Are Diet Sodas really that bad(Aspartame).....new studies show it could be..
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Absolutely, especially when they are unaware of the damage it does. Ever wonder about the fact that so many people are on meds? Who knows what effects Aspartame and such does do sensitive brain structures over time? It is hard to prove, but just the fact that this substance breaches the blood/brain barrier(which very few substances do, otherwise our brain would be like a leaking seive, and be breached withing a few days of toxins and substances), speaks volumes..
This has a long-term effect on people, over time. The brain again is quite delicate, with very fine balanced neurotransmitters, and does not take much miscalibration per too many chemicals or the wrong ones to do damage, on any level...
Some studies do indeed psshaww the dangers...keep in mind that the soda industry funds many studies, as fed funds for independent studies have been cut back hugely, much more now than before...It would not surprise me whatsoever that
a soda consortium funded partly or entirely many whitewashed studies....
With the PR backlash itself of the negative aspects of Aspartame, and alternatives that are natural such as Stevia, I think it simply asinine marketing to continue to sell this...this might also be a good reason that Coke stock has been down for so long.....
I would think simply switching to Stevia would bring it up a few points..
You can read about investors bailing out of COKE stock here..
BTW, I can definitely think of a few other dangerous things millions of people consume in the USA daily that are dangerous...
Since I heard about the aspartame garbage in what year did someone say ... 1991 ... It's rather amazing that people are still questioning the good/bad of it. When it's heated or sits in the sun - like in Iraq for our soldiers, it's more harmful. They were coming back with symptoms from it and they knew it and that story was squashed. Thanks for using the phrase whitewashed studies. I know companies submit distorted info to the FDA because I know someone who typed some of the studies and was told not to include specific and damaging data results. The FDA must be aware this happens and it's not new.
Yes, a lot that we consume (Round-out coated and infested vegetables, GMO anything). We don't know and probably never will know the long-term harm it does to us.
The only true statement here is that saccharine tastes like crap. Tab was not the first diet soda, nor does saccharine cause cancer.
Surely you're aware that heightened education and publicity is at play here?
No, the incidence of breast cancer(it actually occuring) has increased markedly starting about 1980, though the mortality rate of the same has decreased(and I would hope so, per all the attention, money, and screenings done since the same time)......starting about 2000, it has modulated.....
You are correct that the first diet soda was not TAB, I stand corrected....it was "No-Cal", in 1952, which did not last long..
After that, in 1958, RC came out with Diet-Rite(which tasted like RC, which itself was bad enough, but worse)....
I presume these all had Saccharine in them, which created the bitter aftertaste those of us who grew up in the 60's and 70's not fondly remember...
TAB came out in 1962
Not sure what causes Cancer, Diabetes type 2, or whathaveyou, but I'm sure there is still plenty of crap in our processed grocery foods that still do, which is why people are willing to pay so much more for organic food.....perhaps that is not all it is cracked up to be either, but it surely is better than processed food....
Last time I checked, H2O was just fine to drink..lol
Whoever quoted aspartame's initial showing in 197x then the FDA shut them down, I'd like to see the source. Wikipedia isn't a valid source if that's where it's listed.
Last edited by SDWNC; 12-09-2014 at 04:42 PM..
Reason: Seems like my response doesn't always get associated with the comment to which I'm responding. Needed to clarify my question
Also, I'd venture to guess that as aspartame has been approved by the FDA since 1981 and there have been no definitive studies linking it to anything (hence, it's still on the market) that it's probably OK.
I think there is a position in marketing for you at the COKE corporation...they need you! LOL!
I don't think it has been definitively proved for OR against......Many things have been passed by the FDA that caused problems down the line, sometimes many years later...they certainly are not God. Again, my main amazement is that, with all the bad PR against Aspartame, regardless of what it does or does not do, why the major companies continue to put it in their products, when Stevia would do the job just fine.
Also, keep in mind that, supposedly, GMO foods are just "fine" as well.....for some reason, the entire EU does not feel the same way. Go figure. Who is to say?
The only guaranteed way to voucesafe healthy food, regardless of "studies", is to eat it as unprocessed as possible....that's it...would prob help to prepare the same yourself as well....
One thing we have not mentioned is how few people cook their own food from scratch today, which may account for all the crap processed food sold at groceries and fast food(our local grocery has much of what is essentially fast food that is frozen, like Hot Pockets, fast food fries, etc.)
Perhaps if they learned how to cook again half the problem would reconcile itself overnight..
Whoever quoted aspartame's initial showing in 197x then the FDA shut them down, I'd like to see the source. Wikipedia isn't a valid source if that's where it's listed.
Not sure if that happened, but I am sure that if it did, it would be in this court document regards an 2002 Aspartame lawsuit on the FDA website, along with two other excerpts I quote from the same here..
In August 1974, before aspartame could go on the market, Dr. John Olney, James Turner, and Label Inc. (Legal Action for Buyers' Education and Labeling) filed a formal objection stating that they believe aspartame could cause brain damage. They were particularly worried about aspartame's effects on children (Graves 1984, page S5498 of Congressional Record 1985a; Federal Register 1975, Olney 1987, page 3).
look at the bottom of the next one..
The FDA approved aspartame for limited use on July 26, 1974. The allowable uses included free-flowing sugar substitute, tablets for sweetening hot beverages, cereals, gum, and dry bases (Farber 1989, Federal Register 1974). It was not approved for baking goods, cooking, or carbonated beverages. This approval came despite the fact that FDA scientists found serious deficiencies in all of the 13 tests related to genetic damage which were submitted by G.D. Searle.
Here is testimony from an FDA investigator as to how Searle fabricated/falsified the initial tests that allowed Aspartame to initially get FDA clearance in 1974....with this info, someone obviously was paid-off back in 1974 to look the other way..
"They [G.D. Searle] lied and they didn't submit the real nature of their observations because had they done that it is more than likely that a great number of these studies would have been rejected simply for adequacy. What Searle did, they took great pains to camouflage these shortcomings of the study. As I say filter and just present to the FDA what they wished the FDA to know and they did other terrible things for instance animals would develop tumors while they were under study. Well they would remove these tumors from the animals."
Here is the link to the court deposition in its entirety from the FDA gov't website..Note that the lawsuit connotes Aspartame as a neurotoxin, not simply a drug or sweetener..
Wow really? Do you honestly believe that or are you trolling? Seriously, Google banned foods in the US and read the many results. Many foods were perfectly OK to consume until someone LATER found out that they were harmful. AFTER they are found to be harmful, they get banned.
Just think of Coca Cola and their original recipe which contained Cocaine in it. At the time, this was perfectly acceptable.
Trolling? LOL! Hardly.
You have so many holes in your thought process there it's just not worth my time to state the obvious.
By the way, the European Commission Scientific Committee on Food came to the same conclusion that our FDA did, and in fact, aspartame has been deemed safe for human consumption by over 100 regulatory agencies in their respective countries. It's safe. But if you don't want to believe that, no one is forcing you to consume it.
You have so many holes in your thought process there it's just not worth my time to state the obvious.
By the way, the European Commission Scientific Committee on Food came to the same conclusion that our FDA did, and in fact, aspartame has been deemed safe for human consumption by over 100 regulatory agencies in their respective countries. It's safe. But if you don't want to believe that, no one is forcing you to consume it.
You do know that the FDA has previously banned Aspertame on two different occassions right? Research constantly changes which is why it is an on again off again. Your earlier comment about completely trusting the FDA is what is cracking everyone up. You never know, in 20 years it could be known to be extremely bad for you in which it will be banned.......again.
Only thing I don't get, ChemistryGuy, is that that Institute of Health abstract seemed to infer that Phenylalanine breaches the blood-brain barrier, which indicates it is similar to a neurotransmitter, in that the cell walls of the brain membrane recognizes it as such and allows it to pass. Phenylalanine is said in the same study to modulate the brain's activity once in.
Regardless of the small number of people who may be extremely adverse to Phen-, who go into seizures(and would 1% not be enough reason to ban this?), this appears to cross the blood-brain barrier of all who consume this. To sum, this Phen- goes directly to our brain, ala the -Pam family of anti-anxiety drugs....
Do they teach at your med school that it's okay to ingest substances often and daily(which many do with diet sodas) when a chemical is acting within and directly modulating your brain, which obviously is highly fine tuned/complex/delicate?
Phenylalanine is an essential amino acid and one of the primary building blocks of life. If you do not eat any of it at all, you will die. Most proteins in your body have phenylalanine in them. The more hydrophobic (non-polar) amino acids are all capable of crossing the blood brain barrier. In healthy individuals, amino acid metabolism is regulated. That means that no matter how much you ingest, within reason, the concentration in your blood remains relatively constant. A healthy liver is capable of turning phenylalanine, as well as all amino acids, into fuel. An enzyme, or biological catalyst, that is necessary to make this transformation is called phenylalanine hydroxylase, and individuals with phenylketonuria have a deficiency in that enzyme, and are thus unable to regulate the levels of phenylalanine in blood.
Nearly every chemical in the body can be deadly if it is unregulated. When glucose is unregulated, the result is diabetes, a particularly well known disease, but hundreds or even thousands of other diseases are caused by a lack of ability to regulate something, usually related to an enzyme mutation or deficiency.
For most people, aspartame is healthier than sugar as a sweetener because it is so sweet tasting that very little of it can be used at a time. Coca cola and other sodas are not really healthy for anyone, regardless of the way that they are sweetened. People with amino acid related metabolic disorders will react negatively to aspartame, while diabetics will have much more trouble with sugar sweetened drinks. They don't react the same way, as an unregulated level of glucose in the blood has vastly different physiological effects than unregulated phenylalanine, but the comparison is appropriate.
I don't like the taste of diet soda so I drank regular soda. When I started to have leg and foot problems I could no longer carry heavy groceries (at the time I lived up a flight of stairs) so I stopped buying soda and water for home simply because I couldn't carry it. Milk was out too, same reason, too heavy. I reused empty 20 oz soda bottles (which I had if I ordered pizza delivery), filled them with tap water and put them in the refrigerator. Then I discovered Mio which is as big as my finger. I put 3 squirts of Mio berry pomamgranate (my favorite flavor) into my bottle of cold water. It has sucralose and acesulfame potassium as the sweetener. No calories. Diabetics can use them. Pregnant woman can use them. Several tests, no problems. Sweeter than sugar. Used around the world. Here are 2 websites that talk of the safety of both.
If I had this before I retired, I would have carried it around in a pocketbook.
Point is, you can get off soda.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
