monikermilk

Dude, I think you must have written this just to get under my skin. I wrote that huge tirade above about bad people are at critical thinking, and you go and write the perfect post capturing everything I said was wrong with how people approach subjects like these. 'Tis a pity. I'd ask...how does your ex-wife's sister know there was aspartame in the food? She just assume because she had a reaction? Maybe she's allergic to lots of things. Really, they don't add aspartame to much of anything except food and beverages marketed as "diet" or "low calorie." Also, don't you think that's quite a big step to say aspartame is "lethal" because your ex-wife's sister sometimes had a bad reaction to some food she ate? Maybe she happens to be one of those people who can't metabolize phenylalanine (which makes a person very sensitive to aspartame, seemingly allergic), or maybe it was something else in the food entirely (msg?). Still, I'd stay away from all sweet stuff as much as possible. Sugar definitely leads to diabetes type II in susceptible people who don't exercise. So, I guess in that sense, sugar is 'lethal' as well....

and to Andromeda43.... The FDA never declared aspartame "POISON." There was some concern by SOME researchers back in the 80's that it might be causing brain tumors...but statistical flaws were later discovered in the study. There was an increase in brain tumors observed just a few years after the introduction of aspartame onto the market...but it was later discovered that this increase was mostly in the elderly, which points away from aspartame because and they weren't the largest demographic that started consuming aspartame. Also, the kinds of tumors that saw an increase were in large proportion the slow growing types that had must have been growing since BEFORE the introduction of aspartame. So, the controversy blew over and the FDA never re-regulated aspartame. Andromeda43, I think what you may be thinking of instead of aspartame is saccharine. this was marketed as Sweet'N'Low. The FDA started requiring very strong warnings on the label that it caused cancer in lab rats. However, as the old cliche goes, they were giving them a human equivalent dose way in excess of what a person could realistically eat per day. Later studies that were more realistic showed very little danger, prompting the FDA to downgrade the threat level on Sweet'N'Low. As for the insinuation of bribery being involved in the decision: though there is probably much corruption in the FDA, I think in this case there was probably no "pay off" because the issue was so public and high profile. It was likely just a matter of tempering an initial overreaction.

Man, I'm always so disheartened when I go out "among the people" online and see just how much scrambled, uncritical thinking there is out there. Many of the comments in this thread are from people putting too much stock into their own half-justified opinions that come from very sloppy thinking. If our society is ever going to get better, you need to get that critical thinking part of your brain into shape, people! You can't win marathons by eating junk food, and you can't become shrewd off network tv and other brain dead activities! For instance, so many of you have such a loving affection for the health food industry and a lot of you offer links to supposed evidence of the cancerous effects of aspartame with such unabashed faith in the accuracy of these claims and evidence. I can understand why people would be a little suspcious that corporate america is willing to hide the bad health effects of their food products just to make a buck...I get that. But it is not therefore true that the other rather hefty corporations that sell "health" food are any more decent just because they are on the opposite side from the junk food sellers. Maybe they're both full of crap...in fact, they are. Much of the health info that circulates around the Internet is the product of both the junk food companies and the health food companies spreading each their own propaganda. Very few websites are legitimate medical science. In fact, I'd say most of you probably haven't seen a legitimate scientific analysis of most health issues because legitimate science papers are long, tedious reads and aren't full of nice illustrations, dramatic, simple-minded claims, or slick, entertaining presentation. It would be too boring for most of you to actually read the science, so you stick to the simple websites designed more to convince you with style over substance rather than to inform...and you eat it up (like junk food). I really find it silly that someone on this thread referred to their sisters as "experts" in health matters because they "worked in a health food store." To think that makes someone a health expert is somewhat ridiculous. I will say though that their heads are probably full of the health food industry's propaganda. Also, as for anecdotal evidence...another person on this thread blames his present day aches and joint problems on his "heady" younger days of consuming too many junk beverages...well, maybe those beverages did mess you up, who knows. But maybe you're just a person who drank beverages and who independently just happens to be predisposed to joint problems. Maybe there is no one to blame other than fate and/or genetics. You're just one person. Your "evidence" alone is useless for drawing conclusions. Personally, I'd like to blame something other than fate for my profusion of body hair...should I blame aspartame or sodium benzoate? Or just sugar? (actually, there is some weak evidence that sugar diabetes can cause excessive body hair, but I don't have diabetes...or that much hair). In order to really know if certain food additives are causing problems, you need to see the results of a clinical or epidemiological study. The long term effects of ingested substances on health are usually statistical, so you have to take a large group of people who consume a substance and compare it to a large group who don't consume that substance. You must observe if there are significantly more people who develop a problem (say, cancer) in one group vs. the other. And the relative difference in the numbers must, as I said, be SIGNIFICANT. Unfortunately, many clinical studies are crap funded by industry with shady interpretation of results, which is a a betrayal of ethics and the scientific principle. However, there's no other way to know the health effects of certain chemicals without a clinical or epidemiological study. And many times, such studies (even the proper ones) show no correlation between a substance and a health problem, but that won't convince many people because they know their uncle burt drank diet cokes and got a face tumor, so it must be connected.... Truth is, some chemicals may be unhealthy, some may not be. And just because something is natural or not natural says nothing about it's health risk. There is much evidence out there that indicates that the claims of aspartame dangers are way overblown, and based on sloppy research. However, there is some evidence that some people are very allergic to it. Those people should probably avoid aspartame. But most people won't be harmed. While that should be some comfort, I'm afraid it isn't a comfort to some. Some people are even dissappointed because they wanted to be able to identify that magic "poison" in their food that they could cut out and then live forever...but, really, sometimes things aren't so simple. Just exercise 3-5 days a week to live 40% longer, but 8-9 days a week to live forever.....