The Splendor Of Splenda?

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by sunshine, Jan 8, 2005.

  1. hba1c

    hba1c Guest

    Do you know what atoms make up a molecule table salt?
     


  2. Anon

    Anon Guest

    "sunshine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > As we now know, FDA approval means nothing...
    >
    > The Splendor Of Splenda?
    >
    > Truth in advertising? Health watch alert about Splenda (sucralose).
    >
    > According to the Women's Health Access Project, the makers of Splenda
    > have been deceptively ingenious with their marketing campaign. They
    > say the campaign was designed to lead people to the conclusion that
    > because its base element is natural (sucrose), then the product itself
    > is natural. According to some, Splenda's ad campaign has been
    > effective, but only by misleading the consumer about what goes into
    > your body or into children's diets. Splenda is not a natural product,
    > it is an artificial sweetener whose intense sweetness depends on its
    > chlorination. Opponents claim the makers of Splenda purposely tied
    > their product to sugar so that the natural and organic reputation of
    > sugar would rub off on their product.
    >
    > The Project argues that Splenda should be labeled what it actually
    > is-- a chlorinated artificial sweetener, which when produced is not
    > 100 percent natural. Splenda is neither natural nor a pesticide. It´s
    > a new chemical (according to a report in The San Francisco Chronicle,
    > September 15, 2004, Carol Ness).
    >
    > Splenda manufacturers claim that "about 15% of ingested sucralose is
    > passively absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract". The FDA's "final
    > rule" which approved Splenda says that as much as 27% can be absorbed.
    > No one has any idea whatsoever what the long term effects of ingesting
    > sucralose will be on the human body. Splenda has only been on the U.S.
    > market since 1998.
    >
    > The FDA has reviewed the following possible side-effects:
    >
    > - Enlarged liver and kidneys.
    > - Decreased white blood cell count.
    > - Reduced growth rate.
    > - Decreased fetal body weight.
    >
    > According to the FDA Final Rule, experiments with rats who were fed a
    > diet consisting of Splenda resulted in a shrunken Thymus gland. The
    > Thymus gland is significant because it is critical in developing the
    > human immune system. For this reason, Splenda can be dangerous for
    > people with compromised immune systems.
    >
    > With regard to safety, very little information exists except for
    > safety studies that were commissioned by organizations standing to
    > gain from the acceptance of sucralose. However, sucralose has been
    > widely used by consumers since 1991. The fact that it has generated
    > very little negative press stands in its favor. Although sucralose is
    > "derived from sugar," it is also a highly processed additive created
    > from the manipulation of molecules. Also, despite its derivation from
    > plain sugar (a feature its manufacturers repeatedly emphasize),
    > sucralose is an artificial sweetener.
    >
    > FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT THE Women's Health Access Project at
    > (504) 897.6152
    >
    > Bayoubuzz Note: Some might have other opinions regarding Splenda.
    > Here is its web site http://www.splenda.com/ Check out the
    > information and draw your own intelligent conclusions. More
    > particularly, according to its own website, Splenda makes these
    > current comments:
    >
    > "Sucralose underwent the FDA's rigorous food additive approval
    > process. In 1998, the FDA approved sucralose for use in 15 food and
    > beverage categories, the broadest initial approval ever given to a
    > food additive. Then in August 1999, just 16 months later, the FDA
    > extended its approval of SPLENDA® Brand Sweetener to permit its use as
    > a general-purpose sweetener in all foods and beverages. The FDA has
    > never required any warning label or information statement on products
    > containing sucralose.
    >
    > Sucralose in Other Countries
    >
    > Sucralose has been approved for use in more than 50 countries
    > worldwide. Canada approved sucralose in 1991, and Australia and Mexico
    > in 1993. Regulatory agencies have also approved the use of sucralose
    > in Brazil, China, and Japan, and in various Latin American, Asian,
    > Caribbean, and Middle Eastern countries.
    >
    > In 1990, the safety of sucralose was confirmed by the Joint FAO/WHO
    > Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). JECFA is an international
    > body of experts whose safety evaluation of food additives is relied
    > upon by other countries.
    >

    It is stated that "With regard to safety, very little information exists
    except for
    safety studies that were commissioned by organizations standing to
    gain from the acceptance of sucralose." These organizations are also the
    ones that stand to loose the most if the product is not safe. They would
    want to make damn sure it is safe before mass marketing it or later law
    suits would bankrupt the organizations.

    Anon
     
  3. Steve

    Steve Guest

  4. omega

    omega Guest

  5. You mean in the same way that lawsuits over childhood lead poisoning
    have bankrupted the companies which made and used tetraethyl lead for
    60 years before the 1980's? (Not) And lawsuits from people with heart
    attacks have bankrupted the people who gave you high temperature
    partially-hydrogenated vegetable oils (Not) even though these (finally)
    are slowly being legislatively phased out of the food supply?

    Methinks thou needst learn the ways of capitalism. Drug companies have
    deep pockets, are easily identified, and socially permissable to sue.
    By comparison, people who make and use additives for stuff you burn,
    wear, and eat, are not. Even if such things are later found to be
    harmful and banned completely, the companies which introduced them are
    never really held to the same standard as pharma. The reason being, I
    think, that to do so would require us all to admit that we'd been
    exposed to a toxin without ever really having as much warning as when
    we very deliberatelly buy and swallow a pill. You'd thing that would
    make people even angrier, but the opposite happens. I dont' know why.
    Perhaps it's so scary, that mostly we try not to think about it.

    SBH
     
  6. In article <[email protected]>,
    Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com <[email protected]> wrote:

    > The reason being, I
    > think, that to do so would require us all to admit that we'd been
    > exposed to a toxin without ever really having as much warning as when
    > we very deliberatelly buy and swallow a pill. You'd thing that would
    > make people even angrier, but the opposite happens. I dont' know why.
    > Perhaps it's so scary, that mostly we try not to think about it.
    >
    > SBH


    Since I developed Multiple Chemical sensitivity, I think about it a lot.
    >


    --
    Diva
    *****
    The Best Man For The Job Is A Woman
     
  7. VBH

    VBH Guest

    omega wrote:
    > that's a good point about the groups that funded all of this research.
    > I also read that in the EU an ammendment had to be made for it to be
    > approved. Here is the article I read:
    > http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/news-NG.asp?n=57688-splenda-faces-new
    >


    Perhaps you should read this one:
    http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry...ions/completconsultscot/scotsweetenersconsult

    The amendment (ooooh! scary!) was an amendment to the law to allow the
    use of those sweeteners.

    i.e. approving it.

    Or did you think that approval happened without amending the law
    permitting substances to be used as an additive?

    It's important when looking at these issues to look at all angles, not
    just the "anti" lobby with their propaganda based on their own agenda
    (everyone should live in trees and eat only nuts)

    --------------------
    VBH
    T2/UK/A1c 5.6/ 1000Met/Dx Oct-03
     
  8. In article <[email protected]>, VBH <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    > omega wrote:
    > > that's a good point about the groups that funded all of this research.
    > > I also read that in the EU an ammendment had to be made for it to be
    > > approved. Here is the article I read:
    > > http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/news-NG.asp?n=57688-splenda-faces-new
    > >

    >
    > Perhaps you should read this one:
    >
    > http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/Consultations/completed_consultations/comp
    > letconsultscot/scotsweetenersconsult
    >
    > The amendment (ooooh! scary!) was an amendment to the law to allow the
    > use of those sweeteners.
    >
    > i.e. approving it.
    >
    > Or did you think that approval happened without amending the law
    > permitting substances to be used as an additive?
    >
    > It's important when looking at these issues to look at all angles, not
    > just the "anti" lobby with their propaganda based on their own agenda
    > (everyone should live in trees and eat only nuts)


    Everyone should not live in trees and eat nuts but people with chemical
    sensitivities and gastric illness do not do well with artiificial
    sweeteners. Ironically saaccharine is OK for them even though it is a
    chemical and it has received a clean bill of health after theyears of
    the Bladder cancer in rats studies were refuted.

    --
    Diva
    ******
    There is no substitute for the right food
     
  9. VBH

    VBH Guest

    Carol Frilegh wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>, VBH <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>omega wrote:
    >>
    >>>that's a good point about the groups that funded all of this research.
    >>>I also read that in the EU an ammendment had to be made for it to be
    >>>approved. Here is the article I read:
    >>>http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/news-NG.asp?n=57688-splenda-faces-new
    >>>

    >>
    >>Perhaps you should read this one:
    >>
    >>http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/Consultations/completed_consultations/comp
    >>letconsultscot/scotsweetenersconsult
    >>
    >>The amendment (ooooh! scary!) was an amendment to the law to allow the
    >>use of those sweeteners.
    >>
    >>i.e. approving it.
    >>
    >>Or did you think that approval happened without amending the law
    >>permitting substances to be used as an additive?
    >>
    >>It's important when looking at these issues to look at all angles, not
    >>just the "anti" lobby with their propaganda based on their own agenda
    >>(everyone should live in trees and eat only nuts)

    >
    >
    > Everyone should not live in trees and eat nuts but people with chemical
    > sensitivities and gastric illness do not do well with artiificial
    > sweeteners. Ironically saaccharine is OK for them even though it is a
    > chemical and it has received a clean bill of health after theyears of
    > the Bladder cancer in rats studies were refuted.
    >


    People have chemical sensitivities to specific chemicals.

    Water is a chemical. Oxygen is a chemical. I really do pity anyone
    with a chemical sentitivity to either of those - although it would be brief.

    People with chemical sensitivities and gastric illness have do not do
    well with specific "artificial" sweeteners. You cannot classify things
    as simply as that - as you have said yourself with saccharine.

    Most of the "artificial" sweeteners on the market involve aspatame or
    acesulfame - for which there is a specific rare allergy.

    Frankly, sugar does not grow in a white crystalline form in a bag. It
    has to be processed in one way or another to turn it into what people
    think of as sugar.

    I guess that makes it "artificial".

    The labels "artificial" and "natural" are constantly used as terms for
    "good" and "bad".

    Chemistry and biochemistry do not work that way.
    --------------------
    VBH
    T2/UK/A1c 5.6/ 1000Met/Dx Oct-03
     
  10. In article <[email protected]>, VBH <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    > Carol Frilegh wrote:
    > > In article <[email protected]>, VBH <[email protected]>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>omega wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>that's a good point about the groups that funded all of this research.
    > >>>I also read that in the EU an ammendment had to be made for it to be
    > >>>approved. Here is the article I read:
    > >>>http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/news-NG.asp?n=57688-splenda-faces-new
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>Perhaps you should read this one:
    > >>

    >
    > >>>>http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/Consultations/completed_consultations/
    > >>comp
    > >>letconsultscot/scotsweetenersconsult
    > >>
    > >>The amendment (ooooh! scary!) was an amendment to the law to allow the
    > >>use of those sweeteners.
    > >>
    > >>i.e. approving it.
    > >>
    > >>Or did you think that approval happened without amending the law
    > >>permitting substances to be used as an additive?
    > >>
    > >>It's important when looking at these issues to look at all angles, not
    > >>just the "anti" lobby with their propaganda based on their own agenda
    > >>(everyone should live in trees and eat only nuts)

    > >
    > >
    > > Everyone should not live in trees and eat nuts but people with chemical
    > > sensitivities and gastric illness do not do well with artiificial
    > > sweeteners. Ironically saaccharine is OK for them even though it is a
    > > chemical and it has received a clean bill of health after theyears of
    > > the Bladder cancer in rats studies were refuted.
    > >

    >
    > People have chemical sensitivities to specific chemicals.
    >
    > Water is a chemical. Oxygen is a chemical. I really do pity anyone
    > with a chemical sentitivity to either of those - although it would be brief.
    >
    > People with chemical sensitivities and gastric illness have do not do
    > well with specific "artificial" sweeteners. You cannot classify things
    > as simply as that - as you have said yourself with saccharine.
    >
    > Most of the "artificial" sweeteners on the market involve aspatame or
    > acesulfame - for which there is a specific rare allergy.
    >
    > Frankly, sugar does not grow in a white crystalline form in a bag. It
    > has to be processed in one way or another to turn it into what people
    > think of as sugar.
    >
    > I guess that makes it "artificial".
    >
    > The labels "artificial" and "natural" are constantly used as terms for
    > "good" and "bad".
    >
    > Chemistry and biochemistry do not work that way.


    Well I'll be more specific. I follow the Specific Carbohyrate Diet for
    celiac disease, Crohn's, IBS and Ulcertative Colitis. We don't use
    aspartame or much stevia. We do use saccharine a processed chemical and
    honey, a carb that has been predigested by bees. We use nuts ground
    into flour instead of grain, rice or potato flour.

    The diet has proved very effective and recently was found helpful for
    autism. About 80% of the children on a listerv of 1300 have shown
    improvement or lost their autism diagnosis. Working on the list for
    four years and forming a close bond with the author who is a research
    biologist has been very educational. T

    he food we use adapts well to excellent recipes. It is not processed
    but is also not exotic and can be found in any comprehensively stocked
    market. Obese on the diet must be watchful as the honey, nuts, avocado
    and permitted dairy products tend to be calorie dense.

    http://breakingtheviciouscycle.info/

    --
    Diva
    ******
    There is no substitute for the right food
     
  11. The Real Bev

    The Real Bev Guest

    Carol Frilegh wrote:

    > Everyone should not live in trees and eat nuts but people with chemical
    > sensitivities and gastric illness do not do well with artiificial
    > sweeteners. Ironically saaccharine is OK for them even though it is a
    > chemical and it has received a clean bill of health after theyears of
    > the Bladder cancer in rats studies were refuted.


    I think you mean Sucaryl here.

    --
    Cheers,
    Bev
    =================================================================
    "There's an apocryphal (I hope not !) story about a Bristol bike
    thief found cold, wet and bedraggled one morning, D locked by the
    neck to a local bridge." -- Anon
     
  12. In article <[email protected]>, The Real Bev
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Carol Frilegh wrote:
    >
    > > Everyone should not live in trees and eat nuts but people with chemical
    > > sensitivities and gastric illness do not do well with artiificial
    > > sweeteners. Ironically saaccharine is OK for them even though it is a
    > > chemical and it has received a clean bill of health after theyears of
    > > the Bladder cancer in rats studies were refuted.

    >
    > I think you mean Sucaryl here.


    I definitely meant saccharine. Sucaryl is also forbidden on my diet as
    is anything with dextrose, maltose nd isomaltose.
    We used saccharine before and during WW 2. Then Sweet and Low became
    the rage, the kind with cyclamate. I had it for 30 years. in Canada we
    can still get it with cyclamate and although it's allowed for the diet
    I have returned to saccharine.

    --
    Diva
    *****
    The Best Man For The Job Is A Woman
     
  13. jamie

    jamie Guest

    [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
    > The Real Bev <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Carol Frilegh wrote:
    >>
    >>> Everyone should not live in trees and eat nuts but people with chemical
    >>> sensitivities and gastric illness do not do well with artiificial
    >>> sweeteners. Ironically saaccharine is OK for them even though it is a
    >>> chemical and it has received a clean bill of health after theyears of
    >>> the Bladder cancer in rats studies were refuted.

    >>
    >>I think you mean Sucaryl here.

    >
    > I believe that they do mean _saccharine_


    There was one study for cyclamates and one for saccharin, both later
    attributed to a particular strain of lab rats prone to bladder
    cancer, and in further studies on both sweeteners the cancer was
    never reproduced.

    --
    jamie ([email protected])

    "There's a seeker born every minute."
     
  14. hansmatt

    hansmatt Guest

    So what do you think about the current lawsuits? Are these lawsuits
    against sucralose going to change the views of consumers?
     
  15. Simm Webb

    Simm Webb Guest

    another brain dead disciple of betty the monster. If it ain't her own
    agenda, it is illegal, immoral, or health challenging. Take your junk
    elsewhere you thoughtless challenged dummy.

    hansmatt wrote:

    >So what do you think about the current lawsuits? Are these lawsuits
    >against sucralose going to change the views of consumers?
    >
    >
    >


    --

    Finished my cancer,
    Finished my heart problems,
    Grateful to be back.

    Eddie MD OTF
     
  16. Simm Webb

    Simm Webb Guest

    another brain dead disciple of betty the monster. If it ain't her own
    agenda, it is illegal, immoral, or health challenging. Take your junk
    elsewhere you thoughtless challenged dummy.

    hansmatt wrote:

    >So what do you think about the current lawsuits? Are these lawsuits
    >against sucralose going to change the views of consumers?
    >
    >
    >


    --

    Finished my cancer,
    Finished my heart problems,
    Grateful to be back.

    Eddie MD OTF
     
Loading...