Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cbdkc1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbdkc1!tjs
From: tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: Sugar vs. nutrasweet
Message-ID: <1061@cbdkc1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 09:28:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbdkc1.1061
Posted: Mon Jul 22 09:28:39 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Jul-85 08:53:49 EDT
References: <771@burl.UUCP> <787@mtuxo.UUCP> <193@omen.UUCP> <222@SCIRTP.UUCP> <197@omen.UUCP>
Reply-To: tjs@dkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions)
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Lines: 21

In article <197@omen.UUCP> caf@.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) writes:
>In article <222@SCIRTP.UUCP> todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes:
>>
>>The "evils" of sugar have been discussed and documented for decades.
>>
>>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.

I think that what is important in the initial argument is that we know what
dangers come from sugar, nutrasweet is still a big question?  This is true of
all artificial sweetners (and also of artificial anything).  Sugar does come
from natural sources but is over-refined therefore making it non-natural, and
dangerous.


{allegra|ihnp4}!cbdkc1!tjs