posted
I've seen different articles on artificial sweeteners, some stated that they okay for the human body as long as they are used moderate while others stated to completely avoid the use of sugar substitutes as they have harmful side effects.
posted
I say no, although I've been known to drink my Diet Coke. I personally feel like aspartame (Nutrasweet) screws with the body's natural hunger regulation, and makes you feel hungrier than you would if you were drinking water or something with calories. I have no evidence for that, though.
I'd also like to say that the use of high-fructose corn syrup - a caloric sweetener that is cheaper than sugar - has recently been linked to America's obesity epidemic.
posted
I say no as well, I've read some serious crap about artificial sweetners (including they actually increase your food cravings, etc.) but the lab tests in rodents is the worst, it really affects your brain, I just as soon have a small spoon of sugar, at least it's natural. (my mother would interject here: cocaine is natural).... Posts: 13440 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like the artificials like sweet-n-low, saccharane, etc. Even if I did, I probably wouldn't use them.
Aspartame.....very very limited. Don't care much for it. It gives me migraines. Don't like diet sodas either. I drink water and coffee mostly.
Splenda........OMG.....it is THE best so far. I actually quite like it. No side effects at all. It is very very close to the natural sugar taste. The only time I do taste a tiny twang is if I use too much. Otherwise, it's so close to sugar that me or my kids barely notice it. (if used in right amounts) You have to experiment a while to get it just right for different things. I even use the brown sugar for baking. I use 2/3 splenda to 1/3 real. Can't tell the difference. I have even used all splenda brown. Only a slight taste difference. But for consistency and flavor while baking cookies or something the first works best for me. I've even dipped strawberries in it. Yummy.
Do other parts of the world have Splenda yet?
-------------------- شكرا و أللام عليكم شيبى Posts: 2133 | From: Redneckland | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
i love me some splenda. they have it in pakistan, so id imagine its available in most places.
Posts: 1967 | From: USA | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
oops!!!!!!!!! I've dipped strawberries in the regular Splenda, not brown. LOL
Our pediatrician from Texas Children's Hospital, (one of the best in the nation) says, that for kids especially it's best to not use anything artificial. But for kids that are overweight and at risk for things like diabetes, heart disease, etc., then by all means use Splenda. If necessary drink diet cokes (aspartame). Limited of course. But Splenda is perfectly safe to use. Seems its made from sugar. Sucralose I think it is.
Just thought I'd throw this in. I'm sure to be challenged on the danger of feeding artificials to my kids. LOL
My cousin is a nurse in the Dallas Medical Center. She said a guy used so much Aspartame that it ate up part of his brain. Now, I kind of think that is kind of extreme. Sounds like a good story. But....you never know.
MK......what do you think about this?
I asked my guy. He just said it's unlikely, but you never know. Don't believe anything until you've checked your resouces. LOL
Anyway, I thought that was interesting.
-------------------- شكرا و أللام عليكم شيبى Posts: 2133 | From: Redneckland | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Think Splenda has been tested for safety? Think again.
Is Splenda Really As Safe As They Claim It to Be? As of 2005, only six human trials have been conducted on Splenda (sucralose). Of these six trials, only two of the trials were completed and published before the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption. The two published trials had a grand total of 36 total human subjects. 36 people sure doesn't sound like many, but wait, it gets worse, only 23 people total were actually given sucralose for testing and here is the real killer: The longest trial at this time had lasted only four days and looked at sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance!
That's it, that's all the testing the FDA has performed before the approved Splenda. 23 people used Splenda for FOUR DAYS and the FDA approved it's use!
Is It REALLY Sugar? There is no question that sucralose starts off as a sugar molecule, it is what goes on in the factory that is concerning. Sucralose (Splenda) is a synthetic chemical that was originally cooked up in a laboratory. In the five step patented process of making sucralose, three chlorine molecules are added to a sugar molecule.
This type of sugar molecule does not occur in nature and therefore your body does not possess the ability to properly metabolize it.
Chlorine is a highly toxic compound to the human body. While extremely low levels are present in our drinking water for bactericide purposes, the level of chlorine that is created in the formation of Splenda is hundreds of thousands times higher.
The level of chlorine in our drinking water can be measured as a fraction of parts per million, but in Splenda it is 3 parts to 1.
In fact if you were to replace the chlorine you dump in your swimming pool to deter algae growth with Splenda you would only need to use ten times less to keep the water clear!
Dioxin, a chemical byproduct of the manufacturing of chlorine is believed to be the single most carcinogenic chemical known to science.
Splenda bears more chemical similarity to the banned pesticide DDT than it does to sugar.
The TRUTH is that Splenda is an absolute poison to the human body.
It is simply a "sweet" poison, which is why it is being sold as a natural sweetener. There is NOTHING natural about Splenda. This compound could NEVER appear in nature on it's own.
It cannot be stressed enough how poisonous this substance is.
How can this be if it is so widely sold?
It's very simple. The search has been on for years to find a sweetener to replace refined sugar. We have known for many years that refined sugar can lead to may physical problems and eventually lead up to the onset of diabetes.
First there was Saccharin, that was pulled off the self because of the irrefutable evidence that it caused cancer. Aspartame better known as Nutrasweet has been around for years but it also is a strong poison which turns into formaldehyde in the body.
Aspartame use results in an accumulation of formaldehyde in the brain, which can damage your central nervous system and immune system and cause genetic trauma. Even the FDA now admits this is true, but claims the amount is low enough in most that it shouldn't raise concern. I personally think any amount of the poison formaldehyde in your brain is too much.
Now that the long term tests are finally coming in to show how poisonous Nutrasweet is it's not going to be around much longer.
Industry is quietly trying to fade out the use of Nutrasweet. They don't want to pull it too fast and declare it dangerous for fear of millions of dollars of lawsuits that would be incurred.
Be assured in 5 years Nutrasweet will be a thing of the past, of course replaced by Splenda, the newest artificial sweetener.
Knowing the dangers of Nutrasweet, the manufacturers of Splenda ramroded it's approval through the FDA as a "food additive". We don't know for sure how it got approved but rest assured the multi billion dollar artificial sweetener industry probably used some financial arm twisting to get it approved.
What else could explain that only 23 people had to try Splenda for only four days to get it approved? Meanwhile the Splenda industry is now worth billions!
The makers of Splenda aren't going to tell you this. The media won't tell you this either. The fact is a significant percentage of the food industry is now desperately depending on Splenda to be their financial savior, and they are not being disappointed.
But enough about the history of Splenda. Lets get down to what it really does to the human body.
The good news is that it can add a sweet taste to many foods and drinks we eat. That's it, that's all the good news there is as it has no nutritional value. How can it when it is an absolute poison?
Here is a list of Splenda's side effects. Mind you this is not a minor list that only 1% or 2% of people experience. This is a list that 50% to 60% of the people who use Splenda are experiencing. We feel these symptoms are just the tip of the iceberg as many people are not associating the side effects of Splenda to the symptoms they are really feeling.
These are also symptoms and conditions that laboratory animals are experiencing of which there has been far more extensive testing on Splenda.
headaches mood swings panic attacks irritability aggression depression insomnia nausea intestinal discomfort skin rash nervousness seizures and epileptic episodes. hormonal imbalances leading to irregular menstrual cycles shrunken thymus glands enlarged livers and kidneys
I cannot stress this enough: When you ingest Splenda you are ingesting a true poison to the human body with no nutritional value. If you use Splenda, or Nutrasweet for that matter you are a fool! These are by no means foods and by every definition absolute poisons!
The evidence is clear. If you want to use a sweetener simply use sugar, or honey in low amounts. Try stevia which is a natural sweetener that grows in leaves in nature.
The truth is that stevia is actually natures most perfect non caloric sweetener. There have been no reported side effects from it's use over hundreds of years. Stevia is what should be in our sugar free soft drinks. But industry doesn't have time to grow thousands stevia fields. That's because sugar is plentiful around the world and is some countries main economic cash crop. It is also dirt cheap, just like chlorine is. So for industry it is far easier to take the sugar which is already in abundance, combine it with chlorine, which is also already in abundance and make Splenda rather than come up with an entirely new crop of food, like natural stevia which would cost them much more to establish around the world.
It's a sick society that we live in where they take simple sugar, add deadly, poisonous chlorine to it and call is a "safe" sweetener. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Splenda is NOT safe, it is a deadly poison. Avoid it under any circumstances.
You can choose to believe this information or not. I advise you to check out these facts for your own. Ask about the testing. Ask about Splenda's real chemical composition.
Hundreds of articles are now being written by scientists and doctors about the very real dangers of Splenda.
Is it really worth it for a sweet taste in your mouth to ingest this very real poison?
Posts: 315 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
If you thought using an artificial sweetener like aspartame or Splenda as an insecticide was a bit far-fetched, consider this study about eliminating malaria using a sugar solution spiked with the deadly Spinosad.
Scientists used a combined solution of sucrose and Spinosad (an oral insecticide) to virtually eliminate the entire mosquito population in an oasis located in southern Israel. The few insects left after the initial spraying were new adults whose growth was controlled by the sucrose/insecticide mix.
Although this article doesn't explore the possibility, obviously, one could use Splenda to address the deadly problem of malaria, responsible for the deaths of an estimated 2 million people every year. (Some experts believe malaria may have killed half the people who ever lived!)
The major conventional approach for malaria is to kill mosquitoes with DDT. In many ways, however, Splenda is similar to DDT as it is a chlorinated hydrocarbon. Also, many do not realize Splenda was discovered by accident when researchers were working with compounds that were insecticides. One of the Indian researchers misunderstood his instructions and thought he heard taste the chemical, when it was test the chemical.
seriously though, i had to do a research paper on splenda, and its legit. I doubt anyone can argue that natural is best, but for many people (diabetics) thats not an option, and splenda is a great alternative. my fathers a physcian, and he says its fine, in fact, ive never had anyone i know in the medical field tell me anything bad about splenda, its usually praises.
plus u can cook with splenda, it doesnt lose its properties under heat. Posts: 1967 | From: USA | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or you can use Stevia, nature's most natural sweetener. It is an extract from a shrub, and it is 300 times sweeter than sugar and can be used in cooking and to sweeten drinks. Studies have shown it also may reduce tooth decay. It is readily available in health food stores in many countries and is widely used as a sweetener in Japan.
posted
Ok I am really confused here. I have diabetic parents, and kids struggling with their weight. So I constantly check out these things. I'm not meaning to be rude. I just really want to check out these sources. CITC could please cite your sources? Thanks
I totally agree wtih hibbah here. Sometimes you just cannot do real sugar.
quote: is that article from spendaisevil.com ?
seriously though, i had to do a research paper on splenda, and its legit. I doubt anyone can argue that natural is best, but for many people (diabetics) thats not an option, and splenda is a great alternative. my fathers a physcian, and he says its fine, in fact, ive never had anyone i know in the medical field tell me anything bad about splenda, its usually praises.
plus u can cook with splenda, it doesnt lose its properties under heat.
But on the link I didn't find anything to do with Splenda. ???
quote: Think Splenda has been tested for safety? Think again.
Is Splenda Really As Safe As They Claim It to Be? As of 2005, only six human trials have been conducted on Splenda (sucralose). Of these six trials, only two of the trials were completed and published before the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption. The two published trials had a grand total of 36 total human subjects. 36 people sure doesn't sound like many, but wait, it gets worse, only 23 people total were actually given sucralose for testing and here is the real killer: The longest trial at this time had lasted only four days and looked at sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance!
That's it, that's all the testing the FDA has performed before the approved Splenda. 23 people used Splenda for FOUR DAYS and the FDA approved it's use!
Is It REALLY Sugar? There is no question that sucralose starts off as a sugar molecule, it is what goes on in the factory that is concerning. Sucralose (Splenda) is a synthetic chemical that was originally cooked up in a laboratory. In the five step patented process of making sucralose, three chlorine molecules are added to a sugar molecule.
This type of sugar molecule does not occur in nature and therefore your body does not possess the ability to properly metabolize it.
Chlorine is a highly toxic compound to the human body. While extremely low levels are present in our drinking water for bactericide purposes, the level of chlorine that is created in the formation of Splenda is hundreds of thousands times higher.
The level of chlorine in our drinking water can be measured as a fraction of parts per million, but in Splenda it is 3 parts to 1.
In fact if you were to replace the chlorine you dump in your swimming pool to deter algae growth with Splenda you would only need to use ten times less to keep the water clear!
Dioxin, a chemical byproduct of the manufacturing of chlorine is believed to be the single most carcinogenic chemical known to science.
Splenda bears more chemical similarity to the banned pesticide DDT than it does to sugar.
The TRUTH is that Splenda is an absolute poison to the human body.
It is simply a "sweet" poison, which is why it is being sold as a natural sweetener. There is NOTHING natural about Splenda. This compound could NEVER appear in nature on it's own.
It cannot be stressed enough how poisonous this substance is.
How can this be if it is so widely sold?
It's very simple. The search has been on for years to find a sweetener to replace refined sugar. We have known for many years that refined sugar can lead to may physical problems and eventually lead up to the onset of diabetes.
First there was Saccharin, that was pulled off the self because of the irrefutable evidence that it caused cancer. Aspartame better known as Nutrasweet has been around for years but it also is a strong poison which turns into formaldehyde in the body.
Aspartame use results in an accumulation of formaldehyde in the brain, which can damage your central nervous system and immune system and cause genetic trauma. Even the FDA now admits this is true, but claims the amount is low enough in most that it shouldn't raise concern. I personally think any amount of the poison formaldehyde in your brain is too much.
Now that the long term tests are finally coming in to show how poisonous Nutrasweet is it's not going to be around much longer.
Industry is quietly trying to fade out the use of Nutrasweet. They don't want to pull it too fast and declare it dangerous for fear of millions of dollars of lawsuits that would be incurred.
Be assured in 5 years Nutrasweet will be a thing of the past, of course replaced by Splenda, the newest artificial sweetener.
Knowing the dangers of Nutrasweet, the manufacturers of Splenda ramroded it's approval through the FDA as a "food additive". We don't know for sure how it got approved but rest assured the multi billion dollar artificial sweetener industry probably used some financial arm twisting to get it approved.
What else could explain that only 23 people had to try Splenda for only four days to get it approved? Meanwhile the Splenda industry is now worth billions!
The makers of Splenda aren't going to tell you this. The media won't tell you this either. The fact is a significant percentage of the food industry is now desperately depending on Splenda to be their financial savior, and they are not being disappointed.
But enough about the history of Splenda. Lets get down to what it really does to the human body.
The good news is that it can add a sweet taste to many foods and drinks we eat. That's it, that's all the good news there is as it has no nutritional value. How can it when it is an absolute poison?
Here is a list of Splenda's side effects. Mind you this is not a minor list that only 1% or 2% of people experience. This is a list that 50% to 60% of the people who use Splenda are experiencing. We feel these symptoms are just the tip of the iceberg as many people are not associating the side effects of Splenda to the symptoms they are really feeling.
These are also symptoms and conditions that laboratory animals are experiencing of which there has been far more extensive testing on Splenda.
headaches mood swings panic attacks irritability aggression depression insomnia nausea intestinal discomfort skin rash nervousness seizures and epileptic episodes. hormonal imbalances leading to irregular menstrual cycles shrunken thymus glands enlarged livers and kidneys
I cannot stress this enough: When you ingest Splenda you are ingesting a true poison to the human body with no nutritional value. If you use Splenda, or Nutrasweet for that matter you are a fool! These are by no means foods and by every definition absolute poisons!
The evidence is clear. If you want to use a sweetener simply use sugar, or honey in low amounts. Try stevia which is a natural sweetener that grows in leaves in nature.
The truth is that stevia is actually natures most perfect non caloric sweetener. There have been no reported side effects from it's use over hundreds of years. Stevia is what should be in our sugar free soft drinks. But industry doesn't have time to grow thousands stevia fields. That's because sugar is plentiful around the world and is some countries main economic cash crop. It is also dirt cheap, just like chlorine is. So for industry it is far easier to take the sugar which is already in abundance, combine it with chlorine, which is also already in abundance and make Splenda rather than come up with an entirely new crop of food, like natural stevia which would cost them much more to establish around the world.
It's a sick society that we live in where they take simple sugar, add deadly, poisonous chlorine to it and call is a "safe" sweetener. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Splenda is NOT safe, it is a deadly poison. Avoid it under any circumstances.
You can choose to believe this information or not. I advise you to check out these facts for your own. Ask about the testing. Ask about Splenda's real chemical composition.
Hundreds of articles are now being written by scientists and doctors about the very real dangers of Splenda.
Is it really worth it for a sweet taste in your mouth to ingest this very real poison?
May I ask where you found this? Sounds like a summary from a book. I have researched Splenda a lot and have not found credible evidence against it.
BTW I found this on that site. The one that tells about Stevia. Thought it was kind of ironic and funny. LOL
quote: is a mutagen in the presence of a liver extract of pre-treated rats[7] — but this finding has been criticized on procedural grounds that the data were mishandled in such a way that even distilled water would appear mutagenic.[8] More recent animal tests have shown mixed results in terms of toxicology and adverse effects of stevia extract, with some tests finding steviol to be a weak mutagen[9] while others find no safety issues.[10] Although more recent studies appear to establish the safety of stevia, government agencies have expressed concerns over toxicity, citing a lack of sufficient conclusive research.[11][12]
quote: am a very health concious person who pays close attention to what I ingest at all times. This book is absolutely horrible and filled with critical misunderstandings. I have never read anything so abviously trying to fit an agenda(Dr. Hulls book sales I think) in my entire life. Any science she actually quotes is taken out of context completely. She uses examples that quote results from experiments using more splenda in a small animal than a human will consume in a lifetime. From the information I read after this book, Splenda has completed 20 years worth of experiments and for the most part, except in HUGE quantities, it has been determined safe to use. Why and what she is trying to accomplish is a mystery to me, but I feel safer about eating Splenda after reading this junk. I suggest if you do read this book to at least look at other sources for your information so you get the whole picture. I would save my $20 though...
Just trying to check out what I'm feeding my family.
posted
"But on the link I didn't find anything to do with Splenda. ???"
Sucralose is sold under the name Splenda. It is the same thing. As Dr. Janet Hull writes in her July newsletter, eating sucralose--brand name Splenda--is like ingesting tiny amounts of chlorinated pesticides.
According to Elaine Hollingsworth, Director of the Hippocrates Heath Centre of Australia , sucralose “has a chlorinated base like DDT and causes autoimmune disease.” When interviewed and asked if sucralose causes cancer, Dr. Janet Starr Hull replied “any animal that eats chlorine (especially on a regular basis) is at risk of cancer. The Merck 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 absorbing through the skin.” To date, sucralose has not been approved in most European countries.
Splenda is approximately 600 times sweeter than sugar, but the sweetness is forced, not like a natural sugar the body uses for fuel, says Dr. Hull. And although corporations say Splenda is safe, they have said the same thing about aspartame, which is now linked to disease and obesity.
posted
Here is how they make Splenda/sucralose - would you want to consume it?
CHEMICAL PROCESSING STEPS OF SPLENDA MANUFACTURING
* Sucrose is tritylated with tritylchloride; This is performed in the presence of dimethylformamide and 4 - methylmorpholine. * The tritylated sucrose is then acetylated with acetic anhydride.... * The resulting TRISPA (6,1',6' - tri - O -trityl - penta - O - acetylsucrose) is then chlorinated with hydrogen chloride, in the presence of toluene. * The resulting 4 - PAS (sucrose - 2,3,4,3',4' - penta-acetate) is then heated in the presence of methyl isobutyl ketone and acetic acid. * The resulting mixture, 6 - PAS (sucrose - 2,3,6,3',4' - penta-acetate) is again chlorinated with thionyl chloride, in the presence of toluene and benzyltriethylammoniumchloride...............and, * The resulting TOSPA (sucrose pena-acetate) is then treated with methanol, in the presence of sodium methoxide which produces the commercial product we call: * ..........Sucralose, or SPLENDA . Here is some information on Tolulene: http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/summary.tcl?edf_substance_id=108-88-3 Splenda started out as an insecticide.
posted
So I think I'll give up my Coffeemate and Sweet 'N Low to add to my morning coffee; I have to learn to drink it straight with only some milk added.
TreamLefty, I found 'corn syrup solids' as ingredients in chips - how awful! We all love Nacho Cheese chips!!!
I am not drinking Diet Coke during the winter months - summer is different. I'll proabably stick to water, cold tea and lemon when we have higher temperatures.
And I am not done going through my kitchen cabinets; I'll look for other products.
BTW, we don't have any sugar in the house, we don't use it at all. I just don't like the idea of *pure* sugar.
Thanks for the input, girls! Posts: 30135 | From: The owner of this website killed ES....... | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like artificial sweeteners and wouldn't use them on a regular basis, I'm convinced they are not healthy. I use sugar very rarely, only in tea, and I usually buy whole cane sugar, honey or stevia. (Stevia is not being sold in Germany, but it's available in Egypt.)
Posts: 3587 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
First let me say that I agree with NOT using artificial sweeteners or anything else artificial in most circumstances. But.......sometimes, because of underlying health problems, a person has to find alternatives. Use common sense AND use them in reasonable amounts. I would seriously hope that anyone in good health but especially the ones NOT in good health, not take my word or anyone elses word for this. Do your research. Thanks
Maybe the reason I didn't find anything about Splenda was because I read sucrose and not sucralose. ??? Sucrose is sugar. Sucralose is a derivative of sugar. (Splenda)
quote: Sucrose solution spiked with the oral insecticide
I thought it was funny that on the site that bashes Splenda also advertises to sell it. LOL I know its the internet site advertising thing. Still funny though. LOL
quote: Is Splenda Making You Sick?
Who on earth uses them together? Yuk
quote: This goes along with conversations with Dr. James Bowen who says because aspartame damages the mitocondria of the cell it will interact with all drugs and as a chemical hypersensitization agent will interact with vaccines, unsafe sweeteners like Splenda or sucralose (chlorinated hydrocarbon) and toxins.
This link didn't work? Anyone else have that problem?
They use chlorine in the purification process for our drinking water. Sometimes it tastes like I'm drinking pool water. I never noticed that with Splenda. Also in chemistry and biology I learned that there is a chlorine atom in many everyday things that we use. Table salt for one. (also not good used in large amounts ) So since I'm not a scientist........I wont pretend to make claims that I'm not sure of 100%.
Ok yes nothings better than natural. We all know that. But for some people we have weigh the risks. Me nor anyone I know has ever felt any of those side effects from Splenda. But we have with other artificial sweeteners. Does that mean that there is nothing wrong with Splenda? NO What it means is that to date.....it is the best sweetening alternative for people with underlying health problems. I would much rather give my kids the occasional tea with supper sweetened with Splenda, or the occasional chocolate chip cookie sweetened with it .... than add to their weight problems. Problems which can if not guarded closely, turn into juvenile diabetes or heart problems. Those problems would stay with them the rest of their lives. Same goes for my parents and other family memebers (some children) who are diabetics. Chances are, that if a person can have something sweet once in a while, then they wont crave and binge as much.
I did not find anything that proves how bad it is. I mean people (especially health nuts or people on a mission) will and can find problems with anything. Even perfectly good and natural things. All things even "good for you foods" are bad for you if consumed in large quantities. So I don't find those sources to be credible. Give me studies and the like by reputible people. Not any Joe Blow off the internet, or who wants to sell a book. People's opinions are just that. Opinions. But they are not scientists.
I mean aren't we taught in college to make your thesis statement and stick with it? I personally can pick a topic and make it sound like law. Even ones that I totally disagree with. As I'm sure many others can too. But the fact is........is it credible? Did I make it up? Is it biased in any way? How much is fact? Scientific research? Who conducted the research? Is it done in a scientific and non-biased manner? ... or is it done in a make shift lab with people on on witch hunt? There are far more sides to this kind of thing, than just oh this what i've found.......this is what some have claimed.....dada dada dada.........
If there were no underlying conditions or circumstances here to weigh in....I would not use Splenda or other artificial sweeteners. Just like a lot of other folks. The thing is.......some of us have to find alternatives and use them reasonably.
So thanks for the info. It is wise for all of us to have an open mind and be cautious about these things. But for myself, it just isn't credible enough to prove that Splenda is actually THAT bad for you, unless ingested in unusually large amounts. Which........we definately are NOT doing. Anyone who is using Splenda, Sugar, Oils, etc., in large amounts is not being reasonable. I mean eventually a person does have to use common sense.
All this being said.........I would personally hate to see someone with health problems, or a kid that has them, not use something like Splenda (in reasonable amounts of course) because of a bunch of hyped up opinions and misconstrued facts. Then go and use sugar that can really hurt them. It's not like we make it a food group or anything.
A diabetic child likes the occasional sweet whatever, just like everyone else. But if real sugar is used it can really throw off their blood sugar levels, which can be very very dangerous. I've seen far too many kids hurt by the fact that they couldn't share in some of the sweets at parties and stuff. I'd feel better providing some alternative like a cookie or punch made with Splenda.
So I feel we all have a responsibility to post accurate and informative information. Things like this can be far more serious than some may realize. Hence, my post. The other side of Splenda.
Also, I am not one to agree with just using artificial this or that. I steer away from most of that stuff. If there were not other things involved in my decision, and we were all healthy with no problems.....I definately would not use them.
OHhhh I had never heard of Stevia. But thanks to this post, I will definately research it.
You know..........I still haven't gottne over the fact that Cool Whip has plastic chemical in
quote:Originally posted by sheba76: A diabetic child likes the occasional sweet whatever, just like everyone else. But if real sugar is used it can really throw off their blood sugar levels, which can be very very dangerous. I've seen far too many kids hurt by the fact that they couldn't share in some of the sweets at parties and stuff. I'd feel better providing some alternative like a cookie or punch made with Splenda.
As someone who has to watch her sugar/carb intake for the first time in her life (borderline gestational diabetes), I can see how difficult it is to ever find anything sweet that doesn't have some artificial sweetener in it. I think what you are talking about is a really infrequent use of something artificial. And truth be told, we can't get away from artificial additives in food, unless you cook *everything* and make all drinks from scratch. And even then, like MK pointed out, mercury is in *everything* we eat because it's everywhere in the environment.
(I bought these mesquite flavored chicken breasts as a good protein source. No real fat, no carbs. And even *it* has additives. They may not be bad, I don't know. What are polysorbate 80, sodium phosphate, and maltodextrin?)
I think the best we can do is be aware of what's in our food (and how evil prepackaged foods are), and do everything in moderation.
Posts: 8794 | From: 01-20-09 The End of an Error | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Stevia is a plant food as is cane sugar. Unlike cane sugar, Stevia leaf sweetener does not have calories and Stevia is not an insulin stimulant. In conclusion: Stevia is sweet and healthy. Stevia has a different taste than sugar, and it tastes oh-so-good in tea. It comes in liquid and granule form, and is great with yogurt.
The sugar industry has kept this healthy herbal sweetener stevia off the market in many countries around the world. The reason: $$$$
Since it's natural it can't be patented thus no motivation from big companies to make it ( i used to think that kind of stuff was conspiracy theory but it really is true, a lot of FDA approval & regulations are tools used by big companies to drive out competition and create barrieers to entry.)
anyway it is sold in other countries as a sweetner and you can get it in the use
Political controversy
In 1991, at the request of an anonymous complaint, the United States Food and Drug Administration labeled stevia as an "unsafe food additive" and restricted its import. The FDA's stated reason was "toxicological information on stevia is inadequate to demonstrate its safety." This ruling was controversial, as stevia proponents pointed out that this designation violates the FDA's own guidelines, under which any natural substance used prior to 1958 with no reported adverse effects should be generally recognized as safe (GRAS).
Stevia occurs naturally, requiring no patent to produce it. As a consequence, since the import ban in 1991, marketers and consumers of stevia have shared a belief that the sweetener industry pressured the FDA to keep stevia out of the United States. Arizona congressman Jon Kyl, for example, called the FDA action against stevia "a restraint of trade to benefit the artificial sweetener industry." To date, the FDA has never revealed the source of the original complaint in its responses to requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act.
The FDA requires proof of safety before recognizing a food additive as safe. A similar burden of proof is required for the FDA to ban a substance or label it unsafe. Nevertheless, stevia remained banned until after the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act forced the FDA in 1995 to revise its stance to permit stevia to be used as a dietary supplement, although not as a food additive — a position that stevia proponents regard as contradictory because it simultaneously labels stevia as safe and unsafe.
Posts: 315 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I personally feel like aspartame (Nutrasweet) screws with the body's natural hunger regulation, and makes you feel hungrier than you would if you were drinking water or something with calories. I have no evidence for that, though.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
LOL
Printer-friendly view of this topic