12 Questions You Need to Have Answered Before You Eat Splenda

[Guest guest]

12 Questions You Need to Have Answered Before You Eat Splenda http://www.mercola.com/2004/jan/10/...a_questions.htm From Dr. Janet Starr Hull's Health Newsletter, December 2003 (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). Why not use Splenda? Well, research in animals has shown that sucralose can cause many problems such as: * Shrunken thymus glands (up to 40 percent shrinkage)* Enlarged liver and kidneys* Atrophy of lymph follicles in the spleen and thymus* Increased cecal weight* Reduced growth rate* Decreased red blood cell count* Hyperplasia of the pelvis* Extension of the pregnancy period* Aborted pregnancy* Decreased fetal body weights and placental weights* Diarrhea spice & lifeView Public ProfileFind More Posts by spice & lifeAdd spice & life to Your Buddy List Sponsored Links 01-11-2004, 10:8 AM #2 spice & life Senior LCF Member *** Also see new sucralose/Splenda reviews by Dr. Joseph Mercola at: ***http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm andhttp://mercola.com/2003/nov/8/splenda_dangers.htm/ Splenda, also known as sucralose, is artificial sweetener which is a chlorinated sucrose derivative. Facts about this artificial chemical follows: Pre-Approval ResearchPre-approval research showed that sucralose caused shrunken thymus glands (up to 40% shrinkage) and enlarged liver and kidneys. The manufacturer put forth two arguments in an attempt to claim that sucralose is not toxic: The dose of sucralose in the experiments was high. However, for chemicals that do not have generations of safe use, the dosage tested must be adjusted for variations in potential toxicity within the human population and between humans and rodents. In order to this, toxicologists estimate a variation of effects in the human population of 10 times. In other words, one person may not have effects until a dose of 10 mg per kg of body weight (10 mg/kg) is reached, while another person may have chronic toxicity effects at 1 mg per kg of body weight (1 mg/kg). In addition, it is well known that many chemicals are much more toxic in humans than in rodents (or even monkeys). For example, the chemicals that the sweetener aspartame breaks down into vary from 5 to 50 times more toxic in humans than in rodents. Therefore, toxicologists estimate a further 10 times the dose for differences between human and rodent toxicity for a total of 100 times (10 * 10). In order to estimate a potential safe dose in humans, one must divide the lowest dose in given to rodents that was seen to have any negative effects on their thymus glands, liver or kidneys by 100. That dose is then known as the maximum Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) for lifetime use. Keep in mind that the TDI is just an estimate. Some chemicals are much more than 10 times more toxic in humans than in rodents (or will cause cancer in humans in low-dose, long-term exposure and do not cause cancer in rodents at all). A person ingesting the TDI for some chemical may find that it causes cancer or immune system or neurological problems after many years or decades of use. So, if the manufacturer claims that the dose was equivalent to 50 diet sodas, then the TDI would be one half (1/2) of a diet soda, and even that dose may or may not be safe. The manufacturer claimed that the sucralose was unpleasant for the rodents to eat in large doses. They said that starvation caused the shruken thymus glands. From the New Scientist (23 Nov 1991, pg 13): [Toxicologist Judith] Bellin reviewed studies on rats starved under experimental conditions, and concluded that their growth rate could be reduced by as much as a third without the thymus losing a significant amount of weight (less than 7 percent). The changes were much more marked in rats fed on sucralose. While the animals' growth rate was reduced by between 7 and 20 percent, their thymuses shrank by as much as 40 percent. Recent ResearchA possible problem with caecal enlargement and renal mineralization has been seen in post approval animal research. Sucralose Breaks DownDespite the manufacturer's mis-statements, sucralose does break down into small amounts of 1,6-dichlorofructose, a chemical which has not been adequtely tested in humans. Independent, Long-Term Human ResearchNone. Manufacturer's "100's of studies" (some of which show hazards) were clearly inadequate and do not demonstrate safety in long-term use. Chlorinated PesticidesThe manufacturer claims that the chlorine added to sucralose is similar to the chlorine atom in the salt (NaCl) molecule. That is not the case. Sucralose may be more like ingesting tiny amounts of chlorinated pesticides, but we will never know without long-term, independent human research. ConclusionWhile it is unlikely that sucralose is as toxic as the poisoning people are experiencing from Monsanato's aspartame, it is clear from the hazards seen in pre-approval research and from its chemical structure that years or decades of use may contribute to serious chronic immunological or neurological disorders. Addendum (October 2, 2000)Ocassionally, persons emailing ask questions about sucralose research. What follows is a copy of a response one such question. The answer starts by summarizing the aspartame (NutraSweet) issue and then addresses the sucralose issue. Let me start by saying that, as you may know, there is a quickly growing body of evidence demonstrating the toxicity of aspartame. This includes: Recent European research showing that ingesting aspartame leads to the accumulation of formaldehyde in the brain, other organs and tissues (Formaldehyde has been shown to damage the nervous system, immune system, and cause irreversible genetic damage in humans.) An extremely large number of toxicity reactions reported to the FDA and other organizations A recent report showing that nearly 100% of independent research has found problems with aspartame. Why is this relevent to the sucralose question? Similar to the aspartame situation 15 years ago: Pre-approval test indicated potential toxicity of sucralose. There are no *independent* controlled human studies on sucralose (similar to 15 years ago for aspartame). There are no long-term (12-24 months) human studies of sucralose's effects. There is no monitoring of health effects. It took government agencies decades to agree that there were countless thousands of deaths from tobacco. Why? Simply because there had been no monitoring or epidemiological studies. Without such monitoring and studies, huge effects can easily go unnoticed. So, without even addressing the pre-approval research showing potential toxicity, it is clear that sucralose has a) no long history (e.g., decades) of safe use, b) no independent monitoring of health effects, c) no long-term human studies, and d) no independent human studies. I would hope that the Precautionary Principal, now commonly used in Europe, would be a guiding force for people who are interested in health. Otherwise, we might as well just use any poorly-tested, artificial (lab-created) chemical that has shown potential for long-term toxicity. As far as the pre-approval research related to sucralose.... As you probably know, pre-approval research is rarely published. It is only available from the FDA by filing a Freedom of Information Act request. However, you can see a very short summary regarding sucralose and shrunken thymus glands in the "New Scientist" (23 November 1991, page 13). It is very important that people who have any interest in their health stay aware from the highly toxic sweetener, aspartame and other dangerous sweeteners such as sucralose (Splenda), and acesulfame-k (Sunette, Sweet & Safe, Sweet One). Instead, please see the extensive resources for sweeteners on the Healthier Sweetener Resource List.