Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site omen.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!tektronix!reed!omen!caf
From: caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX)
Newsgroups: net.kids,net.med
Subject: Re: Sugar vs. nutrasweet
Message-ID: <197@omen.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Jul-85 06:58:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: omen.197
Posted: Fri Jul 19 06:58:29 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jul-85 22:27:51 EDT
References: <771@burl.UUCP> <787@mtuxo.UUCP> <193@omen.UUCP> <222@SCIRTP.UUCP>
Reply-To: caf@.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX)
Organization: Omen Technology, Portland
Lines: 24
Xref: linus net.kids:1393 net.med:1569

In article <222@SCIRTP.UUCP> todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes:
>
>The "evils" of sugar have been discussed and documented for decades.
>However, the amount of sugar that has been used (or "tested" if you
>will) exceeds the use of nutrasweet by some enormous factor. Nutra-
>sweet may be perfectly safe, maybe even preferable to sugar in all
>respects, but until adequate testing is performed, neither my kids,
>my wife (her choice), nor I will use the stuff (same goes for saccarine).
>
>At least sugar's evils are well documented and tested.

Acid rain, cigarette smoke, lead, and nuclear radiation have also been
with us much longer than Nutrasweet.  If you believe our present levels
of sugar consumption a lesser risk merely because they have been around 
a few decades longer than Nutrasweet, then you must, by the same logic,
believe the others are OK as well.

By the way, I would not be surprised in the least if there has been less
scientific research/testing on the dangers of sugar than of Nutrasweet.
-- 
  Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX   ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf   CIS:70715,131
Omen Technology Inc     17505-V NW Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231
Voice: 503-621-3406     Modem: 503-621-3746 (Hit CR's for speed detect)
Home of Professional-YAM, the most powerful COMM program for the IBM PC