motoxjesse Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 WTF..Ok here in manitoba i was reading that they were considering on banning ASPARTAME...the main reason...it most likely could cause cancer. WAT ABOUT CIGERETTS?? the DO cause cancer,..but we'll keep em. STUPID. So yeah my question is, if i have a sim of Dr. Pepper and burp im my friends face, will he get cancer? and wat are the statistics for deaths related to chryropractics, as aposed to aspartame?...yeah i cant spell..but im serious this is stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mav Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 The age old debate on banning cigarettes won't work for the Aspartme issue. Too many big tobacco companies have too many lawyers and too much money for lobbyists and everything else to help insure that while they are restricted by age they remain legal. Aspartme was somewhat of an issue a while back. Local news ran a story on how it's in alot of things from sodas to some foods. While I'd rather not get any sideffects it may cause, I also am not switching to a different soda or stop drinking soda either. There are alot worse things that people and places are banning but I won't sidetrack into that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remedyu Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I quit 9 months ago, cigarettes I mean. Now meat's gonna kill me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symok Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I quit 9 months ago' date=' cigarettes I mean.[/quote'] Congrats! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 The age old debate on banning cigarettes won't work for the Aspartme issue. Too many big tobacco companies have too many lawyers and too much money for lobbyists and everything else to help insure that while they are restricted by age they remain legal. As long as the government bans things that are only possibly and rarely carcinogenic and allow cigarettes to be sold legally, we have a clear sign of what the government's priorities are... namely, tax revenues. It's like litmus paper for tax greed and skewed priorities! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StitchInTime Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 So then, they should put a tax on aspartame and forget about it. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motoxjesse Posted March 7, 2006 Author Share Posted March 7, 2006 The age old debate on banning cigarettes won't work for the Aspartme issue. Too many big tobacco companies have too many lawyers and too much money for lobbyists and everything else to help insure that while they are restricted by age they remain legal. Aspartme was somewhat of an issue a while back. Local news ran a story on how it's in alot of things from sodas to some foods. While I'd rather not get any sideffects it may cause, I also am not switching to a different soda or stop drinking soda either. There are alot worse things that people and places are banning but I won't sidetrack into that. But i do agree that one day they will be banned, and i think that if aspartame gets banned it will open even more eyes to the issue, make a small dent if you will.......oh and by all means if you know more stupid things that are being or recently been banned, then speak up, let me know. thx Mav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magestorm Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 The issue is that nutrasweet was billed as a safe alternative to Saccharin. But, it seems it is just like Vioxx. We were told it was safe, but they lied. Cigarrette companies have for many decades labeled their products as causing health problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyberbob Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I think the biggest difference is that we force tobacco companies to educate people on its dangers. On top of that we restrict it so that only adults can buy it. The problem with Aspartame is that it is cheap and so they can put it into all kinds of things. To be more specific they can put it into a lot of things that children drink/eat and that just seems wrong. If an adult knows that cigs will kill them and we try our best to keep it out of children's hands well....thats their bus. To put a known carcinogen into something that all of our kids are going to be taking in though...eh...I dont know about you but it just seems inherently evil. For that reason I can kinda see why they would restrict it...I mean...banning it may be going a bit far but putting restrictions on it? That doesn't seem that bad. As long as we are looking at stuff that is bad for us though they should be "banning" high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils as well. Actually, here in the US they are going to legally make it so that your box displays if you have hydrogenated oils in it. With the nasty stuff that does to your body, that is a good thing in my book. As for high fructose corn syrup, dude...your liver has to break that stuff down. For real. Considering how a lot of our kids drink a couple cans of soda a day...thats a lot of work to be putting on such a vital organ all for the sake of higher profits...then again..I don't eat red meat or drink much alcohol so I don't know...maybe my view is a little too biased lol :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motoxjesse Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 NO YOU KNOW WAT THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR VIEW IS?..........u thought about it more then i did.....see i gota think of this stuf before i go on a rant, thanks alot for your reply by the way, any thoughts as to how this will all play out?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonHelton Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 My cat, Garfiled, lived to be a ripe old age of 25. .....He was constantly exposed to "second-hand" smoke, with no ill effects. If second-hand smoke was as dangerous as people claim, he'd have died quickly, since a cat's metabolism is much faster than ours. :stare: :stare: :stare: :stare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motoxjesse Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 Maybe he was too low to the ground? i bet he was......smoke doesnt bother them...i mean look at wat they eat, if i tried eating that stuff i'd die in a week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beawulf Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Aspartame should not have been approved for human consumption in the first place. The circumstances of its approval stench of corruption and vested interests. scientists have been warning off its affects on the body (see below), and the effects of the chemicals produced while being broken down in the body. There have been many indications that it can lead to cancer and other dissorders yet authorities in the US have refused to do a comprehensive study. Why? apparently they dont want to know one way or another. For all I know a proper study might prove that aspartame is actually harmless.... the fact they refuse to do a study makes me think otherwise. This is scary that the people that we are supposed to trust to safegaurd our wellbeing are prepared to stick their head in the sand for a price. the argument that we should not ban dangerous things because we allow cigarettes is just insane. Why not let children play with radioactive waste while we are at it, sure its dangerous but so are cigarettes and we allow them, and it even glows in the dark! On the other hand, maybe you are right...cigarettes are dangerous, lets ban them! The FDA receives more complaints related to aspartame than any other food additive. Concerns about aspartame frequently revolve around symptoms and health conditions that are allegedly caused by the sweetener. The 92 health effects reported to the FDA are: abdominal pain' date=' anxiety attacks, arthritis, asthma, asthmatic reactions, bloating/edema, blood sugar control problems (hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia), brain cancer (Pre-approval studies in animals), breathing difficulties, burning eyes or throat, burning urination, inability to think clearly, chest pains, chronic cough, chronic fatigue, confusion, death, depression, diarrhea, dizziness, excessive thirst or hunger, fatigue, feeling 'unreal', flushing of face, hair loss (baldness) or thinning of hair, headaches/migraines, hearing loss, heart palpitations, hives (Urticaria), hypertension (high blood pressure), impotency and sexual problems, inability to concentrate, infection susceptibility, insomnia, irritability, itching, joint pains, laryngitis, "like thinking in a fog," marked personality changes, memory loss, menstrual problems or changes, muscle spasms, nausea or vomiting, numbness or tingling of extremities, other allergic-like reactions, panic attacks, phobias, poor memory, rapid heartbeat, rashes, seizures and convulsions, slurring of speech, swallowing pain, tachycardia, tremors, tinnitus, vertigo, vision loss, and weight gain. [/quote'] I think the last entry there is interesting....weight gain.... kinda defeats the purpose of replacing sugar in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motoxjesse Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 Im just trying to say, ban everything, if its THAT bad, toss it. seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StitchInTime Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Aspartame should not have been approved for human consumption in the first place. The circumstances of its approval stench of corruption and vested interests. scientists have been warning off its affects on the body (see below)' date=' [/quote'] Aspartame is an aminio acid which is naturally occurring and is used by the human brain as a neurotransmitter to communicate between brain cells. Hence, you actually need it in order for your brain to function properly. This reminds me of all the fuss over cholesterol, which is also a naturally occuring substance, produced by and required for your body to function properly. Cholesterol is only a problem for certain people. The same is true of sugar, which used to be thought to cause hyperactivity, but has since been shown not to. I also remember the big fuss over mercury amalgam fillings, which I've been told has been shown to be a tempest in a teapot, as well. Anything consumed in large enough quantities can be a problem, and it may be that some people are sensitive to aspartame and are intolerant to the amounts contained in diet soft drinks and artificially sweetened food products. The fact that some people complain about aspartame doesn't mean that it's a problem for people in general. If you look up caffeine, or aspirin, or most other substances people commonly consume, you'll find a similar list of problems. I've been drinking soft drinks containing it for decades, and I've never had any problems with it whatsoever. I drink a lot more water these days, and a lot less diet soda, because it turns out that the citric acid in carbonated soft drinks is very bad for your teeth, but I haven't noticed any improvement in my health (and I have always had multiple, chronic health problems--way before aspartame or any other artificial sweetener, for that matter, was ever used.) I think the last entry there is interesting....weight gain.... kinda defeats the purpose of replacing sugar in the first place. The main cause of weight gain is not sugar but a high fat diet combined with a sedentary life style. A teaspoon of sugar only contains about 16 calories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhug666 Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 here we go again , should we ban , should we not ban . christ SAKE is the world follwing America and becoming a nanny state? hell because of jaimy oliver i can't get a DR pepper from my collage cafetira!!!!!! i have to buy my own and bring it in. WORLD HAS GOOONNNNEEEE MAAADDDDDD jhug666 signing off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beawulf Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 it could all be much ado about nothing...but until a proper study is conducted we wont know for certain. Such a study should have been done when concerns were first raised, before it was approved for human consumption. stitchintime is right that sugar isnt a primary course for weight gain, however the term "diet" on products containing aspartame is meant to appeal to people who want to lose weight, or avoid gaining it. It is the fact that it could be doing the opposite that I find somewhat amusing. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StitchInTime Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 WORLD HAS GOOONNNNEEEE MAAADDDDDD Affirmative, and that's bad for your health, too. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motoxjesse Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 Yeah the world seems to suck at the moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyberbob Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Aspartame is not an amino acid, it is a combination of the amino acids phenylalanine and aspartic acid and a third compound methanol. Aspartame does not occur naturally in the body. In attempting to break down the methanol component of aspartame, the liver will produce known carcinogens. Aspirin and caffeine and other common substances do not break down to form carcinogens. Unlike aspartame, cholesterol is a naturally occuring substance and vital in the body, though it is misleading to say that cholesterol is only a problem for some people. Increased intake of cholesterol could lead anyone to atheromatous. Just because a compound occurs naturally in the body doesn't mean it isn't dangerous in excessive amounts. Iron is natural in the body but too much of that causes stomach scarring and comas. The same goes for any fat soluble vitamin and many other metals (selenium). While I do not know if hyperactivity would be the best word to use for the result of too much sugar I can say that it does cause more energy (a spike in blood sugar will do that). In excess amounts over long periods of time it can also cause diabetes. The point is not that any of these things will always cause trouble all of the time. It is that if there is this much evidence building up against it - why take the chance? Why put the people we care about in danger if we don't have to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now