Aspartame and Phenylalanine!

frostman on 18/12/2015 - 16:30
Last edited 21/12/2015 - 09:08

Hey folks,

We know that that the artificial sweetener Aspartame, breaks down into various components in our bodies, one of them being Phenylalanine.

There is conflicting research as to whether Aspartame and it's sub-chemicals cause devastating effects to your body.

I personally think artificial sweeteners are bad unless there is a very strong argument/proof that it's safe

ANYWAY…I chew ~1 packet of gum per day, so am slightly concerned…do you know of any alternative gums?

Also, all debates/arguments about Aspartame welcome here!

Food & Grocery

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 20/12/2015 - 20:00

    Too many words. This isn't reddit.

    Someone just tell me if my Extra Peppermint or Extra Professional is bad for me, because I chew like 10 packets a month.

    • Telios on 20/12/2015 - 21:16
      +9

      You might poop too much…that's about it.

      But if you stop chewing gum, you can start ranting about how 'unnatural' everything in the supermarkets is and how much 'better' you feel now that you drink hand-squeezed agave nectar from a secluded monastery in the French Alps (cultivated only with ancient natural techniques passed down from generations of virgin-birthed monks and blessed by the head monk who hasn't spoke the words GMO, pesticide, or globalisation in over 10 years).

      • bargainslut on 20/12/2015 - 23:28

        I tend to to buy local organic ingredients from local suppliers who deliver a fantastic service and appreciate the business. I generally don't buy squeezed juice from the French Alps as it's plentiful here and I certainly appreciate it. Growing my own food is wonderful as well.

        I believe it's beneficial to reestablish a connection between the cities and farmlands that has eroded over many decades. Food bring's communities together in a myriad of ways.

        I'm sure, with a little education and a love for food we can create a sustainable food supply that benefits everyone.

        • mrham on 21/12/2015 - 00:56
          +6

          You sound like you sniff your own farts.

        • bargainslut on 21/12/2015 - 01:03
          +1

          @mrham:I qualified as a chef 24 years ago. I love to garden. I love food. I love to feed my family well because I love them. On occasion I fart (And sniff them). What's your passion?

          +1 for you angel:)

        • mrham on 21/12/2015 - 01:24
          +5

          @bargainslut: You jumped on a thread, about alternatives to Aspartame gum, to let everyone know that you buy local ingredients and grow vegetables. So do millions of other people. Nobody cares mate.

        • bargainslut on 21/12/2015 - 01:30

          @mrham: iv'e been on this thread making several comments from the start. Scroll up if you please little angel.

          If millions of people buy and grow veggies then I'm sure some of them "care" and in fact on this thread alone Iv'e talked to some amazing people and have an overall positive time. How about you mrham?

        • Speckled Jim on 22/12/2015 - 13:33

          @mrham:
          Do keep up.

          Her veggies were a reply to Telios who comforted me with uproarious laughter at their apathy's expense.
          Questioning authority? What was I thinking?!

          ^Link provided if you can't scroll up 40 lines.

        • Speckled Jim on 22/12/2015 - 13:34
          +2

          Telios touches on another dimension of the issue.

          The biggest problem we've created for ourselves is demanding produce when it's out of season.

          There's a food sovereignty issue here, in that we're currently importing things to have them year-round. There's also a GMO link, as all manner of resistance (pest, frost etc) are being plugged into your cherries ;p

        • bargainslut on 22/12/2015 - 20:00

          @mcmonte: It's certainly a big problem. We have a choice as individuals to vote with our wallet and raise awareness through many mediums.

    • Roman Sandstorm on 21/12/2015 - 02:20
      +1

      Too many words.

      Sorry, FiftyCent, but the world isn't quite as simple as you'd like it to be. Too bad, so sad.

      I find it quite gratifying that people (on all sides) are prepared to take time and effort to make intelligent comments. Even if some of the comments are palpably incorrect.

      If you find either too many words, or words with too many syllables here, then I recommend suitably simple solution: click to a forum entry on Eneloops.

      • [Deactivated] on 21/12/2015 - 18:45

        Too many words. I'll stick to reading walls of text on reputable websites.

  • Scrooge McDuck on 20/12/2015 - 21:07

    Hey folks,

    We knowI read that that the artificial sweetener, Aspartame, breaks down into various components in our bodyies, one of them being Phenylalanine.

    On a general basis,And that these aren't particularly good for your health, whether they make you die or give you a migraine,. tThe fact is that they're not neutralnatural​ and/or not good.

    I like chewing gum alota lot and noticed all Extra!​Extra gum contains Phenylalanine. I went to Aldis to buy their gum brand and noticed the same shit in there.

    Does anyone know any good gum that doesnt contain that garbage?

    Translated into readable English for the benefit of everybody.

    • frostman on 21/12/2015 - 08:58
      -3

      @Scrooge McDuck

      Thanks for being my good primary school teacher. You should have used red text to highlight my mistakes.
      You should also look into joining Udemy as an English course instructor/

      However, I'd like to point out that my post received quiet a lot of responses which clearly indicated people overlooked the simple errors I've made whilst typing.

      Please feel free to make a contribution to my post.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 21/12/2015 - 09:06
        +3

        Please feel free to make a contribution to my post.

        I just did. ¬_¬

        • frostman on 21/12/2015 - 09:10
          +3

          I just edited my original post.

    • diddy50 on 21/12/2015 - 13:36
      -1

      I am more worried that he doesn't heed the warning - that it may give him loose bowls by chewing so much chewing gum!!!!

  • [Deactivated] on 20/12/2015 - 23:24
    -1

    C'mon guys, haven't you learnt that chewing anything is just an unconscious urge to return to the mothers nipple? It's your basic primal safety switch

    Psychologically, Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) proposed that if the nursing child’s appetite were thwarted during any libidinal development stage, the anxiety would persist into adulthood as a neurosis (functional mental disorder).[2] Therefore, an infantile oral fixation (oral craving) would be manifest as an obsession with oral stimulation; yet, if weaned either too early or too late, the infant might fail to resolve the emotional conflicts of the oral, first stage of psychosexual development and he or she might develop a maladaptive oral fixation.

    The infant who is neglected (insufficiently fed) or who is over-protected (over-fed) in the course of being nursed, might become an orally-fixated person. Said oral-stage fixation might have two effects: (i) the neglected child might become a psychologically dependent adult continually seeking the oral stimulation denied in infancy, thereby becoming a manipulative person in fulfilling his or her needs, rather than maturing to independence; (ii) the over-protected child might resist maturation and return to dependence upon others in fulfilling his or her needs. Theoretically, oral-stage fixations are manifested as garrulousness, smoking, continual oral stimulus (eating, chewing objects), and alcoholism. Psychologically, the symptoms include a sarcastic, oral sadistic personality, nail biting, oral sexual practices (fellatio, cunnilingus, analingus, irrumatio), et cetera.[citation needed].

  • belongsinforums on 21/12/2015 - 00:03

    Hey OP. Considering the arguments going on in here, why not just stop chewing gum? You'll save some coin, too.

    • [Deactivated] on 21/12/2015 - 01:16

      Stop chewing or start a craft-gum company, take your pick.

      • bargainslut on 21/12/2015 - 03:58

        nice chewing gum management John K. Delegations skills second to none! Do you have a degree?

  • frostman on 21/12/2015 - 09:03
    +1

    You know what? If you don't like it, don't consume it.

    • What happens when we no longer have a choice? What happens when everything we wish to consume is tainted with questionable food additives

    And this was the crux of my problem!

    I've purchased a few gum of various brands and they all have the Phenyl.. crap. They are ALL artificially sweetened.
    Any reason why manufacturers cant just use stevia, cane sugar, natural dried fruit, etc???

  • kaos on 21/12/2015 - 09:06

    I actually think ( and have no proof because I can't be bothered looking it up) that artificial sweeteners are used in gum because they tend to have a long lasting sweet taste, i.e.. if they just use normal sugar the gum will taste disgusting quite quickly. So I don't think it will be easy to find gum with no artificial sweeteners.

    I also just stumbled on this long article from a former into GMO activist outlining why he changed his outlook. Long, but worth a read-

    http://www.hawaiireporter.com/leading-activist-apologizes-fo…

    • frostman on 21/12/2015 - 09:09
      +2

      I don't think so.
      Have you tried Hubba Bubba?
      It tastes great (and sweet) for the first 10 secs then it tastes like tyres

    • bargainslut on 21/12/2015 - 13:08

      You can't be bothered looking it up Kaos? Why did you say sorry to Chris? His name is Ricky. Go back and fix the error, if you can be bothered.

    • ESEMCE on 21/12/2015 - 13:20

      It has a long lasting sweet taste yes, but I think they really use it because they've essentially been able to jump out of the "sugary Junk food" category and market their product as a "healthy alternative" to brushing your teeth.

  • That Guy on 21/12/2015 - 13:59
    +1

    I'm not stating global facts, however in my experience I have ben able to single out Aspartame as the source of my migraines. I started to doubt this recently when I started getting migraines again seemingly for no reason or change in diet. Looked at my gum packet (I only just started buying gum to chew at work) and yep there it is.

    damn, I liked that gum too.

    • ESEMCE on 21/12/2015 - 14:07
      +1

      So you get migraines from Drinking diet soft drinks too?

      No reason why you started to buy Gum for work?
      ie stress or quitting smoking that could equally explain why you're getting migraines.

      Have you tried a different brand (with different flavours etc.)?

      I'm not saying that it isn't Aspartame, just pointing out a few of the potential jump to conclusions.

      • That Guy on 21/12/2015 - 14:34
        +2

        Yes, diet soft drinks were the main cause for me.

        I do work in a high stress environment and was looking towards that as a trigger however they disappeared as soon as I cut out aspartame and have still dealt with very high stress levels. I quit smoking 10 years ago so it wouldn't be that.

        I am not saying it with absolution, however it is a pretty big coincidence that when I cut it out of my diet the migraines go, and when I re-introduce it they return.

        I started chewing gum for no real reason other than keeping my mouth feeling fresh.

        I haven't tried a different brand or even flavours as I only just noticed now that my brand contains the sweetener. It never even crossed my mind to check. Seems like I need to be more aware and carful about what I put in my body.

    • bargainslut on 21/12/2015 - 14:26

      I had terrible headaches and ditched aspartame many years ago. Aspartame was 100% to blame.

  • Donaldhump on 21/12/2015 - 17:32
    +2

    i smash a good 12 zero cokes a day along with 30 smokes….im a dead man walking

  • Sydneyswans on 22/12/2015 - 07:44
    +1

    Already made the switch to Natvia/Stevia in my coffees at home… unfortunately not a lot of coffee shops offer that instead of Equal or Splenda and add to that my addiction to coke zero and I might be going overboard on the sweeteners. Anyone know any natural alternatives that still taste great?

    • ESEMCE on 22/12/2015 - 09:06
      +1

      Sugar tastes pretty good to me.
      Like Alternative sweeteners, just don't have too much and you'll be fine!

    • bargainslut on 22/12/2015 - 11:29
      +1

      Hi Chelsea. We use stevia as well. Also coconut sugar, brown rice syrup,raw honey,jaggery and molasses. Hope this helps.

      ps- Sad to see Jose leave…

      • Sydneyswans on 23/12/2015 - 08:12
        +1

        :-( on the Jose part but Ill stick with the Stevia where possible. have some spares when the coffee shops wont stock them…

  • Dr Techno on 22/12/2015 - 10:49

    damned if you do….. damned if you don't..

    Enjoy Life instead!

  • [Deactivated] on 25/12/2015 - 09:30
    -1

    The need to constantly have things in your mouth is a sign of oral fixation.
    You enjoy having things in your mouth.
    Your best alternative to gum would be to rent your mouth out to women.
    Merry Xmas !

  • kaos on 26/12/2015 - 18:32
    -5

    @mcmonte- I have better credibility than most because my position is backed up by facts. You don't get to use fear and uncertainty to insinuate that GMO's are unsafe- in fact if you've studied the various techniques for genetic modification you can clearly see that what you call GMO is going to be the safest and have the least problems. Have a look at the link I provided earlier and see this quote

    'the GM debate is over. It is finished. We no longer need to discuss whether or not it is safe – over a decade and a half with three trillion GM meals eaten there has never been a single substantiated case of harm. You are more likely to get hit by an asteroid than to get hurt by GM food. More to the point, people have died from choosing organic, but no-one has died from eating GM'

    http://www.hawaiireporter.com/leading-activist-apologizes-fo…

    if you want food security, fair enough. You're campaigning against the wrong thing- you should be focussing on the laws that allow companies to patent food. Let them have some profit out of it but reduce the patent time? Now you're talking.

    If you 'believe that people should farm their own stuff and be closer to the land' OK no big deal there, but as the above article points out this is basically a western middle class affectation. The rest of the world can't afford your affectation because it reduces yields.

    Mcmonte- you are spreading FUD, and ultimately it won't work.
    @bargainslut- thanks for the correction, I may get around to fixing it. Currently sitting in the Cairns hinterlands spreading GMOs. Er sorry I meant EATING a lot, running a lot and enjoying the NATURAL beauty of the region…..with very poor internets.

    Peace to all.

    • Speckled Jim on 27/12/2015 - 09:48
      +2

      GMO is going to be the safest and have the least problems

      Sorry kaos, but you're defending baby-steps toward Soylent Green. What you see as potential utopia I see as inevitable dystopia. There's potential for good and bad outcomes, short and long-term for each.

      Cross-breeding, hybridising and seed selection have been used for generations. The power was with the agricultural body or farmer. The yield was ultimately appraised by the market.

      Amplify that power to enable faster, radical biological changes and entrust that power to corporations?

      (your link)
      I've read the evangelical fervor of Lynas' scientific awakening. What he'll soon learn is that the most common answer from science is we just don't know. This is the beauty of science; adherence to strict methodology and peer review gives us consensus, at best.

      It's often wrong, and is corrected years later with an updated press release. But that's science — there's no right or wrong answers, just good or bad science. It's always updating, clarifying and correcting.
      Science is only accountable to itself.

      "We believe the human body burns fat during physical exertion."
      Except it doesn't. Catalyst aired a discovery by researchers that proved fat molecules are exhaled with CO2.

      See how a simple, commonly "known fact" can be so inaccurate?

      The limitations (or unwillingness) of science is well illustrated by another Catalyst episode aired in March, Our Chemical Lives. While not specifically about GMO, it questions the wisdom of the default position taken by regulators (where they exist) in the use of chemical additives. It also has a dig at isolated chemical testing (because that's the scientific way of doing things).

      Predictably, the message is that it's safer to fully understand the affects of chemicals on humans in the combinations and proportions they're actually used in, rather than the blinkered view of testing individually.

      The point is made that many chemicals and elements were once considered safe, later proven to be anything but.
      Gotta love science! Oops, we were wrong. Sorry…

      I maintain my position on GMOs — we don't know. We can't currently know long-term affects. We don't know if the monopoly power controlling the seeds will be hacked, contaminated or begin targeting certain populations one day.
      If you choose to trust them, that's your choice.

      If you 'believe that people should farm their own stuff and be closer to the land'

      Please copy and paste, in a quote, where I wrote that. You can't, because I didn't.
      I wrote that we should choose produce that's in season. Most top chefs agree with me.

  • kaos on 29/12/2015 - 17:39

    apologies if I have misquoted you, very poor internet where I was holidaying, possible lack of focus too.

    while your comments about science aren't inaccurate, your conclusions are.

    For example, while we agree that science works by consensus, you cannot stretch from that to say that clean water is unsafe because we 'simply don't know' what the long tern effects of clean water are. You are simply spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt without using logic. Sure, there's a lot still to learn, but to say 'the most common answer from science is we just don't know' is bullshit. Actually, we do know……

    You can give many examples of science getting it wrong, and yes we have to cop that, but don't mistake that for lack of current knowledge. You might be able to rubbish the efforts of scientific pioneers, but we've moved on a bit since alchemy you know…..

    I CAN say with confidence that if 3 trillion meals have contained GMO's that it is likely that they are safe, and probably won't have sex with my wife and drink my beer afterwards.

    I CANNOT say with confidence that there will never be another death due to organic food.

    Soylent Green? I like people, but I couldn't eat a whole one……

    • Speckled Jim on 01/01/2016 - 16:27

      you cannot stretch from that to say that clean water is unsafe because we 'simply don't know'

      Were you just giving a hypothetical example here, or misquoting me again? Cos I never referred to "clean water" once.
      There was a topic here by the same OP about fluoridation of most water supplies, but that topic was closed before I could add my comment. Shame, it was a good comment too.

      Unless something can be measured, science will publish predictions or projections. They aren't 100% certain, and as I've already explained, even "certainties" are often revised down the track.

      I CAN say with confidence that if 3 trillion meals have contained GMO's that it is likely that they are safe

      Three trillion meals, eh? Prepare to have your confidence dented, old bean.
      You're quoting tabloid rubbish from that Hawaii Reporter shill-piece. Here's exactly what Mark Lynas (Lying-Ass, geddit?) wrote:

      "over a decade and a half with three trillion GM meals eaten there has never been a single substantiated case of harm."

      Let's analyse his statement, just for fun.

      "Over a decade and a half" — when a writer wants the perception of time to feel greater, they'll use variations of decade, century or millennia. Why didn't Lynas write "In over fifteen years"?
      Because he thinks it sounds more impressive or reassuring this way.

      "with three trillion GM meals eaten" — I see. Notice he doesn't substantiate this with any references? I want to know the following:
      1. WHO were the participants in this research? Sample size? Demographics? Did they consent to being participants in these experiments?
      2. WHAT, exactly were they eating or drinking? Were they whole GM foods, oils extracted from GM crops or a combination?
      3. WHO conducted this research?
      4. WHERE were these results published?

      "there has never been a single substantiated case of harm." — that we know of. These things take time, as natural compounds and toxins accumulate in our bodies over time. Symptoms often don't appear until 20+ years following repeated exposure. In the case of asbestos it's usually shorter.

      That Catalyst episode I previously mentioned concludes that the general population is being experimented upon for commercial expediency. If three trillion "GM meals" were actually consumed, it's business as usual.

      If the GMO gatekeepers were truly confident in their "contributions to society", "feeding the poor", "good for farmers", "greater yields" rhetoric, they'd guarantee the safety, in perpetuity of their products. They'd back themselves, wouldn't they? They'd make such a submission to the UN, and all this controversy would be behind them!

      Scientifically speaking, the crux of your argument (Lynas' fluff) doesn't pass muster for even anecdotal evidence I'm afraid.

      You can give many examples of science getting it wrong, and yes we have to cop that, but don't mistake that for lack of current knowledge. You might be able to rubbish the efforts of scientific pioneers, but we've moved on a bit since alchemy you know…..

      Are you new to science?
      Asbestos? Oops.
      DDT? Oops.
      BPAs? Oops.

      All courtesy of 20th century science. There's hundreds more, but I can only give you these in my present condition.

      Happy new year everyone!

  • kaos on 04/01/2016 - 17:03

    Well, I'm glad you're well up to date- we're in the 21st century now you know.
    So wonderful of you to bring up some failures AGAIN. We've talked about this and you keep doing it. You do know that these incidents would not happen under current methods don't you? Or are you STILL trying to generate uncertainty by bringing up the past? Oh, you are….

    I'll let you into a secret- you can't infer future mistakes from past mistakes. And you certainly can't infer that GMOs are dangerous because mistakes have been made in the past. Am I new to science? No, but you obviously are- you wouldn't get away with this level of delusion if you studied real science.

    I was using the water example as an extreme extension of your statements. If you are to be believed, nothing is certain and the science is still out on everything, so I used water as an example. This is demonstrable rubbish.

    For your reference, here's 15 years of data from the USDA on corn etc.

    http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-geneticall…

    As you can see, if you eat corn or soybeans YOU are part of the experiment- unless you grow your own, you have been eating GMO as ~98% of the crop is GMO.

    Here it is in pretty pictures-

    http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/01/gmo-food-isnt-coming-to-ge…

    Regardless of all this, most of your reply is simply nitpicking and doesn't change the facts. GMOs are known to be safe.

    I love this bit-
    'If the GMO gatekeepers were truly confident in their "contributions to society", "feeding the poor", "good for farmers", "greater yields" rhetoric, they'd guarantee the safety, in perpetuity of their products.'

    Here you show yourself to be truly nutty. Do you demand such a guarantee from your mechanic? Oh, you don't have a car because you're against them? OK, did you demand a perpetual guarantee from your farrier? The guy who sold you the horse?

    Try going to the farmer who makes the purest, unadulterated, virgin squeezed unicorn tears and ask them for a perpetual guarantee. They'll laugh at you.
    But thanks for the chuckle.

    Let's finish with one more example. As mentioned in the above article, insect resistant corn has been genetically modified to produce the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis. This bacteria is not harmful to humans, we've been consuming it with our food for years. Organic farmers use this bacteria as a spray to insect proof their crops, and yet they campaign against GMO corn that generates this naturally, but they use up to 4x as much of it. And no, it all doesn't wash off.

    So ironically to get a lower dosage of this bacteria you'd have to eat GMO corn.

    You have used 'toxins' 'shill' and other ratbag terms. You've used FUD, ranting and have still failed to prove anything against GMO food. I don't think my confidence is dented in the slightest.

    Cheers

    Old Bean

    • Speckled Jim on 05/01/2016 - 00:41
      +1

      Or are you STILL trying to generate uncertainty by bringing up the past?

      I've demonstrated the revolving door of scientific failures, which cannot be eliminated because of the inherent weaknesses in scientific methodology. Think back 100 or so lines to isolated chemical testing. They still do it.

      Bacillus thuringiensis

      (Bt)
      You believe they give a crap about the amount of pesticide they expose us to? Think again.

      Professor Heinemann, University of Canterbury, et al.

      From this paper

      A trade-off of yield and pesticide use?
      Essentially wherever GM is used at significant levels it is through the cultivation of crop varieties
      tolerant of glyphosate-based herbicides. A significant minority, the ‘Bt’ plants, express an insec-
      ticide. The use of herbicide-tolerant plants introduced two significant changes into the US agroe-
      cosystem. First was direct spraying of glyphosate-based herbicides on the staple crop during its
      cultivation, and the second was the quantity of the herbicide that could be used in a growing
      season. Between 1996 and 2011, overall herbicide use increased by 239 million kilograms
      (527 million pounds) (Benbrook 2012). Provided that the in-plant produced insecticide is not
      counted, then GM Bt crops led to a reduction in insecticide use of 56 million kilograms (Benbrook
      2012). When the in-planta insecticide is added back, there is no net reduction in insecticide appli-
      cation (Benbrook 2012).

      In part, they concluded:
      "Relative to other food secure and exporting countries (e.g. Western Europe), the US agroecosystem is not exceptional in yields or conservative on environmental impact."

      In other words, because the Frankencrops are glyphosphate tolerant, they're very liberally sprayed to the point of equalising herbicide use and there's no yield advantage to GM. Monsanto is the only beneficiary as they sell more poison.

      Well looky here, the W.H.O. has issued a cancer warning about glyphosphate.

      Now for the tabloid junkies…

      When high-profile, progressive medico Dr. Oz spoke out against glyphosphate last year, there were dire consequences.

      The Union of Concerned Scientists echoes some of what I've written, plus stuff I didn't consider or had forgotten: resistant weeds (aka superweeds) and Bt resistant pests like corn rootworms. (WIRED > jizzmodo)
      The UCS ask for donations. I think that's fair enough; they're up against well-funded entities.

      Damn you Abbott for not shirt-fronting Putin! Now those poor Russians will be deprived of their genetically-modified nutrition.

      Do you demand such a guarantee from your mechanic?

      Okay, now who's being nutty? And ignorant?
      Mechanics have to be licensed. Informed consumers can also select one who has industry accreditation, like MTA, TACC etc. If they get it wrong, they have to fix it.

      How about some accountability? Should GMO peddlers be less regulated than mechanics?

      Personally, I'd be satisfied with a three-tier labeling system. Certified Organic, Non-GMO and GMO.
      Consumers want it. GM companies don't.

      If they've got nothing to hide, what are they worried about?

  • kaos on 11/01/2016 - 12:46
    +2

    thanks for your reply and sorry for taking so long to reply myself. I am getting a bit tired of this so I'm not sure if I'll play for much longer.

    interestingly you have provided links to a study and then relied on a quote referencing another study (Benbrook 2012). I had a look at the other study and it's essentially a pissing contest against other studies that show herbicide reductions of between 24-50%

    You're also inferring that should be worried about an increase in pesticides. In fact the increase in glyhosphate based treatments displaces other treatments that are not considered as safe.
    Sorry but I'm going to put that down as 'inconclusive'. it's certainly not proof of a problem with production methods.

    WHO warning on glyphosphate? It seems the WHO has reviewed 983 chemicals, and one- yes 1 has been classified as 'probably not carcinogenic'. So don't go betting your house on glyphosphate being a killer.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/business/energy-environmen…

    'high profile, progressive medico Dr Oz'
    Well, he is a fruitcake of the highest order. He's a liar and unethical and makes money out of spreading FUD and promoting products that don't work. You should be ashamed to use him as an exemplar.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/senator-slams-dr-ozs…

    Sorry, ignoring the 'Union of Concerned Scientists'. Just because an organisation exists, doesn't mean its existence has any weight. There's a bunch of nurses against vaccinations for goodness sake.

    So now we get to a good meaty statement-
    'Personally, I'd be satisfied with a three-tier labeling system. Certified Organic, Non-GMO and GMO.'

    Here's the problem-
    1. 'certified organic' means nothing. It's a marketing claim. Your 'organic' produce is just as likely to have been coated in nasty chemicals as anything in the supermarket
    2. 'non- GMO' means nothing- there isn't even a definition of GMO that is generally accepted. We have selectively bred our food so that it looks nothing like the way it started, and now everything is genetically modified
    3. Oh, I'm bored now- how about you have a look at this which explains why your request for labelling is silly-

    http://frankenfoodfacts.blogspot.com.au

    Anyway to finish off- I had an interesting conversation with a friend on Saturday night- she gave me a lot of the same arguments that you have used, but when I reduced everything to basics, it seems that the resistance to GMO's and well, modern life begins as a belief that 'they' are out to get us. That we are being programmed to consume and are guinea pigs for some puppet master somewhere.

    While in some ways that would make life simple, it simply isn't believable when you analyse the problem. And if you can't believe that some unseen force is moulding our lives then most of the other silly claims fall away too. I'm constantly surprised that otherwise smart people can believe things without evidence, but there you go.

    Have a nice life and if you find evidence of the lizard people please let me know. I will actually change my mind when presented with evidence, but fanciful stories about population control don't cut it.

    cheers

    • Speckled Jim on 13/01/2016 - 10:17
      +1

      You post here, on a consumer-focused site, defending the obfuscation and underhanded tactics of big industry?
      So…let's see.
      I'm betting if you're about to buy a new TV, PC, phone, tablet, AVR, car or whatever, you'll research the hell out of it. But for purchases that we put into our bodies you have a "meh" attitude?

      You adopt an opinion, of "oooh what a hassle. We don't need labeling cos it's all too hard".
      You agree with denying consumers an informed choice? Screw that. I don't care how hard it is. If they want to play in this sandpit and assure everyone their poison is safe, they have to declare its presence on the packaging.

      You lift an unsubstantiated, throwaway line of "over 3 trillion GMO meals eaten" like that's proof of anything?
      It only proves the right people have been bought. It doesn't even begin to address long-term health consequences.

      The QI that just aired posed this question:
      "How much sugar is contained within sugar-free Tic Tacs?"
      The answer was they're almost entirely sugar!
      Thanks FDA!

      Catalyst (again) aired the revelation that coeliac disease is not the fault of gluten, but of the chemicals used in the refining process and that stone-ground flour doesn't affect those with the condition.
      So it's another chemical sensitivity issue.

      if you find evidence of the lizard people

      Who are the Lizard People?
      You're a genetically modified nut.

      Fine with me. I've feasted on vindication for decades. Hang around so I can rub your nose in it.

  • frostman on 11/01/2016 - 13:03

    OP here,

    mcmonte, you were making some decent points there until you referenced Dr Oz.

    and to Kaos' point:

    high profile, progressive medico Dr Oz' Well, he is a fruitcake of the highest order

    Hahahah

    Jokes aside, Kaos, I think you're living the life of the sheep-people here.
    The sheep-people are the ones that live a comfy life, with less resistance and opposition and stay quite about products whilst the big-game companies continue to tell us "everything will be fine".

    Next you're going to tell me you buy BlackMore's Executive B formula to reduce stress, Vitamin D/C/F/G/H/M in 1 tablet and so forth?

    Put it this way, NOTHING stays the same when you f*** around with its DNA. There's always some downside effect ranging from the simple, loss of nutrition to causing cancer and people dying.

    Tobacco affects people differently, some die in 10 years, others live fine with a nasty cough till 90.

    The next time someone is diagnosed with some form of cancer, the doctor or specialist isn't going to ask if that persons' been eating plenty of (GMO) Corn.
    It's attributed to various environment factors. neither short-term nor long-term effects of GMO are established.

    One this is for sure, they're messing with the DNA in the face or producing quicker crop, or bigger beans, or what-have-you. It's bad.

    • Speckled Jim on 11/01/2016 - 14:08
      -1

      You want to discredit Dr. Oz? What? You think he's funny-looking or something? If you want the "loony" tag to stick, put forth something solid.
      Anything else come across as schoolyard level bullying.

      He's a successful TV medico watched by millions. His advice is sound. He has other medical professionals on his show backing him too. Do you think they'd appear if they had any doubts? And don't throw money into it. For these people money isn't a pressing issue.
      Maintaining their reputation guarantees the money will follow.

      • frostman on 11/01/2016 - 15:05

        I'm not discrediting his qualifications or intelligence

        What I meant is that as a TV-personality, he's required to pay lip-service to the Production company (Oprah's) running his show.

        His show has been criticized for lacking unanimously accepted medical references during various health suggestions.

        • Speckled Jim on 13/01/2016 - 09:53

          Unanimously accepted?
          Various health suggestions?
          The system can't unanimously agree on antipsychotics or statins ffs.

          He's speaking truth to power, so of course he'll be a target. But aside from the link supplied, I haven't seen anything in the MSM. You'd expect such a tall poppy would make the news now and then, right?

          All pre and post-show disclaimers aside (you might miss them) if his show has caused harm, nobody — including Harpo Productions — is immune from class-action.
          So let's see it.

        • frostman on 13/01/2016 - 10:53

          @mcmonte:

          All pre and post-show disclaimers aside (you might miss them) if his show has caused harm, nobody — including Harpo Productions — is immune from class-action

          You're a very narrow-minded person. Dr Oz isn't live on show prescribing medicine to people with terminal illness, diabetes, cardiac diseases for a large effect such as death to occur. Whilst he's qualified for this advice as a Dr, it's not the show's agenda.

          Please pardon me if I haven't watched every episode but most of his shows are really passively promoting some diet/weight-loss/slimming/ program or product.

          This is the show's aim, to gather people with a collective "need" such as weight loss (being the largest problem in America) which then generates audience.

          Harpo productions aren't going to spend millions of dollars on advertising to give you free medical advise without them pocketing money from advertisers and marketing companies to "HARP" over their products

        • Speckled Jim on 13/01/2016 - 12:44
          -1

          @frostman: We agree that obesity/overweight is a major problem in the US and elsewhere.

          I've seen a handful of Dr Oz episodes from start to finish. I've never seen him peddling any products! Where he's recommended alternative treatments (such as herbal supplements) he hasn't pushed a brand, but the botanical itself.

          Is there an alternative Dr Oz show that isn't shown on Australian FTA?

          I've seen him advising different prevention strategies and showing (usually postmortem) the consequences of various disease. He's also cautioned against excess for some things, and that's where he'll show a diseased lung or fatty liver etc.

          How is explaining the physiological affects of food, drugs and chemicals a bad thing? Most GPs have a 10 minute consult cycle (if you're lucky) so they're not in a position to go into any detail.
          Oh, and let's not forget the many who enjoy the "hospitality" of big pharma. I'm sure their advice isn't compromised by any conflict of interests :p

  • kaos on 13/01/2016 - 18:31

    now everyone is assuming things about me that aren't true. Let me clear up a few misconceptions
    @frostman
    I don't take multivitamins because science says they don't help. I used to take them, but I changed my mind because there was evidence that I was misinformed. The exception is when I have a hangover, because personal experience shows they help with that.

    So I'm a sheep just because I call you out on your unverifiable claims? Sorry dude, that won't work. I actively campaign against many things, and I'm possibly a larger thorn in the side of major corporations than you. It certainly seems like I understand science better than you.

    You're inferring that GMOs may have less nutrition than traditionally grown food? Untrue
    'neither short-term nor long-term effects of GMO are established'. Also untrue
    http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/safety/human_health/41.evalua…

    It's kind of interesting that you and @mcmonte are having an argument about Dr Oz, as he is the very definition of a shill-

    He get's paid to promote other peoples products.

    Unfortunately for him, a lot of those products have not been proven to work. It's unethical, and if he hadn't given up practice, he could lose his license for it. Oh, what's that? He's not an MD?

    No, he's actually an osteopath.

    So, he's a lying, unethical, osteopathic shill. You asked for solid, and if you'd read the article I posted, I think that's pretty solid- he was asked by the FDA to stop promoting unproven 'miracle cures' and hauled before a senate committee where he admitted to lying on TV.

    Now, @mcmonte- I don't support the labelling of GMO's in food because it is dumb. If you'd actually read my reply you would have seen the reasons. So accusing me of 'You agree with denying consumers an informed choice?' is simply rubbish. Trying to drum up outrage about things I didn't say is actually kind of pathetic.

    Anyway, you mentioned the 3 trillion meal thing again, so I'm posting this link for you to read. It possibly isn't the first time I've posted this but sadly you keep moving the goal posts and repeating yourself. I'm not quite sure how you do that.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/09/17/the-debate-…

    So you can all stop saying 'we just don't know'
    Because we do.

    • Speckled Jim on 13/01/2016 - 19:19

      Oh, what's that? He's not an MD?

      Woah NOT an MD? Quick! Call the Osteopaths!
      Funny, they approve calling themselves Dr.
      www.osteopathyboard.gov.au/documents/default.aspx?record=WD1…
      (hyerlink went OzB internal for some reason)

      Sound reasoning from Dr. Michael Black (Chiropractor):
      "It is interesting to note that in the USA, medical doctors are awarded the title M.D."

      Well, Oz is not claiming M.D., he's using "Dr".

      Not goalpost-moving Kaos, I was summarising your don't-ask, don't-tell attitude as determined by a few of your replies.

      I'm also throwing out tidbits of old and new scientific and medical examples here and there. It's to illustrate that we may be awfully clever, but we don't have all the answers.

      Think back, or Google, the BSE-CJD crisis.
      It was caused by science-barren, commercial-centric, penny-pinching asshats in the beef game. Once that kicked off, people started dying and thousands of cattle were destroyed.
      Only then was it deemed a crisis, reforms to bovine feeding and birth-to-plate tracking of each animal was introduced.

      Why did the AWB continue to sell wheat to a "habourer of tewwowists"?
      Cos they knew the charges against him were a total fabrication, and Agribusiness is business — at any cost.

      The GMO experiment is failing. Yields are unchanged, no secondary seeds and chemical use has increased. Who does that benefit?
      Only Monsanto.

    • frostman on 13/01/2016 - 21:12
      +1

      You're inferring that GMOs may have less nutrition than traditionally grown food? Untrue
      'neither short-term nor long-term effects of GMO are established'. Also untrue
      http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/safety/human_health/41.evalua…

      Bro, you're giving me evidence from a pro-GMO site.

      How much money, time and effort do you think it takes to produce GMO? I'd suggest quite a lot.
      Your own pro-GMO site stressed various stages of tests are performed prior to approving it, here from your site:

      Safety evaluations must include tests to find out if the new protein could trigger allergies. Several criteria are known that suggest allergenic potential. If one or more of these criteria are met, the GM plant expressing this protein is unlikely to receive clearance in the EU.

      So why are organic (non-GMO) food 4 times the price of these GMO? The irony is that organic food doesn't need testing, funding, scientists, botanists or biologists to do anything. If you want to go the extra step, just spray them with some natural insecticide and you're sweet.

      The it begs the question, why is there so much support and backing of GMO-plants when it requires much more time and effort to produce? Is this good-will from the government?

  • Speckled Jim on 13/01/2016 - 19:26
    +1

    Now let's reprise the Fluoride topic that Frostman started in December. I'll finish it for you, once and for all.

    Firstly, Fluoride is a waste product of the Aluma industry.

    When you drink tap water, what happens when it's in your mouth? Do you swish it around before swallowing, or do you largely bypass your teeth and just swallow it? 90% of the time, I do the latter.

    Now, let's read a tube of toothpaste. Harder than you might think, as being an OzB-er I have mostly parallel-import stuff. Okay here's one, and do check your own if you doubt me.

    "Directions…
    …Do not swallow. Rinse thoroughly after brushing."

    So while Fluoride is quite likely beneficial for dental health, it's best used in a topical way, as with toothpaste. Actually swallowing that sh!t cos it's in drinking water? Forget it.

    Thank you, reverse-osmosis.

    • frostman on 13/01/2016 - 21:03

      Agree with fluoride being BS, it's a good debate.

      Sadly, my post was closed after some dumbass thought I was "trolling" which triggered off a chain of events. A lot of useless people here that shouldn't be alive.

  • Speckled Jim on 13/01/2016 - 19:35

    Oh, and ASPARTAME KILLS!

    As revealed in a SOAD video.

  • kaos on 14/01/2016 - 10:19

    'A lot of useless people here that shouldn't be alive'
    Don't worry bro, I'm a lot healthier than you.

    A scientist is willing to change their view when presented with evidence that opposes it. I was trained as a scientist and I'm happy to admit I'm wrong when proof is presented. You people have not only done a poor job of this, you've shown yourselves to be completely impervious to facts.

    It's kind of sad that you're still doing the 'chemicalz r bad, dude' schtick, when in reality you've just been blindfolded by marketing.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/13/how-ma…

    • frostman on 14/01/2016 - 10:39

      OK dude, let's end the topic here….

      How about you go ahead and eat test-tube hamburgers and GMO seedless Watermelon, Apples and GMO skinless carrot and non-perishable Banana.

      I'll stick to organic meat and fruit.

  • kaos on 14/01/2016 - 12:11
    +1

    Done.

  • frewer on 15/01/2016 - 19:50

    Cinnamon stick under $5 from my local wholefood shop, last about months …

    • Speckled Jim on 15/01/2016 - 21:27

      I love cinnamon, but it lowers your blood glucose levels.
      You don't want it too low!

  • kaos on 24/02/2019 - 20:52

    3 years later, it turns out that people who ignore science often turn out to be wrong- here you go @frostman

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/aspartame-causes-c…

  • Speckled Jim on 25/02/2019 - 09:37

    From your link was a rebuttal by Dr. Martini.

    "Dr. Alexeeff told the Committee that saccharin was listed as a Proposition 65 carcinogen in 1989 and de-listed in 2001 after the National Toxicology Program reversed its classification of the sweetener as a likely carcinogen. Sodium saccharin was listed as a Proposition 65 carcinogen in 1988 and de-listed in 2003."

    It can't be both, can it?
    The food and beverage industry will always "win", as they can afford bogus studies to have the last word.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join