Is sugar really that bad?

If you can’t taste the difference between Coke and Diet Coke, or don’t care, why would you drink regular Coke? Why buy sugar-full gum when you can get sugar-free gum?

If the word Aspartame is unfamiliar to you, it is the artificial sweetener behind almost every “Diet” or “Sugar-Free” product in the world. Originally marketed as NutraSweet and the ingredient behind Equal today, it is 180 times sweeter than sugar and was initially approved by the FDA and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the 1980’s. Since its accidental discovery in 1965 by the Searle pharmaceutical company, scientists have expressed concerns about its connection with brain tumors, brain lesions and lymphoma.

The official story is that no connection has been proven and that it is safe for consumption. The problem is that the official story is being told by the sweetener and food and beverage industries. Both the FDA and the EFSA approval processes are mired in politics and controversy, involving conflicts of interest and industry-backed studies. Jere Goyan, the head of the FDA, refused to approve it in 1980 citing its cancer connection in rats. When the new president Reagan replaced the FDA head with Arthur Hayes in 1981, aspartame was approved before the year was over. Hayes later joined Searle’s PR firm as a medical adviser.

The topic is so controversial that it has been investigated by almost every major health organization worldwide. It is one of the most tested food additives on the market. Yet for every study that finds a link, there is an opposite one to cancel it out. So where does that leave us? Let’s see.

Of 74 studies funded by Searle, NutraSweet or International Life Sciences (an organization representing hundreds of food and beverage corporations that was banned by the WHO from direct involvement) between 1976 and 1995, 74 found aspartame to be safe. Zero found adverse reactions. http://www.dorway.com/industry.html

Of 92 studies conducted by universities and independent organizations worldwide (including MIT, Washington University, the National Institute of Health and many more) between 1970 and 1998, 7 found aspartame to be safe, 6 of which were funded by the FDA. A stunning 85 found adverse reactions. http://www.dorway.com/nonindus.html

Surprised? Me neither. If the first page of a Google search on “aspartame” or a review of related YouTube videos aren’t enough to scare you, it should at least make you question the validity of the FDA and EFSA’s claims of safety. Throw Donald Rumsfeld in the mix (CEO of Searle in 1981 when the FDA approved it) and the scales of public safety vs. politics just tipped. Rumsfeld personally lobbied for aspartame directly to president Reagan, who had the uncooperative FDA chief replaced.

At which point, you have to ask yourself: is sugar really that bad?

The Word Guardian

I think it crept in when I began to skip the space in "anymore". I have a tendency to spell "eachother" as one word too. It's wrong. But if I spelled it thus here or anywhere else, nobody would have told me so. And I would have continued to think it was acceptable. Except when I type it in Word. Like a diligent parent, it leaves other important tasks like auto saving my work and ironing my towels, to gently point out the error. It doesn't chastise me; it gets back to the ironing, keeping one eye out for me. I dutifully make the correction and move on. It does this to me every time, until I stop doing it. It's teaching me.

Word doesn't have to do this. If it failed to print my paper, I might complain. But this is beyond its responsibilities. It's altruistic.

Not everyone is a well mannered child though. Others see spelling, grammar and structure as an oppressive force. One contrary to American ideals of freedom and self-determination. Like those who "invited Debby and I to the party" because "me" is out of fashion. Descriptivists may balk at Word's presumptuous declarations of fault, but so does every misbehaving teenager in response to parental intervention. Few of us could deny that rules exist for a reason, and that if not obeyed, parents should at least be heeded carefully, for they wish to apply experience and wisdom you don't have to your benefit. As this fact settles in as budding adults, we open ourselves up to criticism as a path to self improvement.

I submit that when an unfortunate soul happens to mention that his "wardrobe is comprised of a dozen raver pants", he is not marching to the beat of a proletarian uprising, asserting his democratic right to participate in raves and deface the English language. He is simply unaware of his mistake. A good parent would point this out (and ask before ironing those pants).

Perhaps when every attempt to misuse "comprise" or "it's", or even use "in regards to" or "as per" or "exact same thing" elicits a protest from your loved ones, the abuse might no longer be seen as an implicit right, but as the celery in your teeth that only those closest to you would care enough to tell you about. This subtle message has the power to restore dignity to us and our language, and effect (or control) change at a massive scale. I therefore suggest that perhaps the only hope left to stem the daily assault on our language comprising redundancies, overused apostrophes, gratuitous commas and fatigued clichés is the benevolent guardian within our desktops and laptops: Microsoft Word.

Word somehow has a level of authority that peers don't. Perhaps because its suggestions are made in private, there is no ego play. In the interest of cultural decency, I therefore call for an expansion of the Microsoft Word grammar dictionary to cover abusive trends and expose mistakes for what they are. A friend did point me to this site, which seems well on its way along these lines. Try checking the culprits mentioned above. If only Microsoft would follow suit.
http://spellcheckplus.com/