Re: Re: Aspartame NON-hoax...

[Guest guest]

Well, in the long run, I suspect it could gum up the works in anyone's body

and that people who take OK to it now, may less lucky than those who have a

bad reaction from the get-go. All we can do is offer folks the scientific

info and it's up to them whether they read or study it and make their

decisions based on it (as opposed to making decisions based on outfits who

either SELL nutrasweet or are funded by Monsanto who would naturally have a

bias toward it). There is a lot of info on nutrasweet and I guarantee

probably the ONLY reason it's still on the market is that Monsanto is afraid

of the lawsuits which would happen if they admitted it was unsafe. They

seem to be slowly replacing it with Splenda, a much safer alternative. And

aspartame is NOT LEGAL in many countries which should lead us to suspect

something is awry.

I don't think it's anything to have a knockdown-dragout about. Fighting is

not going to make the reality change one way or the other. Afterall,

millions of people still continue to smoke despite the many documented

dangers of that habit. People will make their own choices and this is

fine - it's their body, afterall.

Anyone interested in reading the scientific info on it can check:

http://healthread.net/aspartame.htm

Sue

Re: Aspartame hoax...

> We had a huge blown out drag out fight over this claim on another

> board a few years back. That board we had to post a rule of no urban

> legends or anything like this that could be " controversial " . The

> main issue, was that folks were telling this lady that it was all in

> her head and that got her really upset and just turned into a huge

> mess. I agree, some folks do have a severe reaction to it, but the

> majority of folks are fine with it.

>

>

> Anyone can have a food allergy, but that does not mean EVERYONE has

> that food allergy. That seems to be something some people don't

> understand. Nectarines cause my lips to itch, but that doesn't mean

> someone else can't enjoy a nectarine without itchy lips. You simply

> have to be aware of your body's reaction to things and police

> yourself, not others. Most of the problems people have with

> sensitivity to aspartame is probably due to food allergies.

[Guest guest]

Well, in the long run, I suspect it could gum up the works in anyone's body

and that people who take OK to it now, may less lucky than those who have a

bad reaction from the get-go. All we can do is offer folks the scientific

info and it's up to them whether they read or study it and make their

decisions based on it (as opposed to making decisions based on outfits who

either SELL nutrasweet or are funded by Monsanto who would naturally have a

bias toward it). There is a lot of info on nutrasweet and I guarantee

probably the ONLY reason it's still on the market is that Monsanto is afraid

of the lawsuits which would happen if they admitted it was unsafe. They

seem to be slowly replacing it with Splenda, a much safer alternative. And

aspartame is NOT LEGAL in many countries which should lead us to suspect

something is awry.

I don't think it's anything to have a knockdown-dragout about. Fighting is

not going to make the reality change one way or the other. Afterall,

millions of people still continue to smoke despite the many documented

dangers of that habit. People will make their own choices and this is

fine - it's their body, afterall.

Anyone interested in reading the scientific info on it can check:

http://healthread.net/aspartame.htm

Sue

Re: Aspartame hoax...

> We had a huge blown out drag out fight over this claim on another

> board a few years back. That board we had to post a rule of no urban

> legends or anything like this that could be " controversial " . The

> main issue, was that folks were telling this lady that it was all in

> her head and that got her really upset and just turned into a huge

> mess. I agree, some folks do have a severe reaction to it, but the

> majority of folks are fine with it.

>

>

> Anyone can have a food allergy, but that does not mean EVERYONE has

> that food allergy. That seems to be something some people don't

> understand. Nectarines cause my lips to itch, but that doesn't mean

> someone else can't enjoy a nectarine without itchy lips. You simply

> have to be aware of your body's reaction to things and police

> yourself, not others. Most of the problems people have with

> sensitivity to aspartame is probably due to food allergies.

[Guest guest]

Well, in the long run, I suspect it could gum up the works in anyone's body

and that people who take OK to it now, may less lucky than those who have a

bad reaction from the get-go. All we can do is offer folks the scientific

info and it's up to them whether they read or study it and make their

decisions based on it (as opposed to making decisions based on outfits who

either SELL nutrasweet or are funded by Monsanto who would naturally have a

bias toward it). There is a lot of info on nutrasweet and I guarantee

probably the ONLY reason it's still on the market is that Monsanto is afraid

of the lawsuits which would happen if they admitted it was unsafe. They

seem to be slowly replacing it with Splenda, a much safer alternative. And

aspartame is NOT LEGAL in many countries which should lead us to suspect

something is awry.

I don't think it's anything to have a knockdown-dragout about. Fighting is

not going to make the reality change one way or the other. Afterall,

millions of people still continue to smoke despite the many documented

dangers of that habit. People will make their own choices and this is

fine - it's their body, afterall.

Anyone interested in reading the scientific info on it can check:

http://healthread.net/aspartame.htm

Sue

Re: Aspartame hoax...

> We had a huge blown out drag out fight over this claim on another

> board a few years back. That board we had to post a rule of no urban

> legends or anything like this that could be " controversial " . The

> main issue, was that folks were telling this lady that it was all in

> her head and that got her really upset and just turned into a huge

> mess. I agree, some folks do have a severe reaction to it, but the

> majority of folks are fine with it.

>

>

> Anyone can have a food allergy, but that does not mean EVERYONE has

> that food allergy. That seems to be something some people don't

> understand. Nectarines cause my lips to itch, but that doesn't mean

> someone else can't enjoy a nectarine without itchy lips. You simply

> have to be aware of your body's reaction to things and police

> yourself, not others. Most of the problems people have with

> sensitivity to aspartame is probably due to food allergies.

[Guest guest]

I haven't been following this thread closely, but the continuing debate

made me curious. I searched

urbanlegends.com and came up with this:

http://www.urbanlegends.com/legends/Aspartame_Hoax.html

Also, a quick " google " search was unable to come up with any independent

references to problems

with Aspartame. The only things that came up were from this outfit

" National Justice League " or

references back to them. No independent news coverage - makes me quite

suspicious as to the

legitimacy of " National Justice League " and their claims.

Mitch

SueW wrote:

>Well, in the long run, I suspect it could gum up the works in anyone's body

>and that people who take OK to it now, may less lucky than those who have a

>bad reaction from the get-go. All we can do is offer folks the scientific

>info and it's up to them whether they read or study it and make their

>decisions based on it (as opposed to making decisions based on outfits who

>either SELL nutrasweet or are funded by Monsanto who would naturally have a

>bias toward it). There is a lot of info on nutrasweet and I guarantee

>probably the ONLY reason it's still on the market is that Monsanto is afraid

>of the lawsuits which would happen if they admitted it was unsafe. They

>seem to be slowly replacing it with Splenda, a much safer alternative. And

>aspartame is NOT LEGAL in many countries which should lead us to suspect

>something is awry.

>

>I don't think it's anything to have a knockdown-dragout about. Fighting is

>not going to make the reality change one way or the other. Afterall,

>millions of people still continue to smoke despite the many documented

>dangers of that habit. People will make their own choices and this is

>fine - it's their body, afterall.

>

>Anyone interested in reading the scientific info on it can check:

>

>http://healthread.net/aspartame.htm

>

>Sue

>

> Re: Aspartame hoax...

>

>

>

>

>>We had a huge blown out drag out fight over this claim on another

>>board a few years back. That board we had to post a rule of no urban

>>legends or anything like this that could be " controversial " . The

>>main issue, was that folks were telling this lady that it was all in

>>her head and that got her really upset and just turned into a huge

>>mess. I agree, some folks do have a severe reaction to it, but the

>>majority of folks are fine with it.

>>

>>

>>Anyone can have a food allergy, but that does not mean EVERYONE has

>>that food allergy. That seems to be something some people don't

>>understand. Nectarines cause my lips to itch, but that doesn't mean

>>someone else can't enjoy a nectarine without itchy lips. You simply

>>have to be aware of your body's reaction to things and police

>>yourself, not others. Most of the problems people have with

>>sensitivity to aspartame is probably due to food allergies.

>>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

One of the " independent claims " is myself - I researched it long before

Betty i appeared on the scene. There are some 10,000 complaints of

health problems resulting from aspartame consumption filed with the FDA. The

text file used to be downloadable (I think I still have it somewhere on

disk). One of the congresspersons in the 1980's amassed some pretty

condemning proofs of the risks of consuming aspartame. However, at some

point, he abruptly dropped his action with no explanation of why.

I had a correspondance with the fellow who wrote the " about.com " piece. I

presented my evidence - the three points I discussed here, gotten right FROM

the aspartame.com website. I further told him that discounting Betty

i wasn't a good tack because there were all kinds of physicians and

medical providers who had scientific reasons to feel that aspartame was a

neurotoxin. He could NOT refute my points. He finally said " well, I like to

drink diet pop and so I'm going to continue drinking it " . So that and not

any kind of science, is the bottom line on that website!

That's fine if he CHOOSES to take those chances with his body. Definitely

his right but to present a rebuttal which is nothing else but discounting

another individual on his website is misleading others who may WANT to know

the truth about it. As I said, people will continue smoking regardless of

the health problems with it but no one should mistake that smoking isn't

unhealthy. I shared this with him and never got an answer. Apparently he

has no qualms about sharing something on his website which he cannot prove

when confronted with facts.

With the latest evidence (and I've seen other studies) it becomes rather

clear that using ANY type of artificial sweetener may not be a good idea in

the schema of weight loss for the following reasons:

1. If you do NOT use artificial sweetener and restrict sugar, you will find

yourself losing your sweet tooth somewhat. This becomes handy if you are

confronted with cake or the like - it begins to not taste so good to you and

this makes it easier to stay within " points friendly " servings. Whereas if

you use the sweetener, you retain your taste for sugar because sweetener of

any kind IS - very sweet.

2. There are some studies which suggest that when we consume foods with

sweetener, our bodies begin to produce insulin in preparation for what it

thinks is sugar. When sugar is not forthcoming, it may leave a higher level

of insulin in the bloodstream and this alone can cause a slowing of weight

loss or even a gain. Insulin causes us to store fat more easily. This may

be, in fact, at least partially, the cause of the latest information that

any sweeteners can interfer with weight loss.

3. Higher levels of insulin in the bloodstream can cause sugar cravings.

Diabetics suffer this because they have high levels of insulin in the blood

stream and it can make trying to stay OP difficult. It can also cause

midline visceral fat which is the dangerous type of fat.

4. There really is no safe sweetener. Aspartame has been well discussed.

Splenda is a sugar molecule bound tightly with a molecule of chorine.

Trouble is, no one knows what the chorine once released in the body, may do.

Splenda caused cancer in the rat studies and the science committee in their

report to the FDA stated that " more study is needed " . But that " more study "

never happened. Saccarine has been linked with bladder cancer. It also can

cause eye problems like conjunctivitis. The only safe sweetener

(supposedly) is Stevia. Stevia is an herb which is very sweet but very few

calories. However, there have been no scientific studies on Stevia either.

The only thing it has going for it is, apparently it's been used in Japan

for 20 or 30 years with no side effects but this is far from a scientific

'go ahead'. Stevia is expensive also and not as sweet as the others so more

of it has to be used. It's generally not available in restaurants etc so one

has to go without or use one of the less safe sweeteners.

Ironically the safest sweetener is thought by many to be the one with

" cyclamates " which only caused cancer when used in elephant-sized

quantities - it's been pretty well proven that this being taken off the

market was an economic move and NOT a move for our health.

Sue

http://healthread.net/aspartame.htm

Re: Re: Aspartame NON-hoax...

> I haven't been following this thread closely, but the continuing debate

> made me curious. I searched

> urbanlegends.com and came up with this:

>

> http://www.urbanlegends.com/legends/Aspartame_Hoax.html

>

> Also, a quick " google " search was unable to come up with any independent

> references to problems

> with Aspartame. The only things that came up were from this outfit

> " National Justice League " or

> references back to them. No independent news coverage - makes me quite

> suspicious as to the

> legitimacy of " National Justice League " and their claims.

>

> Mitch

>

[Guest guest]

One of the " independent claims " is myself - I researched it long before

Betty i appeared on the scene. There are some 10,000 complaints of

health problems resulting from aspartame consumption filed with the FDA. The

text file used to be downloadable (I think I still have it somewhere on

disk). One of the congresspersons in the 1980's amassed some pretty

condemning proofs of the risks of consuming aspartame. However, at some

point, he abruptly dropped his action with no explanation of why.

I had a correspondance with the fellow who wrote the " about.com " piece. I

presented my evidence - the three points I discussed here, gotten right FROM

the aspartame.com website. I further told him that discounting Betty

i wasn't a good tack because there were all kinds of physicians and

medical providers who had scientific reasons to feel that aspartame was a

neurotoxin. He could NOT refute my points. He finally said " well, I like to

drink diet pop and so I'm going to continue drinking it " . So that and not

any kind of science, is the bottom line on that website!

That's fine if he CHOOSES to take those chances with his body. Definitely

his right but to present a rebuttal which is nothing else but discounting

another individual on his website is misleading others who may WANT to know

the truth about it. As I said, people will continue smoking regardless of

the health problems with it but no one should mistake that smoking isn't

unhealthy. I shared this with him and never got an answer. Apparently he

has no qualms about sharing something on his website which he cannot prove

when confronted with facts.

With the latest evidence (and I've seen other studies) it becomes rather

clear that using ANY type of artificial sweetener may not be a good idea in

the schema of weight loss for the following reasons:

1. If you do NOT use artificial sweetener and restrict sugar, you will find

yourself losing your sweet tooth somewhat. This becomes handy if you are

confronted with cake or the like - it begins to not taste so good to you and

this makes it easier to stay within " points friendly " servings. Whereas if

you use the sweetener, you retain your taste for sugar because sweetener of

any kind IS - very sweet.

2. There are some studies which suggest that when we consume foods with

sweetener, our bodies begin to produce insulin in preparation for what it

thinks is sugar. When sugar is not forthcoming, it may leave a higher level

of insulin in the bloodstream and this alone can cause a slowing of weight

loss or even a gain. Insulin causes us to store fat more easily. This may

be, in fact, at least partially, the cause of the latest information that

any sweeteners can interfer with weight loss.

3. Higher levels of insulin in the bloodstream can cause sugar cravings.

Diabetics suffer this because they have high levels of insulin in the blood

stream and it can make trying to stay OP difficult. It can also cause

midline visceral fat which is the dangerous type of fat.

4. There really is no safe sweetener. Aspartame has been well discussed.

Splenda is a sugar molecule bound tightly with a molecule of chorine.

Trouble is, no one knows what the chorine once released in the body, may do.

Splenda caused cancer in the rat studies and the science committee in their

report to the FDA stated that " more study is needed " . But that " more study "

never happened. Saccarine has been linked with bladder cancer. It also can

cause eye problems like conjunctivitis. The only safe sweetener

(supposedly) is Stevia. Stevia is an herb which is very sweet but very few

calories. However, there have been no scientific studies on Stevia either.

The only thing it has going for it is, apparently it's been used in Japan

for 20 or 30 years with no side effects but this is far from a scientific

'go ahead'. Stevia is expensive also and not as sweet as the others so more

of it has to be used. It's generally not available in restaurants etc so one

has to go without or use one of the less safe sweeteners.

Ironically the safest sweetener is thought by many to be the one with

" cyclamates " which only caused cancer when used in elephant-sized

quantities - it's been pretty well proven that this being taken off the

market was an economic move and NOT a move for our health.

Sue

http://healthread.net/aspartame.htm

Re: Re: Aspartame NON-hoax...

> I haven't been following this thread closely, but the continuing debate

> made me curious. I searched

> urbanlegends.com and came up with this:

>

> http://www.urbanlegends.com/legends/Aspartame_Hoax.html

>

> Also, a quick " google " search was unable to come up with any independent

> references to problems

> with Aspartame. The only things that came up were from this outfit

> " National Justice League " or

> references back to them. No independent news coverage - makes me quite

> suspicious as to the

> legitimacy of " National Justice League " and their claims.

>

> Mitch

>

[Guest guest]

One of the " independent claims " is myself - I researched it long before

Betty i appeared on the scene. There are some 10,000 complaints of

health problems resulting from aspartame consumption filed with the FDA. The

text file used to be downloadable (I think I still have it somewhere on

disk). One of the congresspersons in the 1980's amassed some pretty

condemning proofs of the risks of consuming aspartame. However, at some

point, he abruptly dropped his action with no explanation of why.

I had a correspondance with the fellow who wrote the " about.com " piece. I

presented my evidence - the three points I discussed here, gotten right FROM

the aspartame.com website. I further told him that discounting Betty

i wasn't a good tack because there were all kinds of physicians and

medical providers who had scientific reasons to feel that aspartame was a

neurotoxin. He could NOT refute my points. He finally said " well, I like to

drink diet pop and so I'm going to continue drinking it " . So that and not

any kind of science, is the bottom line on that website!

That's fine if he CHOOSES to take those chances with his body. Definitely

his right but to present a rebuttal which is nothing else but discounting

another individual on his website is misleading others who may WANT to know

the truth about it. As I said, people will continue smoking regardless of

the health problems with it but no one should mistake that smoking isn't

unhealthy. I shared this with him and never got an answer. Apparently he

has no qualms about sharing something on his website which he cannot prove

when confronted with facts.

With the latest evidence (and I've seen other studies) it becomes rather

clear that using ANY type of artificial sweetener may not be a good idea in

the schema of weight loss for the following reasons:

1. If you do NOT use artificial sweetener and restrict sugar, you will find

yourself losing your sweet tooth somewhat. This becomes handy if you are

confronted with cake or the like - it begins to not taste so good to you and

this makes it easier to stay within " points friendly " servings. Whereas if

you use the sweetener, you retain your taste for sugar because sweetener of

any kind IS - very sweet.

2. There are some studies which suggest that when we consume foods with

sweetener, our bodies begin to produce insulin in preparation for what it

thinks is sugar. When sugar is not forthcoming, it may leave a higher level

of insulin in the bloodstream and this alone can cause a slowing of weight

loss or even a gain. Insulin causes us to store fat more easily. This may

be, in fact, at least partially, the cause of the latest information that

any sweeteners can interfer with weight loss.

3. Higher levels of insulin in the bloodstream can cause sugar cravings.

Diabetics suffer this because they have high levels of insulin in the blood

stream and it can make trying to stay OP difficult. It can also cause

midline visceral fat which is the dangerous type of fat.

4. There really is no safe sweetener. Aspartame has been well discussed.

Splenda is a sugar molecule bound tightly with a molecule of chorine.

Trouble is, no one knows what the chorine once released in the body, may do.

Splenda caused cancer in the rat studies and the science committee in their

report to the FDA stated that " more study is needed " . But that " more study "

never happened. Saccarine has been linked with bladder cancer. It also can

cause eye problems like conjunctivitis. The only safe sweetener

(supposedly) is Stevia. Stevia is an herb which is very sweet but very few

calories. However, there have been no scientific studies on Stevia either.

The only thing it has going for it is, apparently it's been used in Japan

for 20 or 30 years with no side effects but this is far from a scientific

'go ahead'. Stevia is expensive also and not as sweet as the others so more

of it has to be used. It's generally not available in restaurants etc so one

has to go without or use one of the less safe sweeteners.

Ironically the safest sweetener is thought by many to be the one with

" cyclamates " which only caused cancer when used in elephant-sized

quantities - it's been pretty well proven that this being taken off the

market was an economic move and NOT a move for our health.

Sue

http://healthread.net/aspartame.htm

Re: Re: Aspartame NON-hoax...

> I haven't been following this thread closely, but the continuing debate

> made me curious. I searched

> urbanlegends.com and came up with this:

>

> http://www.urbanlegends.com/legends/Aspartame_Hoax.html

>

> Also, a quick " google " search was unable to come up with any independent

> references to problems

> with Aspartame. The only things that came up were from this outfit

> " National Justice League " or

> references back to them. No independent news coverage - makes me quite

> suspicious as to the

> legitimacy of " National Justice League " and their claims.

>

> Mitch

>

[Guest guest]

I've been listening to this thread with only a small amount of interest, but

I too must now say that it's getting old and is becoming somewhat contentious.

Any chance we could drop it?

Bette

[Guest guest]

I've been listening to this thread with only a small amount of interest, but

I too must now say that it's getting old and is becoming somewhat contentious.

Any chance we could drop it?

Bette

[Guest guest]

I've been listening to this thread with only a small amount of interest, but

I too must now say that it's getting old and is becoming somewhat contentious.

Any chance we could drop it?

Bette

[Guest guest]

<>One of the " independent claims " is myself - I researched it long before

Betty i appeared on the scene. There are some 10,000 complaints of

health problems resulting from aspartame consumption filed with the FDA. <>

OK, I'm going to be the crabby, difficult and confrontational one on the list,

but this thread is getting really annoying to me.

I originally started reading it out of interest in seeing both sides on the

issue. I am personally very middle of the road - I am cautious of giving my

children aspartame (or anything not 100% natural for that matter) but I am more

willing to take some chances with myself as I suffer no ill effects from

aspartame and I consume very little (maybe 1 diet Pepsi a few times a week and 1

yogurt daily).

ly, I can find as many articles and so-called " proof " for the safety of

aspartame as I can against. Stating 10,000 people have filed with the FDA

against aspartame isn't all that impressive considering that many, many more

than that have had serious problems with milk and peanuts, which are clearly not

dangerous to the vast majority of us. Yet the argument could (and in some

circles HAS) been made that if you consumed large quantities of milk or peanuts

over your lifetime the allergens in them could build up and suddenly " cause " a

reaction. OK, yeah maybe, but I'm going to take my chances and drink my milk

anyway.

I personally find the alliteration of my drinking a diet Pepsi on the same plain

as smoking a cigarette ludicrous and, frankly somewhat offensive.

I consider this a subject with the same volatile content as politics and

religion (and low-carb LOL!) and would love to see it end since everyone is not

going to agree anyway. I'm beginning to feel like the anti-aspartame school of

thought is being rammed down my throat every day when I check my email.

Thanks for listening to *my* opinion on the subject!

[Guest guest]

<>One of the " independent claims " is myself - I researched it long before

Betty i appeared on the scene. There are some 10,000 complaints of

health problems resulting from aspartame consumption filed with the FDA. <>

OK, I'm going to be the crabby, difficult and confrontational one on the list,

but this thread is getting really annoying to me.

I originally started reading it out of interest in seeing both sides on the

issue. I am personally very middle of the road - I am cautious of giving my

children aspartame (or anything not 100% natural for that matter) but I am more

willing to take some chances with myself as I suffer no ill effects from

aspartame and I consume very little (maybe 1 diet Pepsi a few times a week and 1

yogurt daily).

ly, I can find as many articles and so-called " proof " for the safety of

aspartame as I can against. Stating 10,000 people have filed with the FDA

against aspartame isn't all that impressive considering that many, many more

than that have had serious problems with milk and peanuts, which are clearly not

dangerous to the vast majority of us. Yet the argument could (and in some

circles HAS) been made that if you consumed large quantities of milk or peanuts

over your lifetime the allergens in them could build up and suddenly " cause " a

reaction. OK, yeah maybe, but I'm going to take my chances and drink my milk

anyway.

I personally find the alliteration of my drinking a diet Pepsi on the same plain

as smoking a cigarette ludicrous and, frankly somewhat offensive.

I consider this a subject with the same volatile content as politics and

religion (and low-carb LOL!) and would love to see it end since everyone is not

going to agree anyway. I'm beginning to feel like the anti-aspartame school of

thought is being rammed down my throat every day when I check my email.

Thanks for listening to *my* opinion on the subject!

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

>>>>Yet the argument could (and in some circles HAS) been made that if you

consumed large quantities of milk or peanuts over your lifetime the

allergens in them could build up and suddenly " cause " a reaction. OK, yeah

maybe, but I'm going to take my chances and drink my milk anyway.

> I personally find the alliteration of my drinking a diet Pepsi on the same

plain as smoking a cigarette ludicrous and, frankly somewhat offensive.

>

As I find comparing drinking milk to drinking diet pop, ludicrous when there

are NO good arguments against milk (Robt Cohen, the king anti milk person

couldn't come up with any arguments which were valid) and (to use your

words) somewhat offensive. I guess we are even now, aren't we?

>>> I consider this a subject with the same volatile content as politics and

religion (and low-carb LOL!) and would love to see it end since everyone is

not going to agree anyway. I'm beginning to feel like the anti-aspartame

school of thought is being rammed down my throat every day when I check my

email.<<<<

You can end it whenever you want. See the key with the word " delete " on it

on your computer? See a message with title which says " aspartame " in it?

Highlight the message, and press the delete key. Just like magic. All gone.

No need to silence anyone or suppress information. No need to even " crab "

at anyone. In a group which generates so many messages, nobody reads them

all. You read the ones which interest you. I can see you have lost interest

in this subject. Fine. But that doesn't mean that these messages might not

help someone else make their decisions. I have often wondered why so many

folks feel the need to silence someone's opinion when it differs from

theirs.

Personally, I quit drinking coke when I tried an experiment with my

grandkids. I put a penny in a glass of Pepsi. Within 3 minutes, the Pepsi

had eaten away all the tarnish and the penny looked like new. I'd heard it

would do this but had never seen it for myself. Somehow in seeing that I

really lost my desire to put that stuff in my body (diet OR regular) and

have not had a coke or pepsi since then (about 1995). My right. My

decision.

When I found out that the phosphates in pop eat away the enamal on people's

teeth (and I've had the problem) I quit pop altogether. My right. My

decision.

No one is pushing anything down anyone's throat. But someone who gives a

tip of good health to someone is doing something neighborly, I feel. It

will not hurt a person to give up a drink loaded with chemicals and might

actually, do them good. But of course, all choices should be respected.

> Thanks for listening to *my* opinion on the subject!

Thanks for listening to MY opinion on the subject. Enjoy your pepsi. It's

your body. Go for it.

Sue

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

>>>>Yet the argument could (and in some circles HAS) been made that if you

consumed large quantities of milk or peanuts over your lifetime the

allergens in them could build up and suddenly " cause " a reaction. OK, yeah

maybe, but I'm going to take my chances and drink my milk anyway.

> I personally find the alliteration of my drinking a diet Pepsi on the same

plain as smoking a cigarette ludicrous and, frankly somewhat offensive.

>

As I find comparing drinking milk to drinking diet pop, ludicrous when there

are NO good arguments against milk (Robt Cohen, the king anti milk person

couldn't come up with any arguments which were valid) and (to use your

words) somewhat offensive. I guess we are even now, aren't we?

>>> I consider this a subject with the same volatile content as politics and

religion (and low-carb LOL!) and would love to see it end since everyone is

not going to agree anyway. I'm beginning to feel like the anti-aspartame

school of thought is being rammed down my throat every day when I check my

email.<<<<

You can end it whenever you want. See the key with the word " delete " on it

on your computer? See a message with title which says " aspartame " in it?

Highlight the message, and press the delete key. Just like magic. All gone.

No need to silence anyone or suppress information. No need to even " crab "

at anyone. In a group which generates so many messages, nobody reads them

all. You read the ones which interest you. I can see you have lost interest

in this subject. Fine. But that doesn't mean that these messages might not

help someone else make their decisions. I have often wondered why so many

folks feel the need to silence someone's opinion when it differs from

theirs.

Personally, I quit drinking coke when I tried an experiment with my

grandkids. I put a penny in a glass of Pepsi. Within 3 minutes, the Pepsi

had eaten away all the tarnish and the penny looked like new. I'd heard it

would do this but had never seen it for myself. Somehow in seeing that I

really lost my desire to put that stuff in my body (diet OR regular) and

have not had a coke or pepsi since then (about 1995). My right. My

decision.

When I found out that the phosphates in pop eat away the enamal on people's

teeth (and I've had the problem) I quit pop altogether. My right. My

decision.

No one is pushing anything down anyone's throat. But someone who gives a

tip of good health to someone is doing something neighborly, I feel. It

will not hurt a person to give up a drink loaded with chemicals and might

actually, do them good. But of course, all choices should be respected.

> Thanks for listening to *my* opinion on the subject!

Thanks for listening to MY opinion on the subject. Enjoy your pepsi. It's

your body. Go for it.

Sue

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

>>>>Yet the argument could (and in some circles HAS) been made that if you

consumed large quantities of milk or peanuts over your lifetime the

allergens in them could build up and suddenly " cause " a reaction. OK, yeah

maybe, but I'm going to take my chances and drink my milk anyway.

> I personally find the alliteration of my drinking a diet Pepsi on the same

plain as smoking a cigarette ludicrous and, frankly somewhat offensive.

>

As I find comparing drinking milk to drinking diet pop, ludicrous when there

are NO good arguments against milk (Robt Cohen, the king anti milk person

couldn't come up with any arguments which were valid) and (to use your

words) somewhat offensive. I guess we are even now, aren't we?

>>> I consider this a subject with the same volatile content as politics and

religion (and low-carb LOL!) and would love to see it end since everyone is

not going to agree anyway. I'm beginning to feel like the anti-aspartame

school of thought is being rammed down my throat every day when I check my

email.<<<<

You can end it whenever you want. See the key with the word " delete " on it

on your computer? See a message with title which says " aspartame " in it?

Highlight the message, and press the delete key. Just like magic. All gone.

No need to silence anyone or suppress information. No need to even " crab "

at anyone. In a group which generates so many messages, nobody reads them

all. You read the ones which interest you. I can see you have lost interest

in this subject. Fine. But that doesn't mean that these messages might not

help someone else make their decisions. I have often wondered why so many

folks feel the need to silence someone's opinion when it differs from

theirs.

Personally, I quit drinking coke when I tried an experiment with my

grandkids. I put a penny in a glass of Pepsi. Within 3 minutes, the Pepsi

had eaten away all the tarnish and the penny looked like new. I'd heard it

would do this but had never seen it for myself. Somehow in seeing that I

really lost my desire to put that stuff in my body (diet OR regular) and

have not had a coke or pepsi since then (about 1995). My right. My

decision.

When I found out that the phosphates in pop eat away the enamal on people's

teeth (and I've had the problem) I quit pop altogether. My right. My

decision.

No one is pushing anything down anyone's throat. But someone who gives a

tip of good health to someone is doing something neighborly, I feel. It

will not hurt a person to give up a drink loaded with chemicals and might

actually, do them good. But of course, all choices should be respected.

> Thanks for listening to *my* opinion on the subject!

Thanks for listening to MY opinion on the subject. Enjoy your pepsi. It's

your body. Go for it.

Sue

[Guest guest]

Okay.....I think all sides have been fairly covered on the Aspartame issue now,

so as list owner, I will step up to the plate and ask that, because all sides

have been fairly covered, that we stop discussion on the topic and move forward.

Thanks,

Listmom Lyn

[Guest guest]

Okay.....I think all sides have been fairly covered on the Aspartame issue now,

so as list owner, I will step up to the plate and ask that, because all sides

have been fairly covered, that we stop discussion on the topic and move forward.

Thanks,

Listmom Lyn

[Guest guest]

Okay.....I think all sides have been fairly covered on the Aspartame issue now,

so as list owner, I will step up to the plate and ask that, because all sides

have been fairly covered, that we stop discussion on the topic and move forward.

Thanks,

Listmom Lyn

[Guest guest]

<>Okay.....I think all sides have been fairly covered on the Aspartame issue

now, so as list owner, I will step up to the plate and ask that, because all

sides have been fairly covered, that we stop discussion on the topic and move

forward.<>

Thank you.