Hawaii wants aspartame banned

[Runole]

I do believe Oma fits the 2nd word.  So trusting that the Govt, Pharmaceutical , Nutrutional, Medical , and health industries are to always be trusted.   Heck they should all be trusted!!  After all they are the ones making incredible profits and most certainly they always know what is best for everyone.  Right??


Anyone remember the time when you never saw a TV ad about prescription medicines?  How things have changed!!! Put a few actors in proper medical clothing show some pretty pictures of happy people .. It has just gots to be good for you!!

[ufojoe]

We need to wake up. Pay attention to the Fed's actions and the resulting collapse of the market and economy.

If I'm wrong, I'll be very happy to have egg all over my face.

[John Galt?]

Why is the immediate knee-jerk reaction to anything possibly or potentially unhealthy to BAN it.

Put a warning label on it and if people still use it that's there perogative. 

Everyone knows junk food is bad for you but they still eat it.  Alcohol is bad for you and look what happened when we tried to ban that.

Seems like some people will only be happy when there is a government agent in every house forcing you to excercize and brush 3 times a day and checking everything you eat.

Ban all of this garbage that's put in our food. While you're at it, end fast food. Make it a LAW that food has to be natural. I don't care about profits. It's very simple, what we eat has a direct impact on our health, yet those responsible allow known disease causing ingrediants to be put in our food. This country is a joke sometimes.

Pretend a woman can get pregnant by eating food with semen in it. Now pretend you have an agency advocating safe sex to avoid teen pregnancy, yet that same agency is directly responsible for placing the semen in the food in the first place. It's a gross thing to think about, but it's exactly what's happening regarding all of the BS thrown into our food these days.

yep, that's what I'm talkin bout.  BAN THIS, BAR THAT, MAKE A LAW, CONTROL OUR ACTIONS.

I have a better idea.  If you don't like food additives, DON'T BUY FOOD WITH ADDITIVES.  Get up a little earlier and make your own lunch from fresh ingredients instead of eating fast food then calling for more laws.

Why are so many Pro-Government control and anti-Free will? maybe most people aren't, that is why the Anti-Freedom group is so enamoured with envoking images of semen in food to try and get their domineering way.

You clearly are missing my point. I want one of two things to happen.

1. I want the goverment to shut the fuk up about trying to find cures for diseases, while at the same time allowing all of this BS to be put into our food.

or

2. I want the goverment to actually start banning substances that are known to cause health problems.

Yes, I am missing your point.  No.1 above really has me confused.  Where is the Federal Govt. doing all this talking about finding cures for diseases?  I have heard NPOs like March of Dimes sponser walks and other charity events but not the Govt. let alone the FDA.  HHS does provide grants and funding to Private researchers and Universities looking for cures, but they don't talk about it much unless it is Budget time in Congress.

No. 2 above I could understand depending on your definition of "BAN".  I am on board not allowing possibly harmful additives being hidden in foods and only being mentioned in the tiny print on the bottom of the package.  But a lot of products are both harmful and helpfull.  Too much salt is bad for you but you can't live without it either.  Aspertame may be potentially harmful for some people but for diabetics and the morbidly obese the rewards may outway the risks.

I can understand not wanting to accidently consume harmfull additives in food you thought was safe.  But completely banning something may hurt a portion of the population that need a sugar alternative.  Keep it out of packaged food but don't ban packaged nutrasweet for those that need it so they can add it if need be.

It's like a guy who slaps his wife because she won't take part in a walk to raise domestic violence awareness. This garbage just doesn't make sense. And as I said earlier, try living on a completely natural diet, it is nearly impossible. In case you haven't noticed practically every food item in the grocery store is loaded with artificial this and artificial that. You can't even pronounce half of the ingrediants you are about to eat, yeah that's real safe and healthy.

I don't have that problem.  I just avoid the middle isles and stick with fresh meat and vegatables.  Lettuce, ingredients: Lettuce.  Whole Fryers, ingredients: Chicken meat and bones.  5lb bag of potatoes, ingredients: potatoes.

I guess I again miss your point.  How exactly do they put artificial ingredients in the vine ripened tomatoes?

If you want a "completely natural diet" then buy natural food, not prepackaged, heat and serve, food.  Don't demand laws and bans because you are too lazy to cook.

I want the goverment to ban these substances because I'm sick and damn tired of hearing about all of these health walks and charities to cure or treat certain conditions when the whole thing is just a bunch of BS. It's all meaningless, a show, a diversion. I'm sorry you can't seem to understand that.

You want the government to ban someting because you are tired of hearing something unrelated??  Here is an idea, STOP LISTENING.

Seriously Escobar, read that 3 or 4 times and then tell me it makes sense.  If ALL food additives were banned there would still be diseases and a need for charities to try to cure and treat them.

And your line about me being pro goverment control and anti free will is hilarious. Clearly you haven't read many of my posts. I'm about as anti goverment as they come, at least the way it's run in this greedy country. It just so happens that in this case the goverment changing laws is the only way anything could possibly be changed.

Actually, that is why I responded, your post seemed very out of character for you.

I swear, it's almost as if some of you are actually fighting FOR keeping toxic BS in our food, because it's the "free" thing to do. In case some of you haven't noticed, man is completely incapable of looking after himself. Look at what a God awful mess we have made this country and ourselves. Look around, everyone is overweight, our health as a whole is an absolute joke. The divorce rate is through the roof. The debt most families have is staggering. Wake up people. I realize imperfect human beings run the government as well , but it's time those people start making decisions that's best for the people in this country, not what's best for getting more votes in the next election.

Jesus, no wonder our country is going under, so many people think things are fine just the way they are.

My main point was to take a knee-jerk reaction and call for the banning of something based on evidence in a 4 minute video is just as bad as the FDA approving something without proper testing.  We should not ban something without proper testing and we shouldn't approve something without proper testing.

Should Aspertame be re-evaluated and futher investigated? Yes
Should we just accept one Senator's (who doesn't have a medical degree) opinion and just ban it out of hand? No.

[ufojoe]

Unbelievable. It was not going to be passed until Regan got rid of the Commish ad put his own guy in.
You have yet to comment on that, JG or the rest of that tv report which everybody should watch.

It should be BANNED until it can be proven to be safe. Very simple. If they can prove that it is safe
in the short and long term, then approve it.

Your comments about diabetics and Aspartame are even worse. Ever hear of natural sweeteners?

[ufojoe]

Thank God for places like Whole Foods.

Stevia is one option if used in moderation.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1301013/stevia_may_help_us_break_our_sugar_addiction

'Stevia' May Help Us Break Our Sugar Addiction

Posted on: Tuesday, 18 March 2008, 09:10 CDT

Sugar, sorry to say, can make us sick. The most popular alternative -- artificial sweeteners -- have long posed health concerns and may lead to weight gain.

Enter stevia, a calorie-free herb said to be up to 300 times sweeter than sugar.

In what will surely **CENSORED**e up the decades-long debate over sugar substitutes, companies as large as Coca-Cola and as obscure as Seattle-based Zevia say stevia's time has come. But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration isn't about to make things easy for consumers worried about sugar intake and often confused by the options.

Stevia has been used as a sweetener for hundreds of years in Paraguay and Brazil and has been added to soft drinks, ice cream, pickles, candies and breads in Japan since the 1970s.

But the FDA has not approved it as a food additive, citing safety concerns. The European Union and Canada also don't allow food companies to add stevia to products.

"Reports have raised concerns about control of blood sugar and the effects on the reproductive, cardiovascular and renal systems," the FDA wrote in a warning letter to Hain Celestial, which included stevia as an ingredient in one of its teas.

But stevia, also called stevioside, is widely available _ and perfectly legal _ in the United States when it's purchased as a dietary supplement. It often can be found just a few aisles away from Equal, tucked among the vitamins, minerals and herbs. The sweet-leafed herb, derived from the bushy South American stevia rebaudiana plant, also is easily obtained via the Internet.

Stevia proponents believe this nonsensical situation _ stevia is acceptable as a dietary supplement but not as an ingredient _ has kept Americans in the dark about the herb's candy-like leaves, which can have a menthol-like bitter aftertaste. When used in low amounts for sweetening, stevia has zero calories, is not carcinogenic _ on the contrary, it has been shown to reduce breast cancer in rats _ and does not accumulate in the body, proponents say.

The lethal dose is very high, according to Belgian researcher Jan Geuns, author of "Stevioside: A safe sweetener and possible new drug for treatment of the metabolic syndrome," a paper he presented at the 2006 American Chemical Society national meeting.

"Stevia is completely safe," he said.

What worries stevia critics is that Americans tend to have a problem with moderation. Stevia might be fine if it's used twice a day in a cup of tea. But "if stevia were marketed widely and used in diet sodas, it would be consumed by millions of people and that might pose a public health threat," said the consumer watchdog group Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Regardless, Americans want a natural alternative. Nearly 7 of 10 U.S. adults say they want to cut down or avoid sugar completely, according to the market research firm The NPD Group, a concern that has driven up the use of artificial sweeteners. But two-thirds are concerned about the safety of sweeteners, according to another report.

The two leading chemical sweeteners, aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal) and sucralose (Splenda), have been approved by the FDA, but are still highly controversial.

Whole Foods says it won't carry products containing sucralose, which is made by chlorinating sugar, because it believes many of the safety studies were commissioned by those who had a financial interest in its approval. And the granddaddy of the group, saccharin (Sweet'n Low), is a petroleum derivative that has been banned in Germany and France for almost a century.

"I've seen a shift in consciousness" about sugar substitutes, said Ann Louise Gittleman, author of "Get the Sugar Out" (Random House, $13.95). Gittleman recently updated her 1996 book to include more information on high-fructose corn syrup as well as sugar's effect on aging and cancer.

"It's part of people becoming more aware of toxins in the environment on all levels," she said. "Try as we might, you can't trick the body or Mother Nature."

When we do try, by using no- or low-calorie artificial sweeteners, for example, it often backfires. A recent study by Purdue University researchers showed that artificial sweeteners can make you fat because the body is programmed to associate sweet tastes with calories consumed. When the natural connection is broken _ false sweetness isn't followed by lots of calories _ the metabolic system is confused and people may eat more, or expend less energy than they normally would, said study co-author Susan Swithers.

Cue stevia. For Jessica Newman, 37, the intensely sweet leaf that can be dropped in tea, coffee or oatmeal was exactly what she needed to break her daily habit of five Diet Cokes.

An attorney, mother of three and marathon runner in Seattle, she fueled herself on diet soda and Powerbars, but longed for a healthy alternative to artificial sweeteners.

When she found stevia, she became such a proponent that she, along with her husband, Derek, and their friend Ian Eisenberg, developed a stevia-based dietary supplement called Zevia. The five-calorie sugar-free beverage, which is essentially a soft drink but can't be labeled as such, has no artificial flavors, food dyes or phosphoric acid.

Demand has been brisk; Zevia is in a dozen states and within a month is expected to available at Sunset Foods stores in Chicago's north and northwest suburbs. Newman says they've received e-mail orders from every state and currently are offering a free six-pack to those willing to pay the shipping charges.

"Many of the people who are responding to Zevia already know about stevia and the dangers of artificial sweeteners," Newman said. "We think we're offering a choice to kick the diet soda habit. We call it `nature's answer to diet soda.'"

Coke, meanwhile, has filed several dozen patent applications for the ingredient and teamed up with Cargill to develop its own stevia product called Rebiana. It plans to introduce Rebiana in countries where the ingredient is already approved and petition the FDA to allow stevia to be used as a food additive.

"Stevia is wonderful; it has no glycemic properties, actually enhances blood sugar balance, is high in soluble fiber, and full of antioxidants," said Chicago nutritionist Bonnie Minsky of Nutritional Concepts.

But not everyone wants to give up an occasional Diet Coke. Fifteen-year-old Christine Elizabeth Cauthen started a Facebook group called "I Drink Artificial Sweeteners and I'm Proud of It" after a friend planned to swear them off because studies have linked them to cancer.

"If you think about it, a lot of things in life cause cancer," Cauthen said in an e-mail. "I don't see anything wrong with having (Diet Coke) every once in a while."

[ufojoe]

I'd like to know if the Sugar/FDA/Aspartame claims are accurate...

http://www.cookingwithstevia.com/stevia_faq.html#anchor09

Why is Stevia just coming onto the market? Stevia has been around for a long time, even in the United States. Early studies on stevia go back to the 1950's but the United States is a nation chin deep in bureaucracy, dirty-politics and corruption. In the 1950's the sugar industry fought to prevent the use of Stevia in the United States. Today, the manufacturers of Nutrasweet (aspartame) have practically bought the FDA to prevent it's approval as a food additive and therefore a sugar substitute. If you don't believe me, contact 60 Minutes of CBS. In the Spring of 1997 they aired a report on how Nutrasweet "bought" influence with the FDA to force the approval of a sweetener that is now blamed for the illnesses and deaths of thousands of Americans.

[John Galt?]

Unbelievable. It was not going to be passed until Regan got rid of the Commish ad put his own guy in.
You have yet to comment on that, JG or the rest of that tv report which everybody should watch.

There was no need for me to comment on it.  Your and other comments on that issue were sufficient.  I didn't see the need to write, "I agree, that is a problem"

It should be BANNED until it can be proven to be safe. Very simple. If they can prove that it is safe
in the short and long term, then approve it.

Again, when you say BANNED, what do you mean?  I said it should NOT be added to foods if there is a question, but what is the problem with allowing packets of nutrasweet with a CLear Warning that it MAY in 1 in 10,000 cases be unhealthy.  That video did not present enough evidence to completely ban or allow it.  It did raise questions and people should demand answers.  

Your comments about diabetics and Aspartame are even worse. Ever hear of natural sweeteners?

Yes, natural sweetners like cane sugar and Honey raise glucose levels and contain calories. One molecule of sucrose (cane sugar, brown sugar) breaks down into 2 glucose molecules. Fructose (honey, molases) breaks down into 3 glucose molecules.

The whole purpose of apertame is to replace natural sweeteners, so your comment is a lot worse than mine.  You just wrote natural sweeteners can replace aspertame which replaces natural sweeteners.  Think about it.

[escobar]

JG you make some good points but also some poor assumptions. For one, I'm not too lazy to cook, in fact I cook almost nightly. I realize it is possible to buy fresh produce but as I said so many things are used to grow and treat it how can you really know it's safe? How much garbage is loaded into our meat and dairy products (including how they feed/treat the animal while alive)? Unless you want to eat like a rabbit, it's very difficult to eat healthy. If eating healthy were as easy as you make it out to be then health food stores wouldn't be able to rape people on the prices because their food would be available everywhere.

I just think things can be done to make this country a healthier place to live. Foods are loaded with garbage, prescription drugs are basically handed out like candy, PE is no longer mandatory for all kids, people are working more than ever. I realize if they banned certain substances disease wouldn't go away. But it's a step in the right direction. Unfortunately profits will always dictate how this country is run, the health and well being of the people in this country will never be looked at as more important. And as anyone can plainly see, those kinds of decisions have led us to where we are today, a disturbingly sick country. Some people think things are fine, I don't.

[ufojoe]

JG, the natural sweetener I posted about (stevia) is apparently OK for diabetics to use. Big difference from
some of the other stuff people use. Think about it.

Maybe I should have said natural sweetener (singular). But I thought you would figure that out.

[Runole]

When it comes to beverages that contain real sugar why isn't the amount in the actual drinks just reduced.  Very often I have to actually dilute many drinks with water to make them palatable.  Tend to avoid carbonated beverages ( probably less than 1 a month).  I just don't understand why so much Sugar is added to many drinks.

Another gripe is all the added stuff to some fruit beverages.  Why isn't Orange Juice fine just the way it is? Why does it have to be fortified?

The whole FAT FREE thing is absolutely ridiculous.  That it is posted on just about every carbohydrate food is completely asinine.  Most are loaded with calories but of course they are FAT FREE!!  Ridiculous.


As to the Government, I do believe there should be more careful screening done but also I don't like the Govt arbitrarily banning things so another product can control the market.  That happens entirely too often.

The whole FAT FREE thing is absolutely ridiculous.  That it is posted on just about every carbohydrate food is completely asinine.  Most are loaded with calories but of course they are FAT FREE!!  Ridiculous.

A bowl full of sugar is fat free. If you read the labels on most fat free products, you'll find that they actually have more calories than their regular counterparts. The fat is usually replaced with sugar to improve the taste.

Gotta agree with you on the incredibly high quantities of sugar they try to put into everything you drink. But apparently people like it that way; the stuff keeps selling.