ago, she quit the soda. When I talked to her yesterday she says she doesn't know if it's just in her head, but she has no muscle pain. She still has the arthritis, of course, but the overwhelming pain is gone. Say what you will, but I'm a believer.
Chris K
in TexaS
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 | 10:08 AM
For those who say aspartame is safe...
How come the FDA not onliy denied it once, but denied it again when the commisioner Arthur Hayes thought he could have aspartame pushed through on an independent review board.
On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener, and Reagan's new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's decision.
It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision, but Hull then installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame's favor. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame.
So it seems that when there is an intrest in lining your own pockets, that intrest outweighs public safety and intrest.
Can people at least admit that way aspartame was approved was in no way in the best public intrest of the people. If aspartame failed to be apporved more than once, why should it have to get all yes's only once. All that tells me is that you got the right group of assholes in the same room who all share the same intrests in the name of greed.
Would someone please agree with me to the fact that when the FDA allows more than half of its approval budget to come from the companies needing drugs approved(approx $500,000 per application), it doesnt take long to figure who's calling the shots.
And that "Aspartame.org" website is a joke. This happens all the time, whenever a certain organization wants to minimize this kind of controversy which is "bad for business" they make this "independent grassroots" website that says that's it's all a lie and it's fake. It's just a PR stunt:
The same thing happened when "An Inconvenient Truth" came out, this video surfaced on YouTube making fun of the documentary, making it look like it was made by some "bored college student," when it was really a PR employee hired by some gas company.
The same thing with "Handsoff.org" or some other ridiculous thing like that which was a "grassroots" company which wanted the government to let big telecom businesses do whatever they wanted with the internet and forget about net neutrality.
It happens all the time, it's the oldest trick in the book. Think twice when you see these websites and look at where the source comes from.
And I wouldn't give so much trust to the FDA. The FDA doesn't even do their own studies anymore. They just let the company do the study themselves and sends the FDA a report. The companies can leave whatever they want out of it or spin their test results if they want to. And if not, like has been done before, they can rely on some kind of corruption scandal.
