Dog Owners Warned Over Sugar-Free Items

You should disclose if you are associated with the sugar free industries. It is the right thing to do because quite frankly, it sounds like you are using their talking points...

No one has ever died from sugar substitute use.

Not yet. Keep reading...

However, many people who would have died from consuming sugar (Diabetics) are alive and able to enjoy many more foods and drinks because of sugar substitutes.,

I'm sorry, but that is not a valid argument. Sugar is not a life sustaining food. In fact, it screws up your body's metabolism and raises your blood sugar and gets converted to body fat which contributes to our national obesity epidemic.

It has been suggested that type 2 diabetes got their conditions from consuming too much sugar and carbohydrates.

These substances have been studied for many years and so far have proved to be safe.

I'm sorry. Aspartame is used in over 5000 products. It accounts for 75% of all side effects reported to the FDA Adverse Reaction Monitoring System. 2 of the 92 recognized sympthoms the FDS linked to Aspartame are seizures and vertigo. Air Force and airline pilots are routinely warned about the dangers of aspartame.

When Aspartame is in your body, it breaks down into a very dangerous component - formaldehyde. You know, the stuff they use to preserve dead bodies?

By the FDA's own admission, only 1% of those who experience side effects actually report them. In 1994, there were 10,000 complaints. (Keeping in mind this was over ten years ago so it is possibly much higher now) So that moves the real figure closer to 1 million complaints a year.

The FDA set the acceptable daily intake of aspartame to 50mg per kilogram of bodyweight. The average American consumes 30 miligrams but many go higher. However, Italian scientists noticed rats consuming only 8% of the ADI had increased cancer rates.

Of course, this is America, so science has nothing to do with anything. We just let popular opinion decide what is safe and what isn't.

You are absolutely correct Sir!

Ultimately, we are responsible for our own bodies. I wanted to rebut your arguments so the rest of the readers can make up their own minds. And I have no conflict of interest.

I just want to live a long and healthy life... or until I get hit by a bus.

"You should disclose if you are associated with the sugar free industries. It is the right thing to do because quite frankly, it sounds like you are using their talking points."

I don't have anything to do with them except for the fact that I like my sugar free products, and I don't want a bunch of knee-jerk out of touch clueless people jumping on the baloney bandwagon you and your type pull around, causing it to be banned.

Formaldehyde? Yes, this is true. It is metabolized from METHANOL which is one of the metabolites of Aspartame. Guess what? You get more methanol and as a result more formaldehyde from drinking orange juice or eating tomatoes. How many people have been killed by tomatoes? Or Orange juice?

Pilots can't use aspartame? Wrong again. Read below (Excerpted from this link:)

http://www.caloriecontrol.org/response.html

"... aspartame was comprehensively evaluated for its potential to mediate adverse reactions on the ability of pilots to fly planes. There were a number of individual complaints registered with the FDA claiming that ingestion of aspartame resulted in an interference with individuals' ability to fly planes. For example, dizziness, impairment of vision and mental acuity were reported. The FDA took these reports seriously and instituted a contract to perform a study to see if these effects could, in deed, be reproduced. FDA contracted with the Federal Aviation Agency who subcontracted studies with psychophysiological testing laboratories to determine whether aspartame could affect mental functioning, and manual dexterity. The overall outcome of the studies was that there was no difference between placebo (control) treatment and exposure to aspartame...".

As far as the "adverse reaction monitoring system" I ask you to prove your claim as I can find nothing to support or refute it, except to say I can find no information at all pertaining to aspartame reaction reports other than the following from the FDA website:

" After reviewing scientific studies, FDA determined in 1981 that aspartame was safe for use in foods. In 1987, the General Accounting Office investigated the process surrounding FDA's approval of aspartame and confirmed the agency had acted properly. However, FDA has continued to review complaints alleging adverse reactions to products containing aspartame. To date, FDA has not determined any consistent pattern of symptoms that can be attributed to the use of aspartame, nor is the agency aware of any recent studies that clearly show safety problems."

Can you point me to any scientific studies that show safety problems with aspartame?

Some of your post looks like it was taken straight from this link right here:

http://www.rense.com/politics6/lwodown.htm

A google search on the author of that journey into fantasy shows that he makes his living selling dietary supplements and the following quote is from his on line store:

"Dr. Whitaker has dedicated himself to what alternative medicine is supposed to be about…"

Alternative, in other words not based on scientific studies or fact.

In fact, it screws up your body's metabolism and raises your blood sugar...

Are you saying that sucrose does this or are all carbohydrates responsible? We get the majority of our carbs from starch so I'd be interested in knowing what it is about either of them that is responsible for screwing up our metabolism. I am referring to a healthy body of course, that produces insulin normally.

I also don't understand why diabetics shouldn't be allowed to enjoy sweeteners that don't wreak havoc with their health. Are you saying that diabetics shouldn't be able to enjoy soft drinks, candy, snacks, baked goods or any other recipe that calls for sugar just because you feel there is something wrong with artificial sweeteners?

... and gets converted to body fat which contributes to our national obesity epidemic.

All carbohydrates are converted by the body into glucose. What isn't needed for immediate energy is converted to glycogen, which is then stored in the liver and muscles. If the glycogen reserves are full, the body converts it to depot fat. Are you saying that we should ban all carbohydrates because people who consume more calories than they burn will get fat?

It has been suggested that type 2 diabetes got their conditions from consuming too much sugar and carbohydrates

Sop what? People can get sick from over-consuming all sorts of things. Is the answer to begin banning things that most people consume and enjoy in moderation without any negative results?

2 of the 92 recognized sympthoms the FDS linked to Aspartame are seizures and vertigo.

Do you have a link for this. I've read a lot of FDA studies but I've never seen one yet that establishes Aspartame as a cause for seizures and vertigo. People who suffer from PKU are susceptible to all kinds of horrible reactions if they consume phenylalanine. Since phenylalanine is an essential amino acid, which is found in almost every protein on earth, these people have a lot more to worry about than aspartame. Banning aspartame would do nothing to alleviate their affliction.

When Aspartame is in your body, it breaks down into a very dangerous component - formaldehyde.

Less than 1% of a typical diet soda using aspartame is comprised of methanol. The minute (read: minuscule) amount of formaldehyde that this produces is easily eliminated by the liver. Granted, the liver has a harder time with one-carbon alcohols but you will do more damage to your liver drinking one vodka and tonic or smoking one cigarette, than you will from drinking a 6-pack of diet coke.

Did you know that potatoes contain arsenic? When you eat lima beans you're also eating cyanide. Coffee contains more than 600 chemicals and more than 200 of them are still not identified. Of the ones identified, many are toxic. You could never consume of enough of these toxins from eating these foods however. It's the same thing for aspartame. You would never eat enough of this ingredient for the methanol to hurt you in any way.

In 1994, there were 10,000 complaints. (Keeping in mind this was over ten years ago so it is possibly much higher now) So that moves the real figure closer to 1 million complaints a year.

And the FDA is just ignoring this obvious public health crisis? Where do you get your information from?

The FDA set the acceptable daily intake of aspartame to 50mg per kilogram of bodyweight. The average American consumes 30 miligrams but many go higher.

According to the FDA, the 90th percentile of aspartame consumption is roughly 3.0 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day. For a 150-lb adult, this would be about 210 milligrams of aspartame, which is approximately the amount in one 12-oz. can of aspartame-sweetened soft drink plus one packet of aspartame-based table-top sweetener. The acceptable daily intake of aspartame (the estimated amount that a person can safely consume on average every day over a lifetime without risk) is 50 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day, or about 16 times the 90th percentile intake. Do you know anyone consuming 16 times the 90th percentile of aspartame consumption?

However, Italian scientists noticed rats consuming only 8% of the ADI had increased cancer rates.

Are you referring to the Ramazzini study by Dr. Morando Soffritti? If so, you should be aware that the The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recently concluded that the Ramazzini assertion that aspartame was a carcinogen was not supported by data. Apparently, Dr. Soffritti used lab rats for his tesing that were suffering from chronic organ dysfunction. This is just one of many other major flaws in the study. The EFSA is much more cautious than the FDA. Dr. Soffritti's research has been so thoroughly discredited that it is unlikely he will be receiving research grants in the future.

I wanted to rebut your arguments so the rest of the readers can make up their own minds. And I have no conflict of interest.

Why do you assume that anyone with an understanding of chemistry and nutrition has a conflict of interest? If you want to rebut arguments I would suggest providing links to the sources for your information. Unless, of course, you understand the issues well enough to debate them based on your scientific knowledge.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.