|
supra
computerEnthusiast
Registered: 10/26/03
Posts: 6,446
Loc: TEXAS
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
Life Upon Death said:
if people want it that bad even after all that then they have that right
so now you are the granter of other peoples rights? That is laughable....
Quote:
Life Upon Death said:
people should be told the facts and then be able to decide whats best for their country
thats what democracy is all about right?
So since YOU apparently know all the facts about it, as well as a few others here, nobody else is allowed to? I miss the point where the facts are so hidden and lies spewed about, yet you are so privy to the knowledge of the truth that nobody else knows.
peace
|
Life Upon Death
Stranger

Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 3,225
Last seen: 14 years, 24 days
|
|
I could drink anti-freeze if I Really wanted too
but I don't because I've learned early that its very dangerous and it comes with a warning right on the damn bottle
|
future primitive
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/09
Posts: 41
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
|
|
it's in FOOD for fucks sakes. it's HARDLY the same thing.
yes, I truly believe that if you want to eat rat poison, you should ! please do in fact. it shouldn't be in food though. food that is annoyingly and repetitively advertised as "good for you!!" xD give me a fucking break. people are easily fooled, yes. but this shit is just evil. if that's what you're into, fine. but just fucking ADMIT it.
|
Life Upon Death
Stranger

Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 3,225
Last seen: 14 years, 24 days
|
|
why do I even fucking bother
I posted a part of the hearing that took place over this
they found a WIDE range of abuses going on from that particular company
its now a fact that they doctored studies
the originals are available and grand mal seizures and even death in the monkeys tested
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
Quote:
future primitive said: it shouldn't be in food though.
If it's in food that lists aspartame as an ingredient so I have the option of choosing not to eat it if I don't want to eat aspartame, then companies should be allowed to sell it and I should be allowed to buy it. Anything other than this is a malicious restriction of my freedoms.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
 
|
Life Upon Death
Stranger

Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 3,225
Last seen: 14 years, 24 days
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: deCypher]
#11599430 - 12/06/09 09:21 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
future primitive said: it shouldn't be in food though.
If it's in food that lists aspartame as an ingredient so I have the option of choosing not to eat it if I don't want to eat aspartame, then companies should be allowed to sell it and I should be allowed to buy it. Anything other than this is a malicious restriction of my freedoms.
it needs a warning if its toxic
thats just common sense and its the standard for all other food/chemicals sold
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
Debatable but that's fine by me. I just don't support the outright banning of food that contains aspartame.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
 
|
elementswrath
Finger' trippin good



Registered: 08/04/09
Posts: 5,276
Loc: suiciety
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: deCypher]
#11599455 - 12/06/09 09:25 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
maybe they should make soda with a little baggie of aspartame on the side, so they can choose wither to put it in the pop or not.
|
future primitive
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/09
Posts: 41
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: deCypher]
#11599470 - 12/06/09 09:28 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Life Upon Death said: if people want it that bad even after all that then they have that right
I just don't think anyones gonna want it anymore if they have the facts
Agreed and agreed.
Quote:
Life Upon Death said: thats why I'd support the ban

A ban of aspartame may save lives but it also sacrifices our freedoms. I'll take liberty over a governmentally-enforced nanny state any day. Hell, why don't you also ban cars since millions of car accidents kill people every year? You'd be saving lives, right?
this is such a stretch it's ridiculous. you think that's the same thing? it's not.
it also has ZERO to do with personal freedom. you're all very confused.
don't think of it as rallying for the gov to ban something. look at it as a request to the people, or corporations rather (lol), that make the food, to simply NOT add these substances when making the food. basically, what they need to do is, when they get to the part where they add the msg or aspartame, to REFRAIN from it.
|
elementswrath
Finger' trippin good



Registered: 08/04/09
Posts: 5,276
Loc: suiciety
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: deCypher]
#11599507 - 12/06/09 09:34 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
i think the majority of the problem with the ingredients in our food it that they don't tell you it's bad for you. why not?
it sells easier, that's why. they aren't going to tell you on a can of pop that it causes all these illnesses or else it won't sell. the human mind loses attention for multiple little things quickly. i am not going to go research for the 46 ingredients of a bag of Doritos before i eat it, it's easier to do the easy way out and suffer for it later by eating it.
should all these bad chemical ingredients be banned? nope. it would be saying that drugs be banned for being bad for you.
we should have the freedom to consume to our hearts content, but we should not be lied to of what we consume. i believe we should have the right to know what is being put into out bodys and i am sure most of you agree.
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
It has everything to do with personal freedom. I have the right, if I want, to purchase food that contains aspartame in it. You have no right to prevent this.
Quote:
elementswrath said: we should have the freedom to consume to our hearts content, but we should not be lied to of what we consume.
Yes.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
 
|
Entropymancer

Registered: 07/16/05
Posts: 10,207
|
|
Quote:
future primitive said: it also has ZERO to do with personal freedom. you're all very confused.
It does though. You're saying you want to legislate what I can and cannot eat. Want to make my coffee and tobacco illegal while you're at it? (my tobacco is Swedish snus, which is regulated as a food product in its country of origin)
Quote:
look at it as a request to the people, or corporations rather (lol), that make the food, to simply NOT add these substances when making the food. basically, what they need to do is, when they get to the part where they add the msg or aspartame, to REFRAIN from it.
If people didn't prefer the flavor of products with MSG, they wouldn't.
This isn't an issue requiring legal referrendums. You make your voice heard with your purchases. If people didn't want aspartame and MSG, there'd be less products that contain them, because those products wouldn't be bought. You're free to purchase MSG-free foods. You're not free to prevent me from purchasing products containing MSG.
I'm sorry if you don't believe that people should be able to make their own decisions. That's just kind of a given in a society with civil liberties. You're free to move to a nation that doesn't respect civil rights if you have an objection to this basic principle.
|
nowwhoutthink
maybe im dreaming



Registered: 07/09/09
Posts: 6,048
Loc: 805 Saint Cloud Road Mars
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: Entropymancer]
#11599675 - 12/06/09 10:02 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
i smoked dehydrated apartame...im fucked up
--------------------
|
Epigallo
Stranger
Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 8,155
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: nowwhoutthink]
#11600308 - 12/06/09 11:55 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
1.) The situation is identical, you've simply depersonalized it.
See 3.
2.) As a chemistry major, I can generally pronounce all that gobbledygook.

3.) People don't depend on packaged foods. People choose to consume them. As long as people are choosing to consume the products, they should be free to make informed decisions or uninformed decisions about which to consume. That's their prerogative.
I think they do. I doubt that enough pure, additive free ingredients even make it to the end-consumers to feed the population. Not all areas have access to many pure ingredients. There are people without enough time to prepare their meals. Even if you can somehow argue that if there's a will there's a way, in reality people aren't going to analyze all scientific studies on any substance that makes it into food. It's impractical. People have lives.
o all those chemicals listed on the back of every package aren't conspicuous enough for you? 
Certainly not rare, and not really conspicuous. It doesn't draw attention to itself like what you described, and the average TV-dinner consumer couldn't tell you how many of these "conspicuous" ingredients they consumed.
And I fully support that they be required to label their food products as such. That's kind of implicit in allowing the consumer to make an informed decision (or not, as the consumer sees fit).
Not sure what you're getting at here, as restaurants don't label ingredients, but they are regulated by health departments, so... try again. Would you rather those 20 drops not be regulated by the local health department?
It's not. That's precisely the point. You have every right to examine the health safety data for food additives, and make your decision accordingly. You also have every right not to be aware of the data and make decisions out of ignorance.
The fact is, not everyone is going to agree with the FDA's decisions. Some may find the data inconclusive, or be more concerned about warning signs that were officially deemed insignificant. Forcing the FDA's (sometimes-biased) conclusions on the entire population by means of legal sanctions simply does not strike me as ethical.
Never said the FDA is perfect. But something is better than nothing. What "safety data" is there to even review when a new additive is introduced, if there is no certification process? Do you simply want the manufacturer's word? Wouldn't third party certification be more useful? Of course, if third party certification shows a substance is extremely harmful, it only seems logical to me to regulate it's use in food rather than try to warn everyone before it makes it onto millions of shelves.
Of course you don't. If you force your product on a customer, that's illegal (and a bit absurd... imagine if mcdonalds forced you to buy burgers!). But you do have the immutable right to enter into consensual agreements with your customers to whatever extent that it does not harm anyone besides the consenting parties.
I already brought up the issue of ubiquity and inescapability for the population as a whole from additives, and the fact that you can't possibly become familiar with the thousands of potential additives. Besides that, an extent of trust always exists between a business and its customers, which could be betrayed with a bad choice of additive. It's a dynamic industry and things can easily and insidiously "slip in". No, a label is not so conspicuous as to alert customers of potential changes in the product.
What business do you have banning him from doing so? I think a reasonable degree of regulation would be to require that any product containing an additive for which there's little or no data should be marked as such on the packaging. If people are aware they're consuming an untested material and choose to do so anyway, what's the problem? (Be careful how you answer, unless you believe RCs should be illegal as well)
I never said anything should be illegal and from the very start said that regulation in food and illegalization are entirely different issues. You can't add research chemicals to food, can you? But they aren't illegal.
The problem is of course the same as I've been arguing. People are not scientific about eating.
Fuck this thread.
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: Epigallo]
#11600324 - 12/06/09 11:58 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
People are not scientific about eating.
They have every right not to be. (at least they should, if we believe in freedom)
|
Epigallo
Stranger
Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 8,155
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: DieCommie]
#11600336 - 12/07/09 12:00 AM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Therefore, have a board review the science for them.
|
Epigallo
Stranger
Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 8,155
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: Epigallo]
#11600341 - 12/07/09 12:02 AM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
it's in FOOD for fucks sakes. it's HARDLY the same thing.
yes, I truly believe that if you want to eat rat poison, you should ! please do in fact. it shouldn't be in food though.
Right on.
|
nowwhoutthink
maybe im dreaming



Registered: 07/09/09
Posts: 6,048
Loc: 805 Saint Cloud Road Mars
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: Epigallo]
#11600363 - 12/07/09 12:06 AM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
im more worried about food being microwaved than that sweetner stuff. microwaves just seem unhealthy to me.
--------------------
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: Epigallo]
#11600365 - 12/07/09 12:07 AM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bradley said: Therefore, have a board review the science for them. 
Certainly a board should review it and make the conclusion available. But a free person has a right to ignore scientific findings and suggestion if they want. The last thing I want is some far off board deciding what I can and cannot eat, or how to live my life in anyway. That is my right, not theirs - and anybody who would take that away from me is an enemy of my freedom.
|
Entropymancer

Registered: 07/16/05
Posts: 10,207
|
Re: How on Earth is aspartame legal?? [Re: Epigallo]
#11600371 - 12/07/09 12:08 AM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
People are not scientific about eating.
So?
Sorry, but "Americans are too dumb to handle it" is not a valid justification for infringing on individual liberty.
I'm all for regulation through proper labeling. But once someone decides that certain specific food products should not be legal to sell (like aspartame-laced soda or MSG-laced salad dressing), then they're infringing on the liberty of the entire population and can go fuck themselves with rusty barbed wire.
|
|