Given that I'm a runner, nay a marathoner, as well a bit of a health-nut, I might be expected to have a bit of a soft spot for any move to get rid of poison like aspartame.

Certainly then, Hawaii's proposed ban on aspartame should appeal to me, no? Borrowing a phrase from the Hertz commercials, "Not exactly." From an article by Op-Ed News columnist Betty Martini we find:

The Hawaii House Health Committee was to consider the bill to ban aspartame, but it never happened. Chairman Josh Green, M.D. deferred this lifesaving initiative, which means the committee won't be able to vote on the overwhelming testimony of renowned medical authorities, physicians and researchers that aspartame is a neurotoxin, unfit for human consumption, inflicting disabilities and death on multitudes.

One can, upon reading the piece, see that Dr. Martini is both passionate and informed about the dangers of aspartame. I do not care to offer any debate on any substantive point she makes about the dangers of aspartame. Frankly, her information is compelling. For instance:

Paralysis is one of the 92 disabilities the Food & Drug Administration named in their 1995 list of aspartame reactions which they now deny ever existed.  FDA derived these from over 10,000 complaints volunteered by American consumers; more than those reported to FDA for any other additive. FDA slammed the complaint window in 1996 and have ignored all testimony and research, including over 100 damning scientific peer reviewed studies on the devastating consequence of consuming aspartame. Seizures, sexual dysfunction, birth defects, blindness, paranoia, diabetes, migraines, obesity, and its a multi-potential carcinogen concluded an award winning 3-year study on1,800 rats by Dr. M. Soffritti of the Ramazzini Institute. The 2005 study was peer reviewed by 7 world experts. His second study showed it only takes a small amount to cause cancer and if pregnant women use it and their baby survives the offspring can get cancer.

Were the decision mine, I would un-create aspartame in a minute. But the decision is not mine, and that's where Dr. Martini and I diverge. Debating about the facts, or lack thereof regarding aspartame is using the argument from effect. By this I mean that one is faced with a case of "dueling facts and opinions" from which either decision could be made. In cases such as this, it is my position that the argument from morality is a better approach. That is to say, no matter the evidence, the State (or any group of people) is not justly authorized to decide for everyone else. Simply put, all people should be free to choose a behavior that effects their most basic initial possession, their bodies. That the chosen action might be unwise is irrelevant. As I asked some time ago, if the State protects me from myself, who will protect me from the State? Although I was talking, at that time, about the proposed ban on transfats, the logic is exactly analogous.  From that article:

"People are (or should be) free to choose. If they really don’t want to consume trans fats, they are free to not do so. If a restaurant wants to use them, I am free to not dine there while you are free to enjoy them if you like. Everyone is happy. Secondly, the prevalence of trans fats is largely the result of government interference anyway, so why would even more government involvement make things better? Let’s review this little scenario:

• Initially people are free to use whatever they want, including lard, butter, coconut oil, olive oil, and/or palm oil, etc. (Some people are fat, but hey, that was less about the fats and more about their lifestyle choices, among other things.)

   

• Aggressive lobbying by the edible oil industry causes adoption, at the federal government level, of dietary goals and guidelines that incorporate the mistaken idea that consumption of saturated fat causes heart disease. (State intervention makes finding a domestic substitute for these fats financially critical.)

• Because of inherent limitations, polyunsaturated vegetable oils are unsuitable for baking; partially hydrogenated oils are developed to mitigate these effects. (Manufacturers, seeking to maximize profits while meeting the federal guidelines eagerly incorporate this stuff into, well, everything.)

• After years of clogged arteries, heart attacks, bypass surgeries and the like, somebody discovers that making a cheap vegetable oil into a baking fat via the magic of chemistry also changes the properties of that oil for the worse. (Who knew?)

• State intervention seeks to preclude that which was originally facilitated largely by state intervention – trans fats are banned. (Complete symmetry is achieved.)"

Government action, either in banning or mandating, always results in unintended (and often dangerous) consequences. How better to conclude this essay but as I concluded that previous one on transfats? 

"It’s not my place to make choices of this type for anyone else and neither is it the government’s place. (I’ve already got a mother, but thanks anyway.) Let the right and the responsibility rest where they should."

Having the government ban aspartame, transfats, or anything else, simply opens up the door for some other self-interested body to lobby them to mandate some other additive.

While I'm certainly no fan of artifical sweeteners, I'm still willing to take my chances, without the FDA or Congress looking over my shoulder at my plate.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments