Splenda Compared to a Biochemical Warfare Agent

March 6, 2007

Splenda Compared to a " Biochemical Warfare Agent " --See One Woman's

Shocking Photos

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

If you are using Splenda (the brand name for sucralose) because you

think it is a safe alternative to sugar or other artificial

sweeteners, then you may be in for a surprise. Splenda is not healthy

and it can cause many problems in the body.

Over three years ago I posted an article describing the dangers of

Splenda, and, fortunately, it appears that more and more people are

finally realizing the hazards that this " healthy " sweetener poses.

There is still a long way to go toward educating the public about the

health complications this sweetener is capable of causing, however.

Splenda is far from healthy and I do not recommend using it in any

form. Why not use Splenda? Well, research in animals has shown that

sucralose can cause many problems such as:

Reduced growth rate in newborns and adults at levels above 500

mg/kg.day

Decreased red blood cells - - sign of anemia (at levels abofe 1500

mg/kd/day

Decreased thyroxine levels (thyroid function) (According to McNeil,

since this only occurred on male rats and no abnormalities were

observed with the thyroid tissue, this was considered insignificant.)

Mineral losses (magnesium and phosphorus) McNeil stated that these

patterns were variable and at times not dose related so they were not

significant.

Decreased urination

Enlarged colon (The FDA Final Rule states cecal enlargement is often

seen with poorly absorbed substances and is not significant.)

Enlarged liver and brain (McNeil stated these were insignificant due

to a lack of a dose response.)

Shrunken ovaries

Shrunken thymus aboe 3 grams per day

Enlarged and calcified kidneys (McNeil stated this is often seen with

poorly absorbed substances and was of no toxicological significance.

The FDA Final Rule agreed that these are findings that are common in

aged female rats and are not significant.)

Increased adrenal cortical hemorrhagic degeneration (McNeil stated

that this is a variable finding common in aged rats and not

toxicologically significant.)

Increased cataracts (McNeil stated that cataracts were discovered

upon microscopic sections of the eye tissue and that this was not as

accurate as in-life ophthalmological examinations and did not reveal

any treatment- related ocular findings.

Abnormal liver cells (The FDA Final Rule states that this was only

marginal and probably not treatment related due to the severity of

the lesion was not contaminant with the dosage.)

McNeil concluded that all of these findings could be explained by

reasons other than sucralose toxicity and were insignificant. This

seems to be a pattern in all of McNeil's study conclusions. I find it

suspect that for every single adverse finding in the animal studies,

McNeil always has some rationale that renders it " insignificant. "

Their downplaying every harmful finding makes it seem as if they are

more interested in making sucralose appear safe than making sure that

the people are not harmed.

The FDA concluded that most of these findings had no toxicological

significance and those that did such as the decrease in thymus weight

and the decreased red blood cells, would not be a problem because

they occurred at doses of sucralose much higher than what people

would consume.. As a physician, I beg to differ. I believe that these

findings are not of no significance. " Many of these are symptoms of

serious pathology.

But perhaps the most revealing and powerful way to learn the

dangerous truth about Splenda is to read someone's personal

experience with it.

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

adverse reaction to Splenda, and after you read through the story

below you can read the many others posted on our site.

The following story provides a revealing testimony to the dramatic

effects Splenda can have on an otherwise healthy person.

----

----------

Contributed by Lori Hunt, RPh

Pickens, SC

Dear Dr. Mercola,

I want to thank you for your Web site and especially for your

documentation on the dangers of Splenda. I also want to pass on this

testimonial in the hope it may help others.

Last evening after dinner I began to feel flush. My husband commented

how red my face was getting and, sure enough, one glance in the

mirror confirmed a bright red, tight, shiny visage staring back at

me. In the next few hours my eyes began to swell. I went to bed

hoping I could " sleep it off. " How wrong I was.

This morning I got up and my face was still red, bright and swollen

with puffy eyes. I am a pharmacist and I have seen many anaphylactoid

(allergic) reactions before. I began to feel concerned that I too was

having one. I have had only one other reaction like this before in my

life--to Bactrim.

I went out for my usual morning run but by the first quarter mile I

could barely breathe so I walked slowly back to the house. My right

shoulder was burning so I went to the mirror and was horrified to

find a HUGE 6 inch by 3 inch welt at the base of my neck (see photo).

I also felt very panicky and shaky and immediately had two bouts of

diarrhea in rapid succession. After 15 minutes and a cool shower on

tissue that looked scalded, I was having difficulty breathing. I was

seen in the local emergency room where the physician immediately gave

me a dexamethasone injection in the hip and a prescription for Epi-

pen and oral prednisone over four days.

At the time I didn't know why I looked like I had ingested a sulfa

drug. My husband and I tried to figure out what was different in my

life over the last 12 hours. Laundry soap? Nope. Cake? Animal dander?

No and no. A dear friend came to visit me in my misery and mentioned

that I had started to flush at church, several hours before dinner.

I remembered that I had had a cup of coffee and had tried the new

creamer sitting by the pot. I remembered the Splenda label on it,

which prompted my husband and I to search the Web and we found your

site.

The description by Marcia in the testimonial area caused me to burst

into tears. Yes, Marcia, there are others like you. I am throwing

that stuff out when I get to church! This reaction that I have had

looks like a drug reaction! I am appalled an " artificial sweetener "

did this to me.

Twelve hours after treatment my eyes are no longer swollen and my

face is no longer red, but my neck welt is the same size, same

redness and as tender as a sunburn. There are a few blisters in the

welt. Even after treatment it still looks this bad! Perhaps the

manufacturer of Splenda can sell it as a biochemical warfare agent

after it is removed from the market as a food additive.

Thanks for getting the word out!

----

----------

Related Articles:

Splenda is Not a " Healthy " Sweetener

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

12 Questions You Need to Have Answered Before You Eat Splenda

The Dangers of Chlorine and Issues With Sucralose

Sucralose (Splenda®) U.S. Product List

Why Nutrasweet was so Successful and Will Likely Never be Replaced by

Splenda

March 6, 2007

Thanks for that great info...The only reason I started to use it is because I

get migrines and it was the only artifical sweetener that didn't. I do know how

they make and bleach it though and that kind of freaked me out, I don't use it

very often.

GROSS!

Tara

Tara Bryant

BryantCandles.com Much More Than Just Candles!

To Win FREE Diamond Creek Candles, Tupperware, & BeautiControl Today!

rainysnana <rainysnana

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 3:14:48 PM

Splenda Compared to a " Biochemical Warfare Agent

Splenda Compared to a " Biochemical Warfare Agent " --See One Woman's

Shocking Photos

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

If you are using Splenda (the brand name for sucralose) because you

think it is a safe alternative to sugar or other artificial

sweeteners, then you may be in for a surprise. Splenda is not healthy

and it can cause many problems in the body.

Over three years ago I posted an article describing the dangers of

Splenda, and, fortunately, it appears that more and more people are

finally realizing the hazards that this " healthy " sweetener poses.

There is still a long way to go toward educating the public about the

health complications this sweetener is capable of causing, however.

Splenda is far from healthy and I do not recommend using it in any

form. Why not use Splenda? Well, research in animals has shown that

sucralose can cause many problems such as:

Reduced growth rate in newborns and adults at levels above 500

mg/kg.day

Decreased red blood cells - - sign of anemia (at levels abofe 1500

mg/kd/day

Decreased thyroxine levels (thyroid function) (According to McNeil,

since this only occurred on male rats and no abnormalities were

observed with the thyroid tissue, this was considered insignificant. )

Mineral losses (magnesium and phosphorus) McNeil stated that these

patterns were variable and at times not dose related so they were not

significant.

Decreased urination

Enlarged colon (The FDA Final Rule states cecal enlargement is often

seen with poorly absorbed substances and is not significant. )

Enlarged liver and brain (McNeil stated these were insignificant due

to a lack of a dose response.)

Shrunken ovaries

Shrunken thymus aboe 3 grams per day

Enlarged and calcified kidneys (McNeil stated this is often seen with

poorly absorbed substances and was of no toxicological significance.

The FDA Final Rule agreed that these are findings that are common in

aged female rats and are not significant. )

Increased adrenal cortical hemorrhagic degeneration (McNeil stated

that this is a variable finding common in aged rats and not

toxicologically significant. )

Increased cataracts (McNeil stated that cataracts were discovered

upon microscopic sections of the eye tissue and that this was not as

accurate as in-life ophthalmological examinations and did not reveal

any treatment- related ocular findings.

Abnormal liver cells (The FDA Final Rule states that this was only

marginal and probably not treatment related due to the severity of

the lesion was not contaminant with the dosage.)

McNeil concluded that all of these findings could be explained by

reasons other than sucralose toxicity and were insignificant. This

seems to be a pattern in all of McNeil's study conclusions. I find it

suspect that for every single adverse finding in the animal studies,

McNeil always has some rationale that renders it " insignificant. "

Their downplaying every harmful finding makes it seem as if they are

more interested in making sucralose appear safe than making sure that

the people are not harmed.

The FDA concluded that most of these findings had no toxicological

significance and those that did such as the decrease in thymus weight

and the decreased red blood cells, would not be a problem because

they occurred at doses of sucralose much higher than what people

would consume.. As a physician, I beg to differ. I believe that these

findings are not of no significance. " Many of these are symptoms of

serious pathology.

But perhaps the most revealing and powerful way to learn the

dangerous truth about Splenda is to read someone's personal

experience with it.

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

adverse reaction to Splenda, and after you read through the story

below you can read the many others posted on our site.

The following story provides a revealing testimony to the dramatic

effects Splenda can have on an otherwise healthy person.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -