PDA

View Full Version : Why rename Aspartame?


beautifulrock
02-14-2010, 07:07 AM
If it isn't harmful?

http://www.naturalnews.com/028151_aspartame_sweeteners.html


Aspartame has been renamed and is now being marketed as a natural sweetener



(NaturalNews) In response to growing awareness about the dangers of artificial sweeteners, what does the manufacturer of one of the world’s most notable artificial sweeteners do? Why, rename it and begin marketing it as natural, of course. This is precisely the strategy of Ajinomoto, maker of aspartame, which hopes to pull the wool over the eyes of the public with its rebranded version of aspartame, called “AminoSweet”.
Over 25 years ago, aspartame was first introduced into the European food supply. Today, it is an everyday component of most diet beverages, sugar-free desserts, and chewing gums in countries worldwide. But the tides have been turning as the general public is waking up to the truth about artificial sweeteners like aspartame and the harm they cause to health. The latest aspartame marketing scheme is a desperate effort to indoctrinate the public into accepting the chemical sweetener as natural and safe, despite evidence to the contrary.
Aspartame was an accidental discovery by James Schlatter, a chemist who had been trying to produce an anti-ulcer pharmaceutical drug for G.D. Searle & Company back in 1965. Upon mixing aspartic acid and phenylalanine, two naturally-occurring amino acids, he discovered that the new compound had a sweet taste. The company merely changed its FDA approval application from drug to food additive and, voila, aspartame was born.
G.D. Searle & Company first patented aspartame in 1970. An internal memo released in the same year urged company executives to work on getting the FDA into the “habit of saying yes” and of encouraging a “subconscious spirit of participation” in getting the chemical approved.
G.D. Searle & Company submitted its first petition to the FDA in 1973 and fought for years to gain FDA approval, submitting its own safety studies that many believed were inadequate and deceptive. Despite numerous objections, including one from its own scientists, the company was able to convince the FDA to approve aspartame for commercial use in a few products in 1974, igniting a blaze of controversy.
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.
Despite the myriad of evidence gained over the years showing that aspartame is a dangerous toxin, it has remained on the global market with the exception of a few countries that have banned it. In fact, it continued 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.
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.

PALEFORCE
02-14-2010, 10:08 AM
they did the samme thing to MSG

its a "natural flavor" or a "spice"

beautifulrock
02-14-2010, 10:33 AM
Since aspartame comes from two naturally occurring amino acids, they can say it's "natural"? Well, that will certainly broaden the definition some.

Krusha
02-14-2010, 11:28 AM
Chemicals have to sound good,so people will buy them....

LORD NOSE
02-14-2010, 12:22 PM
people got rocks sold to them as pets in the 70's

and i'm not talking about blow or crack either

beautifulrock
02-14-2010, 12:37 PM
I don't even get the significance of that statement. People knew they were buying rocks. Most people don't realize they're buying poison. Try to form a cogent analogy if you insist on infecting my threads with your idiotic bullshit. I just avoid yours.

check two
02-14-2010, 12:54 PM
Artificial sweetners are garbage and they taste like garbage also.

Stevia isn't allowed to be labeled as a food additive in the US and it's banned in some countries? Yet it's been used safely for thousands of years. The FDA becomes more and more of a joke as the days go by, if that's possible.

On a side note, I'd like to discuss sometime about the attack of the FDA against vitamins and supplements and also natural thyroid medications, such as Armour Thyroid.

beautifulrock
02-14-2010, 01:14 PM
I always had a natural revoltion to diet products. I took this as a natural sign they were bad for you. Diets only work if you exercise.