S
sunshine
Guest
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.
====================================
<http://www.bayoubuzz.com/articles.aspx?aid=2865>
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.
====================================
<http://www.bayoubuzz.com/articles.aspx?aid=2865>