This Story is Archived
The Lethal Science Of Splenda - A Poisonous Chlorocarbon »
Posted by: Ousama 2 years agoThe chemical sucralose, marketed as "Splenda", has replaced aspartame as the #1 artificial sweetener in foods and beverages. Aspartame has been forced out by increasing public awareness that it is both a neurotoxin and an underlying cause of chronic illness worldwide. Dr. James Bowen, Researcher and biochemist, reports: "Splenda/sucr
Read Full Story at rense.com »
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 85
-
-
saneman
Sept. 26, 2006, 6:35 p.m.Who's running the FDA? The Three Stooges? No wonder Americans are becoming the unhealthiest bunch in the entire world. Not only do we have tobacco companies killing people, now we have synthetic sweetener producing companies starting to kill off people.
-
msaleem
Sept. 26, 2006, 6:43 p.m.We really need some anchor commentary on this. Let's see who's spreading the FUD.
-
saneman
Sept. 26, 2006, 7:44 p.m.Don't expect a lot of comments here. People in the U.S. are not concerned about their health. Just look at where the vast majority of the posts are located.
-
JasonCalacanis
Sept. 26, 2006, 9:54 p.m..... ummm.... this is scary. can someone do some Metajournalism on this?!?!
-
-
maidofthemist
Sept. 26, 2006, 11:32 p.m.Why these studies always come out after the product they talk about it's been selling for so long? obviously the FDA its not a responsilbe institution caring for the people as it should be, but I held responsible too, all the scientists and doctors that may know there's a risk and they opt to keep silent untill many people is affected.
-
Mat347
Sept. 27, 2006, 1:13 a.m.Wow...I've enjoyed my last package of Equal...I never liked the others. I too, wonder what is going on at the FDA....apparently some people are getting rich off allowing these types of dangerous chemicals out to the public WITHOUT warning labels. Sweet N Low used to have "causes cancer" on the packet...not any more! Why even have an FDA?? We get poisoned anyway.
-
Sachmo499
Sept. 27, 2006, 2:31 a.m.The FDA and members of the food and drug industry interchange personel on a regular basis, so what kind of ties between the two do you think that would make?
-
Amok77
Sept. 27, 2006, 2:55 a.m.You sit on your fat lazy behinds, never exercising, eating junk food, while playing video games...and you worry about Splenda? Amazing...
-
Sachmo499
Sept. 27, 2006, 3:07 a.m.I'm diabetic which has nothing to do with junkfood or playing video games. Read a book.
-
coreyspring
Sept. 27, 2006, 4:59 a.m.From the FDA in 1999:
After reviewing more than 110 animal and human safety studies conducted over 20 years, FDA approved it in 1998 as a tabletop sweetener and for use in products such as baked goods, nonalcoholic beverages, chewing gum, frozen dairy desserts, fruit juices, and gelatins. In 1999, the FDA amended its regulation to allow sucralose as a general-purpose sweetener for all foods.
-
coreyspring
Sept. 27, 2006, 5:24 a.m.Yeah, I definitely call BS on this. It has all the earmarks of a hoax/urban legend, the FDA has deemed sucralose (also known as Splenda) safe, and, most telling, 'Dr. James Bowen' and 'Dr. Betty Martini' have never been published in any reputable medical journal... which is the first place an article like this should be found... if it were legit. In fact, there is no reputable evidence outside of sites that promote the same story as above that these people exist AT ALL.
This reminds me a lot of the old aspartame email hoaxes several years ago: http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp
-
coreyspring
Sept. 27, 2006, 5:33 a.m.More - Here is the website 'Bowen' 'Martini' and others originate from, it's clearly an anti-sweetner website. The site reports the same inaccurate misinformation as linked in the above Snopes article, such as aspartame turning to Formaldeyhyde in liquids.
-
mbkijb
Sept. 27, 2006, 6:49 a.m.I will stay with sugar. For the few calories involved, it is not worth all these chemicals!
-
saneman
Sept. 27, 2006, 7:51 a.m.Well, if Bowen and Martini are defaming Splenda and Aspartame, they would have been sued for defamation. Think about it.
-
-
Wraith
Sept. 27, 2006, 8:21 a.m.The Artificial Sweetners have been shown in som einstances to cause adverse effects. But one has to remember, with the wide variation in humans - what we eat, do etc, we will all have some different reactions to chemicals, some mild, some not. Artificial Sweeteners are not an answer if you are watching your weight; it is better to reduce your intake and increase your exercise routine. As for diabetics, that's a tough choice. Personally, the nasty after taste of artificial sweeteners turned me off.
-
jumpmaster
Sept. 27, 2006, 9:06 a.m.What part of "arificial" are people missing? Why is anyone surprised that there are ill effects from introducing a foreign and unnatural substance into your body?
-
maineline
Sept. 27, 2006, 9:06 a.m.Toby Go to a health food store and buy Stevia, a natural plant based sweetner. I have a plant growing on my deck and the leaves can be used. It has not gained popularity cause food companies cannot patent and make the big dough selling it.
-
Ousama
Sept. 27, 2006, 9:07 a.m.Even WholeFoods has a case against it and why they wont even carry it
http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/healthinfo/sucralose.html
Arguments against the use of sucralose:
1. Sucralose is an artificial substance that is not found in nature, like aspartame and hydrogenated fats. Although supporters of sucralose claim that it is unable to be metabolized, up to 35% is absorbed by the body with a half life up to 23 hours.
2. Pre-approval tests indicated potential toxicity for sucralose. One study (printed in the "New Scientist", 23 November 1991, volume 132, page 13) demonstrated that thymus weight decreased by up to 40% in rats fed diets rich in sucralose, indicating that sucralose has the potential to compromise the immune system. Note that the FDA also addressed this (and other) toxicity concerns in their Final Rule, claiming that these negative effects would not be seen in humans at recommended doses.
-
Ousama
Sept. 27, 2006, 9:08 a.m.3. Sucralose is a chlorinated compound. Other classes of chlorinated molecules include pesticides.
4. There are no independent controlled human studies on sucralose. The bulk of the safety research has been conducted by the manufacturer.
5 There are no long-term (>13 months) human studies of sucralose's effects and no long history of use.
-
2sidestoeverything
Sept. 27, 2006, 9:28 a.m.This is such a pain. I couldn't do aspartame because it gave me terrible headaches. I do like splenda and now I find out it may be poisoning me. We have got to find a better system in getting safer items on the market. As with some other post, why do we find out these things after the item is massed marketed.
-
curiousjo
Sept. 27, 2006, 9:54 a.m.maidofthemist,
unfortunately, sometimes that is the only way people will listen--when it affects enough of us and we can't get away with "its their problem"
-
mozzer
Sept. 27, 2006, 10:05 a.m.I've been leery of Splenda from the outset. However, Rense is conspiracy nutjob website, so I question its credibility.
Just stick to sugar, and consume in moderation.
The first 25 comments are shown. Show all 85 comments »
Got a Story?
