Nellie Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 (edited) [Admin Edit: These posts were moved form the hot chocolate thread, on Inver's request] I stopped drinking hot choclate like Options as it contained Asparteme which is nasty horrible stuff. Does all sorts of nasty things to your insides. I have organic hot choc as a treat :-) Edited February 4, 2009 by Michelle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexiepiper Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I stopped drinking hot choclate like Options as it contained Asparteme which is nasty horrible stuff. Does all sorts of nasty things to your insides. I have organic hot choc as a treat :-) what does it do!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Isn't that the thing in pringles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexiepiper Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Isn't that the thing in pringles. Noooo, you're destroying all my favourite things Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inver Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I stopped drinking hot choclate like Options as it contained Asparteme which is nasty horrible stuff. Does all sorts of nasty things to your insides. I have organic hot choc as a treat :-) Please don't spoil my fun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrissy Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Aspartame is a crappy little additive, and I usually avoid thing that contain it, but occasional things I let slip through! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceinwenn Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I stopped drinking hot choclate like Options as it contained Asparteme which is nasty horrible stuff. Does all sorts of nasty things to your insides. I have organic hot choc as a treat :-) I was going to say exactly the same thing! It gives me horrid migraines, so I have to read labels very carefully & avoid all artificial sweeteners. It's a shame, though as I love mint hot choc & other than the aero ones, all of the mint hot chocs are all "diet" or "light" ones with artificial sweeteners in them. Yes, Ben, that's the thing in Pringles, only in a slightly different form. In Pringles it's MSG (but they are in the same chemical family). Lexie - apparently the incidence of Brain tumors has more than tripled since Asparteme was introduced into the American diet! It is nasty nasty stuff & in so many foods that people might not even realise! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceinwenn Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I still drink lots of hot chocolate, Inver, I just have to read labels first, or buy organic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexiepiper Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Wow I never knew that, it's shocking, if it's causing brain tumours, why hasn't it been banned? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 (edited) There are always things said about Aspartame, but I try to never judge things without seeing very good research. If there was good research, I'm sure the various food standard agenices would ban it. Edit: For anyone now worried about this, I believe this page is quite useful to read; http://www.food.gov.uk/safereating/chemsafe/additivesbranch/sweeteners/55174 Edited February 4, 2009 by Michelle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nellie Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 [geeky chemist comment] As mentioned it's an additive. There is a lot of discussion about whether it's bad for you or not as it was approved by the FDA in the US as safe. The chemistry is interesting as it is broken down in the stomach into all sorts of nasty things such as formaldehyde, apsartic acid and Phenyl compounds. These compounds are known in high doses to cause nerve and brain damage. As I said some say it is totally safe, others say it isn't. Personally, as a technical person, there is no way I would eat anything that has aspartame in. My toxicologist friends feel the same. I take the same stand on MSG. [/geeky chemist comment] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nellie Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 There are always things said about Aspartame, but I try to never judge things without seeing very good research. If there was good research, I'm sure the various food standard agenices would ban it. You are rather assuming that the research is independent... thats the problem, often the research is sponsored by those who make the product! It isn't in anyone's interest to fund independent research. The food agencies are government sponsored who get lots of nice tax from the companies that make these things... and the companies don't want research that makes it look like the product is dangerous for obvious reasons... and so the circle goes on. I take the view that if I would have to wear PPE to handle it in the lab, then I don't want to eat it! (By the way, I know I take a hard line on this, and others will disagree with me!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I'm afraid I personally don't agree with this idea that all government agencies are only interested in money, and not our safety. The page I linked to above included the following: Following the publication of a number of anecdotal reports, which cast doubt on the safety of this sweetener, the Food Standards Agency pressed the European Commission in 2001 to revisit its previous safety assessment of aspartame (1988) at the earliest opportunity; and provided assistance in preparing a summary report for consideration by the former Scientific Committee on Food (SCF). The SCF reviewed more than 500 papers published in the scientific literature between 1988 and 2001 on the safety of aspartame, including studies supporting the safety of aspartame and others pointing to potential adverse effects. Now I'm not saying that this stuff is wonderful, or denying that it may cause problems for some people, but if after a review of 500 papers, it's still available, then it can't be that bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrissy Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I generally try to have fresh, unprocessed food. I make most of my meals from scratch, and keep to fruit and such like for snacks. When I have a drink it's tea or water (and the occasional filter coffee). I am not above having a ready meal, a take away or yuck added nonsense! If most of the stuff I consume is dandy, occasional additives etc shouldn't harm. I just find for myself that the less messing about with the food I eat the better I feel in myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talisman Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 It is not difficult to find information on the dangers of these things, if you know where to look and personally the idea of artificial sweeteners being bad for you is not news to me anyway. For doubters I suggest you take a look at this http://www.dorway.com/92symptomsfotocopy.html and this http://www.sweetpoison.com/aspartame-sweeteners.html Like Chrissy I tend to cook mostly from scratch - having a wheat free vegetarian diet I am pretty much forced to anyway. Not only is it healthier, but also cheaper, and contrary to popular belief, less time consuming. I am not adverse to the occasional ready meal or treat, as I am after all only human, but as long as I don't make a habit of it, I don't feel too guilty ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Yes, but you also have to be sure where these websites get their information from, and we all know that most info can be twisted to show what you want it to. I don't think anything unnatural is particularly good for you, but I also don't like sites set up to scare people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pipread Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Aspartame is in an awful lot of things, it`s difficult to avoid it, as said previously, buying fresh produce and cooking from scratch is probably the best way. I find trying to buy low fat yoghurts that don`t contain it the hardest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ii Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Yes, but you also have to be sure where these websites get their information from, and we all know that most info can be twisted to show what you want it to. I agree with Michelle. I've written quite enough papers myself twisting around statistics and facts in order to make them say what I want them to. Both sides of the argument use biased studies, I'm sure, but there's also some reliable sources. I forgot to quote properly, but this is Nellie's post little earlier: It isn't in anyone's interest to fund independent research. The food agencies are government sponsored who get lots of nice tax from the companies that make these things... and the companies don't want research that makes it look like the product is dangerous for obvious reasons... and so the circle goes on. A bit paranoid, maybe? And 'tax'? Since when have tax revenues had any say in political policy, especially in the US? And with regard to corporations? I have hard time believing, say, the FDA has a hidden agenda in conducting these studies. There's just too much scientific research done in these things for them to risk their credibility. Also, agencies like that are run regardless of who's in the government, so saying some financial backer of a political party has a say on what the FDA rules is a bit... well, paranoid. I am, I admit it, highly critical of all studies I come across. Especially ones using statistics. And in the end, they all do. But all these cause-effect studies..? What are the variables considered? What are held constant, and/or taken in account? What are the statistical significances? What type of modeling was used? What type of error element was used in the model? What was the take? How many independent takes were made? There's just so many questions that need to be considered before we can flat-out believe a study. Therefore I'm much more inclined to agree with the result like that of the SCF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bethany725 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 You are rather assuming that the research is independent... thats the problem, often the research is sponsored by those who make the product! It isn't in anyone's interest to fund independent research. The food agencies are government sponsored who get lots of nice tax from the companies that make these things... and the companies don't want research that makes it look like the product is dangerous for obvious reasons... and so the circle goes on. I take the view that if I would have to wear PPE to handle it in the lab, then I don't want to eat it! (By the way, I know I take a hard line on this, and others will disagree with me!) It may be a hard line, Nellie, but I actually agree with some of what you've said here. I can only speak for what I've read and researched from the US, but here, there's a lot of concern over the USDA (US Dept of Agriculture) and FDA (Food & Drug Administration) and their procedures and practices. And much of the concern comes from stories of corruption, and also from the inability for the USDA to staff enough people to accurately monitor the various dairy and meat farms. On the corruption side, it's no secret that there's been many reports of large sums of money being offered by large corporations in return for approval of faulty procedural health & safety inspections. Here's an article from the New York Times, summarizing the events when the USDA was forced to reveal that their own inspectors failed to stop inhumane practice and took gifts from the plant managers from one of the nation's leading kosher slaughterhouses. There's a link at the bottom to the entire article.. it's long and gory, but it's pretty eye-opening. Here's another article, from Associated Press, that details the Mike Epsy indicment, where a "former chief lobbyist of an agribusiness gave a $2,400 luggage set, trips to Greece, $5000 in illegal campaign contributions, tennis tickets and limos worth $2300, meals, crystal and artwork to former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy." This led to Epsy's 1994 resignation from the USDA. Here's another article detailing the charges on a former branch chief in the FDA (Charles Y. Chang), who pleaded guilty to "accepting a free trip to Hong Kong in 1987 and gifts of furniture from American Therapeutics Inc. a Bohemia, L.I., manufacturer of generic drugs." Finally, here's a site devoted to the corruption of the USDA in regards to inhumane animal practices. The thing that's most interesting here is there are several letters from former USDA employees detailing their own experiences in dealing with what they believe is corruption and neglience committed by the government agency. There are countless other reports just like these, so even if it doesn't mean that everything the FDA or USDA (or other government regulating intities) approves or disapproves is inaccurate, it does mean that there's been some actual proven and documented cases where inaccurate monitoring and the acceptance of bribes have occurred. So it's only wise to do your own research on products for consumption (such as aspartame), to decide for yourself if it's something you want to put into your body or not. The days are long gone where we can merely trust the government regulations and say that because it is available and under no ban, it means that a product for consumption is perfectly safe, or even SOMEWHAT safe. If regards to the aspartame debate going on, I wanted to just toss out the name of the product I use in case anyone that doesn't want to use aspartame is interested in reading about an alternative. Stevia (info here) is a plant-based natural sweetener (you can even grow it yourself, if you wish!) with no additives. It's not completely without controversy, either, as you can see from the link. I've chosen to use Stevia as much as possible, mainly because of it being natural, and because some cultures (i.e. the Japanese, Chinese, and South Americans) have been using Stevia for decades for both sweetening and medicinal purposes for decades, which is a lot longer than many of the artificial sweeteners have been used. It's a bit comforting to me to know that something is natural and has been used by so many people for much longer, but that's just my opinion, and as aspartame IS in so many products, I'm virutally unable to completely avoid SOME consumption, and I feel okay with it in moderation. Just wanted to toss the product out there in case anyone else is interested in reading about it for their own knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nellie Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 (edited) I know some people think I am paranoid, and you are probably right! However, the regulators, not just in the US, but Europe too are not independent of the influcence of large corporations whether food, oil or pharma. My view is not just based on internet sites, which I agree can be selective about what they use as a basis for their views. I have spent time looking at regulations, and research myself, and as a technical person, I am not convinced it's safe. On a risk analysis (my profession) basis I wouldn't eat it. So it's only wise to do your own research on products for consumption (such as aspartame), to decide for yourself if it's something you want to put into your body or not. The days are long gone where we can merely trust the government regulations and say that because it is available and under no ban, it means that a product for consumption is perfectly safe, or even SOMEWHAT safe. Nicely put. Edited February 5, 2009 by Michelle merged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceinwenn Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 For me, the issue isn't whether someone paid someone off to get their voice heard above the others, it's the fact that so many drugs/chemicals have been classed as safe, which were then removed from the market becuase it was finally realised that bad things were happening because of these products. Look at Phen Phen, or Thalidomide - 2 prime examples I just think that natural or refined sugar is far better (even though refined's not great for you) & there are enough foods out there that don't have artificial variants, so why choose them? We are completely bombarded by chemicals - cleaning products, manufacturing processes, it's on our fruit & veg, in the air we breathe, in the water we drink - so I think that the more I can conscienciously avoid, the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Butter Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I'm with Michelle on this. If I'm going to make decisions about my health, I'd rather do it on the basis of evidence, rather than half-baked theories and baseless conjecture. By all means do your own research, but don't assume that, because it's on some nutjob conspiracy theory website, it's true. I should probably leave it at that, but there are so many inaccuracies here, already, that they need to be corrected: 1. The Food Standards Agency - it isn't in the pocket of the food industry. I don't work for the FSA, but I do work closely with people from it, and believe me, they'd find that idea hilarious. Interestingly enough, many food companies think the FSA represents the interests of the "health freak" community. Can't both be right, can they? I do know that people at the FSA pride themselves on their impartiality and scientific rigour, and that they'd find deeply offensive the suggestion that they'd knowingly turn a blind eye to a dangerous substance at the behest of food producers. 2. The tax system - my good friend ii has already put this far more eloquently than I ever could, but here goes ...companies don't pay tax because it gives them influence over government (that's called a bribe). They pay tax because they have no choice - it's the law of the land. Hundreds of thousands of companies pay tax - to conflate this with having government agencies do their bidding is simply fallacious. You might as well say that because frog breeding companies pay tax, the government's in cahoots with them to turn us all into frogs. That way lies madness, and David Icke ... 3. Aspartame causes brain tumours - there's absolutely no scientific evidence to back that up. Already, someone's taken bits of one post, put them together with bits of another post, and come up with a conclusion that simply isn't borne out by the evidence. If nobody else is going to correct it, I will - there's absolutely no scientific evidence that aspartame causes brain tumours. Really, you don't need to worry about that. If people choose to avoid aspartame, then I have no problem with that. I probably do myself, 'cos I don't use sweeteners and try and eat as much "natural" food as possible. What I do have a problem with is when people call on fallacious "evidence" and make spurious claims in support of their decision because, as we've already seen here, that can misinform and influence other people. If you want to know what happens when people choose conjecture and rumour over hard scientific evidence (and I just know I'm going to regret this!) - well, here's what happens: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7819874.stm Sorry for the rant, but there are just too many inaccuracies in this discussion already to let it pass! Final parting words (and then I'll go, promise!) - as Freewheeling Andy has already said on the Forum, everyone ought to read Ben Goldacre's Bad Science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nellie Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 I did already state that I don't base my view on random websites. I am a technical person, and as I said, looking at technical evidence, I am not convinced it is safe. I certainly never said it caused brain tumours, but I don't believe that it is safe either. Each to their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Butter Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Each to their own. Absolutely. I posted because I wanted to: 1) put forward my view 2) challenge the inaccuracies that have crept into this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexiepiper Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 With regards to the MMR vaccine, people think it causes Autism or something right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.