Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site SCIRTP.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!SCIRTP!todd From: todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) Newsgroups: net.kids,net.med Subject: Sugar vs. nutrasweet Message-ID: <222@SCIRTP.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Jul-85 16:18:53 EDT Article-I.D.: SCIRTP.222 Posted: Tue Jul 16 16:18:53 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 03:59:48 EDT References: <771@burl.UUCP> <787@mtuxo.UUCP> <193@omen.UUCP> Organization: SCI Systems, Research Triangle Park, NC Lines: 22 Xref: watmath net.kids:1481 net.med:1717 > What's natural about Sugar save advertising hype? If it weren't for our > ADDICTION to sugar, there wouldn't be much of a need for Nutrasweet in > the first place. > -- > Chuck Forsberg 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. ||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | _ | |___|