Just How Bad is Aspartame?

Tom Philpott
Grist
© healingdaily.com 

When I wrote about diet soda and and its health effects last week, I didn’t expect much of a reaction. I guess in the back of my mind, I was thinking, people still drink that stuff?

Well, they do – by the bucketful. Overall, U.S. soda consumption is declining slowly, but Americans still drink more soda than than anyone else on the planet, by a wide margin. According to one reckoning, the average American drinks 736 “eight-ounce servings” each year (though “eight-ounce serving” seems like a quaint notion in the age of the Big Gulp). I can’t find good figures on how much of that gusher is diet soda, but apparently it’s a lot. According to AdBrands.net, four of the top 10 leading U.S. soda brands are diet versions of big names like Coke and Pepsi.

It’s no wonder, either. This is an industry with upwards of $70 billion in annual U.S. sales, and a significant portion of those proceeds get invested in marketing. As anxiety about the health effects of consuming huge amounts high-calorie sweeteners ramps up, the industry peddles diet drinks as the benign alternative. In a culture as fixated on body image as it is on cheap-and-easy food, the lure of calorie-free cola – all of the addictive qualities and caffeine jolt of regular soda, none of the guilt! – is powerful indeed. (I didn’t even get into the twisted gender/body-image politics of Pepsi’s “skinny can” in my earlier piece.)

Full article

.

Are you aware of the newest dangerous sweetener to hit your food shelves? The manufacturer assures you this is safe – while adding in a substance from the EPA’s most hazardous chemicals list… one that’s highly flammable and is a skin, eye & respiratory irritant needing special handling. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/02/08/neotame-receives-fda-approval-but-is-not-widely-used-yet.aspx

 

Neotame, an artificial sweetener derived from aspartame, appears to be more dangerous than the latter because it contains a flammable eye and skin irritant.
.

FDA Approves Depressant Drug For The Annoyingly Cheerful

.

.

German TV exposes the horrors of toxic GM soy

Thursday, February 17, 2011 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Widespread environmental pollution; poisoning and contamination of agriculture; countless injuries, deformities, and deaths in humans — these and many other horrific events are a result of cultivating genetically-modified (GM) crops, and GM soy in particular. A recent news documentary short that aired on German television exposes the massive destruction being caused by GM soy cultivation, and warns consumers that the food chain is more loaded with GM materials than they might think. 

In Germany and throughout the European Union (EU), food products that contain GMOs must be properly labeled as such. As a result, there are few GM products on store shelves because, when made aware of their presence, consumers almost unanimously reject them. But what many people fail to realize, both in Europe and in the U.S., is that conventional livestock is often fed GM soy and corn, which ultimately ends up on store shelves in the form of conventional meat, milk, and eggs.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031382_GM_soy_GMOs.html#ixzz1ETULVB00

.

Is the U.S. Bullying Other Nations into Geoengineering/Chemtrail Spraying?

Posted by Greg Scott Chemtrails, _Featured_ Monday, February 7th, 2011

Planet EarthThe U.S. thwarted the UN ban on geoengineering because profits are more important than life on this planet. 

According to a cable released by Wikileaks, the former United States ambassador to France recommended “moving to retaliation” against France in late 2007 to fight a French ban on Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) corn. Former Ambassador Craig Stapleton (now co-owner of the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team), who was concerned about France’s decision to suspend cultivation of Monsanto’s MON-810 corn, wrote the following to diplomatic colleagues:  “Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits.”

In late October, 2010, many chemtrail/geoenginnering activists applauded the announcement of a UN ban on Geoengineering.  More than 190 nations agreed to ban geoengineering under a United Nations treaty to protect the diversity of life on Earth. The ban stipulated that “no climate-related geoengineering activities that may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts.”

However, there was one big problem: the United States was not one of the signatory countries. In the video below, Sonia of “The Truther Girls” pointed out that the ban was most likely useless without U.S. agreement: “The U.S., when it comes to New World Order, and unfortunately the destruction of our environment, is among those leading the charge.”  Sonia also provided a detailed analysis of the document that apparently was drafted by the U.S. in response to the ban.  She concludes: “It looks to me like the U.S. is trying to think of a way to get the rest of the world on board with the geoengineering program – not to stop it.”

Sure enough, less than six weeks later, the following headline from the Activist Post hit the net: “UN Climate Concern Morphs into Chemtrail Glee Club.” The accompanying article details the events at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Cancun, Mexico: “In Cancun, Mexico, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is under pressure to overturn the UN ban on chemtrails… The US has not agreed to it.  Citing profits, the US further refuses to cut greenhouse gas emissions attributed to global warming, the purported concern of the United Nations. Instead, it seeks to expand its geoengineering projects for which hundreds of patents have already been filed.

Apparently, the ban was either overturned or never implemented. Shortly after the Cancun convention, the spraying intensified worldwide.

How in the world did one single country manage to convince 193 others that profits were more important than protecting life on this planet? Could they have used the same strong-arm tactics that they used against France for non-compliance with their GMO agenda?  Click for video ‘truthergirl’

Advertisements