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      
    | _ |
    |___|