Below you will find the statement from Assembly member Dymally announcing
the hearing and a statement from the Sugar Association applauding his
decision.

The Health Committee is interested in hearing from consumers who have had
negative experiences with food additives like Splenda and from food safety
or consumer watchdog groups.

For more than three years, the Truth About Splenda Campaign has worked to
correct consumer confusion due to what we believe is Splenda's misleading
marketing. We urge any consumers or organizations that would like to be
considered for the witness list to contact Francis Taylor with the
California Assembly Committee on Health at (310) 223-1201.

The Truth About Splenda Consumer Education Campaign

California Assembly Committee on Health to Hold Hearings Regarding
Deceptive Advertising and Artificial Sweeteners

LOS ANGELES, May 28, 2008 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) - Assemblymember Mervyn M.
Dymally (D-Compton), Chair of the California Assembly Committee on Health
will convene legislative hearings in Southern California upon the
adjournment of the legislative session on the use of deceptive advertising
to promote sales of potentially unhealthy food additives, particularly
artificial sweeteners.

The Committee plans on taking testimony from consumer watchdog
organizations regarding the FDA's failure properly to examine the adverse
health consequences of using false advertising to promote artificial
sweeteners. Additionally, the Committee will receive testimony from a
national food safety watchdog group on the widespread use of false and
misleading advertising of artificial sweeteners.

The Committee will hear from consumers who reported using artificial
sweeteners on the advertised assumption that they were side-effects free
and then went through substantial gastrointestinal agony until they
eliminated the sweeteners from their diets.

"Given the wide-spread interest is this issue, it is important that the
Assembly Committee on Health examine whether Proposition 65 should apply to
artificial sweeteners, since some contain chemicals like chlorine which can
be extremely toxic. It is critical that the Committee examine whether
products containing these potentially hazardous chemicals should be
identified by a label so consumers can make more informed decisions before
using these products," said Dymally.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Committee you may consider whether
the issues raised merit new legislation. Any consumers or organizations
that would like to be considered for the witness list should contact
Francis Taylor at (310) 223-1201.

CONTACT:
California Assembly Committee on Health
Francis Taylor
(310) 223-1201

THE SUGAR ASSOCIATION APPLAUDS CALIFORNIA
ASSEMBLY HEALTH COMMITTEE'S PLANS TO HOLD
HEARINGS ON DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING OF ARTIFICIAL
SWEETENERS

May 30, 2008 (Washington, DC) Mark Lanier, who was recently honored with
the Massachusetts Trial Lawyers Association's 2008 Consumer Advocacy Award
and who is a trial lawyer for the Washington-based Sugar Association,
representing thousands of sugar farmers from across the nation, applauded
the decision of the California Assembly Committee on Health to hold
hearings in California concerning the use of deceptive advertising by
makers of artificial sweeteners such as Splenda.

"Document after document from Johnson & Johnson's own files show that they
knew all along that their advertising was false and that it was misleading
consumers into believing that Splenda is natural, safe, and healthy. We
look forward to telling a California jury the full truth about Splenda,
including the substantial efforts Johnson & Johnson went to in an effort to
cover up its deception," stated Mr. Lanier.

Splenda is marketed as healthy and safe for children and adults but there
have been no long-term human tests to support this claim. In fact, the
website www.truthaboutsplenda.com/ has
received numerous consumer e-mail complaints associating Splenda with a
host of problems, including severe gastrointestinal side effects. And if
you Google "Splenda", consumers can find numerous other websites
highlighting concerns.

Although Johnson & Johnson has spent hundreds of millions on misleading
advertising to intentionally fool consumers, Splenda is not "natural." In
2004, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) conducted a
survey in which over 46% of respondents believed Splenda to be a "natural
product." CSPI has stated in court filings "that it is in the public's
interest to stop fraudulent and misleading marketing at any point."

In December 2004, The Sugar Association brought an action in United States
District Court, Central District of California alleging that Johnson &
Johnson uses false, deceptive and misleading marketing to induce customers
to purchase Splenda. In its complaint, The Sugar Association claims that
Johnson & Johnson has chosen to compete not only in the artificial
sweetener market against products like Sweet'N Low and Equal, but also in
the natural sweetener market against sugar. Johnson & Johnson
intentionally changed its advertising so that consumers no longer view
Splenda as a mere "packet" sweetener, but instead perceive it as a "pantry
staple food," in part by introducing a Splenda-branded product it claimed
"offers a true sugar baking replacement."

Over the past several years, advertising regulatory authorities in France,
Australia and New Zealand have found Johnson & Johnson to have used
misleading advertising to promote Splenda and have required Johnson &
Johnson to stop or change its advertising due to confusing and misleading
comparisons to sugar. Last year a similar case against Johnson & Johnson
alleging false, misleading, and deceptive advertising was tried by a jury
in federal court in Pennsylvania. After the jury requested a calculator
during its deliberations, Johnson & Johnson abruptly settled and insisted
upon sealing all settlement details to continue to cover up the truth about
Splenda from consumers.

Contacts:
Rich Masters, Qorvis Communications (202) 448-3144
Eric Rose, Englander & Associates (805) 624-0572

A new health scare erupted over soft drinks last night amid evidence they may cause serious cell damage. Research from a British university suggests a common preservative found in drinks such as Fanta and Pepsi Max has the ability to switch off vital parts of DNA.

The problem - more usually associated with ageing and alcohol abuse - can eventually lead to cirrhosis of the liver and degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's.

The findings could have serious consequences for the hundreds of millions of people worldwide who consume fizzy drinks. They will also intensify the controversy about food additives, which have been linked to hyperactivity in children.

Concerns centre on the safety of E211, known as sodium benzoate, a preservative used for decades by the £74bn global carbonated drinks industry. Sodium benzoate derives from benzoic acid. It occurs naturally in berries, but is used in large quantities to prevent mould in soft drinks such as Sprite, Oasis and Dr Pepper. It is also added to pickles and sauces.

Sodium benzoate has already been the subject of concern about cancer because when mixed with the additive vitamin C in soft drinks, it causes benzene, a carcinogenic substance. A Food Standards Agency survey of benzene in drinks last year found high levels in four brands which were removed from sale.

Now, an expert in ageing at Sheffield University, who has been working on sodium benzoate since publishing a research paper in 1999, has decided to speak out about another danger. Professor Peter Piper, a professor of molecular biology and biotechnology, tested the impact of sodium benzoate on living yeast cells in his laboratory. What he found alarmed him: the benzoate was damaging an important area of DNA in the "power station" of cells known as the mitochondria.

He told The Independent on Sunday: "These chemicals have the ability to cause severe damage to DNA in the mitochondria to the point that they totally inactivate it: they knock it out altogether.

"The mitochondria consumes the oxygen to give you energy and if you damage it - as happens in a number if diseased states - then the cell starts to malfunction very seriously. And there is a whole array of diseases that are now being tied to damage to this DNA - Parkinson's and quite a lot of neuro-degenerative diseases, but above all the whole process of ageing."

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) backs the use of sodium benzoate in the UK and it has been approved by the European Union but last night, MPs called for it to investigate urgently.

Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat chair of Parliament's all-party environment group said: "Many additives are relatively new and their long-term impact cannot be certain. This preservative clearly needs to be investigated further by the FSA."

A review of sodium benzoate by the World Health Organisation in 2000 concluded that it was safe, but it noted that the available science supporting its safety was "limited".

Professor Piper, whose work has been funded by a government research council, said tests conducted by the US Food and Drug Administration were out of date.

"The food industry will say these compounds have been tested and they are complete safe," he said. "By the criteria of modern safety testing, the safety tests were inadequate. Like all things, safety testing moves forward and you can conduct a much more rigorous safety test than you could 50 years ago."

He advised parents to think carefully about buying drinks with preservatives until the quantities in products were proved safe by new tests. "My concern is for children who are drinking large amounts," he said.

Coca-Cola and Britvic's Pepsi Max and Diet Pepsi all contain sodium benzoate. Their makers and the British Soft Drinks Association said they entrusted the safety of additives to the Government.

PHILADELPHIA - The makers of Splenda and Equal on Friday settled a lawsuit over Splenda's disputed advertising slogan - "Made from sugar so it tastes like sugar."

The settlement came after the jury announced that it had reached a verdict.

Merisant Co., which makes Equal, accused Splenda of confusing consumers into thinking its product was healthier and more natural than other artificial sweeteners. Splenda's marketer, McNeil Nutritionals, countered that it simply has a better product backed by superior advertising.

A McNeil spokeswoman in the courtroom said the amount of the settlement wouldn't be announced. The two sides planned to issue a joint statement later Friday.

Chicago-based Merisant was seeking more than $200 million from McNeil - at least $183 million for unfair profits since 2003 and compensation for at least $25 million in lost sales.

The active ingredient in Splenda starts as pure cane sugar but is chemically altered to create a compound that contains no calories, according to McNeil. The final product contains no sugar.

The one-month trial focused mostly on Splenda's advertising slogan, but it ended in a settlement after the jury said it had reached a verdict Friday afternoon.

Settlement talks began after jurors asked the judge for a calculator and a white board, an indication that they were computing damages to be awarded to Merisant. Lawyers rushed to the courtroom to try to delay the jury's announcement and then huddled in a courthouse meeting room.

McNeil's own consultants said its slogan confused potential customers, some of whom thought that Splenda was sugar without the calories, Merisant's attorneys said. McNeil rejected a plan to add the phrase "does not contain sugar" to the front of Splenda's yellow box, which might have cleared up the confusion, Merisant said.

Because the manufacturing of Splenda begins with sugar, McNeil can accurately claim that Splenda is "made from" sugar, according to its attorneys.

Splenda is used in more than 4,000 food and drink products and is included in recipes at numerous chain restaurants.

It had 60 percent of the consumer artificial sweetener market last year, according to the research firm Information Resources Inc. Equal, which comes in blue packets and is made with aspartame, and Sweet'N Low, in pink packets and made with saccharin, each held about 14 percent of the consumer market.

McNeil is a unit of Johnson & Johnson based in suburban Philadelphia and markets Splenda for its manufacturer, London-based Tate & Lyle PLC. It is also defending its Splenda advertising claims in a separate lawsuit in California filed by a group of U.S. sugar manufacturers.

In one corner is the artificial sweetener in the blue packet, Equal; in the other is its best-selling rival in the yellow packet, Splenda.

The maker of Equal contends that Splenda has been misleading millions of consumers by fostering the notion, through television and print advertising, that Splenda is made from sugar and is natural. Splenda’s maker counters that the process to make the sweetener does indeed start with sugar.

Next Monday, a lawsuit brought by the maker of Equal, Merisant, against Splenda’s maker, McNeil Nutritionals, is scheduled to go before a jury in Federal District Court in Philadelphia.

At stake is leadership of the fiercely competitive $1.5 billion artificial sweetener market. Equal had once dominated the market, finding its way into more than 6,000 consumer products like Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi, the two biggest buyers of artificial sweeteners in the world.

But since Splenda was introduced in late 1999, Equal has steadily been elbowed aside and Splenda is now No. 1, with 62 percent of the market in the United States.

It is unusual for a dispute over advertising claims to go to a jury trial. The case centers on Splenda’s tagline “Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar” — a claim that Equal mocks as an “urban myth” on its Web site.

While both sides are expected to present phalanxes of neurobiologists and chemists as expert witnesses, the dispute hinges on the role of language in creating and defining the product.

“The phrase ‘made from sugar’ may seem simple enough, but it has spawned an epic battle among the parties over proper diction and syntax,” the judge overseeing the case, Gene E. K. Pratter, wrote in an opinion last month.

“For example, McNeil claims that ‘made from sugar’ clearly excludes the interpretation that Splenda is sugar, or that Splenda is made with sugar,” she continued. “Made with sugar would mean that sugar is an ingredient listed on the package. Drawing upon an often effective rhetorical device, McNeil asks the question, how could a consumer interpret a product that is ‘made from sugar’ and ‘tastes like sugar’ as actually being sugar?”

Kevin L. Keller, a marketing professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, said that the language at issue had “a legal perspective, a marketing perspective and a health perspective.”

“The challenge is how do you seek and find the truth in each of these different perspectives,” he said.

Merisant is seeking the disgorgement of at least $176 million in Splenda’s profits as well as court approval to force Splenda’s maker to revamp its advertising and marketing. The jury trial is expected to last two weeks.

Splenda’s core ingredient is a nonnutritive sweetener that does not grow in sugar fields or appear elsewhere naturally. Rather, the core ingredient, sucralose, is manufactured in laboratories as a synthetic compound. Despite its similar-sounding name, sucralose is not the same thing as sucrose, the technical name for pure table sugar.

Splenda’s maker McNeil, a unit of the Johnson & Johnson drug and consumer goods giant, has patented dozens of ways to manufacture sucralose. Some of them are based on sucrose. One is even based on raffinose, a sugar-relative found in beans, onions and broccoli. But others are based on nonsugars — a point that Equal’s maker, prowling through filed patents, has seized upon.

McNeil says that the process it uses to manufacture Splenda starts with sugar, pure and simple. To make sucralose, McNeil adds three chlorine atoms that are naturally found in foods like salt and lettuce to a molecule of sucrose. The sucrose disappears in the manufacturing process, but the result — sucralose — is 600 times as sweet as ordinary table sugar. Splenda then mixes two bulking agents, dextrose and maltodextrin, into the sucralose.

The chemistry is complex, and it may be baffling for a jury to hear about a process that starts out involving sugar but ends up lacking it.

Despite its use of sugar as the starting point for making sucralose, nowhere do the words “sugar” or “sucrose” appear on Splenda’s ingredient list. That is because under Food and Drug Administration regulations, it cannot list a substance that has vaporized during the manufacturing process.

In January 2005, in its answer to the lawsuit filed by Merisant that previous November, McNeil said that “the sweetening ingredient in Splenda is made by a multistep process that starts with cane sugar.” But it then added that “Splenda is an artificial sweetener that does not contain sugar” — presumably because the sugar disappears in the manufacturing process.

In papers that were filed with the court and sealed — but were then cited by the judge in her opinion last month — McNeil acknowledged that “unaltered sugar/sucrose is not an ingredient in Splenda.” Rebecca Tushnet, a professor of advertising law at Georgetown University who has followed the case, said: “The key issue is, what can you say about your product that’s made in a lab and its relationship to nature? How much can you suggest that it’s natural, whether because the components were found in nature, or your body processes it as natural?”

Merisant argues that it is chemistry, not sugar, that generates Splenda’s sweetness. “At the end of the day, they say Splenda is ‘made from sugar,’ ” said Merisant’s lead outside lawyer, Gregory LoCascio of Kirkland & Ellis. “People think it’s sugar without the calories, or skim sugar, or magic sugar, and it’s not. It’s artificial sweetener.”

McNeil’s outside lawyers referred all calls to a McNeil spokeswoman, Julie Keenan, who provided a statement saying that Splenda “is made from pure cane sugar by a patented process that makes three atomic changes to the sugar (sucrose) molecule.”

“The resulting sweetener, called sucralose, retains the sweet taste of sugar,” she said.

Equal, also known as aspartame, also does not have an iota of sugar in it. It is composed of two amino acids and a methyl ester group. But Equal promotes itself as an artificial sweetener and tones down the references to sugar in its marketing, saying only that it “has sweet, clean taste, like sugar.”

Still, Equal has a powerful if unlikely ally in its battle against Splenda: the Sugar Association, a trade and lobbying group for the $10 billion American natural sugar industry. The association has separately sued Splenda’s makers over its claims to be related to sugar.

Legal battles over the authenticity of consumer products are not new. In 1996, the maker of Prego, Conopco, unsuccessfully sued the maker of Ragu, the Campbell Soup Company, over Prego’s claim that its pasta sauce was “thickest.” In another case, Hot Wax unsuccessfully sued Turtle Wax in 1999, contending that it created the impression that its car wax actually contained wax. (It did not.)

Equal was first sold in 1982 by G. D. Searle, which was then acquired by Monsanto. Merisant, a private company in Chicago that describes itself as David to McNeil’s Goliath, bought the Equal part of Monsanto’s business in March 2000. Another brand of aspartame, NutraSweet, is sold by the Nutra-Sweet Company, also in Chicago.

After gaining approval from the F.D.A., McNeil introduced Splenda in late 1999. Because of an aggressive marketing campaign by Alchemy, a New York advertising agency, Splenda immediately began to eat into Equal’s sales. In 2001, Splenda had annual sales of $34 million, compared with Equal’s $84 million, according to Information Resources Inc., a data company.

By late 2004, McNeil had to ration shipments of Splenda amid soaring demand. McNeil has spent over $235 million since then to promote Splenda.

In less than a decade, Splenda has come to dominate the American artificial sweetener market. Last year, it had sales of $212 million, dwarfing Equal’s sales of $49 million. Splenda is now not just in packets and bulk, but in Cocoa Puffs, Diet Coke, Pedialyte, and nearly 4,500 other consumer products.

In its court filings, Merisant cites presentations made by Alchemy, Splenda’s advertising agency, that cited “the decision to position Splenda as not artificial.”

In those presentations, the agency says that Splenda should be thought of as “sugar without the calories,” putting “significant distance from “artificial sweeteners.”

For a time in 2002, McNeil added the line “but it’s not sugar.” Sales fizzled.

McNeil dropped the line and went back to “made like sugar, tastes like sugar” and “think sugar, say Splenda.” Sales shot back up.

One apparent reason was that for consumers polled by McNeil, the tagline “made from sugar” caused some to be unclear as to whether Splenda is truly natural, according to a sealed declaration filed by a lawyer for Merisant who saw the documents. The comments were quoted by the judge in her March opinion.

Professor Keller of Dartmouth said that “it’s all going to come down to consumer perceptions, and how they interpret what these claims are, and are they accurate.”

Related:
Memorandum and Order From Judge Gene E. K. Pratter (pdf)

PRNEWSWIRE

Splenda Side Effect Hotline Established by Consumer Group
Citizens for Health Urges FTC, FDA to Take Action
Consumer Group, Citizens For Health
Claims Artificial Sweetener SPLENDA
Causes Health Problems

A warning that "Splenda" could be bad for you.

A consumer group, Citizens For Health claims that "Splenda", an artificial sweetener, and foods that contain it, are causing health problems.

A special hotline[*] has been set up for those who think they are suffering from side effects.

'Citizens for health' wants people to call that hotline with their concerns so it can gather evidence against "Splenda."

The group says the artificial sweetener is dangerous and should not be sold.

"Splenda" is just about everywhere in restaurants, drinks and the food you eat.

STATEMENT REGARDING CITIZENS FOR
HEALTH PRESS CONFERENCE
March 22 2007

McNeil Nutritionals, LLC is committed to developing innovative nutritional products, like SPLENDA^® Sweeteners, that provide important health and lifestyle benefits. The company is extremely proud of the strong pre-clinical and clinical database that supports the safety of sucralose, the sweetening ingredient in all SPLENDA^® Sweetener Products.

Citizens for Health has engaged in numerous tactics that misinform consumers with unsubstantiated claims about sucralose, the sweetening ingredient in SPLENDA^® Sweeteners. The recent Citizens for Health press conference, which was supported by Qorvis Communications, the public relations agency of record for The Sugar Association, included false and misleading information designed to injure the reputation and goodwill of the SPLENDA^® Brand and McNeil Nutritionals, LLC. These inaccuracies about the SPLENDA^® Brand are a great disservice to millions of consumers, particularly those looking to monitor caloric intake or manage diabetes, who safely use and enjoy SPLENDA^® Sweeteners every day.

McNeil Nutritionals, LLC maintains a rigorous quality control program, and closely monitors consumer reports about experiences with all of its products. This is standard practice and consistent with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's direction to food manufacturers to assure the safety of products. Accordingly, it is important that consumers report product experiences directly to the company, since it has the appropriate access to manufacturing details, and the ability to monitor reports to identify and correct any potential issues.

The SPLENDA^® Brand employs these stringent quality control standards to offer a portfolio of unparalleled products. This dedication to our consumers is demonstrated by our marketplace strength and continued growth, which has propelled the SPLENDA^® Brand to become the leading no calorie sweetener brand.

The safety of sucralose is well documented in more than 100 scientific studies conducted over a 20-year period. Sucralose has been available internationally for more than 15 years and is approved for use in over 80 countries. Sucralose is used in more than 4,000 products of major food brands worldwide. The safety data on sucralose have been reviewed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration(FDA) and other national regulatory agencies, as well as by international health authorities, and found to be safe for use by all consumers, including children, pregnant women and people with diabetes.We stand confidently behind the SPLENDA^® Brand and the exemplary and well-documented safety record of its products.

Recent news has also focused attention on ongoing litigation, which centers on marketing practices, not on the well-established safety profile of SPLENDA^® Sweeteners Myfoxdc. McNeil Nutritionals, LLC believe these allegations are without merit, and will continue to vigorously defend its position.

Dr. Hull's Comments:

Hat’s Off! to Citizens For Health for keeping the grass-roots movement in the United States alive and well. Without these types of movements to inform consumers about the “other side” of diet chemicals, this country would be subject to misinformation solely controlled by the marketing departments of manufactured products gaining profit over health. And thank goodness for our freedom of speech in America to express these truths and opinions.

*Citizens for Health Hotline #: 1-888-774-CALL (2255) for consumers who believe they are suffering side effects from the use of Splenda. Citizens for Health is the national nonprofit consumer advocacy group working to broaden health care options, create an integrative health system based on wellness, and advance the freedom to make health choices.

Sweetener soured

Tosin Sulaiman

Analysts are viewing Tate & Lyle's profit warning as a sign of excessive expectations in its sweeteners business. Investors' hopes had been fuelled by the sugar refiner's decision last year to focus on its sweeteners. However, Tate shares fell more than 15 per cent today as they absorbed the news that Splenda is not yet the hit that its makers had hoped it would be.

One person who will not be surprised by today's statement is Charlie Mills, the Credit Suisse analyst who gave warning last week of the challenges facing the sugar substitute, such as the unenthusiastic reception to Coca-Cola's and Pepsi's new Splenda-based drinks and Diet 7Up's decision to switch from Splenda to Aspartame in a relaunch.

General Mills also withdrew the Trix and Coco Puffs cereal lines it launched using Splenda after slow sales. Credit Suisse says that it has not written off Splenda, however, and investors may just have to wait patiently for a recovery.

Dr. Janet Starr Hull

___________________________________________________

An Unsweet Deal
Johnny J Burnham
The Bristol Press
Sept. 22, 2006

BRISTOL, Connecticut -- The Board of Education has decided to join the growing list of districts willing to give up some of its autonomy in exchange for financial incentives and participate in the state Department of Education's healthy food and beverage program.

The state will now reimburse the district 10 cents per meal served in its public schools. Bristol stands to gain an estimated $90,000 with nearly 900,000 meals served during the school year.

"We will no longer be able to sell anything to our students that is not approved by the state as being a healthy food or beverage," said Superintendent of Schools Michael J. Wasta.

The district had to move quickly, Wasta said, when it learned that the state needed a response by October or it would not provide reimbursement for the meals served from the start of the school year until the date it received official notification of the district's plan to participate. This would cost Bristol approximately $9,000 a month.

Although the district will gain financially, school fund-raising efforts may take a hit.

Whether it be a bake sale or the middle school cheesecake sale, students, may not participate in the selling or handling of any high-sugared, non-approved food that has any connection with the school or its programs.

Under Public Act No. 06-63, the only beverages permitted are "milk that may be flavored but contain no artificial sweeteners and no more than four grams of sugar per ounce; nondairy milks such as soy or rice milk, which may be flavored but contain no artificial sweeteners, no more than four grams of sugar per ounce, no more than 35 per cent of calories from fat per portion and no more than ten per cent of calories from saturated fat per portion; one hundred per cent fruit juice, vegetable juice or combination of such juices, containing no added sugars, sweeteners or artificial sweeteners; beverages that contain only water and fruit or vegetable juice and have no added sugars, sweeteners or artificial sweeteners; and water, which may be flavored but contain no added sugars, sweeteners, artificial sweeteners or caffeine."

All districts, whether taking advantage of the state's meal reimbursement plan or not, must abide by this new beverage law.

However, schools are still authorized to sell banned items at an event occurring after the end of the regular school day or on the weekend as long as the food or drink is not sold from a vending machine or school store.

According to the superintendent, soda and snack concessions are still permitted at Muzzy Field during sporting events.

Although the board voted in favor of participating, one commissioner, Christopher C. Wilson, said joining was a mistake.

"I certainly support the healthy lifestyle but [the state] is taking all autonomy away from the local school boards," he said. "We would only lose $90,000 if we turned this down but we would have the freedom to serve the students what we deem appropriate."

Wasta added that to his knowledge only three districts have declined to participate.

William Smyth, assistant to the superintendent for business, said that those that have chosen not to participate are small districts that do not serve a lot of meals and therefore reimbursement is minimal.

Johnny Burnham covers Bristol health, education, school and children's issues. Contact him at jburnham@bristolpress.com or 584-0504 ext. 250.

©The Bristol Press 2006

Dr. Janet Hull

_____________________________________________________

Excess Soda Could Raise Esophageal Cancer Risk

Dear Mayo Clinic: Is there any connection between esophageal cancer and diet soda?

Answer: The quick answer is no: there’s no direct connection between esophageal cancer and diet or regular soda. But the quick answer doesn’t tell the whole story.

There are interconnections between soda, obesity, gastroesophagel reflux disease, or GERD, and esophageal cancer that may indicate it’s best to go easy on soda.

The incidence of esophageal cancer continues to increase, and so far, researchers can’t pinpoint a single reason for the increase.

Here are some of the known risk factors:

GERD: Frequent or constant heartburn is the most common symptom of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

While heartburn seems like just a nuisance, about 5 percent of people with GERD will develop Barrett’s esophagus, a condition that occurs when acid reflux stimulates changes in the lining of the lower esophagus. Patients with Barrett’s esophagus have a 30- to 125-fold increased risk of developing esophageal cancer.

And GERD is also associated with obesity.

Obesity: While soda alone doesn’t cause obesity, it can contribute to weight gain. A 12-ounce regular soda contains about 10 teaspoons of sugar. Diet soda, though calorie free, could contribute to weight gain, too.

A study presented at last year’s annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association found that for people who drank two or more cans of diet soda a day, the risk of becoming overweight or obese was 57.1 percent, compared with 47.2 percent for those who drank more than two cans of regular soda a day.

The study, done by researchers at Texas Health Science Center,tracked 622 people for about seven years.

It’s not clear why diet soda consumption was associated with a higher risk of weight gain. The researchers speculated that diet soda drinkers fared worse because they opted for diet soda in an effort to lose weight. But drinking diet soda – without other changes – isn’t enough to shed pounds. Or, it was theorized that perhaps the artificial sweeteners in diet soda somehow stimulate appetite.

It is clear that maintaining a healthy body weight reduces your risk of many chronic illnesses, including some cancers. Although the interplay between soda, obesity and GERD hasn’t been directly linked to esophageal cancer, there are enough connections to raise caution and watch what you drink.

– Claude Deschamps, M.D., Thoracic Surgery; and Jennifer Nelson, R.D., Clinical Dietetics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
Read more of this article.

You can email Oprah your Splenda story by filling out the Oprah.com online form. You can also email Bob Greene at Get With the Program.

Let’s get the word out to these two very influential celebrities.

Mobile Register

Twenty-nine Washington County residents who live near the Tate & Lyle sucralose plant in McIntosh have filed a lawsuit against the company, claiming the maker of the main ingredient in the popular sweetener Splenda has hurt their property values and lowered their quality of life.

The suit, filed this month in federal court, complains of excessive noise, noxious odor and also claims trespassing on private property by the company.

Ferne Hudson, spokeswoman for London-based Tate & Lyle, said the company will not comment on pending legal matters.

Lawyer Herndon Inge, a Mobile attorney who is representing those who live in nine homes that are all within eyeshot of the plant, said his clients are also experiencing medical problems. He said the symptoms are similar to those associated with exposure to phosgene gas, which he said he believes is used inside the plant in the production of the sweetener. The company, in the past, has not answered questions about the details of its patented production process.

"It is causing health problems, upper respiratory problems, watering eyes and other irritations," he said.

The odor the residents are complaining of -- said to resemble that of freshly cut hay -- may be from the same source, Inge said.

Inge said some of his clients are experiencing several of the symptoms associated with phosgene gas exposure; however, a quick Web search shows these symptoms also can be attributed to other sources.

Little is on the public record from either side because the case is so recently filed. Inge said proof to his claims would be forthcoming as the case progresses.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, phosgene is a poisonous gas at room temperature, or about 70 degrees.

The CDC also notes that phosgene was used extensively during World War I as a choking agent. The CDC also says that it is now commonly used in industry to produce chemicals.

"Most people who recover after an exposure to phosgene make a complete recovery," according to the CDC Web site. "However, chronic bronchitis and emphysema have been reported as a result of phosgene exposure."

In the lawsuit, the residents ask the company to stop all operations until a list of complaints is addressed. They also ask for cash damages and legal fees.

"They're making a whole bunch of money out there, and they're ignoring the rights of property owners," Inge said.

The plant in McIntosh is the sole North American source of the artificial sweetener marketed under the brand name Splenda. The plant, which employs 160 workers, recently completed a $75 million expansion that began in 2004 designed to double its production capacity.

Readers may purchase this article, in its entirety, from MobilRegister.com .

The FDA Web site includes contact information for non-emergency food-related complaints. Click on the link provided on the FDA Web site to find the appropriate district office with which to file your complaint.

For more information, please visit www.FDA.org for further information.

Lucy Watkins

In the summer of 2005, just a little over a year ago, I began using Splenda® in my morning coffee and green tea. Interestingly, July 8, 2006 marks the first anniversary of the day I began seeking a cure for what was the most debilitating pain I'd ever experienced in my life, short of the birthing process.

My decision to use Splenda was based on the need to make hectic mornings easier and to control my blood sugar. At the time, I was working three jobs and doing everything I could to manage my new life as the single mother of two healthy, active children. I spent most mornings juicing watermelon rinds and eating the sweet fruit every day. I found it highly effective in controlling many of my cravings for sweets. This regime combined with vegetable juices during the day, helped me feel better than I'd felt in years.

But, it was a lot of work and I needed to find a way to better manage my time. So, after hearing about the wonders of Splenda, I decided to use it in my morning coffee and tea rather than juicing, cleaning the juicer and managing the fruit gnats, a ubiquitous pest during the summer months in Texas.

The first time I used Splenda, it tasted strange to me and I felt a fogginess around my head. I remember making note of it, but I thought it had more to do with my general sense of stress rather than the chemical sweetener. Most importantly, I was so happy with my new routine of quick and easy mornings and sleeping a little later every day.

Shortly after I began using Splenda, I experienced serious pain in my stomach. Initially, I thought maybe I'd pulled a muscle doing backbends in the yard with my kids. It seemed odd though, because I'd been doing them for years in yoga. Thinking the pain would subside in a few days, I went about my work.

Unfortunately, the pain increased to the point of feeling like I was in labor. The pain grew so intense, I found myself struggling just to make it through my busy days. I began popping ibuprofen like M&Ms in the hopes that the pain was somehow related to my menstrual cycle or physical activity. The pain remained, but did become a bit more tolerable after a couple weeks.

When my symptoms flared up again, they came back with a vengeance. This time, I not only experienced abdominal pain, I began to have diarrhea and constipation. One day I'd be constipated, and the next, I'd have diarrhea. My bowel movements became so painful, I would cry out every time I went to the bathroom. Passing gas also become very painful; I would hold myself up by my arms much like I did the first time I felt transitional contractions during labor. I clearly remember my five-year-old daughter running into the bathroom, wiping my tears, and hugging me. The look of fear on her face scared me.

On July 8, 2005, I went to an urgent care facility. As I sat in the fetal position, writhing in pain on the examination table, I told the nurse my symptoms. He was visibly concerned about my state of health and got me into the gynecological examination room immediately.

The gynecological exam was like none I've experienced before. It was the most painful examination I'd ever had in my life. At the end of the appointment, the doctor said she had no idea what was going on but she suspected endometriosis.

"Diagnosing endometriosis is not an easy process," the doctor informed me. "It usually comes down to going into the uterus and finding the endometria before a clear diagnosis can be made."

Continue reading....

Each month the Hullistic Network will present the award to companies, Web sites, organizations and individuals who work to promote the purest, healthiest products sold to the public. While these entities may not be perfect, it is the mission of the Hullistic Network to acknowledge them for taking positive steps to offer healthy products, to educate consumers about all aspects concerning the products they sell, and those that put your health over their profit.

Criteria:

-Absolutely NO artificial sweeteners may be used in the products.
-Products must be all natural.
-Organic, sustainable goods.
-No animal testing.

If you would like to make a nomination, please email the details to lucy@janethull.com. Each submission will be seriously considered and researched.

By LISA MARSHALL
Scripps Howard News Service
17-MAY-06

The last month has been a rough one for the makers of Splenda.

On April 3, the consumer advocacy group Citizens for Health asked the Food and Drug Administration to revoke its approval of the popular sweetener, citing consumer complaints of adverse side-effects, such as stomach pains and rashes.

Days earlier, a federal court had dismissed a lawsuit by Splenda-marketer, McNeil Nutritionals. The suit had accused the trade group, the Sugar Association, with false advertising related to its Splenda-bashing Web site, thetruthaboutsplenda.com.

Meanwhile, the presses were rolling with news of a new National Cancer Institute study concluding that aspartame (the sweetener in Equal and other products) does not increase the risk of certain kinds of cancer, as earlier reports had suggested.

The criticisms were enough to make Splenda spokesperson Michael Beckerich downright sour:

"The inaccuracies being put out there are a great disservice to the millions of people who safely use Splenda every day," Beckerich said. "We will vigorously defend the brand through all the appropriate channels."

But the news was also enough to give a calorie-counting sweet-tooth pause before grabbing for that next little pink, or blue, or yellow package. Are sugar substitutes safe after all? Are some safer than others?

Depending on who you ask, the answers are widely different.

Lisa High, a registered dietitian in Boulder, Colo., says she's not convinced by company and FDA claims that the products are safe, so she tells clients to steer clear of them, in favor of natural sweeteners like stevia, an herb, and xylitol, a plant extract.

"They are chemicals. I don't know what they are doing on a cellular level and we don't have tests to show us," High says. "Just because you can't see the effects right away doesn't mean it is safe."

Malena Perdomo, a certified diabetes educator and Latino spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association, sees it differently.

Because the body doesn't respond to artificial sweeteners as carbohydrates, they are particularly helpful to diabetics who must carefully watch their blood sugar levels, she says. She believes they are safe, in reasonable doses. As long as people don't overdo it, consuming dozens of packets a day, she recommends them.

"It's a good choice to have," she says.

Attorney James S. Turner, chairman of the board for Citizens for Health and a long-time critic of artificial sweeteners, said the group filed its petition with the FDA after hearing numerous reports by phone and on web sites of "mild to severe gastrointestinal problems in conjunction with consuming Splenda."

Turner also takes issue with Splenda's marketing campaign, which states that it is "made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar."

Read more of this article.

We are excited that July will be loaded with events for California residents who would like to share their concerns about Splenda. Your submission may become part of the events. So, make sure to let me know if you're interested in making your story public when you email me.

Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you.

Lucy Watkins