Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Aspartame Causes Cancer.

Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2011 11:00:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Or does it?
Everyone says "Oh don't eat that it has aspartame" or "boycott this it has aspartame'

but all my research concludes that it is harmless. On the other hand though, it does include methanol, which is a known toxic.

I dont know. Your thoughts?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2011 12:14:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/2/2011 11:00:25 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Or does it?
Everyone says "Oh don't eat that it has aspartame" or "boycott this it has aspartame'

but all my research concludes that it is harmless. On the other hand though, it does include methanol, which is a known toxic.

I dont know. Your thoughts?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I've never heard anyone say "don't eat that, it has aspartame." Though that might be because I only hear, "don't eat that..." before I tune the rest out.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2011 12:36:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's the fun police at work. Don't you dare enjoy something, if it's good, tastes good, it MUST be bad for you. Diet Coke is bad for you, we don't exactly have any good data to support that, but it will make you fat and it's bad for you, and will kill you, so stop drinking diet coke.

I gave up. Nothing i eat in the course of the day is without a problem. Breakfast fruit and toast - the fruit is high in sugars and will make you fat, and toast....well we all know about the evils of bread. It's wholewheat, but that means nothing. A cup of coffee with splenda, well you might as well just be scooping your coffee cup into a chemical dump, especially considering it was made with tap water.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2011 12:45:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/3/2011 12:36:09 PM, innomen wrote:
It's the fun police at work. Don't you dare enjoy something, if it's good, tastes good, it MUST be bad for you. Diet Coke is bad for you, we don't exactly have any good data to support that, but it will make you fat and it's bad for you, and will kill you, so stop drinking diet coke.

I gave up. Nothing i eat in the course of the day is without a problem. Breakfast fruit and toast - the fruit is high in sugars and will make you fat, and toast....well we all know about the evils of bread. It's wholewheat, but that means nothing. A cup of coffee with splenda, well you might as well just be scooping your coffee cup into a chemical dump, especially considering it was made with tap water.

The thing is, nothing is perfect or perfectly healthy. Everything has something "not-good" in it. Then you get those people who had some deep personal loss, like a child that ate a lot of icecreme and died from brain cancer, and there was a study that showed that rats that ate of lot of icecreme had a brain cancer rate of 27 per 100,000, while the rats that ate normally only had brain cancer rates of 26 per 100,000 so obviously the ice creme caused it, time to go on the crusade. And you're a jerk if you say anything in disagreement because she's of course wearing a t-shirt with her late son's face on it.

So I just politely listen to her rant in the public park... while openly eating ice creme.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2011 6:11:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/3/2011 12:36:09 PM, innomen wrote:
It's the fun police at work. Don't you dare enjoy something, if it's good, tastes good, it MUST be bad for you. Diet Coke is bad for you, we don't exactly have any good data to support that, but it will make you fat and it's bad for you, and will kill you, so stop drinking diet coke.

I gave up. Nothing i eat in the course of the day is without a problem. Breakfast fruit and toast - the fruit is high in sugars and will make you fat, and toast....well we all know about the evils of bread. It's wholewheat, but that means nothing. A cup of coffee with splenda, well you might as well just be scooping your coffee cup into a chemical dump, especially considering it was made with tap water.

Brown sugar tastes better than that artificial sweetener crap.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2011 6:12:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/3/2011 6:11:19 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 10/3/2011 12:36:09 PM, innomen wrote:
It's the fun police at work. Don't you dare enjoy something, if it's good, tastes good, it MUST be bad for you. Diet Coke is bad for you, we don't exactly have any good data to support that, but it will make you fat and it's bad for you, and will kill you, so stop drinking diet coke.

I gave up. Nothing i eat in the course of the day is without a problem. Breakfast fruit and toast - the fruit is high in sugars and will make you fat, and toast....well we all know about the evils of bread. It's wholewheat, but that means nothing. A cup of coffee with splenda, well you might as well just be scooping your coffee cup into a chemical dump, especially considering it was made with tap water.

Brown sugar tastes better than that artificial sweetener crap.

Brown sugar is molasses and regular sugar. I think its more sugary.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2011 6:13:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/3/2011 12:45:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/3/2011 12:36:09 PM, innomen wrote:
It's the fun police at work. Don't you dare enjoy something, if it's good, tastes good, it MUST be bad for you. Diet Coke is bad for you, we don't exactly have any good data to support that, but it will make you fat and it's bad for you, and will kill you, so stop drinking diet coke.

I gave up. Nothing i eat in the course of the day is without a problem. Breakfast fruit and toast - the fruit is high in sugars and will make you fat, and toast....well we all know about the evils of bread. It's wholewheat, but that means nothing. A cup of coffee with splenda, well you might as well just be scooping your coffee cup into a chemical dump, especially considering it was made with tap water.


The thing is, nothing is perfect or perfectly healthy. Everything has something "not-good" in it. Then you get those people who had some deep personal loss, like a child that ate a lot of icecreme and died from brain cancer, and there was a study that showed that rats that ate of lot of icecreme had a brain cancer rate of 27 per 100,000, while the rats that ate normally only had brain cancer rates of 26 per 100,000 so obviously the ice creme caused it, time to go on the crusade. And you're a jerk if you say anything in disagreement because she's of course wearing a t-shirt with her late son's face on it.

So I just politely listen to her rant in the public park... while openly eating ice creme.

Its the age old "I'm sad, which makes me mad" theme. Since the beginning of time that sh*t haunts us. The European witch hunts are the worst of it.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2011 6:17:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/3/2011 6:11:19 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 10/3/2011 12:36:09 PM, innomen wrote:
It's the fun police at work. Don't you dare enjoy something, if it's good, tastes good, it MUST be bad for you. Diet Coke is bad for you, we don't exactly have any good data to support that, but it will make you fat and it's bad for you, and will kill you, so stop drinking diet coke.

I gave up. Nothing i eat in the course of the day is without a problem. Breakfast fruit and toast - the fruit is high in sugars and will make you fat, and toast....well we all know about the evils of bread. It's wholewheat, but that means nothing. A cup of coffee with splenda, well you might as well just be scooping your coffee cup into a chemical dump, especially considering it was made with tap water.

Brown sugar tastes better than that artificial sweetener crap.

Brown sugar doesn't disolve as well. I tried making rootbeer with it instead of white sugar, came out terrible, much of the sugar remained suspended and un-dissolved.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2011 10:48:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/3/2011 6:17:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/3/2011 6:11:19 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 10/3/2011 12:36:09 PM, innomen wrote:
It's the fun police at work. Don't you dare enjoy something, if it's good, tastes good, it MUST be bad for you. Diet Coke is bad for you, we don't exactly have any good data to support that, but it will make you fat and it's bad for you, and will kill you, so stop drinking diet coke.

I gave up. Nothing i eat in the course of the day is without a problem. Breakfast fruit and toast - the fruit is high in sugars and will make you fat, and toast....well we all know about the evils of bread. It's wholewheat, but that means nothing. A cup of coffee with splenda, well you might as well just be scooping your coffee cup into a chemical dump, especially considering it was made with tap water.

Brown sugar tastes better than that artificial sweetener crap.

Brown sugar doesn't disolve as well. I tried making rootbeer with it instead of white sugar, came out terrible, much of the sugar remained suspended and un-dissolved.

If I'm correct, you make rootbeer by heating up the mixture of sassafrass and sugar, which might have made the sugar carmelize.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 12:45:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you're worried about aspartame, you better process that sassafras before you do s*** with it. Cumulative liver damage otherwise, and apparently a lot better evidence than aspartame.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 9:24:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Sugars are substances that have been intimately tied to human life from the very beginning. They are relatively simple molecules that play a distinct role in our natural biology.

Aspartame, C14H18N2O5, is not as simple a substance. It is toxic even in small amounts, but we are able to get away using it because it is so much more powerful than sugar that only miniscule amounts are needed to sweeten our foods.

How apartame and other artificial sweeteners affect each organ in our bodies is largely unknown, but I fully expect that someday we will discover something very wrong with it. Our bodies deal with new substances in different ways, but it's almost always not good for us and this is especially true for things that are continuously consumed on a regular basis. Somebody who uses artifical sweeteners every day is taking a chance that they don't fully understand the implications of.

And why do we use aspartame? Because we want to consume bad foods without guilt? Is there even one product on the market that uses aspartame that would be considered part of a healthy, balanced meal? The use of this substance is just so we can pound down even more processed, artificial junk-foods. It doesn't promote healthy eating, it really just justifies unhealthy eating.

The most disturbing thing about aspartame isn't our culture of obesity (aspartame is mostly used by fat people in my experience, which makes me wonder why anyone would think it works at all), or the chemical nature of this exotic substance, but the marketing of it. If you buy chewing gum nowadays, unless it is one of those really kiddy gums (bazooka joe, bubblicious, or bubble-yum) then it is going to be full of aspartame. Artificially sweetened products are infiltrating the aisles of our supermarkets and compromising the ability of savvy citizens to avoid the chemical. It used to be just the well-labeled diet soft-drinks which I needed to avoid, but now it is finding it's way into just about everything. I've consumed at least 3 different products this year with the substance despite trying to avoid it, and it's probably much more than that because I'm sure I didn't catch every instance. My right to refuse to consume this problematic agent is being compromised because it is apparently getting cheaper to use it instead of the real thing. Often, the labels aren't as obvious as they once were and I have to spend extra time rechecking all my labels to make sure it isn't hidden in there somewhere. This often includes having to scan long ingredients lists in small type, and it's pretty obvious that most people aren't going to have the wherewithall to be able to go through this process.

Looks like we need to create more regulations on businesses to take care of it! I don't see any other option.
Rob
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 12:03:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"aspartame is mostly used by fat people in my experience, which makes me wonder why anyone would think it works at all"
Stretchers are mostly used on people with severe injuries.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2011 12:20:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/4/2011 12:45:52 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If you're worried about aspartame, you better process that sassafras before you do s*** with it. Cumulative liver damage otherwise, and apparently a lot better evidence than aspartame.

Rootbeer is no longer allowed to use sassafras. It was banned in the 50's. Now we use Sasparilla.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jegarst
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 11:38:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Following are facts people don't understand about aspartame. Stated health issues like headaches may well be associated with aspartame, but to suggest that aspartame causes them could not be further from the truth. These issues likely reside in preexisting personal issues. Let me explain.

First, the fundamentals of toxicology (the science of poisons) say "everything is toxic" and dose alone separates a food/drug from a poison. For example botulinum toxin, perhaps the most toxic substance known, is used extensively in cosmetic procedures. High toxicity cyanide found in plant products we all consume is, however, innocuous at those doses. In contrast low-toxicity water drowns hundreds yearly. Any claim a chemical substance is "toxic" or poison is by itself is MEANINGLESS. Such claims MUST include a specific toxic response and specific dose. Aspartame critics cannot do this!

Second, aspartame is GI-degraded to its three components; they are more abundant in common foods and two are even essential for life. Food-borne methanol whatever its source is oxidized to formaldehyde and then formate. Formate is recycled (reduced) by the folate-B12 vitamins into methyl groups used to synthesize (thymine, in DNA), methylate (regulate) DNA, and detoxify truly-toxic homocysteine. Phenylalanine is used to biosynthesize epinephrine, etc. These ingredients are simply not a toxicological issue at the allowed doses of aspartame.

Third, aspartame has been extensively studied; adverse claims have been consistently disproven time after time, one of the latest being last year in New Zealand. Anti-aspartame arguments fostered by internet conspiracy theorists, who profit from books, false detoxification kits, etc., all predate 1998. In 1998 in the USA and in Canada, and Chile folate vitamin supplementation was mandated for cereal grain products, because of population-wide deficiency. That was not done in Europe, however.

So any health connections for aspartame most likely reside instead in personal folate deficiency (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) or related underlying biochemical issues (well-known folate- or related enzyme polymorphisms, see http://en.wikipedia.org...). These personal problems are often mistaken for arguments against aspartame, because they subside after aspartame use is ended. But really aspartame was the ‘straw that broke the camel's back, not the tons of cargo already there.' Of course folate (and B12 status) or associated polymorphisms are a major 'cargo'. High blood homocysteine (a known health issue) presents yet another preexisting straw, but it is often evidence of folate issues. Other cargos include caffeine and alcohol, which provide twice the formaldehyde/formate of aspartame (per molelcule) or act to inhibit folate-mediate enzyme reactions (fetal alcohol syndrome), respectively.

Aspartame critics cite every practically health issue under the sun as being connected to aspartame, the latest of which is diabetes. But like virtually all the other claimed issues, aspartame linkage to diabetes is highly suspect too for the same reason. Two highly publicized presentations (one in humans the other in diabetic mice) both neglected even to consider folate status in their subjects. Folate deficiency is a substantial issue with regard to insulin resistance and insulin issues (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...; over 345 references). And obese/diabetic mice have serious known issues with folate, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... It is therefore very likely that people who think they are affected by aspartame are affected by real medical (folate, B12) vitamin issues, not aspartame per se.

So in summary, aspartame is perfectly safe used as recommended, but issues with it are likely because of hidden, but real risks from the now-known and potentially population-wide folate deficiency or related enzyme issues that are also known to be connected to many types of cancer, as well as migraines and other acute issues.

John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 2:02:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/4/2011 12:03:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
"aspartame is mostly used by fat people in my experience, which makes me wonder why anyone would think it works at all"
Stretchers are mostly used on people with severe injuries.

OK I obviously didn't finish the thought well. When fat-asses are pounding potato chips and greasy foods while washing them down with diet colas, I don't see the point. Eating healthy is a lifestyle, and diet cola is not part of that lifestyle. Going to McDonald's and ordering a Diet Coke with your Big Mac value meal does not represent a responsible food choice. It just seems to me that aspartame products, while taking simple sugars out of our diet, contribute to the negative habits associated with eating and therefore can in some ways be even worse than the cold-hard truth of a genuine ice-cold Coca-Cola Classic loaded to the teeth with high-fructose corn syrup.
Rob
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 2:06:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What's interesting is the scientist who discovered the aspartame. The dude makes a fortunate by not following basic chemistry safety rules. Last time I follow basic chemistry safety procedures.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 2:45:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 2:02:19 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 10/4/2011 12:03:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
"aspartame is mostly used by fat people in my experience, which makes me wonder why anyone would think it works at all"
Stretchers are mostly used on people with severe injuries.

OK I obviously didn't finish the thought well. When fat-asses are pounding potato chips and greasy foods while washing them down with diet colas, I don't see the point. Eating healthy is a lifestyle, and diet cola is not part of that lifestyle. Going to McDonald's and ordering a Diet Coke with your Big Mac value meal does not represent a responsible food choice.
Then go eat a goddamn salad without too much dressing and any meat in it non-fried, then have a diet coke. And walk to wherever you're getting it.

Don't engage in nutritional guilt-by-association.

(I don't even care for soda much-- maybe a mountain dew once every few weeks).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 2:51:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As for how to take care of it, go shop at Whole Foods Hippie Supplies. You pay higher prices-- just like you would in a world of heavier food regulations-- and you don't get anything pseudoscience tells you is bad. It's like statism without the oppression!
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 11:38:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 11:38:38 AM, jegarst wrote:
Following are facts people don't understand about aspartame. Stated health issues like headaches may well be associated with aspartame, but to suggest that aspartame causes them could not be further from the truth. These issues likely reside in preexisting personal issues. Let me explain.

First, the fundamentals of toxicology (the science of poisons) say "everything is toxic" and dose alone separates a food/drug from a poison. For example botulinum toxin, perhaps the most toxic substance known, is used extensively in cosmetic procedures. High toxicity cyanide found in plant products we all consume is, however, innocuous at those doses. In contrast low-toxicity water drowns hundreds yearly. Any claim a chemical substance is "toxic" or poison is by itself is MEANINGLESS. Such claims MUST include a specific toxic response and specific dose. Aspartame critics cannot do this!

All I said was that it was a complex, artificial compound that may very well turn out to have effects that we haven't discovered. I think our foods should be strictly limited to natural substances - or else separated from our normal grocery section - I currently do not have the choice to opt out of aspartame because it is mixed into so many of my foods because some entrepreneurs decided they could make money on it. That pisses me off.

Second, aspartame is GI-degraded to its three components; they are more abundant in common foods and two are even essential for life. Food-borne methanol whatever its source is oxidized to formaldehyde and then formate. Formate is recycled (reduced) by the folate-B12 vitamins into methyl groups used to synthesize (thymine, in DNA), methylate (regulate) DNA, and detoxify truly-toxic homocysteine. Phenylalanine is used to biosynthesize epinephrine, etc. These ingredients are simply not a toxicological issue at the allowed doses of aspartame.

Third, aspartame has been extensively studied; adverse claims have been consistently disproven time after time, one of the latest being last year in New Zealand. Anti-aspartame arguments fostered by internet conspiracy theorists, who profit from books, false detoxification kits, etc., all predate 1998. In 1998 in the USA and in Canada, and Chile folate vitamin supplementation was mandated for cereal grain products, because of population-wide deficiency. That was not done in Europe, however.

So any health connections for aspartame most likely reside instead in personal folate deficiency (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) or related underlying biochemical issues (well-known folate- or related enzyme polymorphisms, see http://en.wikipedia.org...). These personal problems are often mistaken for arguments against aspartame, because they subside after aspartame use is ended. But really aspartame was the ‘straw that broke the camel's back, not the tons of cargo already there.' Of course folate (and B12 status) or associated polymorphisms are a major 'cargo'. High blood homocysteine (a known health issue) presents yet another preexisting straw, but it is often evidence of folate issues. Other cargos include caffeine and alcohol, which provide twice the formaldehyde/formate of aspartame (per molelcule) or act to inhibit folate-mediate enzyme reactions (fetal alcohol syndrome), respectively.

Aspartame critics cite every practically health issue under the sun as being connected to aspartame, the latest of which is diabetes. But like virtually all the other claimed issues, aspartame linkage to diabetes is highly suspect too for the same reason. Two highly publicized presentations (one in humans the other in diabetic mice) both neglected even to consider folate status in their subjects. Folate deficiency is a substantial issue with regard to insulin resistance and insulin issues (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...; over 345 references). And obese/diabetic mice have serious known issues with folate, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... It is therefore very likely that people who think they are affected by aspartame are affected by real medical (folate, B12) vitamin issues, not aspartame per se.

So in summary, aspartame is perfectly safe used as recommended, but issues with it are likely because of hidden, but real risks from the now-known and potentially population-wide folate deficiency or related enzyme issues that are also known to be connected to many types of cancer, as well as migraines and other acute issues.

John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)

Creating exotic new additives to food is inherently problematic. The human body is complex beyond your wildest dreams, and the effects of substances like this can take decades to study. If people truly desire the "right" to consume artificial additives, then these "foods" should be separated from our natural foods so that citizens at least have the ability to distinguish between the foods that are natural and the foods that are not.

Currently, we address this by creating small "organic" sections in supermarkets. This is nonsensical. Instead of selling foods as-is or else having them qualify for "organic" status, we should keep foods completely natural and then companies who insist on adding unnatural additives should have to get approved for a special "unnatural" status and separated from our natural, wholesum foods. That is the logical way to handle this, but of course we don't because we leave businesses in the market free to dictate how things should be, while consumers sleep-walk around ignorant to just about everything.
Rob
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 6:41:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is nonsensical. Instead of selling foods as-is or else having them qualify for "organic" status, we should keep foods completely natural and then companies who insist on adding unnatural additives should have to get approved for a special "unnatural" status and separated from our natural, wholesum foods. That is the logical way to handle this
How is it logical that normal consumers should have to bear the cost of your pseudoscientific hoodoo, instead of you?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 6:44:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Btw, you want "natural" food go pick berries and choke deer with your bare hands, don't go to a supermarket and commit the absurdity of asking them to supply such a thing, by rending the earth with metal, planting seeds of strains that have been artificially selected for millenia, harvesting with more metal, and transporting with combustion engines, then refrigerated, while stopping at an arbitrary technology level.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
jegarst
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 11:09:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I already challenged Lasagna to a debate about aspartame, see http://www.debate.org... , but Lasagna pleaded no contest, so I cancelled it.

John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 10:33:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 6:41:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
This is nonsensical. Instead of selling foods as-is or else having them qualify for "organic" status, we should keep foods completely natural and then companies who insist on adding unnatural additives should have to get approved for a special "unnatural" status and separated from our natural, wholesum foods. That is the logical way to handle this
How is it logical that normal consumers should have to bear the cost of your pseudoscientific hoodoo, instead of you?

Costs are not always monetary.
Rob
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2011 11:20:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/8/2011 10:33:00 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 10/6/2011 6:41:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
This is nonsensical. Instead of selling foods as-is or else having them qualify for "organic" status, we should keep foods completely natural and then companies who insist on adding unnatural additives should have to get approved for a special "unnatural" status and separated from our natural, wholesum foods. That is the logical way to handle this
How is it logical that normal consumers should have to bear the cost of your pseudoscientific hoodoo, instead of you?

Costs are not always monetary.

That's not even remotely an answer. I didn't say anything about the monetariness of these costs and it is irrelevant.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 2:48:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 11:09:48 PM, jegarst wrote:
I already challenged Lasagna to a debate about aspartame, see , but Lasagna pleaded no contest, so I cancelled it.

John E. Garst, Ph.D. (Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Nutrition)

Come on Lasagna!!!
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2011 11:20:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/17/2011 11:19:02 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I told him to change the resolution and he didn't. I would debate "on balance, it is unwise to consume aspartame."

Debate him anyways.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 7:30:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Um, anything can cause cancer. This is news?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%