Splenda

[Zereh]

May not be so splendid after all:

If you're a Splenda user, here's what you need to know: The controversy centers mainly on Splenda's promotional messages and its claimed link to sugar, not its safety. At the same time, some critics in the sugar industry contend not enough is known about the long-term human impacts of combining chlorine with sugar to make sucralose, Splenda's base ingredient. The sweetener's approval by the Food and Drug Administration followed numerous animal studies.

I know I'm anal about this stuff most of the time and y'all probably think I spend too much time on my soapbox, but reading articles like this make me so very glad I stick to "real" food.

Z

 

[Andy M.]

... some critics in the sugar industry contend not enough is known about the long-term human impacts of combining chlorine with sugar to make sucralose, Splenda's base ingredient. ...

So we have a quote from the sugar industry, Splenda's competition, claiming that "...not enough is known...".

If that's the best they can come up with, a suggestive statement that makes no accusations but hints at a harmful relationship, there can't be much if any danger in using the stuff.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a sugar user from the git go. But I am always upset by what I consider deceptive tactics conceived to make you think something without actually saying it.

BTW, the article goes on to say, "We consider (Splenda) safe. But it happens to be a synthetic chemical cooked up in a flask somewhere," said CSPI spokesman Jeff Cronin. "That doesn't mean it isn't safe, but people should know (what it is)."

 

[Erik]

I'm going to use it...nobody's going to change my mind.

 

[Zereh]

The motivation for starting the lawsuit isn't as altruistic as "wanting to make sure people know what they are ingesting", I agree. But I also think that Splenda has seriously tried to pull the wool over people's eyes about what it really is. I was hoping people would get beyond the "who is saying what" stuff.

I guess the best anology I can come up with is that it is like going to a doctor and blindly popping whatever pill(s) it is he says will cure you without doing any research or asking any questions (i.e. the mess we are in where we try to correct a symptom instead of correcting the cause). Or believing without question every chemical or product the FDA puts their stamp of appoval on is perfectly fine to breathe, eat, spray plants with, slather on our children, etc. etc.

It's not about being paranoid or hysterical. It's about making informed decisions. I mean, you can't freak out about everything you eat, what kind of life would that be? Information is a good thing, even if you don't like what is being said.

Read what Whole Foods has to say about it; check here too. =) Keep clicking , there's tons of information out there.

/shrug

Some people like this kind of information, some don't; we're all obviously free to shovel whatever we'd like into our mouths. Often times I dine on my own foot since that's where I seem to have placed it again ... =)~

 

[mudbug]

Zereh, I don't buy most of anything that CSPI has to say. That outfit has a very large political agenda.

 

[middie]

here's my thing. people are going to use what they like period.
it doesn't matter what other people say. yes it's nice to have the
information don't get me wrong. but alot of people tend to think
something's going to kill them everntually, so they're going to use it
and enjoy it. don't mean to offend anybody but that's how it is.

 

[scott123]

I can see how McNeil might want to distance themselves from the stigma of artificial sweeteners, but the "tastes like sugar" campaign is total garbage. It's very disappointing to me that they'd attempt to skew the truth like this. They have the best artificial sweetener on the market, it's selling like crazy, why do they have to try to dupe the American public into thinking it isn't an artificial sweetener?

I couldn't live without splenda as a component of my sweetening mix, so I'm not going to stop using it, but I will say this company is dumb, dumb, dumb.

 

[Raine]

Nothing tastes like sugar, but sugar.

Sugar is expensive enough, but the cost of this stuff is outragous.

 

[Darkstream]

What the sugar industry doe NOT spin up, publicise or advertise is that it is a substance that is POISONOUS to approximately 6% of the people in the western economies, AND that only half of them (3%) know that they are liable to being poisoned by this substance.

It does not advertise how it affects other biometric aspects. It certainly does not provide television commercials stating how you should NOT give children sweets/candy or sugar inflated drinks unless you have an unlimited dentistry budget. It DOES NOT APPEAR TO WARN YOU of the health risks that you take in consuming it.

Not surprising really, since a sugar industry spokesthing would have a conflict of interest betwen telling the truth and acting for their client.

I think Splenda is the best thing since real sugar. I would prefer the real thing, BUT since I know it is poisonous I will do without it. I CANNOT tolerate aspartame or the other sacharides. So, for me it is Splenda, or nothing. Unfortunately, NOTHING does not seem to be on offer yet. But....


And, if it all goes wrong, you can allways sue the B*stards. Splenda was an invention of TATE & LYLE, probably the largest sugar operator in the world. Still mostly intersted in sugar.

The damages of a good class action against them AND the sugar refiners would not only be sufficient to wipe out the companies concerned, but also the economies of a large number of relatively undeveloped nations for whom sugar cane production is the main economic activity.

So, have a good think about it.

 

[Raine]

Had this one bookmarked.

http://www.foodsubs.com/Sweeten.html#granulated sugar

 

[Michael in FtW]

LOL ... Zereh, it seems that every time someone comes up with a "sugar substitute" ... "someone" comes up with a "scientific" study to prove you'll die from eating it. Of course, you probably don't know enough about chemistry to know the study is flawed ... if you even care to read the research paper .... Someone is counting on your ignorance.

Humm .. chlorine .... it's used to bleach four, purify water, etc. ....

I prefer foods that aren't "messed" with .... but sometimes the "science" is like statistical math ...... you can twist the facts and prove anything you want.

Bad science is like the little boy crying wolf ... if something actually does prove to be bad for us ... who is going to pay attention?

 

[Chief Longwind Of The North]

I have choices. I can use Splenda, Sacharides, Sugar Alcohols, Sugar, or a host of other sweeteners. Unfortunately, being diabetic, I have to avoid sugar like the plague, and starchy foods as well. And of the artificial sweeteners, Splenda appears to be the safest, most versatile, and best tasting of the lot.

Sugar is very hard on the body, and creates a host of problems. It can even carse people with no history of diabetes to develop the disease. People were far healthier when refined sugar was not yet available to them. A bit of nutrition history research plainly illuminates this fact.

When we refine foods, we remove the healthy componants and concentrate the parts that can lead to many nutrition related problems. Think of it like this. One orange, squeesed, will give you about an 8th cup of orange juice. And that juice will be missing much of the fiber contained in the whole orange. So drinking an 8 ounce glass of orange juice is like eating 8 oranges. And its the same with other refined foods. White flour is stripped of the bran, the germ, and the significant nutritional value contained in those parts. We end up with some of the available protien, and a whole bunch of starch. And starch affects the blood sugar just like refined sugar does.

Eating sugar is not a bad thing, as long as it's the sugar that's found in an apple, or a sweet potato, or cherry. Because the amount of sugar in ratio to the vitamins, fiber, minerals, isoflavones, etc. is nominal. You get real nutritional value, and nutrients that promote health and vitality. Sugar by itself stresses the body, especially the pancrease and nervous system. It creates insullin swings that trigger fat production and a loss of energy due to the powerful hormone. You end up fatigued and stressed.

I've done the homework, studied the books, talked for countless hours with nutritionists and my doctor.

Excess sugar is harmful to the human body, period. And it doesn't much matter whether its fruictose, glucose, lactose, honey, or plain old sucrose (table sugar), it causes a rapid rise in blood sugar and triggers the release of too much insulin. It hurts you. The sugar alcohols also create a rise in blood sugar, but not quite as quickly. And starch starts converting into simple sugar before it hits the stomach.

Yes sugar is the bodies main fuel. But it has to enter the bloodstream slowly, and in sufficient quantity to power the machine, not flood it.

There. Now I'll step away from the soapbox.

Seeeeeya; Goodweed of the North