End Times and Current Events
January 17, 2022, 01:08:59 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39 (KJB)
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

The Dangers of Aspartame

August 08, 2018, 02:38:10 am suzytr says: Hello, any good churches in the Sacto, CA area, also looking in Reno NV, thanks in advance and God Bless you Smiley
January 29, 2018, 01:21:57 am Christian40 says: It will be interesting to see what happens this year Israel being 70 years as a modern nation may 14 2018
October 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again!  Smiley
October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?
September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."
September 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnesses
September 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.
September 14, 2017, 04:31:26 am Christian40 says: i have thought that i'm reaping from past sins then my life has been impacted in ways from having non believers in my ancestry.
September 11, 2017, 06:59:33 am Psalm 51:17 says: The law of reaping and sowing. It's amazing how God's mercy and longsuffering has hovered over America so long. (ie, the infrastructure is very bad here b/c for many years, they were grossly underspent on. 1st Tim 6:10, the god of materialism has its roots firmly in the West) And remember once upon a time ago when shacking up b/w straight couples drew shock awe?

Exodus 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
View Shout History
Pages: [1]   Go Down
Author Topic: The Dangers of Aspartame  (Read 2560 times)
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« on: November 13, 2012, 11:18:18 am »

Melissa Melton
 November 12, 2012
On Oct. 24, NBC news put out an article attempting to refute a recent study, conducted jointly with Harvard Medical School and published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, that found that drinking as little as one diet soda sweetened with Aspartame per day could cause an increased risk of leukemia and lymphoma in adults.

Claiming the study was “weak science,” NBC news failed to mention the fact that this latest study is the most thorough on aspartame to date, involving more than 2 million years of human life data spanning 22 years from more than 77,000 women and 48,000 men.
The NBC story also claims “Few reporters read that journal,” in reference to American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, even though it was selected by the Special Libraries Association as one of the top 100 most influential journals in Biology and Medicine over the last 100 years.
Aspartame (otherwise known by its brand names NutraSweet and Equal or alternate monicker Acesulfame Potassium) is one of the most widely used artificial sweeteners on the market today. Found in thousands of foods and beverages including chewing gum, candies, diet soft drinks, desserts, yogurt, condiments, and even vitamins and pharmaceuticals, aspartame is not limited only to “sugar-free” diet products. As shown in the report below, it is virtually impossible to find commerically available gum that does not contain aspartame these days.
The average grocery store is rife with aspartame-filled products, so it would likely surprise the average consumer to find that it took the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over 20 years to approve aspartame’s use.
What is aspartame exactly, and if its so healthy and safe, why did it take so long for the FDA to approve it?
Aspartame is the excrement of genetically modified E. coli bacteria. It is comprised of 40 percent aspartic acid, 50 percent phenylalanine, and 10 percent methanol. Aspartic acid acts as a neurotransmitter, and too much can actually over-excite the cells (known as an “excitotoxin”), thus stimulating them to death. Keep in mind the blood brain barrier cannot prevent this in many, as it does not fully protect all areas of the brain, especially in people already suffering from other chronic diseases and disorders, and is not fully developed in children. While phenylalanine is an amino acid already present in the brain, excess levels can cause serotonin to decrease over time, which can lead to chemical imbalances that cause depression and other mood and emotional disorders. Methanol is an industrial solvent, is used as fuel and antifreeze, and is a main ingredient in many paints and varnish removers. The EPA warns that methanol ingestion may result in neurological damage (specifically “permanent motor dysfunction”) and visual disturbances leading to blurred or dimmed vision and eventually blindness.
While Searle Pharmaceuticals attempted to get aspartame approved in the late 1970s, due to multiple studies provided on the negative effects of the chemical in lab animals including the fact that it actually ate holes in their brains, the FDA set up a public board of inquiry in 1980. Based on scientific evidence, the board found that aspartame might cause cancer and concluded the sweetener could not be put on the market until further testing was done. It got pushed through anyway after Ronald Reagan fired the FDA commissioner, replacing him with someone who would rubber stamp aspartame for his friend and Searle CEO Donald Rumsfeld. Searle made billions, Monsanto purchased Searle in 1985, and Rumsfeld later became the Secretary of Defense.
Although millions of people consume aspartame every single day, it was never tested on humans prior to its approval.
The truth is many scientific studies have empirically shown the detrimental effects of aspartame over the years. While NBC can attempt to discount this latest study linking aspartame to cancer, can the mainstream media really spin the hundreds of studies that have shown aspartame is toxic and harmful to our health? The table below gives a smattering of aspartame studies published in scientific and medical journals listed on the National Institutes of Health website just this past year:
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Consumption of artificial sweetener and sugar-containing soda and risk of lymphoma and leukemia in men and women
Saccharin and aspartame, compared with sucrose, induce greater weight gain in adult Wistar rats, at similar total caloric intake levels
Contact Dermatitis

Systemic allergic dermatitis presumably caused by formaldehyde derived from aspartame
Drug and Chemical Toxicology
Long-term consumption of aspartame and brain antioxidant defense status
Journal of Biosciences
Effect of chronic exposure to aspartame on oxidative stress in the brain of albino rats
Neurotoxicity Research
Effect of aspartame on oxidative stress and monoamine neurotransmitter levels in lipopolysaccharide-treated mice
Nutrition and Metabolism

Interactive effects of neonatal exposure to monosodium glutamate and aspartame on glucose homeostasis
Gender dimorphism in aspartame-induced impairment of spatial cognition and insulin sensitivity

Moreover, why would the media continue to shill for an artificial sweetener? As best-selling author and osteopathic physician Dr. Joseph Mercola points out:
“Can you imagine the liability the food and beverage industries, not to mention virtually every public health agency in the U.S., would face were there convincing evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic? They simply cannot afford such evidence to be accepted.”
The mainstream media isn’t the only information source continually refuting the dangers of aspartame. The Aspartame Information Center at Aspartame.org claims that scientific studies on everything from aspartame-induced brain tumors to seizures to weight gain are merely “myths.” It shouldn’t surprise many to find that Aspartame.org and its information center are run by the Calorie Control Council, an international association representing, “manufacturers and suppliers of low- and reduced-calorie foods.”
Dr. Mercola notes that aspartame actually accounts for over 75 percent of adverse food additive reactions reported to the FDA, including:

“Headaches/migraines, dizziness, seizures, nausea, numbness, muscle spasms, weight gain, rashes, depression, fatigue, irritability, tachycardia, insomnia, vision problems, hearing loss, heart palpitations, breathing difficulties, anxiety attacks, slurred speech, loss of taste, tinnitus, vertigo, memory loss, and joint pain.”
In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) even lists aspartame as a “chemical with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity” on its database of developmental neurotoxicants
If You Like Aspartame, You’ll Love Neotame
In the late ’90s, Monsanto geared up to unleash a new sweetener on the masses: neotame.
Scientists based this new artificial sweetener on aspartame, but by “enhancing” the dipeptide base, they were able to create a chemical 40 times sweeter than aspartame. Neotame is everything that aspartame is, plus 3-dimethylbutyl. A member of the sec-Hexyl acetate family, 3-dimethylbutyl is listed by the EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as a hazardous chemical. The CDC warns one should seek immediate medical attention for if swallowed as it targets the central nervous and respiratory systems

Dr. H. J. Roberts, M.D., who presented material to show “Aspartame Disease” is a global epidemic at the First International Conference on Emerging Diseases, has testified that neotame was approved without any long-term independent studies purely for profit because aspartame’s patent expired.
Despite the fact that all of the studies on neotame were short-term and entirely Monsanto- or corporate-interest funded, the FDA approved neotame in 2002.
In a nation where genetically modified food labeling initiatives fail, defrauded by the very companies willing to spend millions to defeat them, what does “safe” food even mean anymore? Guess it all depends on who you ask.

“Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.” — Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications, quoted in The New York Times, Oct. 25, 1998
Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2012, 08:42:17 am »



Toxicology Expert Explains Why Aspartame is so Dangerous to Your Health

By Dr. Mercola

Aspartame is the technical name for the brand names NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, and Equal-Measure. While it's one of the most commonly used artificial sweeteners in the world, it's also one of, if not THE most dangerous food additive on the market today.

Aspartame accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA. Many of these reactions are very serious, including seizures and death.
In this interview, Dr. Woody Monte, professor emeritus at Arizona State University in food and chemistry, sheds light on what makes aspartame so hazardous to human health.

Dr. Monte, who also authored the book While Science Sleeps: A Sweetener Kills, is well-known as a world expert on the toxicities of methanol as it relates to aspartame, having studied it for the last three decades.

"I was asked by the soft drink beverage industry to look at aspartame [in 1983]... Basically, the summer of '81 is when aspartame first came out, but it first came out in powdered drinks only, and for good reason.

Crystal Light, that kind of thing. They didn't want to put it into liquid form because they knew in the liquid form it would break down. It breaks down into methyl alcohol and what's left of the molecule. They didn't want to start doing that."
Methyl Alcohol – The Root of the Problem with Aspartame

Aspartame is made up of aspartic acid and phenylalanine. But the phenylalanine has been synthetically modified to carry a methyl group as that provides the majority of the sweetness. That phenylalanine methyl bond, called a methyl ester and is very weak.

If the methyl alcohol is removed from aspartame as easily happens when drinks sweetened with it are exposed to higher temperatures, it no longer tastes sweet. This is precisely what happened to most of the diet soda sent to the Middle East for US troops. They received non sweet sodas that were loaded with dangerous levels of methanol which is more or less like drinking straight poison when it's in this already broken down state.
Dr. Monte explains the history of how methanol found its way into our food supply:

"Methyl alcohol is made from wood alcohol. Wood alcohol and methyl alcohol are two different names for the same thing. Methanol is called wood alcohol because If you take wood and heat it in a closed cylinder, the smoke that's evolved from that contains a large amount of methyl alcohol.

Methanol is the smallest molecule of alcohol there is. It's one carbon... ethanol has two carbons... They are similar in many ways. So, if you want to make a really, really good tasting vanilla extract, you would use methanol to do it. You could, because you would get more of the flavor essence out of it.

The food industry decided, 'We've got to test the methanol to see how safe it is.' They went to the laboratory and they tested animals. Back in those days, believe it or not, they did actually better laboratory testing than we did when it comes to toxicology. They would take a whole range of animals. They would take rabbits, dogs, guinea pigs, various kinds of ruminants besides rats and monkeys – different varieties of monkeys – and test them all.

When you test all of these animals to see how dangerous methanol is compared to ethanol, ethanol comes out to be more dangerous by a factor of about 30 percent, depending on the animal. Right away they decided this is important because... methanol is cheap to make. We can make it taste good, and there is no tax on it..."

Methyl Alcohol Metabolizes Differently in Humans Compared to Other Animals

Food and drug companies decided to use methyl alcohol (wood alcohol) to make a variety of flavor extracts and other accoutrements that they'd previously used ethanol for. They also began using methyl alcohol for cough syrup. As Dr. Monte says, all hell broke loose after that. Starting around 1904, and for the next 40 years, doctors wrote extensive articles detailing the health problems suffered by their patients, including blindness and death, pleading with the food and drug industry to reevaluate their products.

"Here is the story: there is a major biochemical problem here," Dr. Monte says. "Methyl alcohol is known now, and has been known since 1940, to be metabolized differently by humans from every other animal."
Both animals and humans have small structures called peroxisomes in each cell. There are a couple of hundred in every cell of your body, which are designed to detoxify a variety of chemicals. Peroxisome contains catalase, which help detoxify methanol once it is to formaldehyde. Other chemicals in the peroxisome then convert the formaldehyde to formic acid, which is harmless, but this last step occurs only in animals.
When methanol enters the peroxisome of every animal except humans, it gets into that mechanism. Humans do have the same number of peroxisomes in comparable cells as animals, but human peroxisomes cannot convert the toxic formaldehyde into harmless formic acid.

"The methanol bounces off the catalase or bounces off something there," Dr. Monte says. "What happens then is every cell in your body cannot metabolize methanol. Wherein the animal body, every cell can metabolize and turn it to formic acid, which is safe.

What happens to the methyl alcohol?

That's the key. In humans, methyl alcohol could just as easily not be metabolized at all. That would be the ultimate and best outcome, and you could urinate it away or sweat it out and you would be fine. Unfortunately, there are some locations in the human body, particularly in the lining of the vessels of your body... especially in your brain that are loaded with alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) that converts methanol to formaldehyde and there is no catalase present to enormous amounts of damage are created in the tissues."
Formaldehyde May Be a Significant Contributor to Chronic Disease

According to Dr. Monte, there are about 11 areas of the human body where you find alcohol dehydrogenase, which is capable of converting methanol into formaldehyde. He discusses the details of this in his book. Unfortunately, the areas where formaldehyde tends to be created are some of the most sensitive areas in terms of creating serious, chronic disease, such as multiple sclerosis (MS), and Alzheimer's disease.

"If you look in the cell, you say, in what part of the cell is this happening? That's the key. That enzyme, the alcohol dehydrogenase, is not associated with any organelle that can handle formaldehyde. It's just floating around in the cell. That means that you can convert methanol into formaldehyde right next to your nucleus. You could do it next to the cell membrane. You could do it next to an important organelle.

And when that happens, when methanol turns into formaldehyde, you have a methylating monster inside of your cell.

It's very difficult, if not impossible, to get formaldehyde into the cell otherwise. When you breathe formaldehyde, it's so extremely reactive – it reacts with the tissue it first makes contact with. It's considered a carcinogen in that case."
This cellular methylation alters DNA functioning. It turns off the DNA by preventing it from producing protein. The damage from methylation is not necessarily permanent, but if not controlled, it will definitely have a negative impact. It could possibly be reversed, and ubiquinol and optimizing leptin and insulin signaling are likely very helpful for this as they upregulate repair processes. This becomes crucial if we ever hope to address the methylation damage which is a major concern in cancer and autism.

Interestingly enough, tobacco smoke also causes methylation, similar to that of aspartame. Dr. Monte explains:

"Tobacco is fermented. When you ferment tobacco in the field, [it creates] spoilage bacteria that liberates the methanol from the pectin, which normally we couldn't liberate. That's what really makes the methanol content high. It's not just the smoking process itself, but it's the way cigarettes are produced... Basically, the methanol produced by one pack of cigarettes would be equivalent to the methanol liberated from a liter of diet Coke."
How Can You Prevent Methanol from Turning into Formaldehyde?

Curiously, ethanol prevents methanol from turning into formaldehyde. If you look up methanol toxicity in the medical literature, you will find that most of it points to formic acid as the cause of the problems associated with methanol poisoning in humans.

"The literature will also point to the fact that small amounts of methyl alcohol that are consumed, that are breathed in or consumed during the day, will all be processed by your liver. This is not true," Dr. Monte says.
"Scientists have shown that most people, not all the time, but most people have a little bit of ethanol in their bloodstream. If that's the case, then the small amount of ethanol that comes from aspartame or whatever will not be metabolized in the liver, because there is just that little bit of ethanol... So what happens is – and this is not good – the methanol gets through your liver completely... and gets into your circulatory system."
The methanol will continue to circulate through your body until there's no ethanol left in your body, and at that point, any alcohol dehydrogenase available will get converted to formaldehyde... According to Dr. Monte, this in part explains why small amounts of alcohol each day seem to have a protective effect against many diseases, including atherosclerosis and Alzheimer's.

Dr. Monte believes the major benefit of consuming alcohol that is widely known to lengthen lifespan, is related to it being safely excreted before methanol is converted to formaldehyde. A far safer and likely just as effective strategy however would be to optimize your gut flora as one of the byproducts of healthy gut flora is ethanol that could provide the same methanol sparing formaldehyde conversion benefit.
What about Methanol in Fruits and Veggies?

The manufacturers of aspartame counter the claims of methanol being a harmful aspect of aspartame by pointing out that it also occurs naturally in fruits and vegetables. So why would it cause a problem in aspartame?
First, methyl alcohol, while present in significant quantities in plants and vegetables is typically safely bound to pectin and since we do not have any enzymes capable of breaking that bond, once the methanol in fresh vegetables or fruits is eaten, it is safely eliminated in the stool.
However the methyl alcohol can be liberated by putrefying bacteria that spoil fruits and vegetables and in fact methanol is an indication of spoilage in fruits and vegetables. Dr. Monte recommends cutting off all spoiled parts before eating your fruits and veggies. I believe most people avoid eating spoiled produce. If not, it would be a wise move. It's the putrefaction that liberates the methyl alcohol.

"If you have a good whole fruit and vegetable, unspoiled, fresh off the field, the amount of methyl alcohol in that is extremely low," he says. "There is methyl alcohol exuded by leaves and this sort of thing. It's part of their process of growing and all that. But the mechanism to get rid of it is there."
Remember when you consume methanol in soda, it easily breaks off from the phenylalanine in aspartame in your duodenum, and this is a major difference between consuming methanol in the form of aspartame versus getting it from fresh fruits and vegetables. Contrary to the bond between pectin and methanol, which is very strong, the bond holding the methanol in aspartame is extremely weak.

"It's the weakest methyl ester [bond] I've ever seen," Dr. Monte says. "Chemically, it doesn't want to be there and it wants to liberate methanol. But pectin binds extremely tightly – the methanol that is bound to pectin gets through your digestive system and comes out with the fiber."
Processed Foods High in Methanol

Processed foods are another matter, however. When fruits and vegetables are canned, the methanol becomes liberated from the pectin. At room temperature, it only takes one month for 10 percent of the methanol to be released. After about six months, virtually all of the methanol is liberated. Dr. Monte is convinced that methanol and the subsequent conversion to formaldehyde from certain processed foods and foods containing aspartame is a major culprit in a variety of diseases, especially MS.

"Multiple sclerosis behaves sort of a like an autoimmune disease. How can methanol cause this? The formaldehyde is what causes it," he says.

Methyl alcohol can slip through your blood brain barrier, and your brain is one of the areas where you find alcohol dehydrogenase, which converts methyl alcohol to formaldehyde. This causes the destruction of myelin basic protein, which is one of the triggers for MS.

"We know that methyl alcohol is known to be a demyelinating agent," Dr. Monte says. "We don't know why. In general, it's accepted as a demyelinating agent. You have the symptoms associated with the demyelination, and they're identical between multiple sclerosis and methanol poisoning, and people who consume aspartame."
Dr. Monte believes many diseases such as MS can be prevented if we start avoiding methanol, and he offers a methanol-free diet on his website. Items to avoid, especially if you have MS or symptoms of MS, include:

Tomato sauces, unless first simmered at least 3 hours, no lid on pan

Diet foods and drinks with aspartame

Smoked food of any kind, particularly fish and meat

Fruit and vegetable products and their juices in bottles, cans, or pouches

Chewing gum, most chewing gum in the USA contains aspartame

Jellies, jams, and marmalades not made fresh and kept refrigerated

Slivovitz and other fruit schnapps

Black currant and tomato juice products, fresh or processed

Overly ripe or near rotting fruits or vegetables

Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 12, 2013, 05:54:11 pm »


Aspartame has been Renamed and is Now Being Marketed as a Natural Sweetener

Artificial sweeteners especially aspartame has gotten a bad rap over the years, most likely due to studies showing they cause cancer. But not to worry Ajinomoto the company that makes
Aspartame has changed the name to AminoSweet. It has the same toxic ingredients but a nice new sounding name. And if you or your child happens to be allergic to Aspartame, well don’t take it personally it’s just business.
Despite the evidence gained over the years showing that aspartame is a dangerous toxin, it has remained on the global market . In continues to gain approval for use in new types of food despite evidence showing that it causes neurological brain damage, cancerous tumors, and endocrine disruption, among other things.
Most consumers are oblivious to the fact that Aspartame was invented as a drug but upon discovery of its’ sweet taste was magically transformed from a drug to a food additive. HFA wants to warn our readers to beware of a wolf dressed up in sheep’s clothing or in this case Aspartame dressed up as Aminosweet.

In 1976, then FDA Commissioner Alexander Schmidt wrote a letter to Sen. Ted Kennedy expressing concern over the “questionable integrity of the basic safety data submitted for aspartame safety”. FDA Chief Counsel Richard Merrill believed that a grand jury should investigate G.D. Searle & Company for lying about the safety of aspartame in its reports and for concealing evidence proving the chemical is unsafe for consumption.
The details of aspartame’s history are lengthy, but the point remains that the carcinogen was illegitimately approved as a food additive through heavy-handed prodding by a powerful corporation with its own interests in mind. Practically all drugs and food additives are approved by the FDA not because science shows they are safe but because companies essentially lobby the FDA with monetary payoffs and complete the agency’s multi-million dollar approval process.
Changing aspartame’s name to something that is “appealing and memorable”, in Ajinomoto’s own words, may hoodwink some but hopefully most will reject this clever marketing tactic as nothing more than a desperate attempt to preserve the company’s multi-billion dollar cash cow. Do not be deceived.

Update: As many comments are being posted by readers who are allergic to Aspartame we ask that you please forward this article to as many people as you can.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2013, 09:46:44 pm by BornAgain2 » Report Spam   Logged
« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2013, 03:47:56 am »

Still defending Aspartame...(AminoSweet)


Real or fake sugar: Does it matter?

By Jacque Wilson, Elizabeth Landau and Jen Christensen, CNN
updated 10:54 AM EDT, Wed August 14, 2013

(CNN) -- Full disclosure: A lot of journalists at CNN drink diet soda. So when we saw a new study suggesting that artificially sweetened beverages are just as bad for you as sugar-sweetened drinks, we, and our readers, bubbled over with questions.

Are artificial sweeteners used in soft drinks and foods safe? Will they make us fat? How much is too much?

Science doesn't have all the answers yet, but we spoke to researchers who had some clues.

Of course, you can always avoid the controversy altogether by replacing soda with water or dessert with fresh fruit. But if you're going to consume artificial sweeteners, we thought you should know the answers to some key questions:

What are artificial sweeteners made of?

There are five FDA-approved artificial sweeteners, and each of them has a different chemical makeup. There's sucralose (Splenda), acesulfame potassium (Sunett, Sweet One), aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet), neotame, and saccharin (SugarTwin, Sweet'N Low).

Aspartame, the sweetener most often used in diet sodas, for instance, is composed of two amino acids: aspartic acid and phenylalanine, according to the American Cancer Society.

Splenda, on the other hand, is created by replacing hydrogen and oxygen in sugar molecules with chlorine atoms.

"It's a taste issue," says Barry Popkin, professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina's Gillings School of Public Health. "They each have separate taste effects and different people react differently to each of them."

Sugary drinks linked to 180,000 deaths worldwide

How are artificial sweeteners different from natural sweeteners?

Although consumers may perceive "natural" sweeteners as safer, products such as fruit juices and nectars, molasses, honey and maple syrup frequently undergo processing and refining, according to the Mayo Clinic. The vitamin and mineral content of processed table sugar doesn't differ significantly from these substitutes.

Products such as Stevia, also touted as natural, are also processed and refined before being sold to the public.

What is different is how your body processes artificial sweeteners versus natural ones.

Essentially, the receptors your body uses to detect sweetness are "really awful," according to Eric Walters, author of "The Sweetener Book." In other words, the body's sweet-taste receptor is not very sensitive. It really only detects sugar in large quantities.

But "artificial sweeteners randomly fit the receptor better and it triggers the receptor with far smaller quantities of the material," Walters said. That's why if you were to taste a packet of sugar and a packet of Sweet'N Low, the Sweet'N Low would taste sweeter.

"In fact, in the Sweet'N Low packet there only needs to be a tiny bit of the actual sweet, Sweet'N Low material. It's that sweet -- the rest of it is filler."

Do artificial sweeteners cause cancer?

There is no clear evidence that artificial sweeteners cause cancer in humans, according to the National Cancer Institute. The public's concern seems to stem from older studies that tested the association in rats (not humans) and used extremely high doses of artificial sweeteners.

For example, studies done in the 1970s linked saccharin to bladder cancer in rats, prompting scientists to look into the sweetener's effect on humans. They found the mechanism that caused the cancer wasn't even possible in the human body. Saccharin was removed from the United States' list of carcinogens in 2000.

You may also remember the 1996 study that suggested aspartame was linked to an increase in brain tumors between 1975 and 1992. But a later NCI analysis concluded the increase in brain cancers overall started several years before the FDA's approval of aspartame.

Is aspartame safe?

A more recent study, done in 2005, found that when rats were fed high doses of aspartame -- the equivalent of drinking as many as 2,000 cans of diet soda every day -- they had a higher risk of developing lymphoma or leukemia. Would this increased risk still occur in humans with lower doses? Scientists don't think so.

Are sweeteners better or worse than sugar?

"That's where it gets complicated," Walters said. "Different sweeteners have different advantages and disadvantages. If you worry about the calories, then stay away from sugar. If you are most concerned about taste quality, sugar generally tastes best."

Some artificial sweeteners can have small side effects. If you eat too much sorbitol, for instance -- a type of sweetener called a "sugar alcohol" -- it can trigger gas and diarrhea. This is because your body doesn't digest sorbitol as well, Walters said.

Artificial sweeteners contain no calories, so they may aid in weight loss. Yet the new study suggests the lack of calories could also have a counterintuitive effect on the body.

The Purdue University scientists believe the fake sugar in diet sodas teases your body by pretending to give it real food. But when your body doesn't get the things it expects, it becomes confused on how to respond. On a physiological level, they say, this means when diet soda drinkers consume real sugar, the body doesn't release the hormone that regulates blood sugar and blood pressure.

Sugar substitutes may make weight loss tougher

Basically, the healthiest people are those who eat a healthy diet and have limited their intake of any type of sweetener, Popkin said. But if you have a sweet tooth, that may be a hard sell.

So how much is too much?

The FDA recommends ingesting no more than 50 milligrams of aspartame per kilogram of body weight every day. That amounts to 22 cans of diet soda for a 175-pound man, and 15 cans for a 120-pound woman. If you're putting two packets of artificial sugar into coffee, that would be about 116 cups of coffee for the man in this example, and 79 cups for the woman.

"I really think that if you are consuming five or six cans a day, you may have more problems from consuming too much caffeine or acid than from the sweeteners," Walters said.

No large, controlled studies have shown that there is a limit to how much diet soda you can consume without harm if you're keeping the rest of your diet in check, Popkin said. So far, at least, human research has not shown that quantity of artificial sweetener matters.

"It's not whether it's 2 or 6 or 10," Popkin said. "It's a question of what else they do with their diet that counts."

Bottom line?

As with most things in life, artificial sweeteners aren't dangerous in moderation.

Researchers will continue seeking answers to these questions and CNN will continue to report on the latest findings, in pursuit of the soda fountain of youth.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2013, 10:14:52 am »

Artificial sweeteners sabotage weight loss efforts: study

Think you’re saving yourself extra calories by going the artificial sweetener route? New research suggests you’re just setting yourself up to fail.

That’s the conclusion of a new study out of Yale University which found that eating low-calorie sweetened products may actually sabotage efforts to reduce calorie intake, by leading people to reach for higher calorie alternatives later on.

Or, as scientists put it, despite good intentions, the brain can’t be fooled by artificial sweeteners.

That’s because in their animal research, scientists observed that a specific physiological signal that regulates dopamine levels — the feel-good chemical that works with the reward center in the brain — only arose when sugar was broken down into a form that could be used as fuel and energy for the body.

For the study, scientists performed behavioral testing involving sweeteners and sugars and measured chemical responses in the brain circuit.

“According to the data, when we apply substances that interfere with a critical step of the ‘sugar-to-energy pathway’, the interest of the animals in consuming artificial sweetener decreases significantly, along with important reductions in brain dopamine levels,” explained lead author Ivan de Araujo in the Journal of Physiology.

In an opinion article published in Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism this summer, experts also pointed to similar studies which showed that consuming zero-calorie sweeteners altered the brain’s pleasure center and dampened physiological responses to sweet taste, causing mice to overindulge in calorie-dense foods later.

Artificial sweeteners have also been associated with obesity, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

The overall lesson from the study? Limit the intake of artificial sweeteners, stick to water and if the craving is too strong, opt for fiber-rich, unprocessed natural fruit juices or smoothies.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2013, 03:07:41 pm »

World's top sweetener is made with GM bacteria

THE MOST widely used sweetener in the world, found in fizzy drinks and sweets, is being made using a secret genetic engineering process, which some scientists claim needs further testing for toxic side-effects. 

As the G8 summit of rich country leaders decided last night to launch an inquiry into the safety of genetically modified (GM) food, an investigation by the Independent on Sunday revealed that Monsanto, the pioneering GM food giant which makes aspartame, often uses genetically engineered bacteria to produce the sweetener at its US production plants.

"We have two strains of bacteria - one is traditionally modified and one is genetically modified," said one Monsanto source. "It's got a modified enzyme. It has one amino acid different."

The use of genetic engineering to make aspartame has stayed secret until now because there is no modified DNA in the finished product. Monsanto insists that it is completely safe.

A Monsanto spokeswoman confirmed that aspartame for the US market is made using genetic engineering. But sweetener supplied to British food producers is not. However, consumer groups say it is likely that some low-calorie products containing genetically engineered aspartame have been imported into Britain.

"Increasingly, chemical companies are using genetically engineered bacteria in their manufacturing process without telling the public," said Dr Erik Millstone, of Sussex University and the National Food Alliance.

MPs want the Government to launch an inquiry to see how much US aspartame is coming into the UK. Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat environment spokesman, will this week write to Jeff Rooker, the Food Safety minister, to ask him to ensure that US aspartame is labelled as genetically modified. "Monsanto's sweetener has turned sour," he said.

Aspartame is made by combining phenylalanine, which is naturally produced by bacteria, with another amino acid. Monsanto has genetically engineered the bacteria to make them produce more phenylalanine. Scientists fear that other unknown compounds, which may end up in food, are produced by the genetic engineering process.

"Whether such a contaminating compound will be toxic, or not is completely unknowable until empirical studies are done to test toxicity," said Dr John Fagan, a former genetic engineer who now heads Genetic ID, the world's leading GM test centre. "No such studies have been done, or at least they have not been placed in the public domain.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2013, 03:10:23 pm »


Guess what aspartame is made from?

So, you know that artificial sweetener that soft drink companies are telling you is perfectly safe? Well, aspartame might be safe, but apparently some it is made with, um, a bacterial byproduct. And not even a natural byproduct, but, in some cases, a genetically modified bacteria byproduct. Anyway, the patent for aspartame production, filed in 1981, is now available online, and it turns out that aspartame is made by feeding genetically modified E. coli bacteria, harvesting their protein waste (which contains the aspartic acid-phenylalanine amino acid segment aspartame is made from) and then adding methanol to the harvested proteins. So think about that the next time you chug down your morning Big Gulp of diet soda.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 21, 2013, 03:17:30 pm »

Aspartame: GMO Bacteria Poop Causing Blindness!

Could it be we have been consuming genetically modified bacteria poop? Apparently the industry has been working hard producing a sweet alternative that will not only shorten your lifespan but insure that you are a lifetime customer to the military industrial pharmaceutical media complex. Imagine yourself consuming constant doses of methanol and formaldehyde slowly pickling your brain making it difficult to concentrate or think outside the box. Let us look at the possible implications of the artificial sweetener aspartame which is now in over 6,000 food products currently consumed on a daily basis here in America.

Turns out your old buddy Donald “weapons of mass destruction” Rumsfeld was at the helm of yet another problem reaction solution scenario that seems to have been quite profitable for big pharma. Back in 1981 DR was the head of G.D. Searle a giant pharmaceutical weapons manufacturing corporation. He helped get this neurotoxin “aspartame” passed the FDA after multiple test showed that it caused brain lesions and brain tumors in rats. Learn the whole ugly truth here: http://www.naturalnews.com/026849_aspartame_drug_diet.html

“The Independent” out of the United Kingdom is where we learn that aspartame is made of three ingredients, one of which has been genetically modified on the Island of Doctor Moroe.  Phenylaline is the mutated bacteria we are speaking of. Like a prime cut of beef off a genetically enhanced steer the bacteria resemble body builders pumped full of steroids able to produce twice the amount of poop (phenylaline) then there unmutated counterpart.  Read it for yourself: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/worlds-top-sweetener-is-made-with-gm-bacteria-1101176.html

Not all the regulator agencies agree with the FDA’s position that consuming methanol is a safe and healthy choice. The European Ramazzini Foundation (ERF) submitted a study on aspartame called, “Long-Term Carcinogenicity Bioassays to Evaluate the Potential Biological Effects, in Particular Carcinogenic, of Aspartame Administered in Feed to Sprague-Dawley Rats,”.  Notice at the bottom of the article it states that this in the sixth test in which the FDA has chosen to deny the facts and continue to recommend the consumption of a known neurotoxic that has a direct link to brain tumors and possibly blindness:


I was unaware of the possible link between aspartame and blindness until I started making this video and researching this report. Seeing the direct link between methanol and blindness made me think leading to the discovery of the statics which top 800 million worldwide: http://www.cibavision.com/eye-health-care/vision-statistics.shtml  Methanol has a direct link and has been proven to cause blindness. Bad brewers of moonshine have been responsible for more than one banjo playing creepy deliverance kid. Don’t take my word for it here is your proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol

Now if that isn’t bad enough the amount of information linking diketopiperazine (DKP) to brain tumors is staggering.  Remember after 6 months of storage a can of coca cola will have converted the aspartames’ phenylalanine into DKP by an amount of 25%!


Well I guess we should just leave it up to the experts at coca cola whom generated $36 billion dollars in 2010 along with the Genetically Modified Island of Doctor Monsanto’s whom gathered $10 billion dollars in 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coca-Cola_Company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto With profits like this don’t look for anything to change except perhaps an new flavor of soda containing the even more toxic artificial sweetener known as NEOTAME.

Neotame is 13,000 times sweeter than sugar and 13,000 times more toxic than aspartame. The FDA has insured that labeling of products containing neotame is not necessary. Looks like another rabbit to chase! Thanks for Reading! Thanks for Watching!
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 22, 2013, 01:00:14 pm »

Aspartame patent reveals E. coli feces used

The European patent for aspartame is now available online, and it confirms the artificial sweetener is made from the waste products of genetically modified E. coli bacteria.

Though this fact was reported as early as 1999, not much attention was paid at the time to aspartame and its maker Monsanto, which was allegedly adding GM aspartame to soft drinks in Britain.

The patent refers to "cloned microorganisms" later revealed to be genetically modified E. coli bacteria. They are modified to produce an especially large peptide used to create aspartame.

The cultivated and well-fed bacteria then produce proteins which contain the aspartic acid-phenylalanine amino acid segment required to produce the sweetener.

The bacteria waste is then treated to turn the large peptide and a free carboxyl group into a dipeptide. The the dipeptides are then treated with alcohol and methanol to produce aspartame.

Controversy has steadily grown around genetically modified foods and GM giant Monsanto. Coke recently ran an ad campaign defending their use of aspartame, saying studies support the product's safety.
Report Spam   Logged
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2013, 02:20:11 pm »

Just a reminder...


NutraSweet Company

In 1985, Monsanto Company bought G.D. Searle, and the aspartame business became a separate Monsanto subsidiary, the NutraSweet Company. In March 2000, Monsanto sold it to J.W. Childs Equity Partners II L.P.[64] European use patents on aspartame expired starting in 1987,[65] and the U.S. patent expired in 1992. Since then, the company has competed for market share with other manufacturers, including Ajinomoto, Merisant and the Holland Sweetener Company.

Many aspects of industrial synthesis of aspartame were established by Ajinomoto.[10] In 2004, the market for aspartame, in which Ajinomoto, the world's largest aspartame manufacturer, had a 40 percent share, was 14,000 metric tons a year, and consumption of the product was rising by 2 percent a year.[66] Ajinomoto acquired its aspartame business in 2000 from Monsanto for $67M.[67]

In 2008, Ajinomoto sued British supermarket chain Asda, part of Wal-Mart, for a malicious falsehood action concerning its aspartame product when the substance was listed as excluded from the chain's product line, along with other "nasties".[68] In July 2009, a British court found in favour of Asda.[69] In June 2010, an appeals court reversed the decision, allowing Ajinomoto to pursue a case against Asda to protect aspartame's reputation.[70] Asda said that it would continue to use the term "no nasties" on its own-label products,[71] but the suit was settled in 2011 with ASDA choosing to remove references to aspartame from its packaging.[72]

In November 2009, Ajinomoto announced a new brand name for its aspartame sweetener – AminoSweet.[3]


Donald Rumsfeld served as CEO, and then as President, of Searle between 1977 and 1985. During his tenure at Searle, Rumsfeld downsized the number of employees in the company by 60%. The resulting spike in the company's bottom-line financials earned him awards as the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981). In 1985, he played an instrumental role in the acquisition of G.D. Searle & Company by Monsanto
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: November 04, 2013, 08:04:02 pm »



Reagan and Alzheimer's and Rumsfeld and Aspartame

I liked Ronald Reagan.
Remember the mixed up 1969 comedy 'Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice' from Hollywood? That was in the midst of Reagan's terms as governor. It was substantially about manipulation. Confidantes finessed other confidantes to accept bad things as good things.
It was in California that I was raised when Reagan was governor. He was not one to be pressed or cajoled into doing anything. However, he could be manipulated. I observed this many times. This article is about one of those times.

Déjà vu
The American people elected him President Reagan and one member of his transition team was the CEO of pharmaceutical giant GD Searle (clear up to 1985). This man had been Secretary of Defense under Gerald Ford. His name was Donald Rumsfeld. Yes, the same man is the current Secretary of Defense.
Searle had been unsuccessfully trying to obtain approval for aspartame (now best known as Nutrasweet) for almost two decades. The reason for the lack of success by Searle was due to extensive and consistent studies that noted aspartame was damaging to the brain (among other problems).
According to a former Searle employee Rumsfeld assured the company that, "no matter what, he would see to it that aspartame would be approved".
Reagan took office and the head of the FDA who had blocked aspartame was suspended. A former Defense Department contract researcher named Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes replaced him. Chemical weapons were part of the Defense Department studies of Dr. Hayes.
The first major action of Hayes as FDA Commissioner was approval of aspartame for dry foods. This was a direct contradiction to the FDA's own advisors and their own Public Board of Inquiry recommendation. His last act in that position was approval of aspartame for diet drinks. He left the FDA to become senior medical advisor for the public relations firm of GD Searle. His salary there far exceeded that which he received from the FDA.

Ironies initiated
In 1994 former President Reagan wrote his now famous letter to the American people about his newly diagnosed Alzheimer's. This condition has skyrocketed in the American population through the last two decades.
In 1997 Dr. Russell Blaylock, M.D. released his book, 'EXCITOTOXINS: The Taste That Kills'. This book I have highly recommended since first learning of it in 1998. Dr. Blaylock ties with intricate detail the explosion of Alzheimer's to the entrance of aspartame (Nutrasweet) and its overwhelming of the marketplace. He noted that the most injurious delivery for this well documented brain-damaging ingredient is in a liquid form.
I have told people for many years that every swig of diet drink kills brain cells. As bad as sugary sodas are, if you won't give up soda then you are better off with the sugary variety than the diet variety.
It is a tragic irony that Reagan succumbed to Alzheimer's after being manipulated into bringing about the approval of this substance most likely responsible for the sudden explosion to epidemic status of this horribly debilitating disease.
Now his widow, Nancy Reagan, is busy promoting a wild goose chase into stem cell research for Alzheimer's. This is a great whitewashed hope against the reality of the connection between Alzheimer's and the aspartame that her husband approved.
Greater irony still is that stem cell research is conducted by extracting cells from human embryos that are killed. Ronald Reagan was staunchly anti-abortion and must be turning over before ever getting in his grave that his death would be used for such a platform. Defenseless against Alzheimer's in his waning years, he is now defenseless at his end against this use of himself to promote use of aborted baby tissues.

More ironies
Oh, the intricate ironies through all of this. Monsanto bought GD Searle with its prized Nutrasweet.
Monsanto was founded originally in 1901 with the sole purpose of producing saccharine for the United States market.
The head of the forerunner to the FDA, Dr. Harvey Wiley, M.D., came hard against this harmful substance. Another Republican then was president of the country. His name also began with an R, and he was also an independent not to be pressed or cajoled into doing anything.
President Teddy Roosevelt roared at Dr. Wiley, "Anybody who says saccharin is injurious to health is an idiot." This very unscientific, emotional outburst severely damaged Wiley's status with President Roosevelt. It turns out that Roosevelt was a diabetic who loved sweets and saccharine was vital to his sweet tooth.
Wiley blamed himself for this failure and cited it as the turning point for the food industry being able to turn the Pure Food & Drug Act on its head. Wiley therefore resigned his position. It was more than half a century after that before this harmful product was finally deposed.

Most tragic of ironies
It has been said that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That has certainly been the case with regard to the history of artificial sweeteners.
Newly elected President Ronald Reagan was then manipulated to the harm of Americans with Nutrasweet. Newly deceased Ronald Reagan is now manipulated to the harm of preborn Americans with regard to stem cell research.
Shakespeare never wrote a more ironic tragedy.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 04, 2013, 08:41:16 pm »

Donald Rumsfeld and the Strange History of Aspartame


In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame's clouded past, including the report of a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it "might induce brain tumors." The FDA had previously banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have then-Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld vow to "call in his markers," to get it approved. Here's how it happened:

Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president January 21, 1981. Rumsfeld, while still CEO at Searle, was part of Reagan's transition team. This team hand-picked Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., to be the new FDA commissioner. Dr. Hayes, a pharmacologist, had no previous experience with food additives before being appointed director of the FDA. On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Reagan issued an executive order eliminating the FDA commissioners' authority to take action and Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener. Hayes, Reagan's new FDA commissioner, appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's decision. It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision. So Hayes installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame's favor.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 01, 2014, 06:11:45 pm »

Diet drinks linked to heart problems in older women

Healthy postmenopausal women who drink two or more diet drinks a day may be more likely to have a heart attack, stroke or other cardiovascular problems.

WASHINGTON, March 31 (UPI) -- A study involving almost 60,000 healthy postmenopausal women correlated diet drinks with increased risk of heart attack, stroke or a cardiovascular event.

"Our findings are in line with and extend data from previous studies showing an association between diet drinks and metabolic syndrome," lead investigator Dr. Ankur Vyas of University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics said in a statement. "We were interested in this research because there was a relative lack of data about diet drinks and cardiovascular outcomes and mortality."

Consumption data were obtained via a questionnaire that asked the women to report their diet drink consumption habits over the previous three months. A drink was defined as the equivalent of a 12-ounce beverage and included both diet sodas and diet fruit drinks.

After an average follow-up of 8.7 years, women who drank two or more diet drinks per day were 30 percent more likely to suffer a cardiovascular event and 50 percent more likely to die from related disease compared to women who never or only rarely consumed diet drinks.

Heart disease included congestive heart failure, heart attack, coronary revascularization procedure, ischemic stroke, peripheral arterial disease and cardiovascular death.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2014, 06:14:54 pm by BornAgain2 » Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 21, 2014, 01:05:20 pm »

Caution! Aspartame Was Rebranded 'AminoSweet' -- Don't Fall For it!

Aspartame is a dangerous artificial sweetener found in many of the foods we consume every day, including soft drinks, chewing gum, breakfast cereals, and jams. Now, it’s important to know that aspartame may be disguised as a new name in your favorite foods – aminosweet.

 Used as a sugar substitute and often marketed as Nutrasweet and Equal, aspartame is an excitotoxin that destroys the brain and body. Its use has been a controversial subject since the 1980s when the CEO of Searle, Donald Rumsfeld, pushed for it’s approval to be sold on the market.

 Now, its name is being changed, with FDA approval, to try to dupe millions into purchasing and consuming this toxin once again. Aspartame, even renamed Amino Sweet, is not safe. This substance is made using genetically modified bacteria in the US, but according to a Monsanto source, the UK market does not have to eat genetically modified bacteria excrement.

 Many ‘low-calorie’ foods contain GMO aspartame, however, even overseas. Aspartame may cause blindness, cancer, and brain tumors. Just as a reminder of who is pushing this excrement – quite literally – on the consumers of the United states, it was Mr. Rumsfeld who went on to become George W. Bush’s secretary of Defense, and crony-Capitalist agenda-pusher.

 This one substance has continually been shown to cause harm to human health, so why is the FDA renaming it instead of banning it completely from the food supply?

 There is considerable evidence that artificial sweeteners cause cancer, including aspartame specifically – so why not name it something more appropriate at least? ‘Sickeningly Sweet’ might be more appropriate.

 Even saccharin eventually had to be made with a label, mandated by Congress, that says, “Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin, which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals”.

The FDA’s own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross told Congress that without a shadow of a doubt, aspartame can cause brain tumors and brain cancer and that it violated the Delaney Amendment. Aside from cancers and tumors, top researchers have linked aspartame with the following symptoms and diseases:

•Memory loss
•Vision Loss
•Muscular Dystrophy
•Chrnoic Fatigue
•Aspartame is Dangerous

European scientists have been telling us about the dangers of aspartame since 2005. Why on earth is it still allowed in our food? Partly? Because a politically biased FDA, then swayed by Rumsfeld’s corporation, said that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)’s decision about aspartame was not conclusive enough to prove that it was a dangerous substance, and that there was no “further review [on an] earlier scientific opinion on the safety of aspartame or [reason] to revise the Acceptable Daily Intake.”

The problem, and what more research concluded, is that aspartame breaks down into something called Phenylalanine, among other things. This can cause a disorder known as Phenylketonuria.

“. . .one in 15,000 people in the world has a genetic disorder called Phenylketonuria. Their bodycan’t metabolize synthesizde phenylalanine. As it builds up in the body, it causes all sorts of bad things to happen, such as mental retardation, seizures, and other brain damage.

People suffering from Phenylketonuria (or PKU) are called phenylketonurics. They need to constantly monitor their protein intake. They are also warned about consumption of products containing aspartame – hence the warning on labels – ‘Phenylketonurics – contains phenylalanine.”
Not only that, but aspartame is also chemically addictive to the body, even though it damages it profoundly – just like other drugs. This is why food makers want to put it in their products – so you will buy more of them.

 Aspartame, or Amino Sweet – its all the same toxic substance. Watch out for it on food labels. Eat honey, apple sauce, raw, non-GMO sugar, and other REAL food sweeteners instead. You deserve to live a sweet life without being a sucker.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: September 17, 2014, 03:02:25 pm »


Study: Artificial Sweeteners may promote diabetes

NEW YORK (AP) -- Using artificial sweeteners may set the stage for diabetes in some people by hampering the way their bodies handle sugar, suggests a preliminary study done mostly in mice.

The authors said they are not recommending any changes in how people use artificial sweeteners based on their study, which included some human experiments. The researchers and outside experts said more study is needed, while industry groups called the research limited and said other evidence shows sweeteners are safe and useful for weight control.

The study from researchers in Israel was released Wednesday by the journal Nature.

The work suggests the sweeteners change the composition of normal, beneficial bacteria in the gut. That appears to hamper how well the body handles sugar in the diet, which in turn can result in higher blood sugar levels. This impairment, called glucose intolerance, can eventually lead to diabetes.

Some experts who didn't participate in the work urged caution in interpreting the results.

James Hill, an obesity expert at the University of Colorado, called the work good science. Still, overall, "I do not think there is enough data yet to lead to a definitive conclusion about artificial sweeteners and the body's handling of sugar," he wrote in an email.

"I certainly do not think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that they are harmful."

But Yanina Pepino of Washington University in St. Louis said the results make a convincing case that sweeteners hamper the body's handling of sugar by altering gut bacteria. And it adds to her belief that sweeteners and sugar should be used in moderation, especially by children, she said.

"It's really providing strong data suggesting we need to do more research," she said.

Researchers began by testing three widely used sweeteners: saccharin, sold for example as Sweet `N Low; sucralose, sold as Splenda, and aspartame, sold for example as NutraSweet, in 20 mice. Some animals got one of those substances in their water, and others got sugar water or just water. After 11 weeks, researchers gave all the mice a dose of sugar and monitored the response in their blood sugar levels.

The mice that initially got sugar showed about the same response as those that got plain water. But mice that got any of the sweeteners showed markedly higher blood sugar levels, indicating impairment in handling of the sugar dose. Further mouse experiments linked that outcome to an effect on gut bacteria.

To gain some preliminary information on people, the researchers turned to 381 non-diabetic volunteers who filled out a questionnaire that estimated their consumption of artificial sweeteners. Forty participants who had the most showed evidence of higher blood sugar than 236 non-users.

In another preliminary test, researchers gave saccharin for a week to seven healthy volunteers who normally don't consume sweeteners. Four showed a decline in their ability to handle sugar over the course of the week. The makeup of their gut bacteria changed markedly over the week, while that of other three changed little.

Overall, the results suggest that some people may be affected by artificial sweeteners, said one of the researchers, Dr. Eran Elinav of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovet, Israel.

Christopher Gardner, a nutrition expert at Stanford University who didn't participate in the study, said saccharin doses given the volunteers were within federal dietary guidelines but still much higher than what a typical person would consume - the equivalent of 42 12-once sodas a day for a person weighing 150 pounds.

In a statement, the Food and Drug Administration said the sweeteners "have been thoroughly studied and have a reasonable certainty of no harm to consumers."

The Calorie Control Council, an industry group that represents the manufacturers of sweeteners and the products they're used in, said the study has limitations that diminish its applicability to people.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: November 14, 2014, 06:07:18 pm »

Corporate Tricks Against U.S. Citizens: Aspartame Renamed – AMINOSWEET – Now Marketed As A ‘Natural’ Sweetener!

WARNING! Read labels before buying foods with the name Phenylalanine. I will go one step further — if you need to bring along a chemistry book to the store in order to understand the ingredients on the labels — DO NOT BUY IT!

Aspartame, the artificial sweetener linked to cancer, heart palpitations, seizures, weight gain and other severe medical issues, is now going by the name AminoSweet. The toxic sweetener, Aspartame, has been around over 25 years after it was accidentally discovered by chemist, James Schlatter while working for the drug company G.D. Searle & Company.

It was created as an anti-ulcer pharmaceutical drug, but the chemist discovered it had a sweet taste, so the drug company switched its application to the FDA from a drug to a food. It was none other than Donald Rumsfeld, who was the CEO of Searle who pushed for Aspartame to be sold on the market in 1985. If that name sounds familiar, your right, he is the same Donald Rumsfeld, former U.S. Secretary of Defense who served under George W. Bush.

He is a perfect example of someone taking advantage of the “revolving door” between our government and corporations.

AminoSweet is Aspartame, it changed its name to fool the public, and I am guessing it did so because consumers figured out that their product made them sick. Aspartame is made up of three chemicals: aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol. The book Prescription for Nutritional Healing, by James and Phyllis Balch lists aspartame under the category of “chemical poison.”

Phenylalanine is an essential amino acid (that is, an amino acid which our bodies cannot make and which we must obtain from our diet). It is also one of the amino acids which is used to make aspartame. Phenylalanine is found in all protein-containing foods including milk, cheese, eggs, meat and fish.
Products which contain aspartame have a label which says ‘Contains a source of phenylalanine’.

Aspartame Brain Damage

This label is there to help people with a rare inherited genetic disorder called phenylketonuria (PKU). These people cannot metabolise phenylalanine from any source and need to follow a strict diet to control their intake of this amino acid.

Our Special Today Is Obama Corn Chowder With Agent Orange: Lymphoma & Snuff Soup.
The disorder affects approximately 1 in 10,000 babies, and is identified by screening shortly after birth. [Source]

Ten percent of this sweetener contains methanol. When it is absorbed by our intestines, it breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is a deadly neurotoxin that causes cancer, retinal damage, interferes with DNA replication and causes birth defects.
I went to the AminoSweet website to see what kind of “spin” they are putting on their repackaged product to entice shoppers to buy their so-called “natural” sweetener and here is their selling point:

AminoSweet aspartame is the low calorie sweetener that tastes just like sugar. It is made from two building blocks of protein just like those found naturally in many everyday foods. Aspartame is digested by the body in exactly the same way as these other protein foods and so does not bring anything new to our diet.

Makers of this artificial sweetener claim it is made from protein found “naturally” in many everyday foods. So what is the meaning of ‘natural’ when it comes to the labeling of food? The FDA’s website writes:

“From a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is ‘natural’ because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth. That said, FDA has not developed a definition for use of the term natural or its derivatives.” [Source]

The word ‘natural’ is being thrown around to describe all sorts of genetically modified foods and AminoSweet is genetically modified. There is nothing natural about it. Why do you think these drug companies buy patents? They create them in a lab and they own it. And they know exactly what they are doing and choose to fool consumers into thinking their foods are safe when science proves differently.

In June 2013 Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream and Campbell’s Soup became defendants in class action lawsuits that allege they misrepresented the nature of the ingredients on their product labels. The Campbell’s Soup Company is currently being sued by Florida residents for misrepresenting the genetically modified (GMO) corn in its soup as “natural.”

Ben & Jerry’s decided to stop using genetically modified ingredients as a result of their suit.

Ben & Jerry’s used to be known for their healthy ‘natural’ ice creams, but I guess when they sold out to British-Dutch conglomerate Unilever, they sold their souls along with it. It looks like they haven’t updated their website since the sale either, even though Unilever has owned them since 2001.

They portray themselves as another American success story — but according to the lawsuit, they are just another corporation choosing to deceive the public — much like another American success story — Monsanto who purchased Searle & Company in 1985– who make Aspartame now called AminoSweet.

Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #16 on: December 27, 2014, 09:57:05 pm »

How Artificial Sweeteners Confuse Your Body into Storing Fat and Inducing Diabetes

By Dr. Mercola

As noted in the featured video, there are currently five different artificial sweeteners on the market. The one you're most likely to encounter is aspartame, which also tends to be the worst of the bunch.

Aspartame and other artificial sweeteners are primarily promoted to diabetics and those concerned about their weight. This despite the fact that artificial sweeteners have repeatedly been shown to produce the exact opposite effects:

Research shows that aspartame worsens insulin sensitivity to a greater degree than sugar

Artificial sweeteners have also been found to promote weight gain, in more ways than one
Over time, artificial sweeteners have also crept into a wide variety of products not directly targeting diabetics and dieters.

Artificial sweeteners are added to about 6,000 different beverages, snacks, and food products, making label-reading an ever pressing necessity. Disturbingly, food industry groups are now trying to hide the presence of artificial sweeteners in certain foods...

Like GMOs, Industry Wants to Hide Artificial Sweeteners in Foods

Last year, the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) filed a petition with the FDA requesting the agency amend the standard of identity for milk and 17 other dairy products, in order to allow for the addition of artificial sweeteners without having to indicate their use on the label.

The IDFA claims the proposed amendments would "promote more healthful eating practices and reduce childhood obesity by providing for lower-calorie flavored milk products" since many children are more inclined to drink flavored milk products than unflavored milk.

Not only is IDFA behind the push to put aspartame in milk,  but they are also one of four trade organizations suing Vermont1 in an effort to overturn the state's GMO labeling law, which was passed in May.

It would seem that, far from being concerned about providing Americans with high quality dairy, the IDFA is wholly invested in deceiving the American public for the benefit of the chemical technology industry. Why else would they be so insistent on hiding ingredients that are suspected of harmful effects?

Artificial Sweeteners Cause Metabolic Confusion

One of the reasons why artificial sweeteners do not help you lose weight relates to the fact that your body is not fooled by sweet taste without accompanying calories.2,3

When you eat something sweet, your brain releases dopamine, which activates your brain's reward center. The appetite-regulating hormone leptin is also released, which eventually informs your brain that you are "full" once a certain amount of calories have been ingested.

However, when you consume something that tastes sweet but doesn't contain any calories, your brain's pleasure pathway still gets activated by the sweet taste, but there's nothing to deactivate it, since the calories never arrive

Artificial sweeteners basically trick your body into thinking that it's going to receive sugar (calories), but when the sugar doesn't come, your body continues to signal that it needs more, which results in carb cravings.

Besides worsening insulin sensitivity and promoting weight gain, aspartame and other artificial sweeteners also promote other health problems associated with excessive sugar consumption, including:

Cardiovascular disease and stroke4,5,6

Alzheimer's disease. While poor diet is a major driver of Alzheimer's in general (the primary culprits being sugar/fructose and grains, especially gluten), the key mechanism of harm here appears to be methanol toxicity—a much-ignored problem associated with aspartame in particular.
In a previous interview, toxicology expert Dr. Woodrow Monte (author of the book While Science Sleeps: A Sweetener Kills7), explains the links between aspartame and methanol toxicity and the formation of toxic formaldehyde.

Research Overwhelmingly Refutes 'Diet' Claims of Artificial Sweeteners

Contrary to industry claims, research over the last 30 years—including several large scale prospective cohort studies—have shown that artificial sweeteners stimulate appetite, increase cravings for carbs, and produce a variety of metabolic dysfunctions that promote fat storage and weight gain—often to the researchers' great surprise.

Below is sampling of some of the studies published through the years, clearly refuting the beverage industry's claims that diet soda aids weight loss. The 2010 review in the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine8 is particularly noteworthy.

It provides a historical summary of artificial sweeteners in general, along with epidemiological and experimental evidence showing that artificial sweeteners tends to promote weight gain. It also illustrates that as usage of artificial sweeteners has risen, so has obesity rates.

Preventive Medicine 19869   This study examined nearly 78,700 women aged 50-69 for one year. Artificial sweetener usage increased with relative weight, and users were significantly more likely to gain weight, compared to those who did not use artificial sweeteners—regardless of their initial weight.

According to the researchers, the results "were not explicable by differences in food consumption patterns. The data do not support the hypothesis that long-term artificial sweetener use either helps weight loss or prevents weight gain."

Physiology and Behavior, 198810   In this study, they determined that intense (no- or low-calorie) sweeteners can produce significant changes in appetite. Of the three sweeteners tested, aspartame produced the most pronounced effects.
Physiology and Behavior, 199011   Here, they found that aspartame had a time-dependent effect on appetite, "producing a transient decrease followed by a sustained increase in hunger ratings."

Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 199112   In a study of artificial sweeteners performed on college students, there was no evidence that artificial sweetener use was associated with a decrease in their overall sugar intake either.

International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 200313   This study, which looked at 3,111 children, found that diet soda, specifically, was associated with higher BMI.

International Journal of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, 200414   This Purdue University study found that rats fed artificially sweetened liquids ate more high-calorie food than rats fed high-caloric sweetened liquids. The researchers believe the experience of drinking artificially sweetened liquids disrupted the animals' natural ability to compensate for the calories in the food.

San Antonio Heart Study, 200515   Data gathered from the 25-year long San Antonio Heart Study also showed that drinking diet soft drinks increased the likelihood of serious weight gain – far more so than regular soda.16 On average, for each diet soft drink the participants drank per day, they were 65 percent more likely to become overweight during the next seven to eight years, and 41 percent more likely to become obese.

Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 200517   In this two-year long study, which involved 166 school children, increased diet soda consumption was associated with higher BMI at the end of the trial.

The Journal of Pediatrics, 200618   The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Growth and Health Study included 2,371 girls aged 9-19 for 10 years. Soda consumption in general, both regular and diet, was associated with increase in total daily energy intake.

Journal of Biology and Medicine, 201019   This study delves into the neurobiology of sugar cravings and summarizes the epidemiological and experimental evidence concerning the effect of artificial sweeteners on weight.

According to the authors: "[F]indings suggest that the calorie contained in natural sweeteners may trigger a response to keep the overall energy consumption constant. ...Increasing evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners do not activate the food reward pathways in the same fashion as natural sweeteners… [A]rtificial sweeteners, precisely because they are sweet, encourage sugar craving and sugar dependence."

Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 201020   This review offers a summary of epidemiological and experimental evidence concerning the effects of artificial sweeteners on weight, and explains those effects in light of the neurobiology of food reward. It also shows the correlation between increased usage of artificial sweeteners in food and drinks, and the corresponding rise in obesity. More than 11,650 children aged 9-14 were included in this study. Each daily serving of diet beverage was associated with a BMI increase of 0.16 kg/m2

Appetite, 201221   Here, researchers showed that saccharin and aspartame both cause greater weight gain than sugar, even when the total caloric intake remains similar.

Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism, 201322   This report highlights the fact that diet soda drinkers suffer the same exact health problems as those who opt for regular soda, such as excessive weight gain, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and stroke.23,24 The researchers speculate that frequent consumption of artificial sweeteners may induce metabolic derangements.

Nature, 201425   This study was able to clearly show causality, revealing there's a direct cause and effect relationship between consuming artificial sweeteners and developing elevated blood sugar levels.

People who consumed high amounts of artificial sweeteners were found to have higher levels of HbA1C—a long-term measure of blood sugar—compared to non-users or occasional users of artificial sweeteners.

Seven volunteers who did not use artificial sweeteners were then recruited, and asked to consume the equivalent of 10-12 single-dose packets of artificial sweeteners daily for one week.

Four of the seven people developed "significant disturbances in their blood glucose," according to the researchers. Some became pre-diabetic within just a few days. The reason for this dramatic shift was traced back to alterations in gut bacteria. Some bacteria were killed off, while others started proliferating.

PLOS One, 201426   This study, which was done on rats, using aspartame, also found an increased risk of glucose intolerance. Animals that consume artificial sweeteners ended up with raised levels of propionate—short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) involved in sugar production. Consumption of artificial sweeteners shifted gut microbiota to produce propionate, which generated higher blood sugar levels.

Latest Research Reveals New Mechanism of Harm

Research published in the journal Nature27 in September of this year (see list above) reveals another, previously unknown, mechanism by which artificial sweeteners make you pack on unwanted pounds and disrupt your metabolic function. Most importantly, this study proves causation. In recent years, we've learned that gut microbes play a significant role in human health. Certain gut microbes have been linked to obesity, for example, and as it turns out, artificial sweeteners disrupt your intestinal microflora28,29,30,31—thereby raising your risk of both obesity and diabetes.

Specifically, the researchers found that artificial sweeteners alter metabolic pathways associated with metabolic disease. Decreased function was observed in pathways associated with the transport of sugar in the body, for example. Artificial sweeteners were also found to induce gut dysbiosis and glucose intolerance in otherwise healthy people. Of the artificial sweeteners tested, saccharin (Sweet'N Low) had the strongest impact, followed by sucralose and aspartame. Glucose intolerance is a well-known precursor to type 2 diabetes, but it also plays a role in obesity, because the excess sugar in your blood ends up being stored in your fat cells.According to the authors of this widely publicized study:32

"[W]e demonstrate that consumption of commonly used non-caloric artificial sweeteners formulations drives the development of glucose intolerance through induction of compositional and functional alterations to the intestinal microbiota... Collectively, our results link non-caloric artificial sweeteners (NAS) consumption, dysbiosis and metabolic abnormalities, thereby calling for a reassessment of massive NAS usage."

The following month, another study came out with very similar findings. This one, published in PLOS One,33 found that when rats were fed aspartame, it shifted their gut microbiota, causing it to produce propionate—short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) involved in sugar production—which led to elevations in blood sugar.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: December 27, 2014, 10:00:14 pm »

2Corinthians 11:26  In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;
2Co 11:27  In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
2Co 11:28  Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #18 on: March 17, 2015, 08:16:46 pm »

Diet Soda Linked to Increased Belly Fat in Older Adults

Older adults who drink diet soda may experience greater increases in their waist size over a decade than those who do not drink diet soda, according to a new study.

Researchers found that the average increase in waist circumference among the people in the study who drank diet soda daily was more than triple that of the people who did not drink diet soda. Among the people who drank diet soda only occasionally, the increase was more than double that of those who did not drink diet soda.

"The more people drank diet sodas, the more their waistlines expanded," said study author Sharon Fowler, a researcher at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.

Over the nine-year study, the waist size of the people who didn't drink any soda increased by an average of 0.8 inches. The average increase was 1.83 inches among those who drank diet soda occasionally, and 3.16 inches among those who drank it daily, according to the study.

In the study, the researchers followed a total of 749 Mexican Americans and European Americans who were 65 or older when the study started. The researchers asked them about their diet soda intake, and measured their waist circumference, height and weight when the study began, and at three follow-up points during the study period. [5 Experts Answer: Is Diet Soda Bad For You?]

Increased belly fat, which is usually what causes increased waist circumference, may raise people's risk of cardiovascular disease and other health issues because it increases inflammation, Fowler said.

The new study adds to a growing body of research on the potentially harmful effects of diet soda on human health. In a study presented in 2011 at the American Stroke Association's International Stroke Conference in Los Angeles, researchers found that people who drink diet soda every day may have an increased risk of stroke and heart attack. In another study, published in 2012 in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, investigators also found a link between daily diet soda consumption and stroke, heart attack and death from these two conditions.

Moreover, the authors of a study presented at the American Academy of Neurology's annual meeting in San Diego in 2013 found a link between drinking diet soda daily and an increased risk of depression.

In the new study, the researchers said that it is not clear exactly why drinking diet soda may be linked to an increase in waist circumference. But it may have something to do with the sweeteners used in diet soda, and the way they may affect food-intake regulation, Fowler said.

For instance, in a study of mice that were exposed in utero to high levels of one such sweetener, aspartame, researchers found that the sweetener caused lesions in the brain region that normally receives the so-called "quit-eating" signal, Fowler said. As a result, the mice had more abdominal fat when they grew up, she said. Sweeteners used in diet sodas may have a similar effect in people, although more research is needed to see whether this is the case.

Fowler suggested that people use strategies to reduce or quit drinking diet soda, considering its potential negative effects on health.

"The more people can try to duplicate some of the things they love about diet sodas with something else that is really a whole food, the better," Fowler told Live Science.

For instance, if someone likes the sweetness of diet soda, eating some sweet fruit and chasing it with regular or sparkling water may be a good substitute, Fowler said. Or, for diet-soda drinkers who appreciate the caffeine, then replacing diet soda with coffee or tea could work, she added.

The new study was published today (March 17) in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #19 on: March 16, 2016, 06:39:52 pm »

Don't drink the cola! Instead, use it as an industrial scrubber to clean your home in these amazing ways..

Sunday, February 21, 2016 by: Daniel Barker

NaturalNews) Coca-Cola may be the "most valuable brand in history," but it's much smarter to use it as a cleaning agent, than to actually drink it. Many people are unaware of just how bad Coke is for the human body – its pH level rivals that of battery acid – but once you see how its corrosive properties make it such a good household cleaner, you might think twice before ever putting it in your body again.

The ever-popular soft drink is anything but "soft" – that's what makes it so effective at cleaning stuff. If something that can be used to strip paint, dissolve rust, descale toilets and clean car engines might not seem like something you should ingest, you're absolutely right – yet millions of people continue gulping down gallons of it on a daily basis.

Here are just a few of the things Coca-Cola can be used for around the house, according to the group Anonymous:

1. Removes grease stains from clothing and fabric
2. Removes rust; methods include using fabric dipped in Coke, a sponge or even aluminum foil. Also loosens rusty bolts
3. Removes blood stains from clothing and fabric.
4. Cleans oil stains from a garage floor; let the stain soak, hose off.
5. Kills slugs and snails; the acids kills them.
6. Cleans burnt pans; let the pan soak in the Coke, then rinse.
7. Descales a kettle (same method as with burnt pans)
8. Cleans car battery terminals by pouring a small amount of Coke over each one.
9. Cleans your engine; Coke distributors have been using this technique for decades
10. Makes pennies shine; soaking old pennies in Coke will remove the tarnish.
11. Cleans tile grout; pour onto kitchen floor, leave for a few minutes, wipe up.
12. Dissolves a tooth; Use a sealed container...takes a while but it does work

If Coca-Cola can dissolve a tooth, think what it must be doing to your stomach lining.

How Coke ruins your body
In fact, irritation of the stomach lining is just one of the numerous damaging effects associated with drinking Coca-Cola. The reaction of the stomach to the carbonation is to produce its own antacid to protect it, which drains the body of calcium, while the phosphoric acid content of Coke further leeches calcium from blood and bones.

Soft drinks also cause acid reflux, which damages cells in the lower esophagus. This cell damage can lead to the development of esophageal cancer – a once-rare form of cancer that has now become common.

Here's part of what happens to the body after drinking Coca-Cola:

"After 10 minutes: The sugar contained in a glass of Cola can cause a devastating 'strike' on the body. The cause being the phosphoric acid which inhibits the action of sugar.

"After 20 minutes: A leap in insulin levels in bloodstream occurs."

During the following 40 minutes after consuming Coke, the caffeine kicks in, eye pupils expand and the liver sends sugar into the bloodstream. Dopamine is produced in the body, which gives the brain a heroin-like buzz.


"After more than 1 hour: Diuretic effects of the drink enters in 'the game'. The calcium, magnesium and zinc are removed out of the body, which are a part of our bones, as well as sodium. At this time we can become irritable or subdued. The whole quantity of water, contained in a coca cola, is removed through urination."

Not for human consumption

There are dozens of other ingredients in Coca-Cola that cause various short- and long-term effects on health. All of the products – Coke Light, caffeine-free Coke, etc. – contain harmful or potentially harmful substances such as aspartame and orthophosphoric acid.

So, if you happen to still have Coca-Cola around the house, put it to good use in cleaning your garage floor or polishing some chrome. That's what it's good for.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: September 01, 2016, 09:28:57 am »

370kg of **** found in Coca-Cola factory in France

Coca-Cola workers found a huge stash of **** when they opened a delivery of fruit juice concentrate from Costa Rica at their factory in southern France.

The haul, which came from Costa Rica, weighed 370kg (815 pounds) and has a market value of AUD $74 million (USD $55 million) said prosecutor Xavier Tarabeux, according to local newspaper Ver-Matin . Those figures could not be confirmed by Coca-Cola.

The Coca-Cola factory in the town of Signes, near the Mediterranean coast, produces concentrates for various drinks. A spokesman for Coca-Cola France says employees immediately notified police and judicial authorities have opened an investigation.

"You can well imagine the surprise," said a spokesman for Coca-Cola, adding that the workers who found the drugs were ruled out as potential suspects.

Sacks containing the drugs were hidden in a shipping container holding orange juice arrived at the factory on August 26.

The Marseille prosecutor's office said Wednesday it opened an investigation into trafficking and importing illegal drugs. 

Coca leaves were reportedly used in the original Coca-Cola drink, created in 1886 by US pharmacist John Pemberton, although the company says **** has never been an "added ingredient."

Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #21 on: January 05, 2017, 06:25:42 pm »

Coca-Cola is being sued for misleading people over the healthfulness of its sodas
January 4, 2017

It’s the opening shot of 2017, fired by health advocates looking to advance a long-running fight against soda-makers.

A lawsuit filed Jan. 4 in federal court in California alleges that Coca-Cola and its trade group, the American Beverage Association, deceived and confused the public—including children—about science that links sugar-sweetened beverages to chronic illnesses.

Filed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the lawsuit alleges that Big Soda used industry-funded reports and advertisements to shift blame for health troubles off its products and onto consumers’ exercise habits. Basically, the industry posited, if people atoned for their sugar consumption by exercising more, they’d be healthier.

“Coca-Cola and the ABA are misleading consumers about the health risks posed by sugar drinks, and claiming that there is no science linking sugar-sweetened beverages to obesity and related diseases,” the group said in a statement. “The campaign also led consumers to believe that all calories are the same, when science indicates that sugar drinks play a distinct role in the obesity epidemic.”

The human body digests and processes foods differently, the group says. For instance, digestion of one calorie from almonds is not identical to the digestion of one calorie from sugar. This idea was explored in-depth in the award-winning 2014 documentary, Fed Up.

The American Beverage Association and Coca-Cola acknowledged the lawsuit. A spokesman from Coca-Cola characterized it as “legally and factually meritless” in a statement to Quartz.

    We take our consumers and their health very seriously and have been on a journey to become a more credible and helpful partner in helping consumers manage their sugar consumption. To that end, we have led the industry adopting clear, front-of-pack calorie labeling for all our beverages. We are innovating to expand low- and no-calorie products; offering and promoting more drinks in smaller sizes; reformulating products to reduce added sugars; transparently disclosing our funding of health and well-being scientific research and partnerships; and do not advertise to children under 12.

The suit comes after a year of defeats for the soda industry: Consumption is in decline in America, and several US cities have adopted soda-taxes policies. Those measures don’t look to be fizzling out either—word has it that a soda-tax proposal is imminent in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #22 on: January 30, 2017, 05:41:49 pm »

Pepsi admits its soda contains cancer-causing ingredients

Thursday, September 15, 2016 by: Isabelle Z.

(NaturalNews) When the Center for Environmental Health released test results showing that Pepsi intentionally covered up the presence of high levels of 4-Mel in its popular soft drinks in 2013, the company denied both the presence of this chemical in its beverages and the fact that it was dangerous. 4-Mel, which is short for 4-Methylimidazole, is a compound that is formed in the manufacturing of caramel coloring, and is a known carcinogen.

Since then, the drinks maker has fought against complying with California state requirements to place a cancer warning label on the beverages that contain the ingredient, which include not only Pepsi, but also Diet Pepsi and Pepsi One.

Now, a settlement in a class action lawsuit against Pepsi has gained preliminary approval from a federal judge in California. As part of the proposed settlement, Pepsi has agreed to ensure its caramel coloring's 4-Mel levels do not exceed 100 parts per billion in products that are being shipped for sale within the U.S. They will also be required to test the soda using specific protocols.

The soft drink giant also agreed to these measures in a different lawsuit that was settled in a California state court last year. The new settlement, however, expands the reach of these measures from California to the entire country.

Pepsi failed to warn consumers that its drinks contain known carcinogens
The lawsuit accused Pepsi of failing to warn people that its beverages contain 4-Mel, which California has officially recognized as a cancer-causing chemical.

A 2014 Consumer Reports test showed that the 4-Mel in Pepsi exceeded the permitted level of 29 micrograms per bottle or can, which would mean that they were in violation of common law and consumer protection statutes in the state of California.

In particular, this violates California's Proposition 65, which has been in place since 1985, and requires manufacturers to provide consumers with clear warnings when their products will expose them to toxic or cancer-causing chemicals.

The state's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment set the cutoff at 29 micrograms because that level creates a risk of cancer of one in 100,000.

Citing a 2013 Mintel and Leatherhead Food Research report, Consumer Reports said that caramel coloring is the world's most widely used food coloring. At the time, Pepsi tried to say that because Prop 65 refers to exposure per day rather than exposure per can, and that the average amount of diet soda that its drinkers consume daily is less than a can, there was no need to place a warning on it. Consumer Reports disagreed, however.

"No matter how much consumers drink they don't expect their beverages to have a potential carcinogen in them. And we don't think 4-MeI should be in foods at all. Our tests of Coke samples show that it is possible to get to much lower levels," toxicologist Dr. Urvashi Rangan said.

Is drinking soda really worth risking cancer and obesity?
It simply does not make sense for people to expose themselves unnecessarily to an ingredient that merely serves to color their food, and consumers have the right to be aware of what they are putting in their bodies. The popularity of books like Food Forensics serves to illustrate the growing desire by Americans to know what ingredients their food products contain.

The cancer-causing caramel coloring in Pepsi is not the only reason consumers should steer clear of it. Soft drinks are also believed to be behind the nation's obesity epidemic. A UCLA study found that adults who consumed one sugary drink such as a soda every day had a 27 percent higher likelihood of being classified as overweight than those who did not drink such beverages. Moreover, drinking just one soda each day adds up to a total of 39 pounds of sugar each year! That means that regular soda drinkers can cut their risk of obesity and cancer in one fell swoop simply by giving up the habit for good.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy