Aspartame in MILK? What the fuck??

[Nitro Express]

In 1985 Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame's clouded past, including a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it "might induce brain tumors."

The FDA had actually banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld (currently the Secretary of Defense) vow to "call in his markers," to get it approved.

On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener, and Reagan's new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's decision.

It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision, but Hull then installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame's favor. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame.

Aspartame in a nutshell. Riding the FDA merry go round.

[ELVIS]

Not according to facts

Eat it then, I'll pass...

[FORD]

Not according to facts

"Facts" from industry scientists.... which are just as reliable as the BP/KKKoch Brothers funded scientists who deny global warming, or those scientists on the Phillip Morris payroll who had poor Bob Dole insisting that cigarettes were "as safe as milk" well into the 1990s.

Actually, if milk has aspartame and BGH in it, maybe Dole was right?

[ELVIS]

Aspartame in a nutshell. Riding the FDA merry go round.

Oh, that's conspiracy, Nitro...

Sesh has "facts" that prove it's good for you and safe...

[Nitro Express]

If financial books can be cooked so can scientific studies. If the bond rating agencies can be compromised so can universities and scientific institutions. Anyone who collects a paycheck can be bought. Anyone who cheats can be blackmailed. What makes scientists immune from it when everyone else is victim to it? A study is only as good as the reputation of the institution that performed it. Frankly we are finding many of the so called trustable institutions right now to be quite untrustworthy.

[Nitro Express]

"Facts" from industry scientists.... which are just as reliable as the BP/KKKoch Brothers funded scientists who deny global warming, or those scientists on the Phillip Morris payroll who had poor Bob Dole insisting that cigarettes were "as safe as milk" well into the 1990s.

Actually, if milk has aspartame and BGH in it, maybe Dole was right?

Shit you can get any kind of climate change study you want now. We are warming. The solar system is warming. We are on the verge of another ice age. The warming is causing the cooling. How about just saying we don't know. Clearly the carbon tax and all the climate change hype that came with that was an elaborate con job put forth by the people who wanted to sell more nuclear power plants. Fraud being exposed at Copenhagen and disaster at Fukushima kind of stalled the enthusiasm towards the carbon credit thing. When a coal plant blows up it doesn't spew radiation all over the place.

[Seshmeister]

Shit you can get any kind of climate change study you want now. We are warming. The solar system is warming. We are on the verge of another ice age. The warming is causing the cooling. How about just saying we don't know. Clearly the carbon tax and all the climate change hype that came with that was an elaborate con job put forth by the people who wanted to sell more nuclear power plants. Fraud being exposed at Copenhagen and disaster at Fukushima kind of stalled the enthusiasm towards the carbon credit thing. When a coal plant blows up it doesn't spew radiation all over the place.

I'm happy enough to say you don't know.

Also http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-nuclear-waste

[FORD]

That article seems a little misleading.....

The problem isn't that coal ash is really worse than nuclear waste, but that it's less regulated, which means the radiation of coal by products is more likely to cause damage - except for in the event of a Fukishima type of disaster of course. Or what is slowly occuring at Hanford without any immediate solutions to stop it.

Best option, obviously is to not use coal OR nukes. At least not without a waste solution for either one.