The dangers of eating Spenda artificial sweetener

[Guest guest]

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=42764

The Rumor Mill News Reading Room

http://www.rumormillnews.com

 

THE DANGERS OF EATING SPLENDA

 

Posted By: mailbag

Sunday, 11 January 2004, 11:13 p.m.

 

 

 

12 Questions You Need to Have Answered Before You Eat Splenda

From Dr. Janet Starr Hull's Health Newsletter, December 2003

 

http://www.sweetpoison.com/

 

The following interview was conducted with Dr. Janet Starr Hull on the

safety of sucralose

found in Splenda.

 

Q: What exactly is Splenda?

 

A: In a simple sentence, you would just as soon have a pesticide in your

food as sucralose

because sucralose (Splenda) is a chlorocarbon. The chlorocarbons have long

been known for causing

organ, genetic, and reproductive damage. It should be no surprise,

therefore, that the testing of

sucralose reveals that it can cause up to 40 percent shrinkage of the

thymus: a gland that is the

very foundation of our immune system. Sucralose also causes swelling of the

liver and kidneys, and

CALCIFICATION of the kidney. Note: if you experience kidney pain, cramping,

or an irritated bladder

after using sucralose in Splenda, stop use immediately.

 

--------

 

Q: So sucralose is not found as a natural compound in nature, like real

sugar?

 

A: Absolutely not. No sugar molecule is compounded with chlorine anywhere in

nature.

 

--------

 

Q: Do you know how it is made in the laboratory?

 

A: I found this information from a statement from the manufacturer,

actually. 'Sucralose is

made from sugar, but is derived from sucrose (sugar) through a process that

selectively substitutes

three atoms of chlorine for three hydrogen-oxygen groups on the sucrose

molecule. No artificial

sweetener made in the laboratory is going to be neither natural to the body

nor safer than

unprocessed sugar', they claim.

 

People need to stop searching for excuses to eat all the junk food they want

without penalty.

In the long run, no one benefits from this product but the corporations.

 

--------

 

Q: The corporate researchers claim that the chlorine atoms are so tightly

bound; they create

a molecular structure that is exceptionally stable under extreme pH and

temperature conditions. Do

you agree?

 

A: They are testing these conditions in lab rats, and these types of

corporate studies have

forced and 'selective' results, in my opinion. Aspartame research is the

proof of this!

 

Test these chemicals on a child and see how stable it is--but that would be

cruel. So, why

then do we buy it and give it to our children? I don't buy into

manufacturers' claims when it comes

to human beings using ANY man-made chemical. Plus, I have learned over the

past 25 years of

aspartame research to value independent research above that which is funded

by corporations.

 

--------

 

Q: The corporations say sucralose is safe.

 

A: They said the same thing about aspartame, and look at the rampant disease

and obesity

taking over America since aspartame was put into the food supply over 20

years ago.

 

--------

 

Q: Can sucralose cause cancer?

 

A: Any animal that eats chlorine (especially on a regular basis) is at risk

of cancer. The

Merk Manuel and OSHA 40 SARA 120 Hazardous Waste Handbook states that

chlorine is a carcinogen and

emergency procedures should be taken when exposed via swallowing, inhaling,

or through the skin.

 

It all depends upon how much you use and how often, your present and past

health status, and

the degree of other toxins you are putting inside your body. Good luck with

this one .

 

--------

 

Q: Sucralose has been thoroughly tested, they claim. Actually they have

stated that sucralose

is the most tested food additive in history. I quote, " . more than 100

studies on the safety of

sucralose designed to meet the highest scientific standards have been

conducted and evaluated over

the course of 20 years. "

 

A: I don't believe that for a second. They stated verbatim the same thing

about aspartame. We

are looking at the same scenario in so many ways. As with NutraSweet, no

human studies, corporate

payrolled researchers, selective result reporting, government involvement

and personal financial

interests and controlled media. I will say that sucralose is not as

dangerous as aspartame.

 

--------

 

Q: Splenda is approximately 600 times sweeter than sugar. How can that be?

 

A: As I stated before, the product is a forced product, not a natural sugar

the body uses for

fuel. People forget that sweetness is a by-product of foods--a bonus so to

say. Forced sweetness,

revved-up sweetness, and artificial sweetness--all altered foods that are a

trap for people to get

addicted to the sweeter tastes. People with eating disorders, children who

are just learning about

food, and people with illnesses are all being 'sold a bill of rubbish' in my

opinion.

 

--------

 

Q: The manufacturer claims sucralose doesn't react with other substances in

the body and is

not broken down in the body.

 

A: They claimed the same thing about saccharin, even though I feel saccharin

is the only

artificial sweetener with true merit. To answer your question, if the body

is digesting properly,

anything you put into the body will be assimilated. If it happens to be

rancid, the stomach will

throw it out immediately by vomiting or diarrhea. It is totally out of the

realm of biological

science to think the body will not immediately attack a toxic chemical.

Henceforth, migraines from

aspartame and diarrhea from Splenda.

 

Now, to add a note to this: if the body is fed an indigestible product such

as plastic (like

in margarine) that it is incapable of dissolving through normal digestion,

it will pass through

undigested (if it doesn't get stuck in the gall bladder, that is.) So, if

sucralose is indigestible

due to its laboratory compounding, then we have yet another serious health

problem to consider,

don't you think?

 

Technology is great, but we sure don't need to be eating it!

 

--------

 

Q: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and government food authority

committees and the

Health Ministries in countries such as Canada, Mexico, Dominican Republic,

Jamaica, Trinidad &

Tobago, Argentina, and Brazil have confirmed the safety of sucralose. So

have the countries of

Colombia, Peru, Venezuela, Uruguay, Romania, Lebanon, Qatar, Bahrain,

Pakistan, Tajikistan, China,

South Africa, and Tanzania. What do you think of all these countries

confirming Splenda's safety?

 

A: The history of aspartame has unfortunately proven that individuals within

government

agencies cannot and should not be trusted to make such empowering public

decisions behind closed

doors.

 

Now, re-read this list of countries . Mexico, Jamaica, Tajikistan and

Tanzania? These are the

countries in which Splenda is now marketed? (See the final question.) As an

international

geographer, I can comfortably say that these countries are not nations with

the same technology and

mass marketing strategies to be compared with the United States. These

countries are more concerned

with birth control, food staples, hostile take-overs, and drought--not diet

sweeteners. Compare

apples to apples.

 

--------

 

Q: Is sucralose safe for children?

 

A: The manufacturer actually made this statement for disclosure: " One should

note, however,

that foods made with low-calorie sweeteners are not normally a recommended

part of a child's diet,

since calories are important to a growing child's body. "

 

Pay attention . Children should not be encouraged to grow up on fake foods.

But just like

cigarettes and alcohol, do what I say and not what I do? And we wonder why

the younger generation

is angry, ill, and ridden with ADD/ADHD and diabetes?? How many kids do you

see taking a sip of mom

or brother's diet cola?

 

--------

 

Q: Who manufactures and markets sucralose?

 

A: McNeil Specialty Products Company (MSPC), a wholly owned subsidiary of

Johnson & Johnson,

along with Tate & Lyle PLC, a world leader in sweeteners and starches, all

share responsibility for

developing and manufacturing sucralose for commercial use. Sucralose is the

first product from

McNeil Specialty, whose mission is to develop and market innovative food

ingredients that help

consumers control, maintain and improve their health. Internationally,

McNeil Specialty markets

sucralose in the United States, Canada, Latin America, the Caribbean,

Australia, New Zealand, and

the Middle East; Tate & Lyle markets sucralose in Africa, Asia, Europe and

Canada. Internationally,

McNeil Specialty markets sucralose under the name SPLENDAR Brand Sweetener.

SPLENDAR is a

registered trademark of McNeil Specialty Products Company.

 

--------

 

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

 

This is an excellent interview and one that I encourage you to read

carefully if you think

Splenda is safe to use.

 

Please note that I do not advise using Splenda. Over three years ago I

posted an article

describing the dangers of Splenda (sucralose).

http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm

 

Why not use Splenda? Well, research in animals has shown that sucralose can

cause many

problems such as:

 

a.. Shrunken thymus glands (up to 40 percent shrinkage)

 

b.. Enlarged liver and kidneys

 

c.. Atrophy of lymph follicles in the spleen and thymus

 

d.. Increased cecal weight

 

e.. Reduced growth rate

 

f.. Decreased red blood cell count

 

g.. Hyperplasia of the pelvis

 

h.. Extension of the pregnancy period

 

i.. Aborted pregnancy

 

j.. Decreased fetal body weights and placental weights

 

k.. Diarrhea

 

Nearly every month we receive a report from someone who has had an adverse

reaction to

Splenda, and you can see many of these reports posted on our site.

 

http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm

 

I also encourage you to take a look at the links below to get a thorough

understanding of the

dangers Splenda poses to your health.

 

 

Splenda's Dangers: One Man's Personal Story That You

Should Know

 

 

The Potential Dangers of Sucralose

 

 

The Dangers of Chlorine and Issues With Sucralose

 

 

Splenda is Not a Healthy Sweetener

 

 

Sucralose (Splenda®) U.S. Product List

 

 

Password:

 

 

Messages In This Thread

 

 

NEW: THE DANGERS OF EATING SPLENDA (views: 1373)

mailbag -- Sunday, 11 January 2004, 11:13 p.m.

NEW: Re: THE DANGERS OF NOT EATING STEVIA (views: 633)

ajeetbabu -- Monday, 12 January 2004, 6:58 a.m.

 

 

 

The Rumor Mill News Reading Room

http://www.rumormillnews.com

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=42769

Re: THE DANGERS OF NOT EATING STEVIA

 

Posted By: ajeetbabu

Monday, 12 January 2004, 6:58 a.m.

 

In Response THE DANGERS OF EATING SPLENDA (mailbag)

 

WHY WOULD MONSANTO OR G.D. SEARLE WANT TO BLOCK THIS NATURAL SWEETENER?

 

If you've ever tasted stevia, you know it's extremely sweet. In fact, this

remarkable noncaloric herb, native to Paraguay, has been used as a sweetener

and flavor enhancer for centuries. But this innocuous-looking plant has also

been a focal point of intrigue in the United States in recent years because

of actions by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The subject of searches

and seizures, trade complaints and embargoes on importation, stevia has been

handled at times by the FDA as if it were an illegal drug.

 

Since the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act

(DSHEA), stevia can be sold legally in the United States, but only as a

" dietary supplement. " Even so, it can be found in many forms in most

health-food stores, and is also incorporated into drinks, teas and other

items (all labeled as " dietary supplements " ). It cannot, however, be called

a " sweetener " or even referred to as " sweet. " To do so would render the

product " adulterated, " according to the FDA, and make it again subject to

seizure.

 

The purpose of our Web site is to provide as much information about stevia

as possible, from the scientific studies regarding its safety to the

petitions submitted by the Lipton Tea Company and the American Herbal

Products Association. Stevia.net will be an ongoing project for us at Body

Ecology, so check back often, as we will be augmenting and updating this

information frequently.

http://www.stevia.net/

 

A Powerfully Sweet Native Tradition

The Guarani Indians had known for centuries about the unique advantages of

kaa he-he (a native term which translates as " sweet herb " ) -- long before

the invaders from the Old World were lured by the treasures of the New.

These native people knew the leaves of the wild stevia shrub (a perennial

indigenous to the Amambay Mountain region) to have a sweetening power unlike

anything else; they commonly used the leaves to enhance the taste of bitter

mate (a tea-like beverage) and medicinal potions, or simply chewed them for

their sweet taste. The widespread native use of stevia was chronicled by the

Spaniards in historical documents preserved in the Paraguayan National

Archives in Asuncion. Historians noted that indigenous peoples had been

sweetening herbal teas with stevia leaves " since ancient times. " In due

course, it was introduced to settlers. By the 1800s, daily stevia

consumption had become well entrenched throughout the region -- not just in

Paraguay, but also in neighboring Brazil and Argentina.

Like the discovery of America itself, however, credit for stevia's

" discovery " goes to an Italian. In this case, the explorer was a botanist

whose initial unfamiliarity with the region (along with his difficulty in

locating the herb) caused him to believe that he had stumbled onto a

" little-known " plant.

 

A New World " Discovery "

Dr. Moises Santiago Bertoni, director of the College of Agriculture in

Asuncion, first learned of what he described as " this very strange plant "

from Indian guides while exploring Paraguay's eastern forests in 1887. This

area was not the herb's native 'growing ground.' Consequently, Bertoni, by

his own account, was initially " unable to find it. " It was 12 years before

he was presented with tangible evidence -- a packet of stevia fragments and

broken leaves received from a friend who had gotten them from the mate

plantations in the northeast. He subsequently announced his discovery of the

" new species " in a botanical journal published in Asuncion.

Bertoni named the " new " variety of the Stevia genus in honor of a Paraguayan

chemist named Rebaudi who subsequently became the first to extract the

plant's sweet constituent. " In placing in the mouth the smallest particle of

any portion of the leaf or twig, " Bertoni wrote, " one is surprised at the

strange and extreme sweetness contained therein. A fragment of the leaf only

a few square millimeters in size suffices to keep the mouth sweet for an

hour; a few small leaves are sufficient to sweeten a strong cup of coffee or

tea. "

 

It wasn't until 1903, however, that Bertoni discovered the live plant, a

gift from the parish priest of Villa San Pedro. The following year, as he

recounted, " the appearance of the first flowers enabled me to make a

complete study " -- the publication of which appeared in December, 1905,

after an interruption caused by a civil war. What he found was enough to

convince him that " the sweetening power of kaa he-e is so superior to sugar

that there is no need to wait for the results of analyses and cultures to

affirm its economic advantage...the simplest test proves it. " By 1913,

Bertoni's earlier impression of what had now been dubbed Stevia rebaudiana

Bertoni had undergone a change. What he had previously referred to as a

" rare " and " little-known " plant had now become " famous " and " well-known. "

The botanist's initial misperception is explained by the Herb Research

Foundation as being akin to that of a foreigner trying to find wild ginseng

in the U.S., and coming to the erroneous conclusion that it is a rare plant

when, in fact, it is widely prevalent -- provided you know where to look.

Further complicating the picture was the difficulty of traveling within

Paraguay during the late 1800s, entailing " an upriver journey of many days

by steamship. "

 

Raising Stevia -- and the Stakes

Bertoni's " discover " was a turning point for stevia in one very real sense

(other than being identified, analyzed and given a name). Whereas prior to

1900 it had grown only in the wild, with consumption limited to those having

access to its natural habitat, it now became ripe for cultivation. In 1908,

a ton of dried leaves was harvested, the very first stevia crop. Before

long, stevia plantations began springing up, a development that corresponded

with a marked reduction in the plant's natural growth area due to the

clearing of forests by timber interests and, to an extent, the removal of

thousands of stevia plants for transplantation (the growing of stevia from

seed simply doesn't work). Consequently, its use began to increase

dramatically, both in and beyond Latin America.

As word of this unique sweet herb began to spread, so, too, did interest in

its potential as a marketable commodity. That, in turn, raised concerns

within the business community. Stevia was first brought to the attention of

the U.S. government in 1918 by a botanist for the U.S. Department of

Agriculture who said he had learned about stevia while drinking mate and

tasted it years later, finding it to have a " remarkable sweetness. "

Three years later, stevia was presented to the USDA by American Trade

Commissioner George S. Brady as a " new sugar plant with great commercial

possibilities. " Brady took note of its nontoxicity and its ability to be

used in its natural state, with only drying and grinding required. He also

conveyed the claims that it was " an ideal and safe sugar for diabetics. " In

a memo to the Latin American Division of the USDA, Brady further stated that

he was " desirous of seeing it placed before any American companies liable to

be interested, as it is very probable that it will be of great commercial

importance. "

Stevia's commercial potential, however, was already known to others who were

less than happy about it. In 1913, a report from the official public

laboratory of Hamburg, Germany, noted that " specimens received are of the

well-known plant which alarmed sugar producers some years ago. "

 

Rediscovered in Japan

While nothing came of this early show of interest in the United States, an

event occurred in France in 1931 that would later prove significant. There,

two chemists isolated the most prevalent of several compounds that give the

stevia leaf its sweet taste, a pure white crystalline extract they named

stevioside. One U.S. government researcher, Dr. Hewitt G. Fletcher,

described this extract as " the sweetest natural product yet found, " though

adding, " It is natural to ask, 'of what use is stevioside?' The answer at

this point is 'none.' "

Within the next couple of decades, however, the enterprising Japanese had

discovered just how useful stevioside really was. The Japanese either banned

or strictly regulated artificial sweeteners during the 1960s, consistent

with a popular movement away from allowing chemicals in the food supply.

They soon discovered the ideal replacement for both sugar and its synthetic

substitutes: refined stevia extracts.

http://www.stevia.net/