In response to Lizzen's provoking post...

As for aspartame...I had heard that too...but:

"Evidence does not support links between aspartame and cancer, hair loss, depression, dementia, behavioural disturbances, or any of the other conditions appearing in websites. Agencies such as the Food Standards Agency, European Food Standards Authority, and the Food and Drug Administration have a duty to monitor relations between foodstuffs and health and to commission research when reasonable doubt emerges. Aspartame's safety was convincing to the European Scientific Committee on Food in 1988,(2) but proving negatives is difficult, and it is even harder to persuade vocal sectors of the public whose opinions are fuelled more by anecdote than by evidence. The Food Standards Agency takes public concerns very seriously and thus pressed the European Scientific Committee on Food to conduct a further review, encompassing over 500 reports, in 2002. It concluded from biochemical, clinical, and behavioural research that the acceptable daily intake of 40 mg/kg/day of aspartame remained entirely safe-except for people with phenylketonuria."

Saccharin:

"Saccharin has been the subject of extensive scientific research and is one of the most studied food ingredients in the food supply. In fact, saccharin’s safety is supported by 30 human studies, a century of safe use, the approval of the World Health Organization and 100 countries around the world as well as leading health groups. Bernard Oser, Ph.D., noted toxicologist and former president and director of the Food and Drug Research Laboratories states, "No chemical additive for food has been tested in as many laboratories, for as long a period, in as many species of animals (including man) and in successive generations, and yet has been found to be as innocuous as saccharin.

The extensive research on saccharin has been reviewed by many international scientists, including a wide range of British, Canadian, German, Swiss, Scandinavian and American researchers, and by health groups interested in low-calorie sweeteners. These reviews have led to significant statements in support of saccharin."


The mission statement of the FDA is: The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health.

I believe they do this. Neither you or I are remotely qualified to qualitatively dispute this. Any of our qualms with the FDA would be based on strictly hearsay evidence. We are not in the lab doing the experiments to determine anything. So faith in the FDA or faith in the renegades...its blind faith either way.

For any claim of toxicity in any of these products there are multiple claims of safety. I suppose we can choose whichever one we want to believe.

And don't think for an instant that the counter-mainstream pharmaceutical culture cares anymore about you than the FDA does. The herbs and other supplements that are alternatives to allopathic products are just as risky. Many do have some merit and are finding their way into the mainstream of healthcare...but the prospect of drug interaction is HUGE.

The St. John's Wort that a person is taking could interact with their medicine for their diabetes (for example)...killing them. There is no FDA-like organization to educate them on this risk. You want to talk about somebody wanting to make a buck? The makers of that herb do NOTHING to disclose the risks. These herbs can be every bit as potent as allopathic treatments. I listened to 3 lectures on drug interaction and the holistic health industry in 2005.

Plus the contents of the bottle can be labeled as ginger but contain drastically different compositions of the substance. One has more root than leaf...one has some stem in it. Each part of the plant having slightly differing chemical properties and effects. They don't disclose this either. There are NO REGULATIONS. Ask Orrin Hatch. He fights to defend the supplement industry. He is a pill popping congressman... I mean, he wrote the 1994 law that specifically exempted makers of diet supplements from having to prove to the FDA that they are safe and effective. And Utah is the world capital for this stuff.

You're right though....the FDA approves chemotherapies, for example, that are harmful to humans...but they serve a greater good. I don't think our nation's health regulations are out to get us. I think the people in the FDA want to help. There is likely corruption but as I like to say: Its the best thing we've got.

The generic comment? You are absolutely right. The generics are identical...the others are name brands just like clothes and breakfast cereals. You pay for the name. I have requested generics from my cousin who works at the pharmacy we go to. Its the best way to go.