Neotame, New Neurotoxic Sweetener: FDA Says No Label Needed, Not Even in Organics
A Monsanto-created chemical, Neotame is likely more toxic than Aspartame. The FDA has quietly decided that we don't have the right to know if it's adulterating our food, not even if the food is labeled USDA Organic.
by Heidi Stevenson
2 January 2011
Aspartame can step aside. There's a new sweetener in town and it isn't saddled with the inconvenience of having to be listed on labels, so it can be sneaked into any prepared food, even USDA so-called Organic. So sayeth the FDA. Neotame is a Monsanto-created chemical similar to Aspartame, including its neurotoxic properties.
Monsanto developed Neotame as their Aspartame patent was expiring, and had no trouble in gaining FDA approval in 2002. They added 3-dimethylbutyl, a chemical listed as hazardous by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to Aspartame, making it both sweeter and more toxic.
Toxicity
Both Aspartame and Neotame contain substances that are metabolized into formaldehyde, a highly toxic poison, and an excitotoxic amino acid that agitates, thereby damaging, nerves.
At the time Neotame was originally approved by the FDA, Feingold.org, which battles the addition of many dodgy food additives, stated:
We did a search of MedLine to find studies of adverse effects or side effects of Neotame. Only four studies appeared, two of which were not studies, and the other two of which were actually a single study done by NutraSweet company researchers.
Feingold aptly described one of the nonstudies as effectively saying, "If we don't look, we won't know anything bad." The other, by the World Health Organization, is not a look at potential toxicity, but rather is about setting acceptable daily intakes of Neotame, along with other artificial sweeteners. Note: One must wonder how the FDA justifies non-listing of an ingredient for which there's an acceptable daily intake.
Mary Nash Stoddard, founder of the Aspartame Consumer Safety Network, compared the historic arc of tobacco company research with that of Aspartame. It applies equally well to Neotame:
There is a parallel issue with which to compare the Aspartame issue. That of cigarettes and the deadly effects of smoking. The massive Tobacco Industry is able to produce large volumes of scientific studies showing smoking does not cause: lung cancer, heart disease, strokes or death. Today, mainstream science accepts the fact that smoking can be deadly and addictive. So it is with Aspartame, whose approval was based, not on scientific fact, but as an issue of public policy.
Neotame Labeling
From the beginning, Neotane labeling has been limited. It's in the background noise of products produced by Agribusiness.
Up to this time, Neotame hasn't been sold to the public, but that hasn't been necessary. It's been used widely in prepared foods. So, the less awareness the public has, the less likely it is that people will try to avoid it. For the most part, the technique has worked. Now, very quietly, the FDA has decided that the public shouldn't be informed when Neotame is included in any product. Even Organic products, which are supposed to be unadultered with chemicals, are not required to state when Neotame is inside.
India will soon serve as guinea pigs for Neotame. It will soon be launched there as a tabletop sweetener, like Equal and Splendor, by NutraSweet, which owns and sells the product.
Neotame is now being marketed as Sweetos for use in cattle feed. Molasses has been utlized to get cows to eat foods made unpalatable by chemical additives. Neotame is both less costly than molasses and subject to fewer regulations. How do you like that? A natural food is more stringently regulated than a known-poisonous chemical that's put into food.
The reach of Neotame is likely to be extensive. They're planning to replace other artificial sweeteners with it. A major seller of artificial sweeteners, which goes by the misleading name of Ensigns Health Care Pvt Ltd, intends to use it in place of sucralose.
In the EU, Neotame has been approved by the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA). As is so common in the EU, the product is hidden behind an E-number. So, labels don't have to say that products contain Neotame. They only need to list "E 961". Naturally, with hundreds of E-numbers, how many people can be aware of which ones are truly dangerous?
It looks like the FDA's loosening of labeling rules for Neotame is part of a large-scale effort to make it a near-ubiquitous artificial sweetener, to be found on the tabletop, in all prepared foods—even organics—and even in the meats consumed.
The solution is fairly simple, but not necessarily easy. If you want to avoid foods adulterated with Neotame, among other dangerous additives and overprocessing, then you need to grow your own foods and prepare them yourselves, or purchase only from suppliers whose processing and sourcing is known to you, which generally means locally-produced.
This shit's gotta stop. Why can't we as taxpayers abolish government bureaucracies like the FDA and EPA for not doing the job they are supposed to be doing -- protecting the public?
http://www.psrast.org/ecologmons.htm
The Monsanto Files
The Ecologist September October 1998 (This edition was trashed by the printing office after threats from Monsanto) {footnotes are missing}
Revolving Doors: Monsanto and the Regulators
by Jennifer Ferrara
Traditionally, key figures at the FDA in particular have either held important positions at Monsanto, or are destined to do so in the future. Is it surprising therefore that Monsanto gets clearance frr its often dangerous products?
Though the evolution of genetic engineering from a laboratory science to a method of creating commercial products happened very fast - within a decade - the US government saw the commercialization of biotechnology coming and deliberately chose a path that has amounted to nonregulation. Genetic engineering broke through natural barriers of reproduction and sped up plant and animal breeding processes, but agribusiness corporations were wary that burdensome regulations would hinder new discoveries and therefore the commercial development of the technology. The federal government took up industry's cause. Instead of establishing strict, precautionary regulations that gave priority to public and environmental health, the government patched together an inadequate regulatory system that relied on risk assessment, industry science, and corporate volunteerism.
The US was in the heat of a high-tech economic race with Japan, and, as far as agriculture was concerned, lawmakers saw genetic engineering as the new technology that would allow the US to maintain its position as the world's agricultural "leader".The federal government would erect no law that might reduce America's competitiveness in the future world market for bioengineered products.
The first government body to establish guidelines for biotechnology research was the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1976.[1] Since the NIH is an advisory and not a regulatory body, it could formulate guidelines, but it had no power to enforce them. From the beginning, the NIH guidelines relied on the scientific community's and industry's self-regulation, starting a trend that continues today. As corporations became more involved in genetic engineering, NIH guidelines made accommodations for field tests and mass production of genetically engineered organisms. In 1977 and 1978, 16 bills to regulate genetic research were introduced in the US Congress. None was passed, and the NIH guidelines - which dealt primarily with medical and pharmaceutical research and did not take a precautionary approach - remained the sole regulatory mechanism for biotechnology research.
In the early 1980s, agribusiness corporations were developing genetically engineered plants, animal drugs, and livestock, but no system was in place to regulate the development, sale, or use of these products.[2] This was the era of the deregulatory Reagan/Bush administration, which developed the framework by which bioengineered products, including food, are "regulated" today. Industrial profit, not public safety, was the administration's top priority. Government officials in the Office of Management and Budget, the Departments of State and Commerce, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy wanted to ensure that the administration did not do anything to "stifle" the dev[3] The Bush-era President's Council on Competitiveness, chaired by Vice-President Dan Quayle, joined the biotechnology industry in opposing strong regulations and close oversight by federal agencies.[4]
The result was a 1986 "biotechnology regulatory framework".[5] The policy was founded on the corporate-generated assertion that bioengineering was just an extension of traditional plant and animal breeding, and that bioengineered products did not differ fundamentally from non-engineered organisms.[6] The administration determined that existing federal agencies could regulate bioengineered products sufficiently and gave them overlapping regulatory authority.[7] For instance, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would regulate bio-engineered organisms in food and drugs. The United States Department of Agriculture would regulate genetically engineered crop plants and animals. The Environmental Protection Agency would regulate genetically engineered organisms released into the environment for pest control. And the NIH would look at organisms that could affect public health. In determining that existing agencies could do the job of regulating bioengineered products, the administration avoided passing new, more stringent federal laws or establishing a new regulatory agency devoted to the task.
The policy left gaping communication gaps between agencies, plenty of regulatory ground uncovered, and confusion over who would regulate what.[8,9] But most importantly, the regulations were founded on the false premise that bioengineered organisms used for food and agricultural products are no different from non-engineered, conventional products.10 In fact, to produce genetically engineered foods, researchers take genes from food or non-food organisms and add them to another organism to alter its genetic makeup in ways not possible through sexual reproduction. The process deletes essential proteins or adds entirely new ones, and can modify genetic characteristics in entirely unexpected ways. As long as the new genes come from an approved food source, the government treats new or altered genes in bioengineered foods as natural, not novel, additives. So in most cases regulators are not required to take a precautionary approach when evaluating new genetically engineered food products; products are considered safe until proven otherwise.
As late as 1994, it appeared that the federal government was still playing catch-up in establishing working biotechnology safety regulations. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which monitors the biotechnology industry and the federal regulatory system, was pointing out big holes in the so-called framework." "Fundamentally, it does not contain sufficient statutory authority to oversee all of the products and activities entailed in genetic engineering," wrote UCS in February 1994. "Where authority does exist, there are problems with implementing regulations and policies." For example, a 1992 FDA policy exempted corporations from having to test bioengineered food for safety and get FDA approval before the foods are put on the market.'2 Unless the corporation determined that "sufficient safety questions exist",'3 corporations could undergo voluntary, private "consultations" with the agency before marketing their product.'4
It is not unusual for agribusiness corporations like Monsanto to manipulate the limited safety regulations that exist. To establish safety standards for new products, federal agencies rely on studies performed by the very corporations that are trying to get their products on the market. Studies to determine the long-term health consequences of new products are not always required. Over the years, many corporations have submitted fraudulent test results showing that their products are safe, or they have simply withheld information or studies indicating otherwise. Because the federal government protects corporate safety studies as trade secrets, they are not available for public scrutiny. By sheltering corporations in this way, federal agencies hold corporations' pursuit of profits above the public's right to good health and a safe environment.
The Regulatory Irony
Laws governing biotechnology continue to favour agribusiness and biotechnology corporations, but as the industry has developed, the corporate push for specific types of regulations has taken ironic twists. The initial lack of a cautious regulatory approach enabled small biotechnology companies to develop and market new bioengineered products at a rapid pace. In the meantime, larger agribusiness corporations like Monsanto and Ciba-Geigy were buying up these small companies while developing their own expansive in-house biotechnology research and marketing operations. During this time, Monsanto, Ciba-Geigy, and several other agribusiness corporations came virtually to dominate the world market for bioengineered food products, strengthening their hold over much of the world's food supply.
From their position at the top, Monsanto and other corporations have actually favoured some seemingly tight regulations, but, it turns out, only when the regulations serve corporate marketing purposes. Regulations that require corporations to submit a plethora of costly scientific data to regulatory agencies, for example, discourage competition from smaller biotechnology and seed companies while giving the public the illusion that new biotechnology products undergo rigorous safety evaluations and are therefore safe.
In 1995, for example, Monsanto lobbied against a provision in the EPA funding bill that would have prevented the EPA from regulating agricultural plants bioengineered to contain the toxic bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Genetically engineered foods had just hit the market, and Monsanto was fully aware that almost any EPA regulations for Bt plants would publicly sanction the genetically engineered products and defuse resistance from public interest environmental groups. Furthermore, corporations could only get their Bt products to market if they had extensive money and resources to jump through all the regulatory hoops. Big corporations alone can meet data requirements and, once in the system, manipulate and pass the EPA's safety evaluation process. With the competition out of the way, the market is theirs.
FDA Scandals and Revolving Doors
To better understand how genetically engineered foods and the associated safety hazards were unleashed onto the American public, take a look at the story of the first mass-marketed bioengineered food product, the Monsanto corporation's recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH). rBGH has been linked to cancer in humans and serious health problems in cows, including udder infections and reproductive problems. rBGH's development and approval was rife with scandal and protest. But the right combination of government backing, corporate science, and heavily-funded corporate public relations schemes paved the way for the first major release of a genetically engineered food into the nation's food supply.
The roles played by the FDA and the Monsanto corporation in the development, safety evaluation, approval, and marketing of rBGH led to the exposure of the American public to the multiple hazards of bioengineered foods. These organizations hid important information about safety concens, masked disturbing conflicts of interest, and stifled those who were asking the "wrong" questions and telling the truth about rBGH.
The FDA declared rBGH-milk safe for human consumption before important information about how rBGH-milk might affect human health was even available.'6 When critical information about how rBGH raised the levels of insulin-like growth factor, IGF-1, in milk'7 and the possible link between IGF-1 and human cancer began to emerge,'8 [See Kingsnorth in this issue] the FDA was already apparently in too deep to change its mind or ask more questions about the drug's effect on human health. Instead, the agency relied almost exclusively on data generated by the Monsanto corporation and highly criticized by independent scientists to justify a decision it had made years Many independent scientists have called for more extensive, long-term studies, which have never been done.
In 1991, a researcher at the University of Vermont (UVM). where Monsanto was spending nearly half a million dollars to fund test trials of rBGH, leaked information about severe health problems affecting rBGH-treated cows, including mastitis and deformed births)1 The scientist heading the research had already made numerous public statements to state lawmakers and the press and released a preliminary report indicating that rBGH-treated cows suffered no abnormal rates of health problems compared with untreated cows.'2 The US General Accounting Office (GAO) investigated. During the investigation, the FDA stalled in providing the GAO with original Monsanto test data.23 and the GAO was unable to obtain critical data from UVM and Monsanto24 The GAO terminated its investigation, concerned that Monsanto had had time to manipulate the questionable data and that any further investigation would be Fruitless. In an effort to dissipate public concern, UVM scientists finally released information showing rBGH's negative effect on cow health, years after the findings had been made."
Even FDA insiders have criticized the agency for its slack review of the drug, but the FDA has dismissed these concerns and fired at least one official who blew the whistle on the organisation's corrupt drug approval process. Veterinarian Dr. Richard Burroughs reviewed animal drug applications at the FDA's Center for Veterinary Sciences from 1979 until he was ; fired in 1989.?6 In 1985, Burroughs headed the FDA's review of t rBGH and remained directly involved in the review process for almost five years. Burroughs wrote the original protocols for animal safety studies and reviewed the data that rBGH developers, including Monsanto, submitted as they carried out safety studies.
A 1991 article in Eating Well magazine quotes Burroughs describing a change in the FDA beginning in the mid-1980s. "There seemed to be a trend in the place toward approval at any price. It went from a university-like setting where there was independent scientific review to an atmosphere of "approve, approve, approve."27 This is the atmosphere in which the FDA carried out its review of rBGH. According to Burroughs, the FDA was totally unprepared to review rBGH, the first bioengineered animal drug to go through the FDA's approval process; rBGH was out of the scope of most FDA employees' knowledge. But rather than admit incompetence, the FDA "decided to cover up inappropriate studies and decisions," and agency officials "suppressed and manipulated data to cover up their own ignorance and incompetence?28
Burroughs himself was faced with corporate representatives who wanted the agency to ease strict safety testing protocols, and he saw corporations drop sick cows from rBGH test trials and manipulate data in other ways to make health and safety problems disappear. According to Burroughs, the raw, untouched data stashed away behind the agency's doors and protected as trade secrets would show otherwise.
Burroughs challenged the agency's lenience and its changing role from guardian of public health to protector of corporate profits. He criticized the FDA and its handling of rBGH in n statements to Congressional investigators, in testimony to state legislatures, and to the press.29 Inside the FDA, he rejected a number of corporate-sponsored safety studies as insufficient and was prevented by his superiors from investigating data submitted by industry revealing possible health problems caused by rBGH. Though Burroughs had a record at the FDA showing eight straight years of good performance, he began receiving poor performance reports, for which he claims he was set up. Finally, in November 1989, he was fired for "incompetence"
Not only did the FDA fail to act upon evidence that rBGH was not safe, the agency actually promoted the Monsanto corporation's product before and after the drug's approval. In doing so, the FDA took on the impossible double role of regulator and promoter of bioengineered foods. Dr. Michael Hansen of Consumers Union notes that the FDA acted as an rBGH advocate by issuing news releases promoting rBGH, making public statements praising the drug, and writing promotional pieces about rBGH in the agency's publication, FDA Consume;:
This dual role also manifested itself in other ways. In an apparent attempt to quell public controversy over rBGH, for example, two FDA researchers published industry and "independent" data in the journal Science in 1990 to show that rBGH was safe for consumers)' Gerald Guest, the director for FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine told Science, "We'd like to get our side of the story out, to show why we're comfortable with the safety. We'd like for people to know that ifs a thoughtful process. and we want it to be open and credible
Guest was apparently doing a lot of wishful thinking. Professor Samuel Epstein criticized the FDA for acting "as a booster or advocate for an animal drug that hasn't yet been approved." Epstein and others faulted the FDA for including only pieces of unpublished studies about rBGH in the Science article. but not making the full studies available for independent review.34
The FDA's pro-rBGH activities make more sense in light of conflicts of interest between the FDA and the Monsanto corporation." Michael R. Taylor, the FDA's deputy commissioner for policy, wrote the FDA's rBGH labelling guidelines. The guidelines, announced in February 1994, virtually prohibited dairy corporations from making any real distinction between products produced with and without rBGH." To keep rBGH-milk from being "stigmatized" in the marketplace, the FDA announced that labels on non-rBGH products must state that there is no difference between rBGH and the naturally occurring hormone. In March 1994,
Taylor was publicly exposed as a former lawyer for the Monsanto corporation for seven years. While working for Monsanto, Taylor had prepared a memo for the company as to whether or not it would be constitutional for states to erect labelling laws concerning rBGH dairy products. In other words. Taylor helped Monsanto figure out whether or not the corporation could sue states or companies that wanted to tell the public that their products were free of Monsanto's drug.
Taylor wasn't the only FDA official involved in rBGI-1 policy who had worked for Monsanto. Margaret Miller, deputy director of the FDA's Office of New Animal Drugs was a former Monsanto research scientist who had worked on Monsanto's rBGH safety studies up until 1989. Suzanne Sechen was a primary reviewer for rBGH in the Office of New Animal Drugs between 1988 and 1990. Before coming to the FDA. she had done research for several Monsanto-funded rBGH studies as a graduate student at Cornell University. Her professor was one of Monsanto's university consultants and a known rBGH promoter. Remarkably. the GAO determined in a 1994 investigation that these officials' former association with the Monsanto corporation did not pose a conflict of interest. But for those concerned about the health and environmental hazards of genetic engineering, the revolving door between the biotechnology industry and federal regulating agencies is a serious cause for concern.
This is outrageous!
I can taste asparteme--- it tastes bitter to me. I wonder if this is why stuff I take a bit of and then throw it out because it tastes different. It tastes bitter--- like it is laced with asprin. Totally gross.
I am wondering if Celestial Hain Group is also using this new shit in their stuff? And what about Eden Organics? And is Newman Organics doing this shit too? Just wondering? Are they labeling the shit as "evaporated cane sugar?" That would be sad and interesting to know.
Fairy
http://www.msu.edu/~howardp/organicindustry.html
don't know how far it's evolved from here, but Hain looks pretty well entrenched. And this little film coming out looks revealing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxpH9wBt0fM
Yeah, I can taste it as well fairy, the bitter after taste, foul!..... There is only a couple of brands of lemon soft drink axailable here with sugar. My fav switched half way through last year, I checked the label and wirhout any notice at all they had switched to aspartme...
Gave up soft drinks long ago, no sweetners, no coffee anymore. Mostly micro brew beer, LOL
There's a good thing in all of this. It is causing people to wake up to what is being done to the processed garbage they have been consuming, thereby leading many of them (hopefully) back toward a more healthy and less processed diet...
Lots of processed foods taste awful and literally make me sick. Last time I had a diet coke was years ago. I only drank half, started to get a headache and asked myself "What the heck am I doing to myself?" I can even taste the artificial coloring in foods. The only junk food we buy now is a yearly ice cream cake for my step-daughter. I can't even eat the frosting without getting a headache or asthma.
It does scare me to think that this stuff might be in organics. I regularly use soy milk and wonder if this crap is in that. Do I have to give that up too?
Hey John,
I know you have some really good contacts for stuff like this, do you have much on energy drinks?....Redbull, Monster.....
I have been reading some things and these drinks set a whole new standard for chemicals in a can and they are literally killing people on the spot....for any who aren't aware of them it's worth looking into...kids can buy them....
Thanks,
Jez
I recently read that human hair is being used to make an additive that's commonly used in bakery goods. A few weeks ago I found this video on how to make your own bread in 5 minutes a day - This method works great! I've been making my own homemade bread for years now but I was always frustrated that I couldn't get a good crust. This whole wheat bread tastes fantastic, is way easier than the traditional recipe and makes a great crust. I modified the recipe to be more whole wheat by upping the gluton flour to 1 cup and using 6 3/4 c. whole wheat flour. I stored the last bit of dough in my refrigerator for a few weeks but the last loaf I just made last night and it came out better than ever.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that you don't need a pizza stone, I've been using a cast iron skillet and it's been working great.
It has taken these REALLY nasty things like aspartame to wake some people up. They have been killing us softly with high fructose forever, but nobody seemed to mind. I quit soda years ago. Then they marketed all the "vitamin waters" and alot more teas, but they are all still laden with at least high fructose,even some foods have it.....Try drinking nothing but real water for a couple of years and then you realize how much those things affect you. I have only strayed away from it maybe a dozen times in the last 3 years, (a glass of wine,or tea), and it convinced me. I shudder at the thought of drinking just about anything on a store shelf now..
Power drinks,,,Yuucck ! They only bring you out of the slumber that you are already in from all the other crap.. And you would have to be accustomed to drinking soda, or gatorade time stuff to ever think that a power drink had good taste. Remember, it is really your cells asking for more of something that they are hooked on. I think that if everyone tried fasting,even one day a week,until they can hang for a few days, they would stop eating and drinking most of their normal diet. Clearing the palate, and brain is like hitting the reset button. Then, the next time you try one of those things you can make an intelligent decision, ha ! We really don't need half of the food we eat, and realizing that is a key to being able to boycott this shit without regrets. Empty the cup, then only put back in it what you really need..
Thanks for the tips on giving up junk Tscout. I also gave up most junk years ago but I'm still a caffein addict. I suspect that years of using the stuff has depleted my body of minerals - not to mention the factory farm foods that are mineral depleted anyway. Perhaps I will try a fast.
Hey Todd,
I physically cant do the water thing, have tried many times. I get an all bloated feeling that just makes me sicker and sicker...possibly I am just not riding out the detox but to be honest my system runs fine on soda water, easy 2 liters a day....I know most of the problems that generally come from ingesting sugar are from the rate at which the suger enters your system, soft drinks dump sugar way to fast forcing things to the wrong places...namely fat.....sugar in fruit..good, sugar in soft drink bad....
My system doesn't seem to do that, but then I often go anywhere from 48 to 60 hours without eating, sometimes I will just sit there for ages trying to work out the last time I ate...lol...others I will know with about an hours notice tjat I am about to run out of energy and then I just have to eat.....but....I will still be drinking my soda water.....no cafine, and I when I am doing that no eating thing I am sure I am running off pure sugar.
I think power drinks really should be for athletes only and not for normal consumption. Energy drinks should be sold at chemists where they belong. With you being so far away from these things Todd you might appreciate the new level to which things have gone. Energy drinks are essentially psycedalics. I don't know if you appreciate how big or fast Redbull arrived but they are mega...why?, how?...
The US government trialled one of the main ingredients of Redbull during vietnam to help the soldiers with depression etc...it worked, the only trouble was that the soldiers kept hullicenating....energy drinks will give you wings, they thin the blood allowing your heart to pump more oxygen, increasing all sorts of things, you will be in a better mood, you will run faster and longer, jump higher, think faster, better co-ordination, they super chage you literally!....and they are available across the counter..kids are drinking them, ..one side effect....if you have heart problems, you might have a fatal heart attack...and that is before people start mixing these exotic chemicals with everything else, including alcohol, presciption medications, the crap we talk about in the food...all untested for effect.....liquid legal death....
Freaky stuff,
Jez
http://www.unhinderedliving.com/soda.html
Why Soda Pop Drains You Dry
Soda pop is not good for you. Of course, you have probably suspected this, but perhaps you don't know the extent to which drinking carbonated, caffeinated, sugared, or artificially sweetened beverages destroys your body.
If you look at the list of ingredients in most soda pops, you will likely see most or all of these listed:
caffeine
carbonated water
phosphoric acid
sugar or high fructose corn syrup
aspartame
acesulfame-k
sucralose
Let's start with carbonated water. As you know, our bodies require oxygen to remain healthy. For every can of carbonated soda ingested, the amount of oxygen in the blood is decreased by 25% for up to three hours. If you are drinking several sodas per day, you are depriving yourself for a significant amount of oxygen.
Calcium, magnesium, and phosphorus must be maintained in the proper balance for bone health. When too much phosphorus is in the blood, calcium is leached from the bones, causing osteoporosis. Even in citrus sodas which contain citric acid instead of phosphoric acid, calcium is needed to normalize blood pH. It has been said that the fastest growing group of people with osteoporosis in this country is teenagers....because of the huge number of sodas they consume.
As far as caffeine and sugar are concerned, they both cause dehydration, and the massive depletion of minerals. A study was done in which two groups of children aged 13-18 years of age were given one of two drinks, a caffeinated sugar-free drink, or a drink containing both caffeine and sugar. When caffeine was added, calcium excretion in the urine increased by 25%. When sugar was added, urinary calcium loss almost doubled (1). Both caffeine and sugar also cause dehydration.
Sugar in particular is destructive because its ingestion lowers immune function by reducing the ability of white blood cells to ingest and destroy bacteria. This lowered immune function can last for five hours or more after the ingestions of sugar (2).
Sucralose, also marketed as Splenda, breaks down into small amounts of 1,6 -dichlorofructose, a chemical similar to chlorinated pesticides. There has not been adequate testing of this product before it was released for public use, and many of the post-approval studies are alarming. To ready about it, go to Sucralose Toxicity Information Center .
Aspartame, or Nutra Sweet, has an alarming health record. Read my article about Aspartame
Soda has a pH of about 1.5 and normal blood pH is between 7.2 to 7.4
It takes 32 glasses of alkaline water at a pH of 9 to neutralize the acid on ONE 12 oz can of soda. Most people don't drink that much water, and if they do, it's just regular water, not water that has been alkalinized. So in order to keep your blood at a neutral pH, your body uses the only thing it has to buffer that acid...the calcium from your bones. For every can of soda, your body withdraws 20mg of calcium from the bones.
When your body is an extremely acidic state, that is when disease develops. For a more thorough explanation of this, see What Causes Disease?
See "The Day I Gave Up Soda Pop"
Did you see how many times dehydration was mentioned ? The Russians say that at 10 percent dehydration, your Immune system starts to drop. This is how I got cancer years ago. I worked in the desert for two years. I tried everything to keep hydrated. I drank plenty of water, but I know now that I wasn't assimilating it. i would drink seltzer water too,the good stuff, as I am a type O, mixed with organic juices. and probably one soda a day..My partner would bring back red bulls from town sometimes too. Maybe I thought I could run faster, jump higher, etc., but that is a load of crap. The burnout was sickening.
As for fasting Jez, believe me I am not so far removed from this stuff, but the fasting is what helped me get away. If you are bloating up from water, then you are not assimilating it. Even many of the alkaline waters don't break down the molecules of water to .005 microns, which is how small they need to be to be absorbed by the cells. That is what they mean when they say that the structure of the water is more important than the content...
The other thing that helped me fast was urine therapy. I had the same trouble you did with just water. and if the "voices" were still telling you that you needed to eat, then you just didn't make it over the hill. The first time is the hardest. I won't get into an explanation here, but adding urine therapy is what made it possible for me to make it over that hill. It changes everything. Buy yourself a used copy of 'Water of Life". The author's last name is Armstrong. I paid 2.50 on amazon. The same treatment for everything, everything...It is for real. And in case you miss this part, as it isn't listed in the treatment, only mentioned once in the book. The author used to fast for weeks at a time, and would rub it into his scalp..he would regularly go to conventional doctors for a physical to see if they could tell if he was fasting.(normally they can by your heart rhythm). But rubbing it into the scalp calms the heart rhythm, and makes it undetectable...This is very important. The sense of well being when it is applied this way is incredible, it calms the mind, and really helps during a fast...I kept my hair really short then,and would warm it, then just pour it over my head in the sink...It cleaned out my lymph glands from massaging with it,,I could go on and on..as I did it for almost 2 years, and still do as much as possible..It was hard to start, but it really helped me take control/responsibility of my health...I don't know what else to say, except that if it helps get you over that hill, it's worth it.......Freaky huh ?,,,,,,,,T