A Splenda Way to Die!

[Guest guest]

Found this in another forum - one of the posts also had a whole list

of references. If you want to read the whole thread, here is the

link:

http://www.veggieboards.com/boards/showthread.php?p=494848#post494848

 

Here are the two main posts about this that lay out this argument. I

haven't seen this side of the issue discussed here.

 

05.08.01

Sunday Mirror

 

12,800 animals die for no-calorie pills. Dogs were killed after 52

weeks of treatment by exsanguination. BEAGLES were among thousands of

animals killed in laboratory tests on a new artificial sweetener. The

dogs probably had their throats cut, while marmoset monkeys died from

brain damage and rabbits were poisoned during a 20-year study into

the effects of Sucralose.

The sweetener - sold in the United States as Splenda - is expected to

be on sale in the UK in a couple of months.

Researchers estimate that 12,800 animals died during the research.

The death toll came to light in articles published in a scientific

journal. Sucralose - which is 600 times sweeter than sugar - is the

first no-calorie sugar-based sweetener to be developed.

It is set to be a money- spinner for British sugar giant Tate & Lyle,

who commissioned the research. But thousands of animals died in a

series of gruesome laboratory experiments to test the sweetener both

here and in the US, anti-vivisection campaigners have revealed.

In the most shocking tests, 32 beagle dogs were locked in metal cages

for 52 weeks at the McNeil Speciality products labs in New Jersey.

They were given Sucralose mixed in with their normal feed, and blood

and urine samples were collected. At the end of the study they were

anaesthetised and had their throats slit open so they bled to death.

They were then cut open and their organs - by now drained of blood so

easier to dissect - were examined to test the product's toxicity

levels.

A report of the study was published in the journal Food and Chemical

Toxicology. It read: " Dogs were killed after 52 weeks of treatment by

exsanguination (draining of blood) while under anaesthesia and

examined. "

Thousands of monkeys, rabbits, mice and rats were killed during tests

in the UK. In one experiment at the controversial Huntingdon Research

Centre in Cambridgeshire four beagle puppies were starved before

being force-fed Sucralose through tubes. Researchers took blood

samples from the animals' jugular veins and examined their urine and

faeces to discover the effect of Sucralose on their metabolisms. It

is unclear whether the puppies survived or not.

An unspecified number of marmoset monkeys died or were killed after

they were force-fed Sucralose at the Life Science Research lab in

Eye, Suffolk, now part of Huntingdon Life Sciences. Twelve male

monkeys aged under 10 months were examined and force-fed Sucralose

for seven weeks. On the seventh day of the study two of the monkeys

died from brain defects, a third was killed after four weeks and the

remainder of the brain-damaged animals were put down. In another

British-based experiment, also carried out at Eye, rabbits were given

a dose of Sucralose 1,200 times the expected human daily intake. Many

died from trauma. Others suffered extreme weight loss, convulsions

and intestinal disorders. Tests on pregnant rabbits and thousands of

mice and rats were also carried out at Huntingdon.

Experiments, which have not been published, were also carried out at

labs at Inveresk, near Edinburgh, and at Covance at Harrogate,

Yorkshire. The British Union For The Abolition Of Vivisection (email:

info), estimates tens of thousands of animals have died.

BUAV's director of research Sarah Kite said: " They are particularly

nasty. Animals have been made to suffer and die simply to put out

another sweetener which we don't need. " These appalling tests, which

usually involve slitting the animals' throats, are legal, but we feel

they should not be allowed in this country. " Sucralose is already on

sale in 40 countries including the US - where it is marketed under

licence by Johnson & Johnson - Australia and Canada. It is sold as

tiny sweetener tablets or as a powder for use in soft drinks, ice

cream and jams. Tate & Lyle has applied to the European Union and the

UK's Food Standards Agency for approval to release Sucralose.

Tate & Lyle divisional managing director Austin Maguire said: " We

have done the minimum number of tests required. Sucralose is unique.

Consumers welcome that additional choice. " A spokesman for Huntingdon

Life Sciences - bailed out by the Government this year when its bank

became the focus for protests and withdrew their loan - said: " We

would only do these tests if there was no alternative. " Most were

done at Huntingdon some years ago and are not happening now.

A Home Office spokesman said: " Anyone who wants to do safety testing

has to show a clear necessity for using animals to gain a licence. "

 

In a time when obesity has seen a dramatic increase, diabetes is

plaguing more and more children, and doctors are warning people to

cut down on their sugars, sugar giant Tate and Lyle, with the aid of

McNeil Specialty Products (a division of Johnson and Johnson) came up

with a sweetener 600 times more potent than real sugar! Now where do

you think you go to test " safe " a product as " important " Sucralose

(also called Splenda in the US) – Huntingdon Life Sciences, of course.

 

Huntingdon played a big role in the testing that took place to bring

this garbage product to the market. An estimated 12,800 animals died

in the process according to a published report in a recent scientific

journal.

 

Some of the more gruesome details revealed:

 

• 32 beagle dogs were locked in metal cages for 52 weeks. They were

given Sucralose mixed in with their normal feed, and blood and urine

samples were collected. At the end of the study they were killed by

means of exsanguiation - they had their throats slit open and bled to

death. They were then cut open and their organs - by now drained of

blood so easier to dissect - were examined to test the product's

toxicity levels.

• Four beagle puppies (or as HLS calls them – punching bags) were

starved before being force-fed the super-sweet sugar powder. HLS

employees then took blood samples from the jugulars of the infant

dogs.

 

• An unspecified number of marmoset monkeys either died from the

poisoning or were killed at the termination of the research at HLS.

 

• The report states that 12 of these monkeys, which were babies –

under 10 months old – were force-fed Sucralose for seven weeks. Two

of the primates died on the seventh day from brain defects, another

primate was mysteriously killed after four weeks, and the remainder

all were murdered at the completion of the seventh week. Some of the

recorded observations from this study noted " in appetence, body

weight loss, unwillingness to use hind leg, hopping, involuntary grip

reflexes, salivation and subdued mood. "

 

• Huntingdon also used rabbits to study the effects of the product.

These little animals were given 1200 times the expected daily intake

and not surprisingly most died from the trauma. Many of the other

rabbits suffered from convulsions, weight loss, and various

intestinal disorders.

 

• Huntingdon also tested the product on pregnant rabbits, mice, and

rats – killing both the mothers and the fetuses.

 

All in all, just another customer-sponsored project at HLS. All this

pain and death for the sake of bringing to the market a sweetener

that can make your ice-cream or jam 600 times sweeter. This sort of

testing really should give you pause to think, and possibly send off

a thank you note to HLS for all the important contributions they are

making to the world.

 

http://www.shacusa.net/splenda/splenda.htm

 

So, it seems that whether or not you believe that this substance is

bad for you, it appears that it is quite bad for the animals that

died to bring it out. And at HLS, no less. That's enough for me

never to buy it. Of course, I probably never would have anyway, I

don't like artificial stuff. I'll just stick to my regular sugar,

thank you very much.

 

Virgil

[Guest guest]

, " Virgil "

<cybergypsy1964> wrote:

>.....

> So, it seems that whether or not you believe that this substance

is

> bad for you, it appears that it is quite bad for the animals that

> died to bring it out. And at HLS, no less. That's enough for me

> never to buy it. Of course, I probably never would have anyway, I

> don't like artificial stuff. I'll just stick to my regular sugar,

> thank you very much.

>

> Virgil

 

I have to agree with you, Virgil. Here we are, in a group of

supposedly health-minded people, who argue about what soymilk is

vegetarian and worry about eating GMO foods. I find it very ironic

that some of the people in this group would advocate consuming an

untested product like Splenda. Did I say untested? YES!! As one

person pointed out, " we aren't rabbits or monkeys " . No, we aren't,

we are people, and this product has not been tested on people. YOU,

the people who are consuming the Splenda, Y-O-U are the guinea pigs.

This is an artificial chemical, people. After what it has been shown

to do to animals, I would think that would be enough to scare anyone

away. Yes sireeee, drink up and enjoy, we'll count you in the

statistics. For pete's sake, doesn't anybody remember aspartame?

Saccharin?

 

For those who are concerned enough about this subject to want to

learn more, go to google or any other search engine and do a search

on the dangers of Splenda. You should find plenty of interesting

reading.

 

I'll stick to my sugar too.

 

cheryll

[Guest guest]

Saccharin, incidentally, has never been proven to be carcinogenic (or in any

other way damaging) to humans. The tests which supposedly indicated that it is

carcinogenic were performed on rats, and those rats were repeatedly force fed

more saccharin than any human would be expected to consume in a lifetime.

 

In addition, I sincerely doubt that anyone took into account the fact that lab

rats are extremely prone to cancers, due to irresponsible breeding.

 

cheryll <naturalist_44240 wrote:

For pete's sake, doesn't anybody remember aspartame?

Saccharin?

 

 

 

 

 

New and Improved Mail - Send 10MB messages!

 

 

[Guest guest]

OMG Virgil! That's terrible! I could never understand how they could use poor

defenseless animals to test products on. It's a sad shame:(

 

Noel

 

 

 

 

 

 

Message: 1

Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:14:44 -0000

" Virgil " <cybergypsy1964

A Splenda Way to Die!

 

Found this in another forum - one of the posts also had a whole list

of references. If you want to read the whole thread, here is the

link:

http://www.veggieboards.com/boards/showthread.php?p=494848#post494848

 

Here are the two main posts about this that lay out this argument. I

haven't seen this side of the issue discussed here.

 

05.08.01

Sunday Mirror

 

12,800 animals die for no-calorie pills. Dogs were killed after 52

weeks of treatment by exsanguination. BEAGLES were among thousands of

animals killed in laboratory tests on a new artificial sweetener. The

dogs probably had their throats cut, while marmoset monkeys died from

brain damage and rabbits were poisoned during a 20-year study into

the effects of Sucralose.

The sweetener - sold in the United States as Splenda - is expected to

be on sale in the UK in a couple of months.

Researchers estimate that 12,800 animals died during the research.

The death toll came to light in articles published in a scientific

journal. Sucralose - which is 600 times sweeter than sugar - is the

first no-calorie sugar-based sweetener to be developed.

It is set to be a money- spinner for British sugar giant Tate & Lyle,

who commissioned the research. But thousands of animals died in a

series of gruesome laboratory experiments to test the sweetener both

here and in the US, anti-vivisection campaigners have revealed.

In the most shocking tests, 32 beagle dogs were locked in metal cages

for 52 weeks at the McNeil Speciality products labs in New Jersey.

They were given Sucralose mixed in with their normal feed, and blood

and urine samples were collected. At the end of the study they were

anaesthetised and had their throats slit open so they bled to death.

They were then cut open and their organs - by now drained of blood so

easier to dissect - were examined to test the product's toxicity

levels.

A report of the study was published in the journal Food and Chemical

Toxicology. It read: " Dogs were killed after 52 weeks of treatment by

exsanguination (draining of blood) while under anaesthesia and

examined. "

Thousands of monkeys, rabbits, mice and rats were killed during tests

in the UK. In one experiment at the controversial Huntingdon Research

Centre in Cambridgeshire four beagle puppies were starved before

being force-fed Sucralose through tubes. Researchers took blood

samples from the animals' jugular veins and examined their urine and

faeces to discover the effect of Sucralose on their metabolisms. It

is unclear whether the puppies survived or not.

An unspecified number of marmoset monkeys died or were killed after

they were force-fed Sucralose at the Life Science Research lab in

Eye, Suffolk, now part of Huntingdon Life Sciences. Twelve male

monkeys aged under 10 months were examined and force-fed Sucralose

for seven weeks. On the seventh day of the study two of the monkeys

died from brain defects, a third was killed after four weeks and the

remainder of the brain-damaged animals were put down. In another

British-based experiment, also carried out at Eye, rabbits were given

a dose of Sucralose 1,200 times the expected human daily intake. Many

died from trauma. Others suffered extreme weight loss, convulsions

and intestinal disorders. Tests on pregnant rabbits and thousands of

mice and rats were also carried out at Huntingdon.

Experiments, which have not been published, were also carried out at

labs at Inveresk, near Edinburgh, and at Covance at Harrogate,

Yorkshire. The British Union For The Abolition Of Vivisection (email:

info), estimates tens of thousands of animals have died.

BUAV's director of research Sarah Kite said: " They are particularly

nasty. Animals have been made to suffer and die simply to put out

another sweetener which we don't need. " These appalling tests, which

usually involve slitting the animals' throats, are legal, but we feel

they should not be allowed in this country. " Sucralose is already on

sale in 40 countries including the US - where it is marketed under

licence by Johnson & Johnson - Australia and Canada. It is sold as

tiny sweetener tablets or as a powder for use in soft drinks, ice

cream and jams. Tate & Lyle has applied to the European Union and the

UK's Food Standards Agency for approval to release Sucralose.

Tate & Lyle divisional managing director Austin Maguire said: " We

have done the minimum number of tests required. Sucralose is unique.

Consumers welcome that additional choice. " A spokesman for Huntingdon

Life Sciences - bailed out by the Government this year when its bank

became the focus for protests and withdrew their loan - said: " We

would only do these tests if there was no alternative. " Most were

done at Huntingdon some years ago and are not happening now.

A Home Office spokesman said: " Anyone who wants to do safety testing

has to show a clear necessity for using animals to gain a licence. "

 

In a time when obesity has seen a dramatic increase, diabetes is

plaguing more and more children, and doctors are warning people to

cut down on their sugars, sugar giant Tate and Lyle, with the aid of

McNeil Specialty Products (a division of Johnson and Johnson) came up

with a sweetener 600 times more potent than real sugar! Now where do

you think you go to test " safe " a product as " important " Sucralose

(also called Splenda in the US) – Huntingdon Life Sciences, of course.

 

Huntingdon played a big role in the testing that took place to bring

this garbage product to the market. An estimated 12,800 animals died

in the process according to a published report in a recent scientific

journal.

 

Some of the more gruesome details revealed:

 

• 32 beagle dogs were locked in metal cages for 52 weeks. They were

given Sucralose mixed in with their normal feed, and blood and urine

samples were collected. At the end of the study they were killed by

means of exsanguiation - they had their throats slit open and bled to

death. They were then cut open and their organs - by now drained of

blood so easier to dissect - were examined to test the product's

toxicity levels.

• Four beagle puppies (or as HLS calls them – punching bags) were

starved before being force-fed the super-sweet sugar powder. HLS

employees then took blood samples from the jugulars of the infant

dogs.

 

• An unspecified number of marmoset monkeys either died from the

poisoning or were killed at the termination of the research at HLS.

 

• The report states that 12 of these monkeys, which were babies –

under 10 months old – were force-fed Sucralose for seven weeks. Two

of the primates died on the seventh day from brain defects, another

primate was mysteriously killed after four weeks, and the remainder

all were murdered at the completion of the seventh week. Some of the

recorded observations from this study noted " in appetence, body

weight loss, unwillingness to use hind leg, hopping, involuntary grip

reflexes, salivation and subdued mood. "

 

• Huntingdon also used rabbits to study the effects of the product.

These little animals were given 1200 times the expected daily intake

and not surprisingly most died from the trauma. Many of the other

rabbits suffered from convulsions, weight loss, and various

intestinal disorders.

 

• Huntingdon also tested the product on pregnant rabbits, mice, and

rats – killing both the mothers and the fetuses.

 

All in all, just another customer-sponsored project at HLS. All this

pain and death for the sake of bringing to the market a sweetener

that can make your ice-cream or jam 600 times sweeter. This sort of

testing really should give you pause to think, and possibly send off

a thank you note to HLS for all the important contributions they are

making to the world.

 

http://www.shacusa.net/splenda/splenda.htm

 

So, it seems that whether or not you believe that this substance is

bad for you, it appears that it is quite bad for the animals that

died to bring it out. And at HLS, no less. That's enough for me

never to buy it. Of course, I probably never would have anyway, I

don't like artificial stuff. I'll just stick to my regular sugar,

thank you very much.

 

Virgil

 

 

 

 

 

 

New and Improved Mail - Send 10MB messages!

 

 

[Guest guest]

For the most part what you say is true, although there has been a study that

shows an increase in bladder cancers of those persons who used saccharin during

the seventies. I don't know why this is even a topic for discussion. Why would

you want to put chemicals into your body, that are at best questionable when

there are so many natural sweeteners.available, and if you are looking for a

non-caloric sweetener that is natural now about stevia? You can even grow you

own stevia if you desire. It is an herb that is native to paraguay, which I used

to use when I lived in South America in the seventies. It was banned by the FDA

in 1991 but in 1994 the ban was rescinded.The ban was prompted by the sugar adn

saccharin manufacturers It also inhibits the absorption of fat and has been

shown to lower blood pressure. It has been used for centuries in Latin America

and Japan.

 

reptile grrl <reptilegoddess wrote:Saccharin, incidentally, has never

been proven to be carcinogenic (or in any other way damaging) to humans. The

tests which supposedly indicated that it is carcinogenic were performed on rats,

and those rats were repeatedly force fed more saccharin than any human would be

expected to consume in a lifetime.

 

In addition, I sincerely doubt that anyone took into account the fact that lab

rats are extremely prone to cancers, due to irresponsible breeding.

 

cheryll <naturalist_44240 wrote:

For pete's sake, doesn't anybody remember aspartame?

Saccharin?

 

 

 

 

 

New and Improved Mail - Send 10MB messages!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Did you not notice the post that I made about stevia WEEKS ago? I guess not.

 

I don't care what people put into their own bodies. However, I think that they

should have as accurate information as possible, to make an informed decision.

 

Speaking of accurate information- I have been using stevia for many years, and I

have never seen any claims that it inhibits fat absorption. Kommission E (the

German version of the FDA) did some studies regarding stevia (their research is

exhaustive) and they did not reach any uch conclusion. In addition, I just did

a web search, and out of many hundreds of results, I found ONE which said that

stevia is " being investigated " to see if it inhibits fat absorption. And that

was from a site which was selling it.

 

While Stevia has been used for centuries in Latin America (as I noted in my post

weeks ago) it has not been used in Japan for centuries.

 

 

 

Mark Jackson <thesportsguru47 wrote:

For the most part what you say is true, although there has been a study that

shows an increase in bladder cancers of those persons who used saccharin during

the seventies. I don't know why this is even a topic for discussion. Why would

you want to put chemicals into your body, that are at best questionable when

there are so many natural sweeteners.available, and if you are looking for a

non-caloric sweetener that is natural now about stevia? You can even grow you

own stevia if you desire. It is an herb that is native to paraguay, which I used

to use when I lived in South America in the seventies. It was banned by the FDA

in 1991 but in 1994 the ban was rescinded.The ban was prompted by the sugar adn

saccharin manufacturers It also inhibits the absorption of fat and has been

shown to lower blood pressure. It has been used for centuries in Latin America

and Japan.

 

 

 

 

 

New and Improved Mail - Send 10MB messages!

 

 

[Guest guest]

I was not a member of this group weeks ago,so I was not able to read your post,

and was certainly not attacking you. Seems you feel that way, and I am sorry.

The studies of which I speak were done at a private university, and I would be

happy to make those available to you if youl like.Not only far absorption but

lowering blood pressure as well. It has been used in Japan for centuries. I used

to live there. After our run in last time you should know that I do not put out

erroneous information. I am sorry that this seems to be personal with you. I

applaud you for using stevia for years. Since I was not privie to your post of

weeks ago, I was only responding generally and not attacking your position. Have

a great day!! MARK

 

reptile grrl <reptilegoddess wrote:Did you not notice the post that I

made about stevia WEEKS ago? I guess not.

 

I don't care what people put into their own bodies. However, I think that they

should have as accurate information as possible, to make an informed decision.

 

Speaking of accurate information- I have been using stevia for many years, and I

have never seen any claims that it inhibits fat absorption. Kommission E (the

German version of the FDA) did some studies regarding stevia (their research is

exhaustive) and they did not reach any uch conclusion. In addition, I just did

a web search, and out of many hundreds of results, I found ONE which said that

stevia is " being investigated " to see if it inhibits fat absorption. And that

was from a site which was selling it.

 

While Stevia has been used for centuries in Latin America (as I noted in my post

weeks ago) it has not been used in Japan for centuries.

 

 

 

Mark Jackson <thesportsguru47 wrote:

For the most part what you say is true, although there has been a study that

shows an increase in bladder cancers of those persons who used saccharin during

the seventies. I don't know why this is even a topic for discussion. Why would

you want to put chemicals into your body, that are at best questionable when

there are so many natural sweeteners.available, and if you are looking for a

non-caloric sweetener that is natural now about stevia? You can even grow you

own stevia if you desire. It is an herb that is native to paraguay, which I used

to use when I lived in South America in the seventies. It was banned by the FDA

in 1991 but in 1994 the ban was rescinded.The ban was prompted by the sugar adn

saccharin manufacturers It also inhibits the absorption of fat and has been

shown to lower blood pressure. It has been used for centuries in Latin America

and Japan.

 

 

 

 

 

New and Improved Mail - Send 10MB messages!

 

 

[Guest guest]

I don't think I was being attacked, and I didn't indicate that anywhere. You

sure like that word a lot.

 

Mark Jackson <thesportsguru47 wrote:

 

>The studies of which I speak were done at a private university, >and I would be

happy to make those available to you if youl >like.

 

Which private university? And in what journal did they publish their results?

If I wrote to them, would they tell me about this study?

 

>It has been used in Japan for centuries.

 

Stevia has been used in Japan for approximately 34 years as of this writing. It

was, in fact, introduced to the Japanese market in 1970.

 

>After our run in last time you should know that I do not put >out erroneous

information.

 

Quite the opposite.

 

>I am sorry that this seems to be personal with you.

 

Don't overestimate your importance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Mark Jackson <thesportsguru47> wrote:

 

> I don't know why this is even a topic for discussion. Why would you

want to put chemicals into your body, that are at best questionable when

there are so many natural sweeteners.available, and if you are looking

for a non-caloric sweetener that is natural now about stevia?

 

 

 

I suppose it’s a topic of discussion because some of us have different

opinions from yours, and I think we’re entitled to them. I used Splenda

for years (when I lived in Canada) as did most of my family, all with no

ill effects. I was thrilled to find it on the market in the US finally.

 

 

 

 

Just because eating mushrooms closes my throat up doesn’t mean that no

one should eat mushrooms; it just means that mushrooms aren’t a good

choice *for me*. Same goes for sweetners. Find what works for you, but

please don’t suppose that the rest of us have to make the same choices

that you do.

 

 

 

I don’t like the aftertaste from stevia, personally, so I choose not to

use it. I also can’t use it for a lot of things I bake. I can use

Splenda when I bake bread, etc, and unlike using honey or maple syrup as

a sweetener and food for the yeast, it doesn’t add a taste to the bread.

Sometimes that’s important to me. I use sugar as well, but when I want

to reduce the calories in something I’m baking or eating I’ll often use

Splenda instead. I’ve done lots of reading on it, and I’m quite

comfortable with my choice.

 

 

 

--

Sherri

 

" Happiness isn't getting what you want, it's wanting what you got. " -

Garth Brooks

 

_____

 

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release 7/9/2004

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

One thing I forgot to mention is that EVERYTHING has " chemicals " in it.

" Natural " does not mean " non-chemical " . Sugar is a chemical.

 

Sherri <sherria wrote:

 

>I don’t like the aftertaste from stevia, personally,

 

If you ever decide to try it again, refined, white stevia does not have the

aftertaste. Green, or leaf, stevia does have a bitterness- similar to

saccharin, actually.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

At the risk of offending you, everything does not have chemicals in it!!!!

Everything is made up of compounds,To be classified as a chemical a compound

must have undergone a chemical process whereby the atoms or molecules have been

altered. In the body there is a difference between organic and inorganic

matter. While not all organic substances are edible and digestible there is a

great difference between saccharin and a natural sugar.While technically some

sugars have undergone a molecular reshaping so to speak, most sugars have not,

and are in fact organic compounds. Saccharin is not readily soluble in water,

it is actually its sodium salt which is.Substances such as Saccharin that are

excreted unchanged by the body however cannot be compared to natural compounds

such as sugar.

reptile grrl <reptilegoddess wrote:

One thing I forgot to mention is that EVERYTHING has " chemicals " in it.

" Natural " does not mean " non-chemical " . Sugar is a chemical.

 

Sherri wrote:

 

>I don’t like the aftertaste from stevia, personally,

 

If you ever decide to try it again, refined, white stevia does not have the

aftertaste. Green, or leaf, stevia does have a bitterness- similar to saccharin,

actually.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Mark Jackson <thesportsguru47 wrote:

> At the risk of offending you, everything does not have chemicals in it!!!!

> Everything is made up of compounds,To be classified as a chemical a

> compound must have undergone a chemical process whereby the atoms or

> molecules have been altered.

 

I'm interested to know where you get this information. Everything isn't made up

of compounds; elements exist as well.

 

The dictionary defines chemical (noun) as: " A substance with a distinct

molecular composition that is produced by or used in a chemical process. " So,

basically everything we eat is a chemical - it has distince molecular

composition and is used in a chemical process (pretty much all your body

processes are chemical in nature). So, it's all chemicals. Chemical doesn't

mean " bad " .

 

> In the body there is a difference between organic and inorganic matter.

 

Organic vs inorganic in this regard simply means containing carbon atoms or not.

Organic compounds contain carbon; inorganic compounds do not. There's nothing

more or less " natural " about organic vs inorganic.

 

> While not all organic substances are edible and digestible there is a great

> difference between saccharin and a natural sugar.While technically some

> sugars have undergone a molecular reshaping so to speak, most sugars have >

not, and are in fact organic compounds. Saccharin is not readily soluble in

> water, it is actually its sodium salt which is.Substances such as Saccharin >

that are excreted unchanged by the body however cannot be compared to

> natural compounds such as sugar.

 

And none of this has anything to do with whether or not saccharin is organic.

Whether or not it's " organic " is based solely on if it's a carbon based molecule

or not.. " Molecular reshaping " (whatever you mean by that) isn't an indication

of whether or not something is an organic molecule. Whether or not something is

changed in the body before being excreted isn't any indication either.

 

Biochemistry was my minor in university and what you're saying doesn't wash with

anything I've ever studied.

 

 

-- Sherri

Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.

[Guest guest]

If you know chemistry then you know that the complete definition of a chemical

is something that undergoes a chemical process or a change meaning a change in

atomic or molecular structure. Everything is made up of elements or compounds

yes not chemicals. If you want to quibble over words I suppose we can, the

intent being that elements are not chemicals, they have not undergone an atomic

or molecular change, and yes that does wash!! Yes Chemical does not necessarily

mean bad I agree with that.

sherria wrote:Mark Jackson <thesportsguru47 wrote:

> At the risk of offending you, everything does not have chemicals in it!!!!

> Everything is made up of compounds,To be classified as a chemical a

> compound must have undergone a chemical process whereby the atoms or

> molecules have been altered.

 

I'm interested to know where you get this information. Everything isn't made up

of compounds; elements exist as well.

 

The dictionary defines chemical (noun) as: " A substance with a distinct

molecular composition that is produced by or used in a chemical process. " So,

basically everything we eat is a chemical - it has distince molecular

composition and is used in a chemical process (pretty much all your body

processes are chemical in nature). So, it's all chemicals. Chemical doesn't

mean " bad " .

 

> In the body there is a difference between organic and inorganic matter.

 

Organic vs inorganic in this regard simply means containing carbon atoms or not.

Organic compounds contain carbon; inorganic compounds do not. There's nothing

more or less " natural " about organic vs inorganic.

 

> While not all organic substances are edible and digestible there is a great

> difference between saccharin and a natural sugar.While technically some

> sugars have undergone a molecular reshaping so to speak, most sugars have >

not, and are in fact organic compounds. Saccharin is not readily soluble in

> water, it is actually its sodium salt which is.Substances such as Saccharin >

that are excreted unchanged by the body however cannot be compared to

> natural compounds such as sugar.

 

And none of this has anything to do with whether or not saccharin is organic.

Whether or not it's " organic " is based solely on if it's a carbon based molecule

or not.. " Molecular reshaping " (whatever you mean by that) isn't an indication

of whether or not something is an organic molecule. Whether or not something is

changed in the body before being excreted isn't any indication either.

 

Biochemistry was my minor in university and what you're saying doesn't wash with

anything I've ever studied.

 

 

-- Sherri

Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity.