jemima (jem)
jemima (jem)

Pooh-Bah
Location: london
Member Since: 2nd Dec 2002
Total posts: 1750
Posted:I have been wondering for a while now, what exactly IS this "source of Phenylalanine" in some food and drinks ? I thought, "Are they warning us about a harmful substance, or promoting a healthy additive?"

Then I found this


I read it thinking "Oh its ok, its just an amino acid", but it destroys brain cells ?!*&??

Does anyone know about other additives, or ingredients that are harmful to our bodies?

I'm intrigued to find out more


Never assume
Always Acknowledge

Delete Topic

Mojojo
Mojojo

wandering dingo
Location: Aussie in London
Member Since: 3rd Mar 2005
Total posts: 167
Posted:Interesting reading, I had been wondering about this myself just lately! After recently moving to the Uk from Oz, I am alarmed at how much of this stuff is in everything. At home I can buy fruit juice labelled "no-added sugar" and get just plain fruit juice. Here it seems that "no added sugar" means it is loaded with artificial sweeteners. You have to read every damn label before buying something if you want to avoid it!!



More information from anyone who knows about this stuff would be great!!


Only three things are certain: Death, Taxes, and that England will not win back the Ashes in this lifetime.

Delete

jemima (jem)
jemima (jem)

Pooh-Bah
Location: london
Member Since: 2nd Dec 2002
Total posts: 1750
Posted:Yes, you are probably better off having the added sugar, brush you teeth more often and excercise off the energy rush.


I seem to remeber hearing that sweeteners are capable of altering your DNA ....

Aspartame sounds pretty nasty ......


Never assume
Always Acknowledge

Delete

PhoenixOnAStick
PhoenixOnAStick

I Live With A Fiery Passion
Location: Recently ChCh
Member Since: 19th Mar 2006
Total posts: 27
Posted:Hate to point this out but that website is actually promoting a fad diet, the "aspartame detox program" and while yes aspartame is dangerous to those unfortunates born with PKU, there is very little research actually proving the dangers of phenylalanine or aspartame, or at least the research is still in debate.
The American Heart Association concludes that "extensive investigation so far hasnt shown any serious side effects from aspartame." see http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4447
or check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame.
br>although considering all the various other chemicals in diet drinks(plus their horrible taste) in moderation is always the best answer.


New years resolution; Lay-off the "yo mama" jokes

Delete

Birgit
Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 27th Jan 2005
Total posts: 4145
Posted:yeah the phenylalanine is in sweeteners.



But it's also in pretty much every protein you eat. It's when you have phenylketonuria that it becomes a problem for you.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylketonuria
br>


To say it a bit less sciencey, that's a genetic disease where your body cannot transform that particular amino acid into another one called tyrosine. That one is a neurotransmitter in the brain, meaning it is involved in the communication of brain cells. So if you have phenylketonuria, your body doesn't produce enough of the functioning protein necessary to make the tyrosine. So the phenylalanine accumulates in your blood, and the tyrosine is missing. This is especially bad in small kids because the tyrosine is necessary for the brain to develop right.



It's called phenylketonuria because the phenylalanine is instead converted into "ketones", a different form of chemical substances, and those get into your urine (hence "uria") and sweat and make both smell "musty" as wiki puts it.



Children are tested soon after birth, if you've ever seen someone taking a small amount of blood from the heel of a newborn's foot, that's what it is all about. If they test positive, they are to avoid protein-rich food and artificial sweeteners.



About the sweeteners, the one study that showed that one of them caused kidney cancer in rats was badly set up by the way. The researchers fed the rats so much sweetener that it began crystallising in the kidneys, a dose a human wouldn't eat, and that caused constant irritation and cancer in the animals. So as far as I know there is so far no study that proves the sweeteners are dangerous to anyone but those with the phenylketonuria.



Personally I'm quite glad that every company seems to now make a no added sugar version because that means us diabetics can have most kinds of soft drinks, too! ubblol


"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by: jemima (jem)


I read it thinking "Oh its ok, its just an amino acid", but it destroys brain cells ?!*&??



Ok. Here's the story on this.

First phenylalanine is a harmless amino acid unless you have phenylketonuria.

However, the sweetener aspartame (NUTRASWEET) is made with phenylalanine and glutamic acid. Glutamic acid, or glutamate, is a neurotransmitter that causes exitation of nerve cells. The form of glutamate found in aspartame seems to be able to cross the blood-brain barrier a bit more than natural glutamate because it has a formyl group associated with it, which makes it neutrally charged.

Over-exitation of nerve cells causes cell death. Thus, glutamate is an EXCITOTOXIN.

Now, we dont' know how much of this is toxic, but chances are that the occasional diet soda isn't going to hurt you.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

jemima (jem)
jemima (jem)

Pooh-Bah
Location: london
Member Since: 2nd Dec 2002
Total posts: 1750
Posted:Wow thanks guys ubbrollsmile:D I dont have to do any research now ubblol

I know this is offtopic but, what other little things are we tested for at birth ?


Never assume
Always Acknowledge

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:http://www.wadsworth.org/newborn/babhealth.htm#listing


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

jemima (jem)
jemima (jem)

Pooh-Bah
Location: london
Member Since: 2nd Dec 2002
Total posts: 1750
Posted:ooh thanks doc, but the link doesn't appear to work rolleyes wink

Never assume
Always Acknowledge

Delete

Birgit
Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 27th Jan 2005
Total posts: 4145
Posted:wow, I had no idea the list was so long!! Do most of the "inborn" ones get tested by PCR or by looking at metabolites in the blood?

"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

Bubbles_
Bubbles_

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: mancunian
Member Since: 25th Nov 2004
Total posts: 3383
Posted:i always try to aviod aspartame, but that because i believed that it does kill brain cells - whether true or not i dont know as fact.

but as far as i know, there is only one sweetner (as in the stuff you put in tea) that doesnt contain it and thats splenda which is what i use.

whether splenda contains anything else that may be considered as harmful shrug

my two cents wink


Disclaimer:im not responsible for what i say or do whether it be before,during and after drinking alcoholic substances (owned by BMVC).
Creater of Jenisms(TM)
Virginity like bubble,one prick all gone.

Delete

polarity
polarity

veteran
Location: on the wrong planet
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1228
Posted:http://www.mercola.com/forms/sweet_misery.htm
br>


This documentary gives the full history of the legal battles between independant and corporate funded scientists to get Neutrasweet (aspartame) banned/approved, and the shocking way it finally made it to the market.



I've completely cut aspartame from my diet, as I've got MCS, and exposure to many chemicals, including that, screw up my neurochemistry. The condition (along with aspergers syndrome) means I don't have a job, have no social life, and can't go back to college. I spend a fair amount of my time researching my condition in order to improve my quality of life, because doctors have been no help at all, and have actually contributed to my condition in the past.



Having researched the topic in great depth, I'm convinced the only reason things like MSG and aspartame are legal is so it costs less to make foods, and the companies who manufature them can make more money for their shareholders.



The only reason that the truth is not out there is because if chemicals are proven to be causing health problems, big corporations stand to lose billions, and they can afford to put a lot of money into lawyers, PR people, bribes and cleverly constructed 'tests' to protect their profits, while the sufferers lose their livelihood, and cannot afford any kind of defense. The sufferers have little to gain from winning a legal fight to ban additives. They have already been permanently affected. They only wish to protect other people from experiencing these problems, and gain back some quality of life.



The most compelling evidence is the fact that sufferers and those for a complete ban on these substances freely release the complete text of studies on their websites, or links to sites that do. The corporations against the ban just throw money at cleverly tailored buzz words, that the average reader has the time and comprehension to read. [edit]Just look at the www.americanheart.org site, which, more than likely gets it's funding from several corporations. A lot of time and money has been spent to present a view and get it across efficiently. However, there are no links to studies to back up that view, or any other references (there are alsewhere on the site for other conditions that do not implicate food industries). The sites opposed to additives may be badly designed and have a lot of complex information, but people who aren't getting payed put a lot of their own time into supporting that view. Why would they do that?[/edit]



For anyone who states that additives are safe, and that there is no proof that they cause harm, I'd start with Isaac Newton's argument; 'I have studied the matter. You have not' and add my own; 'I've experienced the matter. You have not'.



http://www.dorway.com/
br>
Why isn't MSG labelled?

http://www.truthinlabeling.org/
br>
Multiple Chemical Sensitivities Under Siege


You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.

Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.

Delete

Birgit
Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 27th Jan 2005
Total posts: 4145
Posted:Polarity, I've stated that PHENYLALANINE is safe in people WITHOUT PHENYLKETONURIA. No doubt there are additives that cause problems in some people.



I think you have to draw a line though. Many people like the taste of MSG. I know I do. A lot of Asian cuisine is based on it. As far as I know it's been on the market in Europe since 1886, first produced as a cheaper (yeah I know saving money) alternative for meat extract, which did mean though that poorer families could improve the taste of their food.



You can't make all food safe to eat for all. Fair enough, it would be nice to have more foods without additives so that those without problems could pick, but then if you know you have a problem you'll just have to buy more ingredients and make your own stuff. I'm a diabetic, I know that for a fact, and act upon it.



My friend gets bad bad problems if she eats anything with pepper in it. So again, less ready meals, more home-cooked stuff.



If it were up to me ready-meals could be banned from supermarkets, no problem, and everyone could cook their own food. But since that's not going to happen I don't agree to ban one or two substances while leaving some that cause a much greater part of people trouble in food. How about making everything sugar-free, gluten-free, or lactose-free? I wouldn't like that either.


"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

polarity
polarity

veteran
Location: on the wrong planet
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1228
Posted: Written by:

...many researchers believe that the adverse neurological effects of aspartame may be at least partially due to the phenylalanine derived from aspartame ingestion. Because the phenylalanine from aspartame is in free-form (unbound to protein), it is absorbed suddenly and can spike the blood plasma levels of phenylalanine (Caballero 1986, Matalon 1988, Stegink 1987). This sudden "rush" of phenylalanine does not happen when ingesting food because protein is broken down slowly and the phenylalanine is gradually absorbed. Nor does this phenylalanine "rush" occur when ingesting aspartame in capsules (Stegink 1987).

Maher (1987) points out that increased levels of phenylalanine along with an increase ratio of phenylalanine to other Large Neutral Amino Acids (LNAAs) can inhibit enzymes needed to synthesize the neurotransmitters and diminish the production of brain catecholamines and serotonin. The hypothesis is that this change in brain chemistry will lead to a lowering of the seizure threshold and persons ingesting aspartame will become more susceptible to having seizures.

Wurtman (1988) reviews the research to show that a dose of 60 times more aspartame is needed for rodent studies to simulate the change in phenylalanine/LNAA ratio change that occurs in humans. Based on these findings, several research teams have found that aspartame lowers the seizure threshold in animals (Diomede 1991, Garrattini 1988, Guiso 1988, Kim 1988, Maher 1987, Pinto 1986, Pinto 1988)



The kind of proof you're looking for in this matter may be a long time coming, given the amount of money companies like Monsanto have invested in hiding the truth. The people in government willing to support them go right to the top. For 16 years the FDA refused to approve aspartame, then Donald Rumsfeld became CEO of Searle, the company trying to get it approved. The day after Reagan became president, with Rumsfeld as a colleague in government, he assigned an FDA commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes, who over-ruled the scientific board of enquiry that was strongly opposed to it's approcal. When he left the FDA he gained a prestigious position at the manufacturers PR firm.

Unlike sugar, lactose and gluten, MSG is purposefully hidden in products under a variety of names, although it is a substance that needs to be avoided in a lot of different diets. The industry is worried that if attention is given to it as a problem causing agent, then more people will become aware of symptoms that it causes which they may not yet attribute to the substance.


You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.

Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.

Delete

Birgit
Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 27th Jan 2005
Total posts: 4145
Posted:but I've heard so many times that it causes people trouble, there is attention there! Otherwise how would you have found all those websites and know about its alternative names?

what are they, by the way?

And I wonder why there is this sudden lack in publications after 1988... and why the capsules wouldn't cause the same kind of "rush".

Published 2003 (outside America):
Up to now the only safety concern about aspartame, which received valid scientific proofs, is pro-seizure action of its excessive intake. In patients with epilepsy, excessive intake of aspartame can decrease the threshold for seizures or prolong them once they appear. However, if the intake is not above the recommended level of 40 mg/kg b.w./day, aspartame is well tolerated even in this subpopulation.

I think the recommended daily intake level is quite important here...

Written in the Lancet, 1999:

The antiaspartame campaign purports to offer an explanation for illnesses that are prominent in the public eye. By targeting a manufactured chemical agent, and combining this with pseudoscience and selective reporting, the campaign makes complex issues deceptively simple. Sensational website names (eg, aspartamekills.com) grab the browser's attention and this misinformation is also widely disseminated via chat groups and chain e-mail.

People consult the internet about medical issues for various reasons and many users regard online sources as being authoritative and valid. The medical profession has a role in teaching our patients to be discriminating consumers of the information offered there.


"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

polarity
polarity

veteran
Location: on the wrong planet
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1228
Posted: Written by: Birgit


but I've heard so many times that it causes people trouble, there is attention there! Otherwise how would you have found all those websites and know about its alternative names?



I found out about MCS and additive sensitivities accidentally, during one of my many searches on the web relating to Aspegers. I was lucky to make the discovery, as I can now make changes to improve my quality of life. Before then I had no knowledge, as it is only the people who have the conditions, and a few sympathetic doctors who support the view that these things are bad for you. I'm not saying that there are only a few of us, there are millions, and for those who take the time to look, the evidence is overwhelming. There is no press or medical recognition of a condition that has actually been recognised in diagnostic criteria like the ICD since the 50s, when chemistry started to become big business. All that has changed is that the chemicals are in the enviroment in much larger quantities, so many more people are experiencing the effects, and the industries are taking steps to supress all evidence that they are harmful.

The increasing incidence of neurological conditions is pretty much in line with the increasing incidence of man made chemicals in the environment. People don't get these conditions in cultures where there are no chemicals. Take people of the same genetic make up from an affected culture, and they have a higher level of neurological disorders.

 Written by:

what are they, by the way?



http://www.truthinlabeling.org/hiddensources.html
br>
 Written by:


And I wonder why there is this sudden lack in publications after 1988...




Aspartame was approved for use in soft drinks in 1983 (after 16 years of being disallowed, on a very strong case that is causes brain tumours), thanks to the industry's influence via the new president. Prior to 1983 there was almost no support for the approval of aspartame in government, or among the mainstream and independant scientific community. Only with the manufacturers, their scientists and front groups. When the industry got their man (Rumsfeld) in, everything changed (studies approved for funding before 1983 would likely continue through the next couple of years and be published up to 1988).

 Written by:


Published 2003 (outside America):
Up to now the only safety concern about aspartame, which received valid scientific proofs, is pro-seizure action of its excessive intake. In patients with epilepsy, excessive intake of aspartame can decrease the threshold for seizures or prolong them once they appear. However, if the intake is not above the recommended level of 40 mg/kg b.w./day, aspartame is well tolerated even in this subpopulation.




Aspartame's major favourable scientific proofs have been shown to be flawed. The FDA accepted the evidence that they were flawed, and also the evidence that aspartame causes brain tumours. There was proof enough to keep it from being approved for 16 years in an unbiased political climate.

The effects of exposure can be cumulative, and cause a gradual erosion of the body's resistance, resulting in chronic long term problems. However, studies into aspartame aren't getting any funding under the current political climate, so the required long term tests (10s of years), won't be happening.


 Written by:


and why the capsules wouldn't cause the same kind of "rush".

... et

I think the recommended daily intake level is quite important here...




Aspartame dissolved in a drink can be taken up by the body immediately, causing a spike in blood and brain levels. In a capsule in powder form the release is slower. The fact that the pro aspartame studies used capsules was one of their flaws, and without checking I'm pretty sure several of them used forms of phenylalanine that were bonded to proteins that could not be broken down by enzymes, so would have no effect.

The industry's average intake levels are old, and their updated estimates do not correlate with the increase in the amount of aspartame sold. Many people have a much higher intake.




When it comes to neurological conditions the medical profession is a joke, and this quote is a fine example.

 Written by:


Written in the Lancet, 1999:

The antiaspartame campaign purports to offer an explanation for illnesses that are prominent in the public eye.




The 'anti-aspartame campaign' provides real working results to tens of thousands of people, and you can go and read their testimony.

 Written by:


By targeting a manufactured chemical agent, and combining this with pseudoscience and selective reporting, the campaign makes complex issues deceptively simple.

Sensational website names (eg, aspartamekills.com) grab the browser's attention and this misinformation is also widely disseminated via chat groups and chain e-mail.

People consult the internet about medical issues for various reasons and many users regard online sources as being authoritative and valid. The medical profession has a role in teaching our patients to be discriminating consumers of the information offered there.





Have you actually looked at sites like this or this? They give copious amounts of references to genuine scientific studies, the followups, and any relating subjects, regardless of which view they support, far more often than the pro view sites do. They most certainly do not present a simple view. That is exactly what the pro sites are doing, as they promote the idea that doctors have all the answers (in reality they have no answers, because they believe additives to be safe, which is why so many people turn to the anti-campaign), should be trusted (would you trust someone who would through ignorance, misdiagnose you, give you medications that are actually harmful, and possibly even have you commited to a mental institute), and that the product is perfectly safe when it is obvious from the tens of thousands of testimonies that it is not.


You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.

Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.

Delete

Birgit
Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 27th Jan 2005
Total posts: 4145
Posted: Written by: polarity


There is no press or medical recognition of a condition that has actually been recognised in diagnostic criteria like the ICD since the 50s, when chemistry started to become big business. All that has changed is that the chemicals are in the enviroment in much larger quantities, so many more people are experiencing the effects, and the industries are taking steps to supress all evidence that they are harmful.



I've seen media coverage as much as 10 years ago shrug

 Written by: polarity


People don't get these conditions in cultures where there are no chemicals. Take people of the same genetic make up from an affected culture, and they have a higher level of neurological disorders.



I agree some man-made chemicals can cause neurological disorders. Don't get chemicals in the environment mixed up with food additives though, they can't be judged along the same criteria.

Just an idea... possibly cultures without many man-made chemicals in their food or environment wouldn't be quite as sensitive in the detection of disorders like Aspergers? I mean... as far as I know, like ADS and dyslexia, it has been around for far longer than people have actually recognised it as a problem that's not the fault of the people who have it?


 Written by: polarity

(list of alternative names for MSG)



Now how can anyone say that's deliberately hiding them??? At least the "always contain MSG" ones are all trivial if you know a bit about chemistry or the processes in which MSG is produced, which, if you have to avoid it, you really should.

By the way I already disagree with the title line: "PROCESSED FREE GLUTAMIC ACID (MSG)" MSG stands for monosodium glutamate, not processed free glutamic acid. Hence quite a few of the things listed below don't really contain MSG though since the glutamic acid is the bit that matters I'll just pretend they did.


 Written by: polarity



Aspartame was approved for use in soft drinks in 1983 (after 16 years of being disallowed, on a very strong case that is causes brain tumours), thanks to the industry's influence via the new president.




I'll wait for my brain tumour then... sorry but I don't believe it's going to happen, at least not from my diet coke consumption. My pharmacology and toxicology profs weren't exactly known for supporting the American government and the way they explained us the flaws in those studies sounded pretty convincing to me.

 Written by: polarity


(studies approved for funding before 1983 would likely continue through the next couple of years and be published up to 1988).



Yeah but the studies you quoted were the ones that showed aspartame was UNhealthy, which is a result quite unlikely to be published in biased, goal-oriented, government-funded research. Following your hypothesis, there should've been a surge of pro-aspartame literature in the mid-to-late 80s, followed by research funded by independent sponsors or the producers of sweeteners other than aspartame to prove it shouldn't be sold.

 Written by: polarity


Aspartame's major favourable scientific proofs have been shown to be flawed. The FDA accepted the evidence that they were flawed, and also the evidence that aspartame causes brain tumours. There was proof enough to keep it from being approved for 16 years in an unbiased political climate.




And yet this is research 36 years younger than the one that kept it from being allowed. Plus, there are lots of substances allowed in America that aren't allowed in other countries, and vice versa. I doubt that, if Europe had been very concerned, they would've put it on the market just because of Rumsfeld. Germany didn't have blue M&Ms until 1998 or so because we were worried about the colouring being harmful.

As to the political climate, the USA are not the only place in the world with research going on, and given how many people consume aspartame every day, I'm sure some countries would invest in the research if they thought it worthwhile.


 Written by: polarity


The industry's average intake levels are old, and their updated estimates do not correlate with the increase in the amount of aspartame sold. Many people have a much higher intake.



So 40mg/kg per day, is, say 2.1 grams for an average adult. Aspartame is 180 times sweeter than sugar, so it would correspond to 378 grams of sugar per day! And I mean sugar, not other carbohydrates. That's very unlikely, even in a diet coke addict. You'd need to drink about 4 litres a day.

In fact I found some studies (look on Pubmed) that have been looking at diabetics in a variety of countries (diabetics being the most likely to drink sweetened drinks and foods ONLY), and found that they were usually way below the recommended level. By the way, the study I originally quoted said that EVEN risk groups like epileptics were alright as long as they stayed under the 40 mg/kg, so that would mean, if that standard is too old than if anything it's too low.



I've not looked at any of the websites you listed until now, but the article I've read was written by some (Australian, again not USA) guys that find themselves in a situation where they keep having to explain to worried patients (who do not have symptoms of any kind by the way) that they won't get brain cancer from drinking diet lemonade. And after all, a reminder to fellow medics to help people understand what websites say and where their flaws might be, is certainly not a bad idea.

Let me just say that personally I would tend to be careful with websites whose top line reads "XYZ is NOT safe. We have the WHOLE truth." Is it suspicious that the whole title page is taken up by the heartbreaking story of "my dad dying in the hospital and asking us to understand why he spent his life fighting aspartame"? I think so. Maybe it's because I'm one of the evil scientists and too close to the industry to understand, but I like data presented in a clear, organised and understandable fashion and not hidden behind the family story of the editor or whoever she is.

In the end I'd not say "aspartame in limited doses is safe for most people" if I didn't consume it myself.

What I'm saying is, if you're sensitive to something then try and avoid it. Seems to be possible with MSG and aspartame, even if it means a limited range of foods available.

I'm just not a fan of conspiracy theories, and know at least a part of the quality control and health and environmental safety procedures in The Industry (note the capital letters). As a toxicologist and pharmacologist you won't convince me that aspartame causes brain cancer or that it's impossible to find out which foods contain MSGs. Hell, how many allergic people have organisations that give out advice on what you can buy and you can't, so that even if you don't have the knowledge to recognise "glutamic acid" added as an ingredient as being "free glutamic acid", there should be an organisation that can tell you? Do I go round complaining that "glucose syrup" doesn't directly say there's sugar added? It's one of the things you have to deal with when you suffer from something like that, make a list of "safe" things to buy and stick to them. You can't expect everyone to cater for all special needs unfortunately.

And if I have to look at websites stating "aspartame itself is not really sweet. That's why they put dextrose in as the main ingredient" I just wish I could kick whoever writes that and makes thousands of people believe them. I mean, that's why it's DIET soda, isn't it, because of all the bloody glucose in it. rolleyes


"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted:Birgit, thanks. After the Palestine thread I just don't have the strength.

It's important to remember that these sweeteners are now far past their patents and that saccharin and aspartame are no longer exclusively produced under brand name. The companies that make these chemicals don't make much money off of them and the incentive to keep them on the market is pretty low.

Aspartame has never been shown to be a carcinogen and there's no reason it should be, it's a dipeptide. Our stomach produces similar dipeptides every time we eat a bit of protein. The excitotoxicity of aspartame has been demonstrated, but the human applicability of this is unclear.

Saccharin was associated with some rare tumors in a form of rat that is especially prone to tumors. These tumors are common in this rat and it couldn't be shown that this is relevant to humans.

Yes, the rates of cancer have gone up over the last 50 years. We're probably exposing ourselves to more carcinogens, but we're also living longer thanks to modern medicine...and if you live long enough you're bound to get cancer of some sort or another.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

polarity
polarity

veteran
Location: on the wrong planet
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1228
Posted:Yeah go throwing the term 'conspiracy theory' around like this is the same kind of thing as UFO abductions and shapeshifting lizards, and imply that I'm just another tin foil wearing schizo. It just shows you would rather be ignorant, insulting and use emotive words than take the time to look into it.



You may find my use of the word ignorant insulting, but to assume that there is absolutely no foul play after being informed of the documented facts concerning the Rumsfeld CEOship/Whitehouse position, and the subsequent replacement of the head of the FDA, the highest power in the matter outside the Whitehouse, implies willful ignorance.



Pubmed does not always give the full text of any studies (I couldn't find any), it usually gives overviews. The first 2 pages of the 42 returned for a search on aspartame on that site include:



Robert HJ.

Aspartame-induced Sjogren syndrome.

2006



Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Degli Esposti D, Lambertini L, Tibaldi E, Rigano A.

First experimental demonstration of the multipotential carcinogenic effects of aspartame administered in the feed to Sprague-Dawley rats.

2006



Lau K, McLean WG, Williams DP, Howard CV.

Synergistic interactions between commonly used food additives in a developmental neurotoxicity test.

2006



Tsakiris S, Giannoulia-Karantana A, Simintzi I, Schulpis KH.

The effect of aspartame metabolites on human erythrocyte membrane acetylcholinesterase activity.

2006



These are the ones I understand not to be based on aspartame interactions with prescription drugs, and I've posted them regardless of the view they support.



At least one states that at Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) levels there was no significant effect. The problem I and many others have is that this is not a valid test for establishing ADI, as the test is not long term, and cannot show cumulative effects. The study into carcinogenic affects above was long term, and showed significant results at 20mg/kg, half the current 40mg/kg ADI (in the US it is 50mg/kg).



A search for sites including the terms "aspartame 'not sweet' dextrose" (61 matches) and "aspartame 'not really sweet' dextrose" (0 matches) did not find anything that used those words in the context you used.



A search for "aspartame dextrose 'main ingredient'" (220 matches. I'm not reading them all) came up with this.



The kind of people who say 'aspartame isn't sweet because there's still dextrose in the ingredients' may not be particularly bright, but they can still tell when aspartame is making them ill, like all of these people.





---------





The patents may have run out, but there are alternatives like Neotame being marketed to replace them.



Doc, you should go and write articles for Monsanto's PR firm. What you said looks a lot like the press releases they produce.



Before GE Searle was bought by Monsanto, they performed a test on mice (or maybe rats) that produced tumors. I don't see them selecting a variety of study animal that gets tumours easily when that's the last thing they'd want. The results of that test weren't submitted to the FDA and GE Searle was pretty much going down the can for supplying fraudulent data to the FDA. So they hired Rumsfeld.



The full, sordid and completely referenced history of aspartame's early trials and approval is here.



Cancer is not the only disease that has increased.



Neurological conditions have increased considerably, and not all of them are most prevalent in old age like Parkinsons and Alzheimers are.



Even when using older diagnostic methods, to rule out the possibility that advances in medicine have increased the number of people diagnosed with neurological conditions, there is still a significant increase.



I don't know many people as I don't socialise much, but it is worrying the number of people I know with MS, fibromyalgia, ADD, ADHD, dyslexia or another autistic spectrum disorder. I'd like to point out that I do not include anyone I meet through groups, as don't go to and don't know any. The people I know are only through normal social interaction. I get to find out about conditions people are reticent to discuss because I am comfortable informing them of my own condition, so people with similar conditions may find me more understanding and sympathetic than other people they know, who have no experience or reason to find out about them.



What is the good of your body living longer when your mind is being destroyed by Parkinsons, Alzheimers and other conditions?



How do we know modern medicine is helping people live longer? For most of their lives the people who are dying at present were not subject to modern medicine, and probably had much healthier lifestyles. If they developed healthier bodies when they were young, that would have had a big effect on the length of their lives.


You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.

Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.

Delete

Birgit
Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 27th Jan 2005
Total posts: 4145
Posted: Written by: polarity



Yeah go throwing the term 'conspiracy theory' around like this is the same kind of thing as UFO abductions and shapeshifting lizards, and imply that I'm just another tin foil wearing schizo. It just shows you would rather be ignorant, insulting and use emotive words than take the time to look into it.





Guess what?



Exactly, that's me out of the discussion smile If what you want to believe is that I label people as tinfoil wearing schizos, while you yourself can use all kinds of harsh terminology to describe things you don't like, we don't have much of a common ground I'm afraid.



Ignorant? I think not, I'm just convinced of different things than you are and not afraid to state them even on a website where the general opinion tends to be against industry and chemicals.



Insulting? Hm... you're the one personally calling ME those things, not vice versa. Think on that?



Using emotive words? Quite possibly, but so did you, and in your very first post on the topic, too. If you don't like that style don't use it. And keep in mind this is not my native language, I don't think I'm doing that bad a job.



And not taking the time to look into things? It did take me quite a while to put together the last post and look at some of the links you posted, but nevermind. Believe what you want to believe, and I'll believe what I believe, and I think we'll both be happy!



cheers beerchug


"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete


Similar Topics

Using the keywords [fooddrink addative*] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > Food/Drink addatives [19 replies]

     Show more..