The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
another discussion about Aspartame
Page:
> The EU, meanwhile, are just being their usual beaurocratic
> selves and won't pass anything without the proper paperwork,
> signed in triplicate, spat on, and past through the masonic
> lodge several times whilst chanting the theme to Howards Way.
hahahahah,
I used to live near a lodge. I am near to the temple now.
> selves and won't pass anything without the proper paperwork,
> signed in triplicate, spat on, and past through the masonic
> lodge several times whilst chanting the theme to Howards Way.
hahahahah,
I used to live near a lodge. I am near to the temple now.
Marzman wrote:
> iggvopvantoodlewin wrote:
> another discussion about Aspartame
>
> Not exactly an inspiring conversation starter, but as far as i'm
> aware it is only dangerous in high dozes (like a lot of things).
> You hear about athletes dieing after adding aspartame to their
> drinks for a period of time, although I know when I used to run
> championships I drank nothing but water, whilst eating
> grapefruits & pasta etc.
My point of view is
I am not particularly concerned by the actual effects of Aspartame beyond the fact that it is generally not so good for us.
It appears that Aspartame has no real purpose except to sweeten which is in no circumstance I can think of a necessity for life.
Life aside the arguable side effects of society such as obesity (then being a subordinate part of the life in modern times) dieting can be performed in many ways sweeteners of any sort are irrelevant.
I have eaten Aspartame and in particular circumstances it becomes non sweet which for me personally confirms that under some circumstances it changes chemically.
Flip side, I have eaten Aspartame but I am here and writing about it so (unless I am a hard light hologram) it does not kill instantly.
Where as I have knowledge enough to know that this matter is worth research (although research costs at least time, which is money to live and eat) if I wish to make use of the product the children to whom sweets, drinks and microwave dinners and so on are sold will almost certainly not know how to pronounce the name of the sweetener let alone conceive that someone is trying to hurt them.
> iggvopvantoodlewin wrote:
> another discussion about Aspartame
>
> Not exactly an inspiring conversation starter, but as far as i'm
> aware it is only dangerous in high dozes (like a lot of things).
> You hear about athletes dieing after adding aspartame to their
> drinks for a period of time, although I know when I used to run
> championships I drank nothing but water, whilst eating
> grapefruits & pasta etc.
My point of view is
I am not particularly concerned by the actual effects of Aspartame beyond the fact that it is generally not so good for us.
It appears that Aspartame has no real purpose except to sweeten which is in no circumstance I can think of a necessity for life.
Life aside the arguable side effects of society such as obesity (then being a subordinate part of the life in modern times) dieting can be performed in many ways sweeteners of any sort are irrelevant.
I have eaten Aspartame and in particular circumstances it becomes non sweet which for me personally confirms that under some circumstances it changes chemically.
Flip side, I have eaten Aspartame but I am here and writing about it so (unless I am a hard light hologram) it does not kill instantly.
Where as I have knowledge enough to know that this matter is worth research (although research costs at least time, which is money to live and eat) if I wish to make use of the product the children to whom sweets, drinks and microwave dinners and so on are sold will almost certainly not know how to pronounce the name of the sweetener let alone conceive that someone is trying to hurt them.
The issue is this:
The EU and US health departments require full proof that something is harmful before banning it while it is still on sale. However, adversely, they also require full proof that something is safe before allowing it.
Now most artificial sweetners were either proven safe or bypassed this law before it was made, thereby making them fit for sale until the government find proper scientific proof that they are unsafe. Likewise sugarleaf is not being classed as suitable for use because there is no properly researched proof that it is safe.
The US government were also approached by an 'unknown source' (read artificial sweetner companies) to ban the natural sweetner, and this probably involved some sort of bung to the correct people in order to push it past. Full speculation on my part, of course, but it seems likely.
The EU, meanwhile, are just being their usual beaurocratic selves and won't pass anything without the proper paperwork, signed in triplicate, spat on, and past through the masonic lodge several times whilst chanting the theme to Howards Way.
The EU and US health departments require full proof that something is harmful before banning it while it is still on sale. However, adversely, they also require full proof that something is safe before allowing it.
Now most artificial sweetners were either proven safe or bypassed this law before it was made, thereby making them fit for sale until the government find proper scientific proof that they are unsafe. Likewise sugarleaf is not being classed as suitable for use because there is no properly researched proof that it is safe.
The US government were also approached by an 'unknown source' (read artificial sweetner companies) to ban the natural sweetner, and this probably involved some sort of bung to the correct people in order to push it past. Full speculation on my part, of course, but it seems likely.
The EU, meanwhile, are just being their usual beaurocratic selves and won't pass anything without the proper paperwork, signed in triplicate, spat on, and past through the masonic lodge several times whilst chanting the theme to Howards Way.
pb wrote:
> iggvopvantoodlewin wrote:
>
> Do you know about Stevia?
>
> Yes, Coca-cola and a few other food companies are trying to push
> it through the EU laws to use it in their drinks as they can then
> sell them to diabetics (it can be safely consumed without
> affecting blood glucose levels in any significant way, I
> believe).
This is news to me.
I think of the all the information I encountered about Aspartame this was the one piece that made me choose to believe that Aspartame probably is evil.
The things I read several years ago indicated that companies manufacturing sweeteners basically hate Stevia; my assumption being because it is a natural sweetener they could not exactly patent it. As such then at the time Aspartame was made legal by the corrupted FDA and government this herb was made illegal.
I checked the UK governments website (or what appears to be) and funnily enough it is effectively banned. Effectively meaning there is for some reason more to it.
I vaguely recall that the date of the ban may have been in the same period as Aspartame but I really cannot say as I am not bothered enough to go and check my files (it would take some time).
This site annoys me a little (though it may be because I am arrogant) as it appears to present facts in amongst the notification that it is banned. Despite the presentation of these facts there appear to be no actual links to evidence.
In other cases where tests are mentioned (by the UK government and in parliament) again there were no references to the tests.
In most colleges and universities it is a mandatory requirement that 'sources of information' be referenced.
Since no sources of information are referenced it is then my (somewhat arrogant) suggestion that either it was written by a complete idiot or else it is all lies.
That feels like quite an accusation and probably appears somewhat aggressive but it is not really since I am just writing it and we are just chatting and I do not wish anyone any harm I just find it upsetting that I am unable to verify via my own tests the information that they are presenting.
The document is overly vague but in the places where actual fact words such as genotoxic are used references are not given.
In reality if I wanted to kick up a fuss I would have to follow the references in the associated PDF document which I glanced through some years ago.
Obtaining report information tends to cost money over and above general personal expense. So instead I will pick at the edges here by commenting on the link:
It is dangerous yet it has been used for a long time (number of years says the document) throughout the world.
It is the documents stated intention to be clear on the dangers of sweetener products and ensuring they do not reach our market blah blah. Alright well Saccharine may not be genotoxic (to my knowledge) as is stated here about Stevia, but it appears to be fairly harmful. Aspartame is apparently the same.
I recently saw a documentary about the dumping of Agent Orange in the UK by Monsanto. Consequently the term genotoxic seems to be more political than scientific. It is like the generalisation of super evil. The 'terrorism' of evening news reports on science.
Cancer or carcinogenic were fore runners for this status.
What is my point?
Well clearly they do not care that much or they would not allow the mega fat cooperations to dump it in our country.
But wait they are being all responsible about a sweetener.
Is that possibly because they have extra motives such as fat cooperation's who like their chemicals to have a good market value.
Actually I do not know and it is speculation.
Further down the document there is some waffle
Quote:
"There was no satisfactory data to support the safe use of these products as ingredients in food or as sucrose substitutes."
Which to me sounds like some sort of an escape clause.
When I was younger, I remember noticing when "contains sweetener" appeared on many of the products in shops here in England.
Which to me sounds like some sort of an escape clause.
> iggvopvantoodlewin wrote:
>
> Do you know about Stevia?
>
> Yes, Coca-cola and a few other food companies are trying to push
> it through the EU laws to use it in their drinks as they can then
> sell them to diabetics (it can be safely consumed without
> affecting blood glucose levels in any significant way, I
> believe).
This is news to me.
I think of the all the information I encountered about Aspartame this was the one piece that made me choose to believe that Aspartame probably is evil.
The things I read several years ago indicated that companies manufacturing sweeteners basically hate Stevia; my assumption being because it is a natural sweetener they could not exactly patent it. As such then at the time Aspartame was made legal by the corrupted FDA and government this herb was made illegal.
I checked the UK governments website (or what appears to be) and funnily enough it is effectively banned. Effectively meaning there is for some reason more to it.
I vaguely recall that the date of the ban may have been in the same period as Aspartame but I really cannot say as I am not bothered enough to go and check my files (it would take some time).
This site annoys me a little (though it may be because I am arrogant) as it appears to present facts in amongst the notification that it is banned. Despite the presentation of these facts there appear to be no actual links to evidence.
In other cases where tests are mentioned (by the UK government and in parliament) again there were no references to the tests.
In most colleges and universities it is a mandatory requirement that 'sources of information' be referenced.
Since no sources of information are referenced it is then my (somewhat arrogant) suggestion that either it was written by a complete idiot or else it is all lies.
That feels like quite an accusation and probably appears somewhat aggressive but it is not really since I am just writing it and we are just chatting and I do not wish anyone any harm I just find it upsetting that I am unable to verify via my own tests the information that they are presenting.
The document is overly vague but in the places where actual fact words such as genotoxic are used references are not given.
In reality if I wanted to kick up a fuss I would have to follow the references in the associated PDF document which I glanced through some years ago.
Obtaining report information tends to cost money over and above general personal expense. So instead I will pick at the edges here by commenting on the link:
It is dangerous yet it has been used for a long time (number of years says the document) throughout the world.
It is the documents stated intention to be clear on the dangers of sweetener products and ensuring they do not reach our market blah blah. Alright well Saccharine may not be genotoxic (to my knowledge) as is stated here about Stevia, but it appears to be fairly harmful. Aspartame is apparently the same.
I recently saw a documentary about the dumping of Agent Orange in the UK by Monsanto. Consequently the term genotoxic seems to be more political than scientific. It is like the generalisation of super evil. The 'terrorism' of evening news reports on science.
Cancer or carcinogenic were fore runners for this status.
What is my point?
Well clearly they do not care that much or they would not allow the mega fat cooperations to dump it in our country.
But wait they are being all responsible about a sweetener.
Is that possibly because they have extra motives such as fat cooperation's who like their chemicals to have a good market value.
Actually I do not know and it is speculation.
Further down the document there is some waffle
Quote:
"There was no satisfactory data to support the safe use of these products as ingredients in food or as sucrose substitutes."
Which to me sounds like some sort of an escape clause.
When I was younger, I remember noticing when "contains sweetener" appeared on many of the products in shops here in England.
Which to me sounds like some sort of an escape clause.
iggvopvantoodlewin wrote:
> another discussion about Aspartame
Not exactly an inspiring conversation starter, but as far as i'm aware it is only dangerous in high dozes (like a lot of things). You hear about athletes dieing after adding aspartame to their drinks for a period of time, although I know when I used to run championships I drank nothing but water, whilst eating grapefruits & pasta etc.
> another discussion about Aspartame
Not exactly an inspiring conversation starter, but as far as i'm aware it is only dangerous in high dozes (like a lot of things). You hear about athletes dieing after adding aspartame to their drinks for a period of time, although I know when I used to run championships I drank nothing but water, whilst eating grapefruits & pasta etc.
iggvopvantoodlewin wrote:
> Do you know about Stevia?
Yes, Coca-cola and a few other food companies are trying to push it through the EU laws to use it in their drinks as they can then sell them to diabetics (it can be safely consumed without affecting blood glucose levels in any significant way, I believe).
> Do you know about Stevia?
Yes, Coca-cola and a few other food companies are trying to push it through the EU laws to use it in their drinks as they can then sell them to diabetics (it can be safely consumed without affecting blood glucose levels in any significant way, I believe).
It's not so much of a discussion as it is a seemingly small part of some point you are trying to make.
How did you come across the real facts? How are they backed up?How have you been lied to? Have these people specifically said that the stuff isn't bad for you?
Artificial sweetners have always been linked with cancer, gum problems etc but no real hard proof has ever been forthcoming. I'm more likely to side with people who say it is harmful, as it isn't natural. I also have the opinion that it makes everything taste foul and we should go back to just using sugar, which is natural and can be burnt off anyway.
How did you come across the real facts? How are they backed up?How have you been lied to? Have these people specifically said that the stuff isn't bad for you?
Artificial sweetners have always been linked with cancer, gum problems etc but no real hard proof has ever been forthcoming. I'm more likely to side with people who say it is harmful, as it isn't natural. I also have the opinion that it makes everything taste foul and we should go back to just using sugar, which is natural and can be burnt off anyway.
Grix Thraves wrote:
> I can't see solid proof either way
Because it is a tricky subject with many perspectives to take into account when forming hypothetical standpoints it would take me several hours (that I do not have right now) to try and bring forth the things that I have seen or heard about this.
Do you know about Stevia?
> I can't see solid proof either way
Because it is a tricky subject with many perspectives to take into account when forming hypothetical standpoints it would take me several hours (that I do not have right now) to try and bring forth the things that I have seen or heard about this.
Do you know about Stevia?
I can't see solid proof either way
The issue is that I appear to have been lied to, not so much that it is poison.
Liars being:
1 The maker.
2 The manufacturers.
3 The government food agencies in more than one country.
4 The government in more than one country.
5 The police and law enforcement officers (as a result).
6 Probably some others too, i.e. companies who use it in their products.
Liars being:
1 The maker.
2 The manufacturers.
3 The government food agencies in more than one country.
4 The government in more than one country.
5 The police and law enforcement officers (as a result).
6 Probably some others too, i.e. companies who use it in their products.
Page: