Natural Cures Not Medicine: aspartame

Most Read This Week:

Showing posts with label aspartame. Show all posts
Showing posts with label aspartame. Show all posts

Beaver Butt used as 'Natural Flavoring' in your Food

Yes, it's true.

Millions of people across the globe are eating "beaver butt" and don't even know that they're consuming such a substance.


It's called "castoreum," and it's emitted from the castor sacs within the animal's anus. For a beaver, this slimy brown substance is used to mark its territory, but for us humans, it's used as an additive that is often labeled as "natural flavoring" in the foods we eat - vanilla, strawberry and raspberry probably being the most common.

Why is castoreum used? The most notable characteristic (after being processed) has to be the smell of castoreum. Instead of smelling horrible, like most people would expect from an anally produced secretion, it has a pleasant scent, which supposedly makes it a perfect candidate for food flavoring and other products.

The question that many people put forth would have to be "who in their right mind actually made this odd discovery?"

Another industry that utilizes castoreum is the fragrance world. For decades, perfume manufactures have been using it to make various types of fragrances. These anal secretions are said to contain around 24 different molecules, many of which act as natural pheromones. From perfumes to air fresheners, castor sacs are quite versatile within the fragrance industry.

Is it natural?

Sure it's natural, but does "being natural" make it right to use or consume?

Many disgusting substances are considered "natural," yet eating them may not be the best idea.

The act of labeling something so vulgar and disgusting as "
natural flavoring," should be illegal in many people's eyes, but the FDA views it all in a different light.

Having the anal secretions from a beaver take the place of a strawberry in something like strawberry ice cream hardly seems like an efficient process. Why go through the process of harvesting "anal secretions" when a strawberry is much easier to pick?

It hardly seems like a better option...

The food industry is a tricky business to figure out, and it will continue to boggle the minds of many on issues exactly like this. Much like with other additives that have raised concern over the years (aspartame, high fructose corn syrup and food colorings),
 castoreum is proving to be just as questionable.

It's the deceptive labeling that seems to be the root of the problem. Instead of stating what castoreum truly is, the FDA has allowed it to be labeled as something that sounds pleasant and healthy.

As with many questionable additives in today's food market, the power lies within the
 people. Read your labels thoroughly if you wish to subtract these types of ingredients from your diet.

In all honesty, castoreum is probably safe to consume, being that is derived from an animal, but who really wants to eat a beaver's anus?



Source: NaturalNews

The Facts, Stats and Dangers of Soda Pop

PreventDisease.com


Kids are heavy consumers of soft drinks, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and they are guzzling soda pop at unprecedented rates.
Carbonated soda pop provides more added sugar in a typical 2-year-old toddler's diet than cookies, candies and ice cream combined.
Image: Dave Sommers
Fifty-six percent of 8-year-olds down soft drinks daily, and a third of teenage boys drink at least three cans of soda pop per day.
  • These popular beverages account for more than a quarter of all drinks consumed in the United States.
  • More than 15 billion gallons were sold in 2000.
  • That works out to at least one 12-ounce can per day for every man, woman and child.
Not only are soft drinks widely available everywhere, from fast food restaurants to video stores, they're now sold in 60 percent of all public and private middle schools and high schools nationwide, according to the National Soft Drink Association. A few schools are even giving away soft drinks to students who buy school lunches.
As soda pop becomes the beverage of choice among the nation's young -- and as soda marketers focus on brand-building among younger and younger consumers -- public health officials, school boards, parents, consumer groups and even the soft drink industry are faced with nagging questions:
  • How healthful are these beverages, which provide a lot calories, sugars and caffeine but no significant nutritional value? 
  • And what happens if you drink a lot of them at a very young age?
Recently, representatives of the soft drink industry, concerned that public opinion and public policy may turn against them, will staged a three-day "fly-in" to lobby Congress to maintain soft drinks sales in schools; and to educate lawmakers on the "proper perspective" on soft drink use.
The industry plans to counter a US Department of Agriculture proposal, announced in January, that would require all foods sold in schools to meet federal nutrition standards. That would mean that snack foods and soft drinks would have to meet the same standards as school lunches.
Nearly everyone by now has heard the litany on the presumed health effects of soft drinks:
  • Obesity
  • Tooth decay
  • Caffeine dependence
  • Weakened bones
But does drinking soda pop really cause those things?
To help separate fact from fiction, the Health section reviewed the latest scientific findings and asked an array of experts on both sides of the debate to weigh in on the topic. Be forewarned, however: Compared with the data available on tobacco and even dietary fat, the scientific evidence on soft drinks is less developed. The results can be a lot like soft drinks themselves, both sweet and sticky.
Obesity
One very recent, independent, peer-reviewed study demonstrates a strong link between soda consumption and childhood obesity.
One previous industry-supported, unpublished study showed no link. Explanations of the mechanism by which soda may lead to obesity have not yet been proved, though the evidence for them is strong.
Many people have long assumed that soda -- high in calories and sugar, low in nutrients -- can make kids fat. But until this month there was no solid, scientific evidence demonstrating this.
Reporting in The Lancet, a British medical journal, a team of Harvard researchers presented the first evidence linking soft drink consumption to childhood obesity. They found that 12-year-olds who drank soft drinks regularly were more likely to be overweight than those who didn't.
For each additional daily serving of sugar-sweetened soft drink consumed during the nearly two-year study, the risk of obesity increased 1.6 times.
Obesity experts called the Harvard findings important and praised the study for being prospective. In other words, the Harvard researchers spent 19 months following the children, rather than capturing a snapshot of data from just one day. It's considered statistically more valuable to conduct a study over a long period of time.
Researchers found that schoolchildren who drank soft drinks consumed almost 200 more calories per day than their counterparts who didn't down soft drinks. That finding helps support the notion that we don't compensate well for calories in liquid form.
Tooth Decay
Here's one health effect that even the soft drink industry admits, grudgingly, has merit. In a carefully worded statement, the NSDA says that "there's no scientific evidence that consumption of sugars per se has any negative effect other than dental caries." But the association also correctly notes that soft drinks aren't the sole cause of tooth decay.
In fact, a lot of sugary foods, from fruit juices to candy and even raisins and other dried fruit, have what dentists refer to as "cariogenic properties," which is to say they can cause tooth decay.
Okay, so how many more cavities are soft drink consumers likely to get compared with people who don't drink soda? This is where it gets complicated.
A federally funded study of nearly 3,200 Americans 9 to 29 years old conducted between 1971 and 1974 showed a direct link between tooth decay and soft drinks. Numerous other studies have shown the same link throughout the world, from Sweden to Iraq.
But sugar isn't the only ingredient in soft drinks that causes tooth problems. The acids in soda pop are also notorious for etching tooth enamel in ways that can lead to cavities. "Acid begins to dissolve tooth enamel in only 20 minutes," notes the Ohio Dental Association in a release issued earlier this month.
Caffeine Dependence
The stimulant properties and dependence potential of caffeine in soda are well documented, as are their effects on children.
Ever tried going without your usual cup of java on the weekend? If so, you may have experienced a splitting headache, a slight rise in blood pressure, irritability and maybe even some stomach problems.
These well-documented symptoms describe the typical withdrawal process suffered by about half of regular caffeine consumers who go without their usual dose.
The soft drink industry agrees that caffeine causes the same effects in children as adults, but officials also note that there is wide variation in how people respond to caffeine. The simple solution, the industry says, is to choose a soda pop that is caffeine-free. All big soda makers offer products with either low or no caffeine.
That may be a good idea, though it raises the question of whether soda machines in schools should be permitted to offer caffeinated beverages or at least be obligated to offer a significant proportion of caffeine-free products.
It also raises the question of how one determines a product's caffeine content. Nutrition labels are not required to divulge that information. If a beverage contains caffeine, it must be included in the ingredient list, but there's no way to tell how much a beverage has, and there's little logic or predictability to the way caffeine is deployed throughout a product line.
Okay, so most enlightened consumers already know that colas contain a fair amount of caffeine. It turns out to be 35 to 38 milligrams per 12-ounce can, or roughly 28 percent of the amount found in an 8-ounce cup of coffee. But few know that diet colas -- usually chosen by those who are trying to dodge calories and/or sugar -- often pack a lot more caffeine.
A 12-ounce can of Diet Coke, for example, has about 42 milligrams of caffeine -- seven more than the same amount of Coke Classic. A can of Pepsi One has about 56 milligrams of caffeine -- 18 milligrams more than both regular Pepsi and Diet Pepsi.
Even harder to figure out is the caffeine distribution in other flavors of soda pop. Many brands of root beer contain no caffeine. An exception is Barq's, made by the Coca-Cola Co., which has has 23 milligrams per 12-ounce can. Sprite, 7-Up and ginger ale are caffeine-free. But Mountain Dew, the curiously named Mello Yellow, Sun Drop Regular, Jolt and diet as well as regular Sunkist orange soda all pack caffeine.
Caffeine occurs naturally in kola nuts, an ingredient of cola soft drinks. But why is this drug, which is known to create physical dependence, added to other soft drinks?
The industry line is that small amounts are added for taste, not for the drug's power to sustain demand for the products that contain it. Caffeine's bitter taste, they say, enhances other flavors. "It has been a part of almost every cola -- and pepper-type beverage -- since they were first formulated more than 100 years ago," according to the National Soft Drink Association.
But recent blind taste tests conducted by Roland Griffiths at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions in Baltimore found that only 8 percent of regular soft drink consumers could identify the difference between regular and caffeine-free soft drinks.
The study included only subjects who reported that they drank soft drinks mainly for their caffeine content. In other words, more than 90 percent of the self-diagnosed caffeine cravers in this small sample could not detect the presence of caffeine.
That's why the great popularity of caffeinated soft drinks is driven not so much by subtle taste effects as by the mood-altering and physical dependence of caffeine that drives the daily self-administration.
And the unknown could be especially troublesome for the developing brains of children and adolescents. Logic dictates that when you are dependent on a drug, you are really upsetting the normal balances of neurochemistry in the brain. The fact that kids have withdrawal signs and symptoms when the caffeine is stopped is a good indication that something has been profoundly disturbed in the brain.
Exactly where that leads is anybody's guess -- which is to say there is little good research on the effects of caffeine on kids' developing brains.
Bone Weakening
Animal studies demonstrate that phosphorus, a common ingredient in soda, can deplete bones of calcium.
And two recent human studies suggest that girls who drink more soda are more prone to broken bones. The industry denies that soda plays a role in bone weakening.
Animal studies -- mostly involving rats -- point to clear and consistent bone loss with the use of cola beverages. But as scientists like to point out, humans and rats are not exactly the same.
Even so, there's been concern among the research community, public health officials and government agencies over the high phosphorus content in the US diet. Phosphorus -- which occurs naturally in some foods and is used as an additive in many others -- appears to weaken bones by promoting the loss of calcium. With less calcium available, the bones become more porous and prone to fracture.
The soft drink industry argues that the phosphoric acid in soda pop contributes only about 2 percent of the phosphorus in the typical US diet, with a 12-ounce can of soda pop averaging about 30 milligrams.
There's growing concern that even a few cans of soda today can be damaging when they are consumed during the peak bone-building years of childhood and adolescence. A 1996 study published in the Journal of Nutrition by the FDA's Office of Special Nutritionals noted that a pattern of high phosphorus/low calcium consumption, common in the American diet, is not conducive to optimizing peak bone mass in young women.
A 1994 Harvard study of bone fractures in teenage athletes found a strong association between cola beverage consumption and bone fractures in 14-year-old girls. The girls who drank cola were about five times more likely to suffer bone fractures than girls who didn't consume soda pop.
Besides, to many researchers, the combination of rising obesity and bone weakening has the potential to synergistically undermine future health. Adolescents and kids don't think long-term. But what happens when these soft-drinking people become young or middle-aged adults and they have osteoporosis, sedentary living and obesity?
By that time, switching to water, milk or fruit juice may be too little, too late.

AUTHOR: Sally Squires

The Brutally Honest Coca-Cola Commercial You Haven't Seen

Coca-Cola plans to run its very first ad defending aspartame and the safety of artificial sweeteners. This move comes as a result of a dramatic drop in diet cola sales within the past year. This is great news as it goes to show how much of an impact we can really make by raising awareness about the health effects of aspartame. More people around the world are making better choices and you can read more about that and the dangers associated with the Coke here.

I came across this video and thought it would be appropriate to share in light of Coca-Cola’s recent move to bring awareness to and “join together” in fighting obesity. This comes before their more recent ad campaign to defend artificial sweeteners like aspartame. It’s the brutally honest Coca-Cola commercial you’ll never see on television. This is a voiced over version of the original Coke commercial which you can see here.


Source: Collective Evolution realfarmacy.com


Top Children's Vitamin Brand Contains Aspartame, GMOs and Other Hazardous Ingredients

The #1 Children’s Vitamin Brand in the US contains ingredients that most parents would never intentionally expose their children to, so why aren’t more opting for healthier alternatives?

Image: rawforbeauty.com
Kids vitamins are supposed to be healthy, right? Well then, what’s going on with Flintstones Vitamins, which proudly claims to be “Pediatricians’ #1 Choice”? Produced by the global pharmaceutical corporation Bayer, this wildly successful brand features a shocking list of unhealthy ingredients, including:

Aspartame

Cupric Oxide

Coal tar artificial coloring agents (FD&C Blue #2, Red #40, Yellow #6)

Zinc Oxide

Sorbitol

Ferrous Fumarate

Hydrogenated Oil (Soybean)

GMO Corn starch

Related: Join the March Against Monsanto on 10/12/13: http://bit.ly/14RN9EV

On Bayer Health Science’s Flintstones product page designed for healthcare professionals they lead into the product description with the following tidbit of information:

82% of kids aren’t eating all of their veggies1. Without enough vegetables, kids may not be getting all of the nutrients they need.

References: 1. Lorson BA, Melgar-Quinonez HR, Taylor CA. Correlates of fruit and vegetable intakes in US children. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(3):474-478.

The implication? That Flintstones vitamins somehow fill this nutritional void. But let’s look a little closer at some of these presumably healthy ingredients….

ASPARTAME

Aspartame is a synthetic combination of the amino acids aspartic acid and l-phenylalanine, and is known to convert into highly toxic methanol and formaldehyde in the body. Aspartame has been linked to over 40 adverse health effects in the biomedical literature, and has been shown to exhibit both neurotoxicity and carcinogenicity [1] What business does a chemical like this have doing in a children’s vitamin, especially when non-toxic, non-synthetic non-nutritive sweeteners like stevia already exist?

CUPRIC OXIDE 

Next, let’s look closer at Cupric Oxide, 2mg of which is included in each serving of Flinstone’s Complete chewable vitamins as a presumably ‘nutritional’ source of ‘copper,’ supplying “100% of the Daily Value (Ages 4+), according to Flintstones Vitamins Web site’s Nutritional Info.[2]
But what is Cupric Oxide? A nutrient or a chemical?

According to the European Union’s Dangerous Substance Directive, one of the main EU laws concerning chemical safety, Cupric Oxide is listed as a Hazardous substance, classified as both “Harmful (XN)” and “Dangerous for the environment” (N). Consider that it has industrial applications as a pigment in ceramics, and as a chemical in the production of rayon fabric and dry cell batteries. In may be technically correct to call it a mineral, but should it be listed as a nutrient in a children’s vitamin? We think not.

COAL TAR ARTIFICIAL COLORING AGENTS
Image: rawforbeauty.com


A well-known side effect of using synthetic dyes is attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. For direct access to study abstracts on this topic view our Food Coloring research page.  There is also indication that the neurotoxicity of artificial food coloring agents increase when combined with aspartame, making the combination of ingredients in Flintstones even more concerning.

ZINC OXIDE

Each serving of Flinstones Complete Chewable vitamins contain 12 mg of zinc oxide, which the manufacturer claims delivers 75% of the Daily Value to children 2  & 3 years of age.  Widely used as a sun protection factor (SPF) in sunscreens, The EU’s Dangerous Substance Directive classifies it as an environmental Hazard, “Dangerous for the environment (N).”  How it can be dangerous to the environment, but not for humans ingesting it, escapes me.  One thing is for sure, if one is to ingest supplemental zinc, or market it for use by children, it makes much more sense using a form that is organically bound (i.e. ‘chelated’) to an amino acid like glycine, as it will be more bioavailable and less toxic.

Sources:  GREENMEDINFO.COM

rawforbeauty.com

This is why you should avoid sugar and artificial sweeteners



Image: www.sheknows.com

Cancer researcher Ty Bollinger talks about the dangers of sugar when it comes to cancer. He also discusses the role sure plays in overall health. Artificial sweeteners aren't any better. Ty talks about one in particular, aspartame, and how that can be even worse for your health than sugar.


iHealthTube.com - The Many Risks with Sugar and Aspartame

Source: rawforbeauty.com

Patent confirms that aspartame is the excrement of GM bacteria

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Image: Awaken The Mind
(NaturalNews) In 1999, The Independent published an article entitled “World’s top sweetener is made with GM bacteria,” which revealed that Monsanto was knowingly adding aspartame to soft drinks in the United States – and that aspartame is made from GM bacteria. This report, which remains one of the earliest disclosures on aspartame in a mainstream newspaper, received little attention after its publication – possibly because its implications were underestimated at the time – and it has long been forgotten.

Since 1999, the world has become a little more attentive to Monsanto and aspartame, but ignorance still abounds about the latter’s genesis. While more and more people are starting to awaken to aspartame’s destructive effects on our health, do they know how it is actually made? Fortunately, a 1981 patent for aspartame production, once confined to the drawers of patent offices, is now available online for everyone to see – and it confirms everything that Monsanto was happy to tell us in 1999 before their meteoric growth necessitated greater prudence.

The patent, which is entitled Process for producing aspartame and is credited to Bahl, Rose, and White, summarizes the process as follows:

“The artificial sweetener aspartame, a dipeptide with the formula Asp-Phe-me, is produced using a cloned micrcorganism [sic]. A DNA which codes for a large stable peptide comprised of the repeating amino acid sequence (Asp-Phe)n is inserted into a cloning vehicle which in turn is introduced into a suitable host microorganism. The host microorganism is cultured and the large peptide containing the repeating Asp-Phe sequence is harvested therefrom. The free carboxyl group of the large peptide is benzylated and then hydrolysed to benzyl Asp-Phe dipeptides. This dipeptide is methylated and then debenzylated to form aspartame.”

Read the full report at NaturalNews.com

Source: RealFarmacy.com

Soda Linked to Aggression, Attention Problems, and Social Withdrawal in Young Children

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Soda has already been blamed for making kids obese. New research blames the sugary drinks for behavioral problems in children too.

Analyzing data from 2,929 families, researchers linked soda consumption to aggression, attention problems and social withdrawal in 5-year-olds. They published their findings in the Journal of Pediatrics on Friday.
Although earlier studies have shown an association between soft-drink consumption and aggression in teens, none had investigated whether a similar relationship existed in younger children.

To that end, Columbia University epidemiologist Shakira Suglia and her colleagues examined data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, which followed 2,929 mother-child pairs in 20 large U.S. cities from the time the children were born. The study, run by Columbia and Princeton University, collected information through surveys the mothers completed periodically over several years.

In one survey, mothers answered questions about behavior problems in their children. They also reported how much soda their kids drank on a typical day.

Suglia and her colleagues found that even at the young age of 5, 43% of the kids consumed at least one serving of soda per day, and 4% drank four servings or more.

The more soda kids drank, the more likely their mothers were to report that the kids had problems with aggression, withdrawal and staying focused on a task. For instance, children who downed four or more servings of soda per day were more than twice as likely to destroy others’ belongings, get into fights and physically attack people, compared with kids who didn’t drink soda at all.

Read full article

Source: RealFarmacy.com

Study: Splenda Causing Leukemia in Mice

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

The Center for Science in the Public Interest is urging caution in the use of the artificial sweetener Splenda.
Image: Raw For Beauty

A food safety advocacy group has downgraded its rating for sucralose, the artificial sweetener better known as Splenda, from “safe” to “caution” in its chemical guide to food additives.

The Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest announced Wednesday that it had long rated sucralose as “safe” but is now categorizing it with a ”caution,” pending peer review of an unpublished study by an independent Italian lab that found the sweetener caused leukemia in mice.
Previously, the only long-term animal-feeding studies were done by sucralose’s manufacturers, the CSPI said.

Other artificial sweeteners such as saccharinaspartame and acesulfame potassium have received the center’s lowest rating, “avoid.”

Rebiana, a natural high-potency sweetener obtained from the plant stevia, is considered “safe” by the CSPI, though it says the sweetener needs better testing.

“Sucralose may prove to be safer than saccharin, aspartame, and acesulfame potassium, but the forthcoming Italian study warrants careful scrutiny before we can be confident that the sweetener is safe for use in food,” said CSPI Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson.

Despite concerns about artificial sweeteners, the CSPI says that drinking diet soda is better than sugar-carbonated soda, which it says “poses greater risks such as obesity, diabetes heart disease, gout and tooth decay.”

In order to avoid the risks of both sugars and non-caloric sweeteners, the CSPI is encouraging people to switch to water, seltzer water, flavored unsweetened waters, seltzer mixed with some fruit juice or unsweetened iced tea.

Sources: Raw For Beauty

MSN.com

This Is The Corrupt Process That Legalized Apartame

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Image: Raw For Beauty
Did you know that Aspartame was banned by the FDA twice? How is this product legal now?

The bittersweet argument over whether Aspartame is safe or not has been going on for a long time. On one side we have medical evidence that suggests we should avoid using it and on the other side we lean on the FDA’s approval that suggests it is safe. Since generally that seems to be the factor that many continue to hold trust based upon, I thought we could look into the Aspartame story to find out how it came to be accepted as safe by the FDA. You would think that something so widely used and so well accepted would have quite the pristine story leading to its acceptance. I imagine one will discover otherwise after reading this post.

It all starts in the mid 1960′s with a company called G.D. Searle. One of their chemists accidentally creates aspartame while trying to create a cure for stomach ulcers. Searle decides to put aspartame through a testing process which eventually leads to its approval by the FDA. Not long after, serious health effects begin to arise and G.D. Searle comes under fire for their testing practices. It is revealed that the testing process of Aspartame was among the worst the investigators had ever seen and that in fact the product was unsafe for use. Aspartame triggers the first criminal investigation of a manufacturer put into place by the FDA in 1977. By 1980 the FDA bans aspartame from use after having 3 independent scientists study the sweetener. It was determined that one main health effects was that it had a high chance of inducing brain tumors. At this point it was clear that aspartame was not fit to be used in foods and banned is where it stayed, but not for long.

Early in 1981 Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld (who is a former Secretary of Defense.. surprise surprise) vowed to “call in his markers,” to get it approved. January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Searle took the steps to re-apply aspartame’s approval for use by the FDA. Ronald Reagans’ new FDA commissioner Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. It did not take long for the panel to decide 3-2 in favor of maintaining the ban of aspartame. Hull then decided to appoint a 6th member to the board, which created a tie in the voting, 3-3. Hull then decided to personally break the tie and approve aspartame for use. 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. Burstone-Marstella is the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame.

It is clear to this point that if anything the safety of aspartame is incredibly shaky.  It has already been through a process of being banned and without the illegitimate un-banning of the product, it would not be being used today. Makes you wonder how much corruption and money was involved with names like Rumsfeld, Reagan and Hull involved so heavily. In 1985, Monsanto decides to purchase the aspartame patent from G.D. Searle. Remember that Arthur Hull now had the connection to Monsanto. Monsanto did not seem too concerned with the past challenges and ugly image aspartame had based on its past. I personally find this comical as Monsanto’s products are banned in many countries and of all companies to buy the product they seem to fit best as they are champions of producing incredibly unsafe and untested products and making sure they stay in the market place.

Since then, aspartame has been under a lot of attack by scientists, doctors, chemists and consumers about it’s safety and neurotoxic properties. Piles of comprehensive studies have been completed that show aspartame is a cause for over 90 serious health problems such as cancer, leukemia, headaches, seizures, fibromyalgia, and epilepsy just to name a few. We have written several articles discussing various affects of aspartame.

Sources: Raw For Beauty

Collective Evolution


Foods that eliminate bad breath

Bad breath can be bad for business and also can spell awkward social interactions.  Naturally boost your breath with these food items.
Boom!  Now you can have fresh breath and be healthy while you are at it.

There is no replacement for dental maintenance such as brushing, flossing, and regular checkups and cleanings.  Consider, though, that many people stand to suffer the side effects of taking conventional means to improve breath.  Mouthwashes often contain fluoride which can be absorbed through the capillaries in the mouth and is toxic to all tissue in the human body.  
Many brands also include artificial sweeteners and coloring agents.  Chewing gum that is marketed as sugar free usually contains aspartame, the most highly contested FDA approved food item in history.  Aspartame has been tied to several health problems including migraines and different cancers.  This sweet poison even converts to formaldehyde in the body after consumption. 
 Other sweeteners such as sucralose are used which are heavily processed and have negative side effects as well.  Thankfully, nature provides us with a bounty of options to improve breath and they don't harm your body but actually have decent nutritional profiles.





Read some more of our recent posts:

Argan Oil is Liquid Gold


Animal Farm - The truth about GM chicken


Mushrooms - Another great way to get your vitamin D


Beat The Backache Naturally!


Natural Cures Not Medicine

Find us on Facebook!



The Top 10 Worst Sources Of Aspartame

This ingredient is the most contested FDA approved substance in history.

  1. Chewing Gum - 
  2. Flavored water 
  3. Sugar-Free Products 
  4. Drink Powders
  5. Cooking Sauces 
  6. Childrens medicines 
  7. Cereals 
  8. Yogurts 
  9. Diet Sodas 
  10. Tabletop sweeteners


There is nothing sweet about this artificial sweetener!

Did you know that aspartame can mix with other chemicals such as monosodium glutamate and cause even worst reactions within the body?  Aspartame has been linked to several different cancers and even degenerative brain conditions.  Consuming aspartame regularly will burn out neurons and has been linked to headaches, mood alterations and even brain tumors.  Although it is touted as a healthy and sweeter alternative to sugar, this chemical actually causes diabetes and may also cause obesity.  If you are surprised than maybe consider the fact that aspartame was developed in a bio-weapons lab!  And what's more, part of the process for manufacturing aspartame is to harvest excrement from bacteria and treat it with more chemicals.  Unfortunately this chemical, originally sold by Monsanto Corp, is now being re-branded under different names to avoid the reputation behind the poison.  There are currently efforts underway to include aspartame in milk without labeling it, even though aspartame is contained in many products already that do not list it as one of the ingredients.  Next time you are shopping, be weary of "light" or "diet" products in the grocery isle, and make sure you check the ingredients.

More great posts from Natural Cures Not Medicine:

How sunlight benefits our health.

Disclaimer:

Before trying anything you find on the internet you should fully investigate your options and get further advice from professionals.

Below are our most recent posts on facebook