Study Finds Aspartame Causes Cancer

TruthSeeker said:
I would like to see that pile.
Click to expand...
I'll try to get it to you on monday, when I can use the university database.
As I shown in the beginning of the thread, independent studies keep saying aspartame is dangerous.
Click to expand...
In what quantities? Quantities that people would be likely to actually consume?
And it doesn't take a very logical person to notice that aspartame is not a healthy substance.
Click to expand...
See my above edit on the logic of aspartame danger.
Barriers to entry. Those barriers are against new companies. They are making it harder for the new competition, thus protecting their buddies.
Click to expand...
Doesn't explain why they are also coming down so hard on new products from established companies.
Which conspiracy theories? Oh, and btw, when are they going to ban tobacco? It's shown to cause cancer in all studies, and yet they won't ban it. Why?
Click to expand...
The FDA would LOVE the authority to regulate tobacco. Congress hasn't given it to them yet. Now I agree that the tobacco companies are almost certainly using bribery (er, excuse me, making “campaign contributions”) to keep that from happening, but the FDA definitely wants it.

http://www.nacsonline.com/NR/exeres...0DC6E2729A}&NRQUERYTERMINATOR=1&cookie_test=1
 
Typical Republican criminality.
Click to expand...

Now now, don't stoop to the level of the brainwashed idiots here that always try and make something out to be a "liberal-only" problem. It's political criminality, and that includes Democrats as well. Anyone in a powerful position is most likely corrupt. Blaming things on one group just helps create a smokescreen so people start arguing left vs right issues, not allowing themselves enough attention span to remember who they really should be upset with -- our politicians -- while allowing all of them to get away like a smooth criminal.

If you think that the FDA is in bed with companies, how do you explain that fact that the FDA keeps making it harder and harder for companies to bring products to market?
Click to expand...

Making products harder to bring into the market is good for powerful companies because it allows their lobbying groups to still put their products out on the market while screwing the little guy who doesn't have politicians in their back pocket. In other words, it helps create monopolies.

Besides, if the FDA did absolutely nothing, it'd be a wee bit too obvious, no? So they take little steps which make it look like they do care, while making sure those laws don't affect the big boys thanks to the influence of our leaders. You know, just like what politicians do to make laws apply to others and not themselves.

- N
 
I just went to take a couple vitamins and checked the back. Lo and behold, it had aspartame as well, lol. Maybe they cancel each other out? :shrug:

- N
 
A big part of this thread is a farce. Even the title is purposely misleading. The report clearly says, "...might cause leukemia, lymphoma and breast cancer in rats."

So the OP willingly distorted "might cause" into "causes." How dishonest can anybody be????????????
 
Neildo said:
I just went to take a couple vitamins and checked the back. Lo and behold, it had aspartame as well, lol. Maybe they cancel each other out? :shrug:

- N
Click to expand...
Those vitamins are not real. They are engineered. Try to find real ones, and they won't have aspartame in them.
 
Read-Only said:
A big part of this thread is a farce. Even the title is purposely misleading. The report clearly says, "...might cause leukemia, lymphoma and breast cancer in rats."

So the OP willingly distorted "might cause" into "causes." How dishonest can anybody be????????????
Click to expand...
The report clearly says that the scientists are URGING the FDA to reconsider. URGING. You know what the word URGING means? :rolleyes:
 
Anyone that thinks aspartame is harmless should do a little research on its history. Aspartame was actually not approved by the FDA for something like sixteen years. It was only when Reagan got into office and the FDA had a new head that Donald Rumsfeld, who was high up in the company that had the rights to aspartame, was able to pull some strings to get it approved. I might have gotten a couple minor points wrong here but the major plot line is true. which is:
1) Aspartame not approved by FDA for years.
2) FDA suddenly approves aspartame when Reagan gets into office and Rumsfeld had some formal connection with the company that would profit and Rumsfeld used his connections with the Reagan administration to get it approved.
-------------
 
Pandaemoni said:
I think everything causes cancer, up to an including a mother's love.
Click to expand...

I know the list gets longer and longer.....if we avoided everything they
are claiming may cause cancer.....we wouldn't be able to eat or breathe anymore......shit can we have sex that isn't on the list yet is it????:eek:
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker said:
The report clearly says that the scientists are URGING the FDA to reconsider. URGING. You know what the word URGING means? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Certainly I do. But that doesn't change the fact that you deliberately distorted the facts in that article to suit your own agenda.

And what makes your dishonesty even worse is that I think I remember you claiming somewhere else that the media was/is biased!!!!! So what should we call you?!?!?!?!?!?!?
 
Read-Only said:
Certainly I do. But that doesn't change the fact that you deliberately distorted the facts in that article to suit your own agenda.

And what makes your dishonesty even worse is that I think I remember you claiming somewhere else that the media was/is biased!!!!! So what should we call you?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Click to expand...
Man! You are like a huge ballon! Like a Zeplin or something like that!!! :eek:

:D
 
Here's what I found in wikipedia:

"The head of the FDA, Jere E. Goyan, who had not approved legalization of aspartame, due to the brain cancer in rats issue, was fired on the first day Ronald Reagan was president of the U.S. (1981). Reagan hired Arthur Hayes MD (FDA Commissioner 1981-1983), who legalized aspartame a year later. Reagan supporter Donald Rumsfeld was president and later CEO of G. D. Searle & Company from 1977 to 1985.[77][78] Arthur Hull Hayes MD was a defense contractor before he was head of the FDA. In November 1983 Hayes was under fire for accepting corporate gifts. He quit and joined Searle's public-relations firm as senior medical advisor. Searle lawyer Robert B. Shapiro, renamed aspartame NutraSweet. Monsanto purchased Searle. Rumsfeld received a $12 million bonus. Shapiro later became Monsanto president.

Several members of the FDA board left their jobs after stevia (aspartame's main competitor then) was banned in 1991. They were all hired at Nutrasweet in higher paying jobs, according to national records. Dr. Michael Friedman quit the FDA when Jane Henney was selected to become the permanent FDA commissioner (1999). Friedman elected to sign with G. D. Searle as a senior vice president at a purported $500,000 a year. He later accepted a position with Monsanto.

In February 2007, Page to Pantry, a radio program on the public radio station KPFK 90.7FM in Los Angeles, reported that aspartame was refused approval by the FDA for eight years before finally being approved under the leadership of Arthur Hayes. Immediately after, Hayes left the FDA and went to work for the artificial sweetener industry. This so-called "Revolving-Door" policy seems to be very common in the food additive industry."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy
 
TruthSeeker said:
Man! You are like a huge ballon! Like a Zeplin or something like that!!! :eek:

:D
Click to expand...

Not sure what a 'ballon' is - perhaps you meant 'balloon?' :D

But that's not the point at all - and neither is the chemical industry or the "revolving door" at the FDA.

What IS the point is that I'm calling your hand on deliberatly distorting "may cause" into "causes." That's a distortion on purpose and NO ONE should get away with it.

It puts your degree of honesty and personal integrity in strong doubt.
 
I have the perfect solution!
If you don't like aspartame, don't consume it.

Personally, I agree with Truthseeker. I get headaches every time I eat products containing aspartame, before even hearing about the 'controversy'. But we're missing the point I think: something that needs to be laced with factory-made chemicals in order to not taste like crap is not good for your health. Even if aspartame has no harmful long term effects, it doesn't change the fact that you are feeding yourself garbage.
 
Xerxes said:
I have the perfect solution!
If you don't like aspartame, don't consume it.

Personally, I agree with Truthseeker. I get headaches every time I eat products containing aspartame, before even hearing about the 'controversy'. But we're missing the point I think: something that needs to be laced with factory-made chemicals in order to not taste like crap is not good for your health. Even if aspartame has no harmful long term effects, it doesn't change the fact that you are feeding yourself garbage.
Click to expand...

I've been ahead of that game for a VERY long time. I avoid all diet drinks and diet foods. I've been offered some from time to time but none of them really taste good to me and/or have a bad after-taste.
 
Read-Only said:
Not sure what a 'ballon' is - perhaps you meant 'balloon?'
Click to expand...
Oh voooops! That was a missspelin... :D

But that's not the point at all - and neither is the chemical industry or the "revolving door" at the FDA.

What IS the point is that I'm calling your hand on deliberatly distorting "may cause" into "causes." That's a distortion on purpose and NO ONE should get away with it.

It puts your degree of honesty and personal integrity in strong doubt.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you didn't read the whole article. Here's the part a quote- the thrid paragraph:

"This is the second study by the same lab showing that aspartame causes cancer in rats,” Center for Science in the Public Interest executive director Michael Jacobson said in a telephone interview.
Click to expand...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19424599/


I guess you didn't read past the second paragraph.... :D

:poke:
 
TruthSeeker said:
Oh voooops! That was a missspelin... :D


I'm sorry you didn't read the whole article. Here's the part a quote- the thrid paragraph:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19424599/


I guess you didn't read past the second paragraph.... :D

:poke:
Click to expand...

Oh, but I did. The joker who said that misspoke - just as you did. Nothing in the article stated it CAUSED cancer - just that it increased the CHANCE of it. And that was the exact same lab both times - where's the independent confirmation that it even increased the risk? I'll never accept anything until it's shown to be accurate by independent means. That's just the way that good science works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top