PDA

View Full Version : Aspartame & Phenylalanine



Law & Order
July 5th, 2005, 09:37 PM
/

ZippyTheChimp
July 6th, 2005, 05:54 AM
I've come to the conclusion that worrying over:
additives
preservatives
pollutants
second hand smoke
good cholesterol
bad cholesterol
fat
carbs
fuel injection (nevermind)...
is as harmful as any of these.

So I don't.

Ninjahedge
July 6th, 2005, 09:12 AM
PSSSST!



eat right and exercise.


BIG secret. Don't tell anyone!

BrooklynRider
July 6th, 2005, 10:31 AM
Do you think these substances they are good or bad?

VERY bad. Eat organic.

Ninjahedge
July 6th, 2005, 01:06 PM
Organic is not good either.

You think mad Cow is artificial?

You have to do within reason. I would rather have a tomato that was treated with pesticide PROVIDED there are only trace ammounts after washing than risk getting some bug that may be living in it.

More people die in countries where everything is organic from eating the organic food the produce than they do here.

I think we should be careful in what we injest, but not so paranoid as to think that organic is automatically better than "enhanced" or chemically treated. Some chemicals are nothing more than derivatives of extracts from plants and animals anyway......


phoo.

ryan
July 6th, 2005, 01:33 PM
You think mad Cow is artificial?

Actually, the theories I've read about mad cow mostly agree that feeding naturally vegetarian cows beef (usually from downer cows which were too sick to be sold for human consumption) was the cause of the fast spread of the disease. The mechanism of the disease is thought to be a stable protein (as opposed to a virus or a bacteria) that can infect a healthy body even in small amounts, so blending one sick cow into a large batch of beef actually spreads the contaminant in a way that is sadly ideal for transmission.

There is less consensus about the actual cause of mad cow (and sadly, not a lot of money spent researching it) but hormone injections, the cannibalistic feed and genetic modifications have been suggested as sources.

So, to answer your question directly, yes, mad cow may indeed be artificial, but the spread of the disease beyond a small natural phenomenon was almost certainly caused by artificial modern factory farming techniques.


More people die in countries where everything is organic from eating the organic food the produce than they do here.

You really should cite sources when posting controversial "facts". I was unaware that there was a country that had had an entirely organic food supply.

Oh, and I agree with brooklynrider that Aspartame & Phenylalanine are very bad, but I also agree with zippy that worring about them are probably more trouble than good. Don't eat or drink "diet" foods (or other excessively processed foods) is an easy rule.

Ninjahedge
July 6th, 2005, 01:55 PM
How much aspertame do you see in the poor districts of india, somalia, ethiopia and the like.

What I am saying is not a 100% association, but the fact that a lot of poorer countries that cannot afford fertilizers and pesticides have major health problems that are partially related to the lack of manmade farmalogical agents.


As for the Mad-Cow, it could also be reasoned that is is actually an experimental man-made weapon, but that is going into Tin-Foil-Hat land.

Most of the most virulent pathogens, toxins and other agents have come from mother nature, mankind just has the annoying habit of extracting and concentrating them... ;)

Like I said, everything with caution. I do not see any problem with giving cows vitamins and innoculations, but the Steroids which have already proven to be unhealthy in humans, are not a great idea.

Especially combined with the fact that we, as a nation, overconsume individual products. Most people would never even see a trace of a problem from cow steroids if they ate the daily recommended dose instead of living at McDonalds.

And what was the dosage for Saccarine?(sp) They found that if a rat drank the equivalent of 200 Diet colas a day for its entire life that it developed cancer. So, moderation is the key.

And don't drink Rat Poison or eat lead paint. ;)

ryan
July 6th, 2005, 02:11 PM
What I am saying is not a 100% association, but the fact that a lot of poorer countries that cannot afford fertilizers and pesticides have major health problems that are partially related to the lack of manmade farmalogical agents.

Organic farming is actually several times more expensive than other faming techniques. Read a definition of organic here (http://www.ota.com/standards/nosb/definition.html). Manmade fertilizers and pesticides are much cheaper and they are exactly what is used in poorer countries. I would again ask you to cite a source for your claim that "More people die in countries where everything is organic from eating the organic food the produce than they do here."


As for the Mad-Cow, it could also be reasoned that is is actually an experimental man-made weapon, but that is going into Tin-Foil-Hat land.

Your straw man fallacy is disrespectful, insulting, and a weak argument. You seem to know very little about the subject, so why post contrary arguments?

Ninjahedge
July 6th, 2005, 02:53 PM
Ryan, you are pissing me off.

You take arguements personally and shout "prove it" at the top of your lungs.

If you want a conversation, we will talk. I did not come here for a debate, and I certainly did not come here for an arguement.

As for finding information, it is hard to find anything on the net that does not seem to be a banner organization for people championing the cause of Organic farming.

I looked for about 30 min and all I got was dozens of personal sites, and special interest groups and corporates that both had their own slants.

The example I remember off the top of my head that I can give you was, I believe, E-coli contamination on Mexican Strawberries due to "organic" fertalizer.

And I know you say that inorganic is cheaper, but how can you get any cheaper than cow dung?

ryan
July 6th, 2005, 03:08 PM
You take arguements personally and shout "prove it" at the top of your lungs.

If you want a conversation, we will talk. I did not come here for a debate, and I certainly did not come here for an arguement.

I don't post unsubstantiated hyperbole about subjects I am ignorant about, and I suppose I have a bad habit of picking arguments with those that do. Mea culpa. I'm not taking your argument personally, but I am irritated in general by superficial "conversation" that contains wildly incorrect or unsubstantiated claims such as "More people die in countries where everything is organic from eating the organic food the produce than they do here." I personally find it difficult to ignore misinformation. A shortcoming I readily admit.


As for finding information, it is hard to find anything on the net that does not seem to be a banner organization for people championing the cause of Organic farming.

I looked for about 30 min and all I got was dozens of personal sites, and special interest groups and corporates that both had their own slants.

The site I linked to above is indeed a biased group, the Organic Trade Association, but the definition on the page is from the USDA's National Organic Standards Board (http://www.ams.usda.gov/nosb/).


And I know you say that inorganic is cheaper, but how can you get any cheaper than cow dung?

Description of Straw Man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.

Ninjahedge
July 6th, 2005, 03:33 PM
I know what a straw man arguement is.

Dont start pulling that stuff out to refute any points I am making.

As for pathogens and dangers, here is what I am talking about:

http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/tfsy.html#Food Safety Initiative (Strategy to Prevent Foodborne Disease)


Public Health Problem: Foodborne infections remain a major public health problem. The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, a private non-profit organization, estimated in its 1994 report, Foodborne Pathogens: Risks and Consequences, that as many as 9,000 deaths and 6.5 to 33 million illnesses in the United States each year are food-related. Hospitalization costs alone for these illnesses are estimated at over $3 billion a year. Costs for lost productivity for seven specific pathogens have been estimated to range between $6 billion and $9 billion. Total costs for all foodborne illnesses are likely to be much higher. These estimates do not take into account the total burden placed on society by the chronic, often life-long consequences caused by some foodborne pathogens.

Additional important safety concerns are associated with the greater susceptibility to foodborne infections of several population groups. These include persons with lowered immunity due to HIV/AIDS, those on medications for cancer treatment or for organ transplantation, as well as pregnant women (and their fetuses), young children, and elderly persons. Patients taking antibiotics, or antacids, are also at greater risk of infection from some pathogens. Other groups who may be disproportionately affected include persons living in institutional settings, such as hospitals and nursing homes, and those with inadequate access to health care, such as homeless persons, migrant farm workers, and others of low socioeconomic status.

Although they also point out that poor health care is a contributing factor to the deaths associated with the infections. They do not, however, site that as a reason for contracting the illnesses in the first place.

So I guess my arguement can be broadened to include organic methods of crop maintainance as a contributing factor in the deaths of more people in 3rd world countries than THE cause, but saying it plays no part is not true either.

Combine unsafe practices or health standards with organics and it is easier to end up with contaminated food that can hurt people.

http://www.foodsafety.gov/~dms/fs-draft.html

That is the draft of the food safety statement.

One thing that seems to be common to all the articles that I am reading is that the damage to individuals seems to come from misuse of the biological agents/fertalizers and such. One states that a 'high level of expertise' is needed in order to perform this properly.


The main arguement about pesticides and the like has rarely been what you are injesting when you eat the food, but where that pesticide runs off to and what it does to the environment at large.

One of the most notable relations is with certain seafoods and the higher concentrations exhibited by them after prolonged exposure to contaminated runoff.

So the counter arguement would also have to be adjusted a bit to be closer to the truth, that the agents in and of themselves, when given only in the doses that are recommended and barring any other exposure to any other environmental contaminants pose less of a risk to the health of the ingestor than what is being stated by a lot of these sources.

The key fact comes down to how they are being used and applied.

Speculation: I believe that inorganics may be safer for first-level agriculture just in that they are harder to use incorectly. They are a danger to the environment however, probably moreso than organics.

Organics are only viable when used properly by an experienced practitioner and can pose risk more readily if improperly used, but probably pose less of an overall environmental impact if used as 'improperly' as inorganic...

Ninjahedge
July 6th, 2005, 04:34 PM
It's nowhere as heated as the whatever-beach post in the NYC section...

;)

ryan
July 6th, 2005, 04:58 PM
So I guess my arguement can be broadened to include organic methods of crop maintainance as a contributing factor in the deaths of more people in 3rd world countries than THE cause, but saying it plays no part is not true either.

No, it cannot. If the 3rd world followed accepted organic farming standards (say the USDA's standards) then your argument would be valid, but you calling random unregulated farming techniques "organic" is the straw man. It's not the same. That's like saying anarchy is the same as the Canadian justice system because they are both different from the US justice system. Makes no sense.


Speculation: I believe that inorganics may be safer for first-level agriculture just in that they are harder to use incorectly. They are a danger to the environment however, probably moreso than organics.

Organics are only viable when used properly by an experienced practitioner and can pose risk more readily if improperly used, but probably pose less of an overall environmental impact if used as 'improperly' as inorganic...

You're accentuating the small risk involved with organic farming and completely ignoring the risks involved with chemical/manmade farming (there's an enormous body of study on these risks I'm not interested in defending). Your conclusion makes sense only by following your arbitrary premise.


More people die in countries where everything is organic from eating the organic food the produce than they do here.

I'm still waiting for some kind of support for this statement, though I do appreciate the relatively thoughtful and supported arguments you more recently made. I wonder why you are arguing so strongly against pretty uncontroversial issues (this and hate crime legislation). Is BrooklynRider's suggestion that you are playing devil's advocate correct?

Ninjahedge
July 6th, 2005, 05:38 PM
No, it cannot. If the 3rd world followed accepted organic farming standards (say the USDA's standards) then your argument would be valid, but you calling random unregulated farming techniques "organic" is the straw man. It's not the same. That's like saying anarchy is the same as the Canadian justice system because they are both different from the US justice system. Makes no sense.

Then what do you call using animal feces as fertalizer and not being able to afford pesticide?

Home grown?

Also, my point is , for the same level of attension one is safer than the other. It is not just the ammount of work required, but VIGILANCE as well.




You're accentuating the small risk involved with organic farming and completely ignoring the risks involved with chemical/manmade farming (there's an enormous body of study on these risks I'm not interested in defending). Your conclusion makes sense only by following your arbitrary premise.

No I am not.

All I am looking at is the direct effect. Namely, do you, John Q. Public, stand more or less of a chance at getting sick from organic or inorganic farm produce from eating the stuff at a different location than where it was grown.

The original post was about the direct effect of injestion, not on the ecological effect.




I'm still waiting for some kind of support for this statement, though I do appreciate the relatively thoughtful and supported arguments you more recently made. I wonder why you are arguing so strongly against pretty uncontroversial issues (this and hate crime legislation). Is BrooklynRider's suggestion that you are playing devil's advocate correct?

A bit. I am more a vehement moderate. I do not like seeing either side pressed too hard.

Being an engineer, the nature of pusing hard on the other side to get it back to center does not hold merit when things like social inertia are taken into account.

As for the organic farming, I realize the merits, but I can't stand when people are shoving it in my face as if it was so much better for me as a foodstuff.

I know it, in general, is better for the environment, but there is no proof that injesting the proper ammount of the other will do me any harm. Most of the worries about things such as steroids and the like come from the effects on people injesting many times more than the healthy ammount for that foodstuff to begin with.

So the only thing I was arguing here was not the precise #'s of people taht are effected by X and Y, but rather that both arguments are annoying when they are pushed harder than their own merits can prove.

Since you came in on the "side" of organic, I had to lean more toward inorganic as not being as unhealthy as people say.




I guess your main beef (pun intended) is with use of arbitrary references. Fair enough. Just afford me the benefit of the dobt in the future that not all references I give are meant as absolutes, although they can easily be interpreted as such......

ryan
July 6th, 2005, 05:56 PM
Then what do you call using animal feces as fertalizer and not being able to afford pesticide?

Home grown?

I would call that standard practice for the entire history of agriculture. Including now. The food you eat every day is fertilized with manure, and there is nothing unhealthy about it. Manure is actually more expensive than pesticide - both for agriculture and home gardening. Really, you seem entirely underinformed for the vehemence of your argument, so I won't address the rest.

ZippyTheChimp
July 6th, 2005, 06:11 PM
Well, I've learned nothing in this thread about the health risks of Aspartame, but it seems I am better off sitting on my couch sucking down a Nutra Sweet Diet Pepsi, than someone in a hut in Bangladesh eating a dung fertilized bowl of rice.

I think I knew that.

ryan
July 6th, 2005, 06:39 PM
Well, I've learned nothing in this thread about the health risks of Aspartame, but it seems I am better off sitting on my couch sucking down a Nutra Sweet Diet Pepsi, than someone in a hut in Bangladesh eating a dung fertilized bowl of rice.

I think I knew that.

Sorry, I know a lot of people hate confrontation, and I should limit my capacity for argument...

ZippyTheChimp
July 6th, 2005, 08:04 PM
I didn't mind the debate, but none of it was about the topic.

miyom
July 25th, 2005, 08:09 PM
ninjahedge you are so much fun. i mean it, you are.
Organic is not good either.
More people die in countries where everything is organic from eating the organic food the produce than they do here.

spurious relationship. organic foods = death. you like making stuff up and that's funny.
as far as eating aspartame, i'm scared of the stuff really. i don't know who to believe or where the reputable sources are hiding, so i'm just gonna pass.

pianoman11686
July 25th, 2005, 11:16 PM
My 10th grade chemistry teacher, God rest her soul, was hyperallergic to aspartame. No diet soda or sugar free gum, which was unfortunate since she was obese for most of her life. It was the first time I had ever heard of allergies to aspartame. I still prefer to drink diet soda more often than regular. The very easily-digestable high fructose syrup that's used as sweetener has awful effects on the metabolism. More than McDonald's, KFC, Krispy Kreme, and candy - sugary sodas are most responsible for the obesity epidemic.

Ninjahedge
July 26th, 2005, 09:30 AM
ninjahedge you are so much fun. i mean it, you are.
spurious relationship. organic foods = death. you like making stuff up and that's funny.

No I am not.

Here's your strawberries.


as far as eating aspartame, i'm scared of the stuff really. i don't know who to believe or where the reputable sources are hiding, so i'm just gonna pass.

Then why did you bother posting, unless you wanted to refute me on something I dropped a month ago because the arguement was going nowhere?

BrooklynRider
September 11th, 2005, 07:56 PM
I'm sure as long as it tastes sweet and has artificial coloring, they'll drink it right up.

Supercool Dude
September 27th, 2005, 11:55 PM
I don't know if using Aspartame is bad for you in the large amounts I use.

I heard it turns into Methanol in your blood.

I will not eat bread with preservatives.

boolean
November 23rd, 2009, 03:35 PM
Is aspartame the only artificial sweetener that you know of that has phenylalanine (http://www.phenylalanine.org)? I realize that some of us may also dislike what is inside the other types as well but... just for phenylalanine.

MidtownGuy
November 23rd, 2009, 05:54 PM
Aspartame is poison. Never drink diet drinks with this ingredient.

Ninjahedge
November 23rd, 2009, 08:04 PM
There is probably more toxins in the air we breathe than in Aspertame. The rats that got cancer had to be served the equivalent of 100's of glasses of soda a day for months before they got cancer.

Lesson? Moderation.

Besides, Aspertame tastes like crap anyway. Fresca was the only one that could hide the taste.

MidtownGuy
November 25th, 2009, 12:37 PM
There is probably more toxins in the air we breathe than in Aspertame. The rats that got cancer had to be served the equivalent of 100's of glasses of soda a day for months before they got cancer.

I never saw that particular rat study. I'm going by other reports over the years and the experiences of those effected. You discount the possibility of different people/species being effected differently. The point is there are lots of reports, not just the one you dismissed so handily.

One thing I can say: It must be nice to have such conviction about every single thing in life, ninjahedge... even the things you probably know very little about. So, YOU can drink all the laboratory sweeteners you like...I'll stick to the natural stuff.

The air may contain toxins, but why drink unsafe chemicals too? Hey, by your logic, smoking cigarettes can't be that bad either, since we're all already practically dead. :cool:

Ninjahedge
November 25th, 2009, 09:09 PM
Rats are much more sensitive to carcinogens than humans. That is one reason they use them.

So if you did not hear of that study, what study are you using for proof of the cancer causing effects of aspartame?