Peter at brentano.demon.co.uk
Wed Aug 9 09:45:45 EST 1995
In article: <9508090414.AA22611 at cryptic.rch.unimelb.edu.au> kerrr at CRYPTIC.RCH.UNIMELB.EDU.AU
(Richard Kerr) writes:
> OK, so the pluses are as numerous as the minuses. This isn't constructive.
Richard, there are other substances that have variable results when
consumed by humans. Moderate tobacco consumption may fail to affect
some, whereas others develop the illnesses of which we hear so much.
Some people are allergic to peanuts, such that they die within seconds
of consuming them.
I am not going to compile an exhaustive list. The point is that, should
nutrasweet (tm) cause illness in even _some_ humans, then perhaps we
should consider very carefully what we are doing here. What, for example,
would you have to say if the various threads were about peanuts? What
if people were either seriously ill or died because of their predilection
for savoury foods, to which some hypothetical manufacturer pandered by
adding pureed peanut mixture?
The minuses are far greater than the pluses in the case of peanuts than
would appear to be the case for nutrasweet (tm) additives and their
by products, given of course that Mark Gold is offering bona fide data.
I would consider it constructive, nay very positive, if my hypothetical
manufacturer of peanut foods were at very least made to label her/his
food packages with a warning, akin to that found on tobacco packages.
I expect that someone will post a rejoinder to my peanut example. Don't
bother please; I hear frequent news articles on the subject, I hear
respected UK practitioners of medicine accepting this allergic reaction
as proven. Not that I want to start a peanut (tm) thread or discussion,
I just don't like the idea of people developing serious illness or
dying as the result of monkeying about with food.
It's something that is commonly done in the western world, and it's
something we should as a general principle review. That's all.
More information about the Neur-sci