Bevboard


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1
    <glitterfaerie> Guest

    Post

    there have been comments in a number of bevnet reviews of artificial sweetners being a "boring" change to beverages. i see it as an awesome if not essential revolutionary move. for example, take red bull. red bull (original) has 110 calories per serving, whereas the sugar-free version has only 10 calories per serving. what you call "not a big difference" only proves the point that flavor and texture are not altered, yet caloric value is improved. now dieters and eating disordered people can enjoy the drink! (the latter note was not made to be derogatory, i myself am eating disordered...heh)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    BANNED
    Posts
    38

    Post

    Yes, but some sweeteners to diet soda are dangerous. Take aspartame for example, they are in diet coke and diet pepsi. Drinking too much of it can give you serious problems, even death. However, the newbie sweetener, Splenda is not dangerous. It is found is Slim Jones and some other beverages. That is the only thing that's exciting, for now. (Red Bull sugarfree also has aspartame.)

    [ 02-11-2004, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: The Alternative Crow ]

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Boone, NC
    Posts
    9

    Post

    Sorry, but that aspartame remark is utter bull****. If aspartame killed people then why hasn't it gotten any mainstream mention. Why no warning label, no FDA push to remove it, no NOTHING. Do you know how much diet soda gets sold in the world every day? If aspartame did anything it wouldn't be hard to find case studies. Yet there is nothing.You've been taken in by an old urban legend. If you don't believe me just read through THIS entry at the Urban Legends Reference Pages.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 1999
    Location
    Watertown, MA
    Posts
    198

    Post

    Your urban legend link doesn't say that aspartame is not harmful.

    Furthermore, the information is not difficult to find. Do a search on Google for "aspartame toxicity" and you will find plenty of links to sites that contain legitimate scientific data....there are toxicity studies on just about any sweetener out there.

    Finally, the fact that there has been no "FDA push to remove it" means nothing...You can buy tons of things that are not good for you -- nicotine, caffeine, artificial colors and flavors, etc.

    Just because a product lacks an FDA warning/disclaimer doesn't mean that it's safe. Keep in mind that food products don't go through the same testing/trials that pharma products do...so the FDA certainly may later come back and remove a product from the shelves (ephedra and saccharine are good examples).
    The BevNET Staff

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Boone, NC
    Posts
    9

    Post

    Bring da' proof. Just bring da' proof.

    My link didn't say aspartame isn't harmful? It pretty much debunked the whole argument you're trying to make. And unlike you it provided sources. Good ones too, like FDA studies and TIME magazine articles.

    Also, I don't think that nicotine, caffeine, and artificial colors and flavors have been accused of causing cancer, brain tumors, and multiple sclerosis. "Not good for you" is a bit of an understatement for some of the stuff that's being said. The guy I'm replying to even threw "death" into the list of side effects.

    But you're no dummy are you? You chose your words too carefully. Toxicity? Medically speaking, a toxicity is the negative side effect that occurs when you have too darn much of somnething in your system. Like iron. Or vitamin C. Or saccharin (poor rats, may they rest in peace). Or aspartame, probably. Just for your reading enjoyment I have provided a link toTHIS article about fructose and the many ill effects it has on your health. That's what they sweeten your "regular" soft drinks with.

    I think the reason that some people will always distrust artificial sweeteners is that they give off that "too good to be true" vibe that we're all taught to be skeptical of. Tastes sweet with NO CALORIES? Why, it must be POISON!

    But hey, that's your perogative. I'll drink diet Coke and die, and you can drink Coca-Cola and live forever.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 1999
    Location
    Watertown, MA
    Posts
    198

    Post

    Originally posted by Thelonious Monkey:
    Bring da' proof. Just bring da' proof.
    I'm not trying to dispute either side of this argument or say that consuming aspartame is instant death. My point was that you give the FDA way too much credit on guaranteeing the effects of long term use of products such as aspartame. In addition, you referenced Snopes.com (a site known for dispelling post-9/11 terrorist threat rumors) and told someone that they had been taken by an "old urban legend"....this is hardly an old issue without any recent coverage (do a search on Google or Lexis/Nexis at your local library).

    Originally posted by Thelonious Monkey:
    I think the reason that some people will always distrust artificial sweeteners is that they give off that "too good to be true" vibe that we're all taught to be skeptical of. Tastes sweet with NO CALORIES? Why, it must be POISON!.
    You are on to something, but I see a slightly different side to this which is what concerns me: People that consume products with these sweeteners treat it with the other extreme, often consuming much larger quantities of these products now that the sugars/calories have been removed. Most people can tell you about that person they know who's drinking 6-10 diet Cokes (or Pepsis) per day. That's not good for you regardless of the sweetener.

    Personally, I'd rather have a product with cane sugar and without the sodium benzoate, phosphoric acid, and the other crap that you find in a can of coke....including the can.
    The BevNET Staff

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    1,160

    Post

    Besides the fact that Aspartame may be harmful to your health..... there is one very important fact you cannot deny. After only 20 weeks Aspartame loses 25% of its sweetness while in the same period of time Splenda keeps all 100%. Now can you please tell me why companies use this garbage when they could simply use Splenda. Most Energy companies just don't use the best and Splenda has been proven to be the best. So forget about it!!!
    Where there is smoke there is often fire!!! Go with Splenda!!!

  8. #8
    <Thelonious Monkey> Guest

    Post

    I've had a few drinks with Splenda (Diet Rite, Diet Cheerwine, Food Lion Diet Cola) and they all tasted kinda funky. I also tried making iced tea with it and it had a weird aftertaste too. Now, maybe it's just that I'm not used to it (it took me a while to warm up to aspartame) but Splenda ain't perfect. But, use it as you like. It's made with sugar, which is cool. I just wish they could even out the flavor a bit.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    11

    Post

    Whatever happened to listening to our taste buds and if it tastes bad, don't drink/eat it?

    The FDA is the last place I'd go to find out what is safe to put in my body. Is it really news that the FDA may not have the health of the American Public as its primary concern? The FDA has been successfully lobbied by Monsanto for years in order to keep stevia out of foods and beverages and to keep aspartame on the market. And now sucralose/Chlorinated sugar trademarked as Splenda? If stevia could be adulterated and trademarked, I'm sure a big mulitnational would be behind it.

    Monk may want to have a look at the new aspartame individual and class action suits that have been filed in CA
    http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/lawsuit/

  10. #10
    <animalism2> Guest

    Post

    I know it's quite popular - and who knows, sometimes quite true given some of current Bush debacles - to cite government conspiracies, corporate lobbying, etc. to backup arguments on the lack of safety of many food products. But I keep hoping someone will take a step back and not resort to such cliched arguments. As someone who has had a some experience with both the food industry and the FDA, let me point out a couple of things.

    First, companies don't lobby government agencies. Lobbying is a formal process by which groups can influence the legislature. The FDA is in the executive branch of the government and has nothing to gain or lose by changing policy for someone like Monsanto. The FDA's mandate is sent down from the Sec. of HHS and ultimately the president, if he chooses to become involved. There is no motivation for the FDA to maliciously undermine public health efforts and allow products that are harmful onto the market - in fact it's quite the opposite. The public nature of the process prevents such egregious acts from occurring for the most part. Certainly for something that has gone on for as long as the use of aspartame has. Which leads me to another important point: that the amount of documented, scientific, rigorous testing that food additives go through is very extensive and more importantly - expensive. Aspartame took 20-30 yrs. to make it to market after it was synthesized in the 1950s. Why would any company in their right mind invest such capital for a wildly unknown ROI unless it was a slam dunk? Lastly, some of the negative examples of things like Ephedra and saccharine are much longer stories that are hard to cover here. Ephedra was something the FDA faught hard against ever since the DSHEA act was passed. Congress lowered the standards for dietary supplements and hindered the FDA's ability to enforce their mission to protect the public's health. DSHEA was a poorly thought out law (unlike some opponents, i acknowledge that it had good intentions) and allowed such untested and dangerous products as ephedra to come in alongside Ginkgo Biloba and Ginseng. Saccharine's approval was the result of another special act of Congress to override the Delaney clause of the Food Additives ammendment to the FD&C. This happened because of - yes - successful lobbying. However, the FDA once again was set to enforce their policy protecting the public helath until congress stepped in.

    Government agencies are hugely unwieldy beareaucracies that obviously often run slowly and inefficiently. But the EPA, HUD, FDA, and all the rest are good organizaitons that are indeed doing important and powerful work to protect, educate, and improve the lives of all of us. That may have gotten a little corny there - but look into some of these issues yourself. But please, use reputable sources (newspapers, books, and government reports) and not hearsay from internet forums and random websites.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •