41 votes

Persistence Paid Off!

My ninth submission of Aspartame article published - sharing with you all here:

http://democratherald.com/news/opinion/mailbag-aspartame-and...

Peace and Love first.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I will be submitting comments to the FDA

via mail service as they request in said petition...I would hope all DP'ers will do the same...I am not a certified expert on Toxicology but I have the determination and ability to learn and research and my children are worth more than my lethargy and turned cheek...this is how we wake up, we exhaust our minds in order to nurture them...we exhaust our hearts in order to humble them.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

Read the petition yourselves...

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-038...

Partial:

"The IDFA and NMPF jointly submitted a citizen petition (Ref. 1) on March 16, 2009, requesting that FDA amend the standard of identity in part 131 (21 CFR part 131) for milk (§ 131.110). Specifically, the petition requests that FDA amend § 131.110(c)(2) to allow the use of “any safe and suitable” sweetener in optional characterizing flavoring ingredients used in milk. [1] The petition also requests that FDA similarly amend the standards of identity for 17 other milk and cream products. Those standards (hereinafter referred to as the “additional dairy standards”) are as follows: Acidified milk (§ 131.111), cultured milk (§ 131.112), sweetened condensed milk (§ 131.120), nonfat dry milk (§ 131.125), nonfat dry milk fortified with vitamins A and D (§ 131.127), evaporated milk (§ 131.130), dry cream (§ 131.149), heavy cream (§ 131.150), light cream (§ 131.155), light whipping cream (§ 131.157), sour cream (§ 131.160), acidified sour cream (§ 131.162), eggnog (§ 131.170), half-and-half (§ 131.180), yogurt (§ 131.200), lowfat yogurt (§ 131.203), and nonfat yogurt (§ 131.206). The petition asks that the standards of identity for these products be amended to provide for the use of any safe and suitable sweetener in the optional ingredients. [2]
Show citation box
IDFA and NMPF request their proposed amendments to the milk standard of identity to allow optional characterizing flavoring ingredients used in milk (e.g., chocolate flavoring added to milk) to be sweetened with any safe and suitable sweetener—including non-nutritive sweeteners such as aspartame. IDFA and NMPF state that the proposed amendments would promote more healthful eating practices and reduce childhood obesity by providing for lower-calorie flavored milk products. They state that lower-calorie flavored milk would particularly benefit school children who, according to IDFA and NMPF, are more inclined to drink flavored milk than unflavored milk at school. As further support for the petition, IDFA and NMPF state that the proposed amendments would assist in meeting several initiatives aimed at improving the nutrition and health profile of food served in the nation's schools. Those initiatives include state-level programs designed to limit the quantity of sugar served to children during the school day. Finally, IDFA and NMPF argue that the proposed amendments to the milk standard of identity would promote honesty and fair dealing in the marketplace and are therefore appropriate under section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 341).

The petition acknowledges that the use of non-nutritive sweeteners in optional characterizing flavoring ingredients in milk is allowed under the existing regulatory scheme, with certain additional requirements. The regulatory framework governing the naming of standardized foods that do not fully comply with the relevant standards of identity changed with the passage of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 and FDA's rulemaking establishing the Agency's requirements for foods named by use of a nutrient content claim and a standardized term (§ 130.10 (21 CFR 130.10)). Section 130.10(d) allows the addition of safe and suitable ingredients to a food named by use of a nutrient content claim and a standardized term when these ingredients are used to, among other things, add sweetness to ensure that the modified food is not inferior in performance characteristic to the standardized food even if such ingredients are not specifically provided for by the relevant food standard. Therefore, while the milk standard of identity in § 131.110 only provides for the use of “nutritive sweetener” in an optional characterizing flavor, milk may contain a characterizing flavor that is sweetened with a non-nutritive sweetener if the food's label bears a nutrient content claim (e.g., “reduced calorie”) and the non-nutritive sweetener is used to add sweetness to the product so that it is not inferior in its sweetness property compared to its standardized counterpart. However, IDFA and NMPF argue that nutrient content claims such as “reduced calorie” are not attractive to children, and maintain that consumers can more easily identify the overall nutritional value of milk products that are flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners if the labels do not include such claims. Further, the petitioners assert that consumers do not recognize milk—including flavored milk—as necessarily containing sugar. Accordingly, the petitioners state that milk flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners should be labeled as milk without further claims so that consumers can “more easily identify its overall nutritional value.”

As to the additional dairy standards, IDFA and NMPF state that administrative efficiency counsels in favor of similar changes. As long as FDA is dedicating resources to amending the standard of identity for milk, they argue, the Agency should also amend the standards for these products at the same time. They state that it is most efficient to consider all of the proposals together. According to the petition, the requested changes to the additional dairy standards present the same issues as the milk standard, and it is therefore appropriate to consider all of the requested changes together."

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

Klinker, please clarify.

I don't have time at the moment to try to decipher your agenda.

It appears you are an advocate for this poison. Which blows my mind. You are attacking cited sources which show that aspartame is toxic and dangerous to our health. Therefore you are pro aspartame.

Is that right? If so, why?

And may I suggest an improvement to your writing skills? State your agenda, instead of watering your message down or omitting your "message" or otherwise hiding what you are trying to say. People don't have time to try to decipher your muddled thoughts.

If you are claiming aspartame isn't as bad as its opponents say it is, then come on out and say it and attempt to prove it in laymen's terms and don't try to talk over everybody's heads with your scientific jargon. Stop being lukewarm and stand for something!

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

I had posted one of the responses to my letter

...the post that contained all the scientific jargon...not my view, but someone's elses...

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

An advocate for this poison?

Did you read my letter to the editor? How could you possibly decipher that I'm pro-Aspartame...most definitely not.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

My apologies.

I gave it 5 minutes of my time but couldn't tell what side you were on. Seems like you were anti aspartame, then you were slamming somebody that was anti aspartame and ridiculing their quoted research, then I went back and re-read the link above and couldn't find any definitive opinion.

So I'm glad that you are anti-aspartame, since you did post here at the DP.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

"Claims of safety concerns with aspartame are ridiculous".

How can this statement be credible? Millions of people, a multitide of professionals, a plethora of opposition and claims of safety concerns are ridiculous...no, this statement is ridiculous and not appropriate to address the conditions begat by those who have eliminated Aspartame from their diets only to see their health improve...PhD?...

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

Democrat Herald response to my article...

Liberty, you are incorrect as are each and every website you provide. Claims of safety concerns with aspartame are ridiculous. It is the most tested substance in history; the furans from corn are more threatening. And actually any sensitivity to aspartame probably involves a preexisting personal issue such as a nutritional inadequacy. I will explain both starting with the perception by some that aspartame is toxic.

The fundamentals of toxicology (science of poisons) say that “everything is toxic.” This fundamental tenet of toxicology was established by Paracelsus in the 1500’s (Wikipedia: Paracelsus). But everything about toxicology is dose; the words ‘toxic’ or ‘poison’ mean nothing without a specific dose for the substance. The words 'toxic' or 'poison' are used when the doses required for effect are very low and thus exposure represents a hazard. But dose alone also separates a 'poison' from a food/drug. For example botulinum toxin (Botox), which is the perhaps the most toxic substance known (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulinum_toxin), is also used extensively in cosmetic procedures. Highly toxic cyanide is found in plant products we all consume; however, cyanide at those doses is readily detoxified by a cyanide-specific enzyme, rhodanese, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodanese. In contrast ‘low-toxicity’ water drowns hundreds of people yearly, but water isn't considered 'toxic' or a 'poison'. This principle of toxicology is as established as the concepts that the world rotates about the sun and that the world is basically spherical; these are not up for debate.

Again everything is toxic--that includes aspartame and all its three decomposition products, aspartate, phenylalanine, and methanol. Where the aspartame critics fail to understand and then mislead the reader is that dose is paramount to effect. That includes 99% of aspartame critics. Aspartame critics cannot now do this and never could! They believe there is no safe dose and this very outlandish claim is part of the reason why they cannot get any regulatory agency to even listen to their long-failed arguments. Realize, just this year--2013--the European Food Safety Authority again validated the safety of aspartame as have 90+ governmental regulatory agencies throughout the relevant world.

Now concerning aspartame itself, here are facts people fail to understand. To reiterate the point that these substances pose little risk at the doses involved, note that formate and formaldehyde are [quoting another] “produced in the body during the endogenous demethylation of many compounds, including many foods [fruit juices] and drugs. For example, the demethylation of the caffeine found in one cup of coffee produces 30 mg of formaldehyde (Imbus, 1988). Formaldehyde is essential in one-carbon pool intermediary metabolism. The metabolite of formaldehyde, formic acid, is a substrate for purine nucleotide synthesis (Sheehan and Tully, 1983). It can be calculated that more than 50,000 mg [that's 50 g] of formaldehyde is produced and metabolized in an adult human body daily and that an adult human liver will metabolize 22 mg of formaldehyde per minute (Clary and Sullivan, 1999). Consequently, it is quite clear that the formaldehyde from aspartame provides a trivial contribution to total formaldehyde exposure and metabolism in the body” (p 18 in and refs from http://www.fte.ugent.be/vlaz/Magnuson2007.pdf).

So the facts suggest clearly that any sensitivity issues with aspartame are PERSONAL issues; ALL can be explained by PERSONAL matters affecting metabolism of formaldehyde/formate like folate deficiency and corollary issues (both known and some likely yet unknown) like often genetic folate enzyme issues (polymorphisms, Wikipedia: methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase), B12 deficiency (often vegetarian-related), (genetic) methionine synthase enzyme issues, and/or (genetic) homocysteine accrual.

Moreover, the folate system is not independent; folate, B12, and homocysteine are all functionally interrelated (Wikipedia: the metabolism of folic acid under Vitamin_B12). All contribute to not just the normal, natural recycling of otherwise essential formaldehyde and formate produced from methanol into methyl groups, but the availability of these methyl groups to regulate vital-to-life (DNA) itself. Ethanol (through its antagonist metabolite acetaldehyde) is also known inhibitor of these vital folate reactions. So in these borderline cases of aspartame sensitivity, alcohol consumption may be a prime factor explaining any increased sensitivity to aspartame as well. Realize ethanol, not methanol, is the cause of fetal alcohol syndrome, and ethanol is a documented factor in facilitating many cancer types, for example these scientific papers http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22218157, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16508294, and this popular press article http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57569649/alcohol-causes-....

Critics suggest aspartame causes about every ill effect known to man claiming some 92+ symptoms for aspartame. Analysis of these, however, directly links all of these issues to the above described personal issues. Consider aspartame’s most widely reported issue, migraine headaches. In what I have written above I note that various folate, B12 and related issues better explain problems with aspartame. In this case that is even more likely because migraines have been linked directly to the MTHFR C677T folate polymorphism (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19619240 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19384265). Both papers report complete resolution of these migraines with added folate alone. These investigations revealed that more than the normal daily recommended amounts are needed (2-5 mg), but in these papers increased folate doses ALONE solved the migraine problem [and aspartame was not even involved]. That alone suggests a human sub-population that is even more deficient in folate for which resolution of their symptoms requires even more folate. This year’s Norwegian autism study, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23403681, only confirms the current importance of the deficiency issue, but those results may also reflect the fact that most of Europe still has not mandated folate fortification. But this isn't particularly surprising both in view of methanol's requirement for folate for metabolism, but also because folate uptake into brain has been linked to childhood autism, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23314536.

One of the aspartame critic's latest inventions is autism; they have spread this nonsense all over the web (Google ‘aspartame autism’ to see some of these claims). But a recent finding from Norway reported in JAMA found that autism incidence there is markedly reduced by folate, http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1570279. That discovery only further documents my argument.

In summary each alleged symptom for aspartame can also be explained similarly by the issues discussed above and all are personal issues, not safety issues with aspartame itself.

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

The most contested chemical additive in history...I'll scrutinize all the more simply based on this fact.

Peace and Love first.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

Entire article...

On Feb. 25, an article was posted at NaturalNews.com regarding the dairy industry’s petitioning of the FDA to approve aspartame as a hidden, unlabeled additive in milk, yogurt, eggnog and cream products. The International Dairy Foods Association and the National Milk Producers Federation have filed such a petition asking the FDA to alter the definition of “milk” to secretly include chemical sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose. More importantly, none of these additives need to be listed on the label as they will be buried within the altered definition of “milk” if said petition is upheld.

Aspartame is comprised of aspartic acid, phenylalanine and methyl ester (wood alcohol). As aspartame enters the small intestine, methanol is released and absorbed into the body. Methanol is then metabolized into formaldehyde (embalming fluid) and to formic acid (normally found in the sting of red ants). Due to its low excretion rate, the EPA considers methanol a cumulative poison.

It is recommended that the consumption of methanol be limited to 7.8 milligrams per day. One serving (8 ounces) of a diet beverage contains as much as 14 milligrams. Symptoms of methanol toxicity include vision problems, headaches, dizziness, nausea, gastrointestinal disorders, weakness, behavioral changes and memory loss.

Aspartame was discovered in the mid-1960s by GD Searle, a Chicago drug company. It is also known as, by or under the names Nutrasweet, Equal, Acesulfame Potassium and Aminosweet and is an artificial sweetener/chemical additive.

Originally approved in 1974, concerns over deficiencies and inconsistencies in GD Searle tests halted the marketing of aspartame in dry foods until 1981, despite it being the most contested chemical additive in FDA history due to causation of brain cancer in lab animals. In 1980 the Public Board of Inquiry voted unanimously to reject the use of aspartame until additional studies could be conducted on its ability to cause potential brain tumors.

Justin Klinkebiel

Jefferson (March 14)

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

Has anybody thought why...

Has anybody thought why they want to put aspartame in the milk products? I don't know but, could it possibly be so they could sell and include bad or spoiled milk products and the sweetener would hide the taste? Kinda like the pink slime additive that was put in meat? It has to be about making more money somehow. What do you think ?????

RickStone

You've got someone challenging your post there

I bring this to your attention because their comment on your post there smells of BS from point 1 to point 5, claiming NaturalNews isn't credible when at least they, unlike the commenter, cite their sources.

The most concerning of their points however is that they seem to believe aspartame is 100% safe. They're apparently unaware that clinical studies are linking aspartame to cancer.

So yeah, correct the person's misguided knowledge. Wake them up.

They have been informed...hopefully...

here is my reply to their reply:

Documentary on Aspartame:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/sweet-misery-a-poisoned-world/

The 92 different health side effects associated with Aspartame:
http://www.sweetpoison.com/aspartame-side-effects.html

Aspartame studies:
http://aspartame.mercola.com/sites/aspartame/studies.aspx

History of Aspartame:
http://www.wnho.net/history_of_aspartame.htm

Full CDC investigation on Aspartame (text):
http://www.dorway.com/cdctext.txt

I appreciate your input but much of what you state is factually incorrect. If you wish to continue consuming products that contain Aspartame that is your choice. I am simply trying to educate people in order to alert them to possible connections between their own health ailments and the very products they ingest. Please research the links I've provided and I hope you come to the conclusion that just because something has been in the food supply for decades doesn't make it safe or even viable in promoting health benefits. Propylene Glycol, Propyl and Methyl Parabens, Sodium Benzoate, EDTA, Red 40, Petroletum, Fragrance, etc are all linked and have been shown to cause health related conditions even to the ends of cancer...and they are in a vast majority of foods, cosmetics, toiletries and drinks, even baby products like Pedialyte...please spend time on this vital subject so you can cite sources before making accusation of my falsities in providing my own. Peace to you and you family.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

to late for one.

A friend of mine claims his wife was killed by Aspartame in soda.She was a 12 bottle a day diet soda drinker.Started having neurological problems then Lupus.Drank till she died.Age 48

Congrats

Now start bugging them about something else. Ha.

Oh my journey has only begun...

Parabens are next!!!

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

+ 1

That's the spirit!

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

egapele's picture

Excellent

Great letter - good for you!!

Congratulations but I think you should repost the entire

article here for the simple reason that democratherald.com may delete your article or the entire page itself at a later day.

On Feb. 25, an article was

On Feb. 25, an article was posted at NaturalNews.com regarding the dairy industry’s petitioning of the FDA to approve aspartame as a hidden, unlabeled additive in milk, yogurt, eggnog and cream products. The International Dairy Foods Association and the National Milk Producers Federation have filed such a petition asking the FDA to alter the definition of “milk” to secretly include chemical sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose. More importantly, none of these additives need to be listed on the label as they will be buried within the altered definition of “milk” if said petition is upheld.
Aspartame is comprised of aspartic acid, phenylalanine and methyl ester (wood alcohol). As aspartame enters the small intestine, methanol is released and absorbed into the body. Methanol is then metabolized into formaldehyde (embalming fluid) and to formic acid (normally found in the sting of red ants). Due to its low excretion rate, the EPA considers methanol a cumulative poison.
It is recommended that the consumption of methanol be limited to 7.8 milligrams per day. One serving (8 ounces) of a diet beverage contains as much as 14 milligrams. Symptoms of methanol toxicity include vision problems, headaches, dizziness, nausea, gastrointestinal disorders, weakness, behavioral changes and memory loss.
Aspartame was discovered in the mid-1960s by GD Searle, a Chicago drug company. It is also known as, by or under the names Nutrasweet, Equal, Acesulfame Potassium and Aminosweet and is an artificial sweetener/chemical additive.
Originally approved in 1974, concerns over deficiencies and inconsistencies in GD Searle tests halted the marketing of aspartame in dry foods until 1981, despite it being the most contested chemical additive in FDA history due to causation of brain cancer in lab animals. In 1980 the Public Board of Inquiry voted unanimously to reject the use of aspartame until additional studies could be conducted on its ability to cause potential brain tumors.
Justin Klinkebiel
Jefferson (March 14)

LOL - thanks for your help but the purpose

of my telling the OP to do it, as opposed to doing it myself stems from Michael Nystrom's rules & guidelines, but more specifically, the legal troubles he's had to deal with in the past:
http://www.dailypaul.com/143700/daily-paul-michael-nystrom-s...

When it comes to legality, simply implying that it was okay to post the OP's original content won't cut it. So I advise you to delete/edit your reply.

I appreciate the concern but,

my article isn't copyrighted by myself nor do I deem it inappropriate for others to utilize it in order to educate others...my letters are not mine alone...they come with every implication that the very words I submit may indeed save a life, if only one...share and re-post, print and re-word...peace.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

No, I didn't think you'd mind either, but it has to do with the

legality of things. Anything that's published without permission, and subsequently "copied and pasted" word for word, is a delicate matter:

"Did you know that whenever you write a poem or story or even a paper for your class, or a drawing or other artwork, you automatically own the copyright to it. What that means is that, as the author of the work, YOU ALONE have the right to do any of the following or to let others do any of the following:
make copies of your work;
distribute copies of your work;
display your work publicly;"

http://www.copyrightkids.org/copyrightbasics.html

"The scope of the law is broad. It generally protects any expression recorded in any tangible form, published or unpublished, in any medium, with some exceptions noted below. The protection is automatic. A copyright notice is not necessary, but its presence is an emphatic assurance that the author intends the work to be fully protected. Unpublished works are copyrighted as well, regardless of the date of their creation."
http://www2.honolulu.hawaii.edu/facdev/guidebk/policies/copy...

Bottom line is that for legal purposes YOU, or YOUR explicit consent had to be given. Your reply has taken care of that. Peace to you as well.

I appreciate the concern but,

my article isn't copyrighted by myself nor do I deem it inappropriate for others to utilize it in order to educate others...my letters are not mine alone...they come with every implication that the very words I submit may indeed save a life, if only one...share and re-post, print and re-word...peace.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

Excellent. To paraphrase

Excellent. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, Keep doing with the pen what others do with the sword.

bump

for persistence.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Yikes!

I didn't know that. Thanks, for sharing this.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.