MINNEAPOLIS, Sept. 22, 2008 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- James Turner, chairman of the national consumer education group Citizens for Health expressed shock and outrage after reading a new report from scientists at Duke University. "The report makes it clear that the artificial sweetener Splenda and its key component sucralose pose a threat to the people who consume the product. Hundreds of consumers have complained to us about side effects from using Splenda and this study, published this past week in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A, confirms that the chemicals in the little yellow package should carry a big red warning label," said Turner.

Among the results in the study by Drs. Mohamed B. Abou-Donia, Eman M. El-Masry, Ali A. Abdel-Rahman, Roger E. McLendon and Susan S. Schiffman is evidence that, in the animals studied, Splenda reduces the amount of good bacteria in the intestines by 50%, increases the pH level in the intestines, contributes to increases in body weight and affects the P-glycoprotein (P-gp) in the body in such a way that crucial health-related drugs could be rejected. Turner noted that the P-gp effect "could result in crucial medications used in chemotherapy for cancer patients, AIDS treatment and drugs for heart conditions being shunted back into the intestines rather than being absorbed by the body as intended."

The study was conducted using male rats over a period of twelve weeks. The manufacturers of Splenda also used a rat study when they applied for and received approval to market the product from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. At the time, the findings from their rat studies were extrapolated as to possible effects on humans. This is standard FDA practice and this study is consistent with that practice.

Turner said, "This report followed accepted policies and procedures and the results make clear the potential for disturbing side effects from the ingestion of Splenda. It is like putting a pesticide in your body. And this is at levels of intake erroneously approved by the Food and Drug Administration. A person eating two slices of cake and drinking two cups of coffee containing Splenda would ingest enough sucralose to affect the P-glycoprotein, while consuming just seven little Splenda packages reduces good bacteria." Although the effect of consuming Splenda does not result from a one time use, the side effects do occur after accumulated use. Turner also noted unmistakable evidence that Splenda is absorbed by fat, contrary to the claims of Johnson & Johnson.

Turner announced, "We are calling today on the FDA to immediately accept our petition filed over a year ago and initiate a review of its approval of sucralose and to require a warning label on Splenda packaging cautioning that people who take medications and/or have gastrointestinal problems avoid using Splenda. The new study makes it clear that Splenda can cause you to gain weight and lose the benefits of medications designed to improve and protect your health. The FDA should not continue to turn a blind eye to this health threat."

Citizens for Health will testify in Sacramento, CA, on October 3, 2008, before the California Assembly Committee on Health which is examining the use of deceptive advertising to promote sales of potentially unhealthy food additives, particularly artificial sweeteners.

About Citizens for Health

Citizens for Health (citizens.org) is an international non-profit consumer advocacy group working to broaden healthcare options, create an integrative health system based on wellness, and advance the freedom to make health choices. The group promotes the fundamental policies needed to improve health choices and information in the U.S. and internationally. The group works with grassroots and education organizations and partners to ensure consumer access to dietary supplements, safe foods, a healthy environment and a wide range of healing therapies. Citizens for Health fosters active citizen leadership and organizes natural health consumers to create political and legislative solutions that support those rights.

CONTACT: Citizens for Health
Jim Turner
202-255-8040
jim@swankin-turner.com

Click here for Purdue Study

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 11 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- U.S. District Court
Judge Dale S. Fischer has set January 6, 2009 as the starting date
for a potentially landmark civil suit against Johnson & Johnson over
its alleged false advertising of the artificial sweetener Splenda.

The central issue before the court is whether the advertising of
Splenda -- a man made chemical sweetener containing chlorine -- makes
consumers believe it is a natural product, by using taglines like
'Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar' and similar advertising.
Internal documents show Johnson & Johnson knew that its Splenda
advertising was causing consumers to believe that Splenda is natural,
even though it is not. Although rulings in France, Australia and New
Zealand have found Johnson & Johnson's advertising of Splenda to be
deceptive, the company continues advertising in the United States
that remains the subject of legal scrutiny and public criticism.

Lead Sugar Association attorney Mark Lanier declared: 'Now we look
forward to presenting the truth about Splenda to the jury and
focusing on the very real effect of misleading advertising. We are
confidant that the outcome will be a victory for consumers everywhere.'

Additional background information can be found at
http://www.TruthAboutSplenda.com

SOURCE The Sugar Association
(Source: PR Newswire )

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

Recent competition from Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which began selling its own sweetener, Altern, in February, have threatened Splenda and put pressure on Tate's shares.

McNeil Nutritionals said more than 100 studies have found sucralose safe. But Citizens for Health said studies in people were never conducted with Splenda.

Read more....

In an effort to fight high rates of diabetes and obesity, chemists are exploring a variety of sugar alternatives - including new artificial sweeteners and non-calorie sweetness enhancers - to satisfy America's demand for sweet flavor with fewer health risks. These and other taste-related topics will be discussed during a three and one-half day symposium, "Sweetness and Sweeteners," March 27-30, at the 231st national meeting of the American Chemical Society, the world's largest scientific society. Highlights of the symposium, which will feature some of the world's top experts on taste, are listed below.

Read more...

By spring I was having alot of pain in my hips and legs, mainly at night when I went to bed. It felt like nothing I had ever experienced. I could hardly lay on my side to sleep (I only sleep on my side). I was having horrible pains in my legs that would feel really deep in my tissues (could my bones really hurt?) and they would start and increase in intensity for about 30 seconds and stop, and then start
somewhere else.

If I got up to use the bathroom, I could hardly walk. I felt stiff and it was very painful. I thought it was my old mattress, so I got a select comfort bed. That wasn't any better. So I tried a Tempurpedic memory foam bed, which seemed to hurt me just to lay on it. So then I got a latex mattress. Still, nothing helped. I would just lay there saying ow, ow, ow, ow until the pain stopped. I was getting worried that I had something terribly wrong.

I had a CRP test at my regular doctor visit last summer and it was almost 10, which said I had alot of immflamation in my body but they didn't know where it was or why. Around November, I was getting really tired of going to bed and being in such pain, almost to the point of tears, so I started taking 3 aleve and sometimes a vicodin.

In January 2006, I decided I wasn't going to buy any more Pepsi for my family or Root Beer for myself because I was tired of dealing with all the pop cans. I have to rinse them, store them, then haul them to the store for my nickel deposit. My garage was overflowing with pop cans because I hated taking them to the stinky automated bottle return machines. In December, I finally returned all the cans and got back over $50. That also told me I was spending alot of money on pop. A few weeks ago, I realized my leg pains weren't bothering me and stopped taking the Aleve before bed.

At the first of the year, when I quit buying pop, I started drinking water with lemon juice and a tablespoon or so of sugar. The holidays got me going on a sugar binge so I wanted real sugar in it. I was having several a day. After a couple weeks of that, I had to get myself back on tract so I bought a box of Splenda to use in my lemon water.

My legs started to hurt again. I still didn't think there was a connection. My husband saw the box of Splenda on my desk and asked me if I was using that and he said it was really bad for me. I told him no, its made from sugar. So I looked it up and started reading about what it was and how it was made and some of the case histories, and now feel that is why my legs were bothering me so much. When I got to thinking about it and realized that the pains went away shortly after I quit drinking the diet pop and came back when I added the Splenda to my lemon water and stopped again when I realized I was being poisoned and went back to using a small amount of sugar in my lemon water.

It is now the end of January. My hips don't bother me at all and I haven't had the leg pains except for the few days that I used the Splenda in my lemon water.

Now, I'm trying to get my sister-in-law to quit drinking diet sprite. She drinks several cans a day (for years) and has just been diagnosed with Crohn's disease. She was just diagnosed after seeing a doctor because she has had diarreah (another side effect of Splenda) for the past year. I think the diet pop has caused immflammation in her intestines and screwed things up a bit and I'm hoping it will go away if she stops drinking the pop. If she has a miracle recovery, I will let you know.

"I first tried Splenda in Coke! I have low blood sugar and it's pretty bad. When I started drinking it I noticed within about ten minutes, I would start to have a low blood sugar problem! I didn't think it was the cause! I over the next couple of weeks drank the soda with Splenda® and everytime I had a problem! I also became very depressed for no good reason! I have not touched the stuff for some time and my blood sugar has been pretty stable. I find Splenda really harmful for me. I wonder if I'm the only one?"

E.X.

Thank you so much for your work. I stopped drinking diet sodas with aspartame over a year ago and my morning migraines disappeared!!

However, I soon after began drinking Ice Drinks, a flavored water product with Splenda® and I used Splenda copiously in cooking and tea. I was sure that the Splenda was all right and that the migraines were: acetaminiphen rebound, ibuprofen rebound, hotdog headaches, or even onion headaches.

When I couldn't get Ice Drinks for several months, the headaches ceased. Then I got back home where I go to Costco all the time and stocked up! I started wondering, could it be the Ice Drinks? I stopped, and lo and behold my headaches stopped!! I've been eating MSG in small doses, hotdogs at Costco, onions, acetaminophen---still no headaches!!

During the whole aspartame and Splenda period my blood pressure elevated to 145 over 100 and I was taking depressing blood pressure meds. I went to an expensive migraine doctor and he gave me medication which caused diarrhea for 6 months without knowing what caused it! What a joy!! I now have blood pressure 120/80, no diarrhea, no headaches!

Please ask your readers for their experiences!! Please let me know if there's more evidence on Splenda!!

Much love and thanks,

BL

December 21 2005

Section: Higher News

Combining food additives may be harmful, say researchers

· Aspartame and artificial colourings investigated
· Mice nerve cells stopped growing in experiments

Felicity Lawrence, consumer affairs correspondent
Wednesday December 21, 2005

Guardian
New research on common food additives, including the controversial sweetener aspartame and food colourings, suggests they may interact to interfere with the development of the nervous system.

Researchers at the University of Liverpool examined the toxic effects on nerve cells in the laboratory of using a combination of four common food additives - aspartame, monosodium glutamate (MSG) and the artificial colourings brilliant blue and quinoline yellow. The findings of their two-year study were published last week in the journal Toxicological Sciences.

The Liverpool team reported that when mouse nerve cells were exposed to MSG and brilliant blue or aspartame and quinoline yellow in laboratory conditions, combined in concentrations that theoretically reflect the compound that enters the bloodstream after a typical children's snack and drink, the additives stopped the nerve cells growing and interfered with proper signalling systems.

The mixtures of the additives had a much more potent effect on nerve cells than each additive on its own.

The study reported that the effect on cells could be up to four times greater when brilliant blue and MSG were combined, and up to seven times greater when quinoline yellow and aspartame were combined, than when the additives were applied on their own. "The results indicate that both combinations are potentially more toxic than might be predicted from the sum of their individual compounds," the researchers concluded.

The tests used are the same as those applied when testing combinations of pesticides for toxicity. "They are recognised as predictive of developmental outcomes in humans," said Vyvyan Howard, a toxicopathologist and expert in foetal development who led the study.

Exposure to food additives during a child's development has been associated with behavioural problems such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Additives are licensed for use one at a time, but the study's authors believe that examining their effect in combinations gives a more accurate picture of how they are consumed in the modern diet.

"Although the use of single food additives is believed to be relatively safe in terms of development of the nervous system, their combined effects are unclear," Professor Howard said. "We think there are signs that when you mix additives, the effect might be worse."

The colours used in the research are synthetic dyes certified as safe food additives in the EU. However, brilliant blue (E133) has been banned in several European countries in the past. Quinoline yellow (E104) is banned in foods in Australia, Norway and the US. Previous research has shown that MSG (E621) and aspartic acid, one of the breakdown compounds in aspartame (E951), are neurotoxins, according to the authors of the study.

Brilliant blue is found in sweets, some processed peas, some soft drinks and some confectionery, desserts and ices. Quinoline yellow is found in some smoked haddock, some confectionery and some pickles. MSG, which is banned in foods for young children, is found in some pasta with sauce products, a large number of crisps, processed cheese, and prepared meals. Aspartame is found in diet drinks, some sweets, desserts and medicines.

The Food Standards Agency said it would need further details and clarification on the research before making a full assessment. "All of the additives included in the study are permitted for use in food under current EU legislation following a rigorous safety assessment," it said in a statement. The agency added it was funding research on the effects of mixtures of colourings on children's behaviour and kept the safety of additives under review.

Speaking for manufacturers, the Food and Drink Federation said the additives in the study had all been approved as safe by the EU's expert scientific committee.

The Aspartame Information Service, which represents the sweetener industry, dismissed the research, saying that it "did not provide any meaningful information" because it exposed mouse cells in the laboratory to undigested aspartame. "When we consume aspartame it is broken down in the digestive system to common dietary components. Aspartame has been in safe use for 25 years and has been reviewed and approved by more than 130 countries," it said.

EducationGuardian.co.uk © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

A member of the parliamentary select committee on food and the environment yesterday called for emergency action to ban the artificial sweetener aspartame, used in 6,000 food, drink and medicinal products.

The Liberal Democrat MP Roger Williams said in an adjournment debate in the Commons that there was "compelling and reliable evidence for this carcinogenic substance to be banned from the UK food and drinks market altogether". In licensing aspartame for use, regulators around the world had failed in their main task of protecting the public, he told MPs.Mr Williams highlighted new concerns about the additive's safety, raised by a recent Italian study that linked it to cancer in rats. He said the history of aspartame's licensing put "regulators and politicians to shame", with the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary and former head of Searle, the company that discovered the sweetener, "calling in his markers" to get it approved.

Responding for the government, the public health minister, Caroline Flint, said a thorough independent review of safety data had been conducted as recently as 2001 and the Food Standards Agency advice remained the same: aspartame is safe for use in food. She said the government took food safety very seriously.

The European Food Safety Authority would be reviewing the Italian study as soon as it had full data on it, but an initial review by the UK's expert committee on toxicity had not been convinced by its authors' interpretation of their data. "I am advised that aspartame does not cause cancer," she said, adding that artificial sweeteners also help to control obesity.

Aspartame is now consumed on average every day by one in 15 people worldwide, most of whom are children, according to the MP. It is used to sweeten no fewer than 6,000 products, from crisps, confectionery, chewing gums, diet and sports drinks to vitamin pills and medicines, including those for children. Yet the science that supported its approval was "biased, inconclusive and incompetent".

Mr Williams said he was using the immunity he was afforded under parliamentary privilege to initiate a debate about aspartame's safety which had been largely repressed since the early 1980s, with the help of the sweetener industry's lawyers.

Independent research published last month by the European Ramazzini Foundation showed moderate regular consumption of aspartame led to a repeated incidence of malignant tumours in rats and "should have set alarm bells ringing in health departments around the world", he said. "The World Health Organisation recognises such findings in rats as being highly predictive of a carcinogenic risk for humans. The contrast between the quality of the science in the Ramazzini study and the industry studies could not be more clear and more damaging to the industry."

Mr Williams, the MP for Brecon and Radnorshire and a Cambridge science graduate, said he had been looking into the safety of aspartame for more than a year. At first he had been unconvinced by the "internet conspiracy theories" but he said what he had found had "truly horrified" him.

Sound science and proper regulatory and political independence had been notable by their absence from the approval of aspartame, he said. In addition to Mr Rumsfeld being instrumental in securing aspartame's approval, with the support of the then newly elected president Ronald Reagan, there had been numerous examples of decision makers who were worried about aspartame's safety being discredited or being removed from their positions. Industry sympathisers had been appointed to replace them and were in turn recompensed with lucrative jobs working for the sweetener industry.

The European Food Safety Authority said last night that it planned to review the safety of aspartame as "a matter of high priority" in the light of the Ramazzini Foundation study. The foundation's director, Dr Morando Soffritti, said he expected to send the authority a 1,000-page dossier by the end of the month.

The industry's Aspartame Information Service said Mr Williams' material brought no new information to the public. "The minister's response was accurate and on point," a statement said.

I was researching information on sucralose and felt compelled to tell you my story. About three years ago, I began watching my carbs. Like so many others, I was delighted to find a huge variety of low carb foods at my local health food store. Most of the foods contained sucralose. I also began using Splenda brand sweetener in my coffee.

Within a week of using these products I developed excessive gas, bloating and some diarrhea. I dismissed the signs and symptoms as being a flare up of my IBS. Several months later, I developed excruciating stomach spasms. The episodes would be intermittent, lasting about 10-15 minutes each time, over a period of one or two hours. My symptoms would resolve as quickly as they would start. I would then feel fine.

Several days or weeks later, the stomach spasms would recur. I have never experienced the degree of pain that I had with those spasms. My heart rate would shoot up to the 150s. I would become profusely diaphoretic and was pale. I had no nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea with the stomach spasms. One event was so extreme, I went to the ER. When my colleagues saw me, they new I was extremely uncomfortable. I received 4 mg of Morphine and an acute abdominal series which showed excessive gas, but was otherwise negative.

I began hearing that other people were experiencing GI upset from sucralose. I removed the sweetener from my diet and began using only sugar. Immediately the GI symptoms resolved. Several months had passed without any stomach spasms. I began slowly introducing the Splenda back in my diet in my morning coffee. The gas resumed. After about two weeks, the stomach spasms started. I am thoroughly convinced that sucralose was the culprit. I no longer use any artificial sweeteners. I read ingredient labels diligently for sucralose. I am surprised at how many foods contain sucralose without putting any label on the front of the product. They keep it hidden in the ingredients only!

Theresa

We've met many people who are struggling to find answers and support during their and/or their children's health challenges. We'd like to share inspirational stories of successful healing to help others.

If you would like to help the Hullistic Network inspire others by sharing your personal story, please write to Lucy Parker Watkins at lucy@janethull.com. We would like to include these stories on our Web sites and in our newsletter.

Please note: No identifying information or contact information will be posted with the stories. Please email them directly to lucy@janethull.com.

Thank you and we look forward to hearing your story.

Lucy Parker Watkins

The dangers of aspartame are now widely known, but the risks of using Splenda are not as well documented - yet. Essentially, the sucralose in Splenda does not readily penetrate the blood brain barrier as aspartame does, hence creating neurotoxic havoc at the brain center. But the research shows sucralose can negatively affect the body in several ways because it IS a chemical substance and NOT natural sugar.

There’s a sweetener war going on out there – a battle for your dollar at the expense of human health. It is important to educate yourself on the facts about Splenda, aspartame (NutraSweet/Equal®), and all the other sugar substitutes available on today’s sugar-free market. In order to make a decision whether to use chemical sweeteners or not, you must have all the data available, good and bad. But ALL the information is hard for the general public to find. I have spent over fifteen years working with victims of aspartame because the truth and information about the dangers of aspartame has been quietly steered away from public access since the early 1970s.

The same patterns with aspartame are repeating with sucralose (Splenda). The individuals who stand to profit the most have immense influence and the information about Splenda’s dangers, just as with aspartame, is being downplayed. Corporate claims of product safety and innocuous research results are identical to those used by The NutraSweet Company. As you learn more information about Splenda and see its advertisements, note the comparisons and repeated patterns between the products, the corporations and the marketing strategies. Maybe consumers can prevent damage to their health, especially damage to a fetus or a child, from sucralose. Hopefully, they can do it sooner than they did with aspartame, which has affected the health and lives of millions of innocent people since it was introduced into the public food supply over twenty years ago.

At least you, the consumer, deserve to be informed about the “other side” of this safety issue so you can make up your own mind whether to use Splenda or not.

Coca-Cola Co., the world's largest soft drink maker, said on Friday it would phase out its Vanilla Coke, Vanilla Diet Coke and Diet Coke With Lemon beverages in the United States by end of this year.

Coca-Cola shares were down 1.1 percent in afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

The announcement came a day after Coca-Cola said it would phase out Vanilla Coke and Vanilla Diet Coke in the United Kingdom early next year. The company said sales have declined.

Coca-Cola added that it plans to introduce Diet Black Cherry Vanilla Coke and Black Cherry Vanilla Coke in the United States in January 2006.

The company said Vanilla Coke, which was introduced in the United States in 2002 and Diet Vanilla Coke in 2003, could return sometime in the future. Details about whether Diet Coke With Lemon, which made its U.S. entry in 2001, would be brought back were not available.

"I don't know if we have ever taken out a flavor and brought it back to the market, but the landscape continues to change and we want to be as flexible as possible to adapt to the changing landscape," said Scott Williamson, a spokesperson for Coca-Cola.

The phase out follows declining sales for the brands in the United States. Vanilla Coke sales slipped to 35 million unit cases in 2004 from 90 million unit cases in 2002, while Vanilla Diet Coke sales dropped to 13 million unit cases last year from 23 million unit cases in 2003, according to Beverage Marketing, a beverage research and consulting firm.

Sales of Diet Coke with Lemon have fallen to 9.9 million unit cases in 2004 from 24 million unit cases in 2001, data showed.

Analysts have said that one of the keys to the company's future is to innovate new products that will help Coca-Cola capture more consumers who have moved away from sugary soft drinks to diet versions, or to healthier low-or no-calorie beverages such as water and orange juices with reduced sugar.

Both Coca-Cola and PepsiCo Inc., the No. 2 soft drink company, are battling for the allegiance of increasingly picky U.S. consumers. The United States is the largest market for the soft-drink companies.

"It is a rapidly changing beverage landscape and it is important for Coke to move quickly to deliver on what the consumer wants," said Gary Hemphill, managing director of Beverage Marketing. "The competition for shelf space is intense."

Shares of Dow Component Coca-Cola were down 44 cents at $42.15 on the NYSE.

At first glance, there seems nothing special about the students at this high school in Appleton, Wisconsin. They appear calm, interact comfortably with one another, and are focused on their schoolwork. No apparent problems.

And yet a couple of years ago, there was a police officer patrolling the halls at this school for developmentally challenged students. Many of the students were troublemakers, there was a lot of fighting with teachers and some of the kids carried weapons.

School counsellor Greg Bretthauer remembers when he first came to Appleton Central Alternative High School back in 1997, for a job interview: "I found the students to be rude, obnoxious and ill-mannered." He had no desire to work with them, and turned down the job.

Several years later, Bretthauer took the job after seeing that the atmosphere at the school had changed profoundly. Today he describes the students as "calm and well-behaved" in a new video documentary, Impact of Fresh, Healthy Foods on Learning and Behavior. Fights and offensive behavior are extremely rare and the police officer is no longer needed. What happened?

A glance through the halls at Appleton Central Alternative provides the answer. The vending machines have been replaced by water coolers. The lunchroom took hamburgers and french fries off the menu, making room for fresh vegetables and fruits, whole-grain bread and a salad bar.

Is that all? Yes, that's all. Principal LuAnn Coenen is still surprised when she speaks of the "astonishing" changes at the school since she decided to drastically alter the offering of food and drinks eight years ago: "I don't have the vandalism. I don't have the litter. I don't have the need for high security."

The Problems with 'Convenience Foods'

It is tempting to dismiss what happened at Appleton Central Alternative as the wild fantasies of health-food and vitamin-supplement fanatics. After all, scientists have never empirically investigated the changes at the school. Healthy nutrition -- especially the effects of vitamin and mineral supplements -- appears to divide people into opposing camps of fervent believers, who trust the anecdotes about diets changing people's lives, and equally fervent skeptics, who dismiss these stories as hogwash.

And yet it is not such a radical idea that food can affect the way our brains work -- and thus our behavior. The brain is an active machine: It only accounts for two percent of our body weight, but uses a whopping 20 percent of our energy. In order to generate that energy, we need a broad range of nutrients -- vitamins, minerals and unsaturated fatty acids -- that we get from nutritious meals. The question is: What are the consequences when we increasingly shovel junk food into our bodies?

It is irrefutably true that our eating habits have dramatically changed over the past 30-odd years. "Convenience food" has become a catch-all term that covers all sorts of frozen, microwaved and out-and-out junk foods. The ingredients of the average meal have been transported thousands of kilometres before landing on our plates; it's not hard to believe that some of the vitamins were lost in the process.

We already know obesity can result if we eat too much junk food, but there may be greater consequences of unhealthy diets than extra weight around our middles. Do examples like the high school in Wisconsin point to a direct connection between nutrition and behavior? Is it simply coincidence that the increase in aggression, crime and social incivility in Western society has paralleled a spectacular change in our diet? Could there be a link between the two?

Stephen Schoenthaler, a criminal-justice professor at California State University in Stanislaus, has been researching the relationship between food and behavior for more than 20 years.He has proven that reducing the sugar and fat intake in our daily diets leads to higher IQs and better grades in school.

When Schoenthaler supervised a change in meals served at 803 schools in low-income neighborhoods in New York City, the number of students passing final exams rose from 11 percent below the national average to five percent above.

He is best known for his work in youth detention centers. One of his studies showed that the number of violations of house rules fell by 37 percent when vending machines were removed and canned food in the cafeteria was replaced by fresh alternatives. He summarizes his findings this way: "Having a bad diet right now is a better predictor of future violence than past violent behavior."

But Schoenthaler's work is under fire. A committee from his own university has recommended suspending him for his allegedly improper research methods: Schoenthaler didn't always use a placebo as a control measure and his group of test subjects wasn't always chosen at random. This criticism doesn't refute Schoenthaler's research that nutrition has an effect on behavior. It means most of his studies simply lack the scientific soundness needed to earn the respect of his colleagues.

The Prison Test

Recent research that -- even Schoenthaler's critics admit -- was conducted flawlessly, showed similar conclusions. Bernard Gesch, physiologist at the University of Oxford, decided to test the anecdotal clues in the most thorough study so far in this field. In a prison for men between the ages of 18 and 21 in England's Buckinghamshire, 231 volunteers were divided into two groups: One was given nutrition supplements along with their meals that contained our approximate daily needs for vitamins, minerals and fatty acids; the other group got placebos. Neither the prisoners, nor the guards, nor the researchers at the prison knew who took fake supplements and who got the real thing.

The researchers then tallied the number of times the participants violated prison rules, and compared it to the same data that had been collected in the months leading up to the nutrition study. The prisoners given supplements for four consecutive months committed an average of 26 percent fewer violations compared to the preceding period. Those given placebos showed no marked change in behaviour. For serious breaches of conduct, particularly the use of violence, the number of violations decreased 37 percent for the men given nutrition supplements, while the placebo group showed no change.

The experiment was carefully constructed, ruling out the possibility that ethnic, social, psychological or other variables could affect the outcome. Prisons are popular places to conduct studies for good reason: There is a strict routine; participants sleep and exercise the same number of hours every day and eat the same things at the same time.

Says John Copas, professor in statistical methodology at the University of Warwick: "This is the only trial I have ever been involved with from the social sciences which is designed properly and with a good analysis." As a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, Gesch emerges with convincing scientific proof that poor nutrition plays a role in triggering aggressive behavior.

Sugar's Not the Only Problem

Indeed, the study proves what every parent already knows. Serve soda and candy at a children's birthday party and you'll get loud, hyperactive behavior followed by tears and tantrums. It works like this: Blood-sugar levels jump suddenly after you eat sugar, which initially gives you a burst of fresh energy. But then your blood sugar falls, and you become lethargic and sleepy. In an attempt to prevent blood-sugar levels from falling too low, your body produces adrenalin, which makes you irritable and explosive.

But sugar can't be the only problem. After all, high blood-sugar levels mainly have a short-term effect on behavior, while the research of Schoenthaler and Gesch indicates changes over a longer period. They suggest it is much more important that you get the right amount of vitamins, minerals and unsaturated fatty acids because these substances directly influence the brain, and therefore behavior.

If these findings prove true -- and they do look convincing -- then we should be sounding an alarm about good nutrition. What are the long-term implications of the fact that the quality of our farmland has sharply declined in recent decades? The use of artificial fertilizer for years on end has diminished the levels of important minerals like magnesium, chromium and selenium, therefore present in much lower concentrations in our food.

The eating habits of children and young people also should be a cause for serious concern. Their diets now are rich in sugar, fats and carbohydrates, and poor in vegetables and fruit. Add to this an increasing lack of exercise among kids, and the problem becomes even worse. The World Health Organization (WHO) talks of an epidemic of overweight among children. Obesity, the official name for serious weight problems, is said to absorb up to six percent of the total health budget -- a cautious estimate as all kinds of related diseases cannot be included in the exact calculation. Think of what this situation will look like when the current generation of overweight kids hits middle age.

The link between food and health is better understood by most people than the relationship between food and behavior, so health has become the driving force behind many public campaigns to combat overweight. A discussion has arisen in a number of countries about introducing a tax on junk food, the proceeds of which would be spent on promoting healthy eating. In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair announced in May he planned to spend an extra 280 million pounds (the equivalent of 420 million euros or $500 million U.S.) on improving school lunches after the famous television chef Jamie Oliver began speaking out on the issue.

Yet with crime a major political issue almost everywhere, it's surprising more leaders have not embraced the idea of healthy eating as a recipe for safe streets and schools. After Gesch published his findings in 2002 in The British Journal of Psychiatry, the study was picked up by European and American media. The newspaper headlines were clear: "Healthy eating can cut crime"; "Eat right or become a criminal;" "Youth crime linked to consumption of junk food;" "Fighting crime one bite at a time." Then the media went deafeningly silent.

Perhaps that's because the relationship between nutrition and violence continues to be controversial in established professional circles. During their educations, doctors and psychologists are given scant training in nutrition, criminologists provided little awareness of biochemistry, and nutritionists offered no hands-on experience with lawbreakers or the mentally ill. As a result, the link between food and behaviour winds up in no-man's-land. Even researchers interested in the subject are discouraged -- not least of all because you can't get a patent on natural nutrients like vitamins and minerals. Far more effort goes into pharmaceutical, rather than dietary, solutions.

The Netherlands currently is the only country where Gesch's research is being explored. Plans to test the findings about nutrition supplements and behaviour further are being set up in 14 prisons, with nearly 500 subjects. Ap Zaalberg, leading the project for the Dutch Ministry of Justice, remembers how he and his colleagues reacted when they first heard of Gesch's study. "Disbelief," he states resolutely. "This was surely not true. But when I looked into the issue more closely, I landed in a world of hard science."

Zaalberg knows diet is not the only factor that determines whether someone exhibits aggressive behavior. "Aggression is not only determined by nutrition," he states. "Background and drug use, for example, also play a role. Yet I increasingly see the introduction of vitamins and minerals as a very rational approach."

"Most criminal-justice systems assume that criminal behaviour is entirely a matter of free will," Gesch says. "But how exactly can you exercise free will without involving your brain? How exactly can the brain function without an adequate nutrient supply? Nutrition in fact could be a major player and, for sure, we have seriously underestimated its importance. I think nutrition may actually be one of the most straightforward factors to change antisocial behaviour. And we know that it's not only highly effective, it's also cheap and humane."

Cheap it is. Natural Justice, the British charity institution chaired by Gesch, which is researching "the origins of anti-social and criminal behaviour," estimates it would cost 3.5 million pounds (5.3 million euros or 6.4 million U.S. dollars) to provide supplements to all the prisoners in Great Britain. That is only a fraction of the current prison budget of 2 billion pounds (3 billion euros or 3.6 billion U.S. dollar).

Finding Safety Through the Stomach

It seems the link between nutrition and antisocial behaviour shows great promise as both political issue and human-interest story. How much longer will politicians concentrate on police and stricter surveillance as the answer to crime? When will they realize healthy food can help create a healthier society? After all, people would not only be more productive, but the cost of health care and of the criminal-justice system would decline. As is the case for a man's love, the way to safety may be through the stomach.

As Bernard Gesch notes, "Few scientists are not convinced that diet is fundamental for the development of the human brain. Is it plausible that in the last 50 years we could have made spectacular changes to the human diet without any implications for the brain? I don't think so. Now, evidence is mounting that putting poor fuel into the brain significantly affects social behaviour. We need to know more about the composition of the right nutrients. It could be the recipe for peace."

Marco Visscher is a senior editor at Ode Magazine.

So, what exactly is Splenda? Splenda is the trade name for sucralose. Johnson & Johnson bought the rights in 1998 to sell sucralose in the United States as Splenda. Its basic characteristics are:

* Its taste is nearly identical to sugar because it’s made from sugar
* Its “trademark” inability to break down in processing or in storage

But Splenda is potentially harmful because it contains chlorine, which is a carcinogen. The Splenda marketers insist the chlorine is chemically “bound” so it cannot be “released” in the body during digestion. I question that, and wonder if this artificial chemical can safely pass through the human body. Wait until you discover what chlorine can do to the body. Then, you decide if you want to ingest this chemical.

Splenda (sucralose) is created in the lab, using a complex process involving dozens of chemicals you and I can barely pronounce - let alone consume. Basically, the chemists force chlorine into an unnatural chemical bond with a sugar molecule, resulting in a sweeter product, but at a price: a huge amount of artificial chemicals must be added to keep sucralose from digesting in our bodies. These toxic substances prevent (hopefully) the dangerous chlorine molecules from detaching from the sugar molecule inside the digestive system, which would be a carcinogenic hazard.

To illustrate the alarming “chemical soup” required to create sucralose, I have listed here the actual process for producing this sweetener. I highlighted the chemicals in bold type for emphasis.

According to the Splenda International Patent A23L001-236 and PEP Review #90-1-4 (July 1991), sucralose is synthesized by this five-step process:

1. sucrose is tritylated with trityl chloride in the presence of dimethylformamide and 4-methylmorpholine and the tritylated sucrose is then acetylated with acetic anhydride,

2. the resulting TRISPA (6,1',6'-tri-O-trityl-penta-O-acetylsucrose) is chlorinated with hydrogen chloride in the presence of toluene,

3. the resulting 4-PAS (sucrose 2,3,4,3',4'-pentaacetate) is heated in the presence of methyl isobutyl ketone and acetic acid,

4. the resulting 6-PAS (sucrose 2,3,6,3',4'-pentaacetate) is chlorinated with thionyl chloride in the presence of toluene and benzyltriethylammonium chloride, and

5. the resulting TOSPA (sucralose pentaacetate) is treated with methanol (wood alcohol, a poison) in the presence of sodium methoxide to produce sucralose.

The Splenda marketers stress that sucralose is “made from sugar but is derived from this sugar through a process that selectively substitutes three atoms of chlorine for three hydrogen-oxygen groups on the sucrose molecule.” While this is true, it is a deceptively simple description, implying that sucralose is just a benign sugar with a touch of chlorine, and thereby, safe for consumption. According to research on the hydrolysis of sugars, just the process of inserting chlorine into the sugar molecule (hydrolysis means breaking it into smaller molecules) ultimately allows these chemicals to penetrate the intestinal wall.

So sucralose becomes a “low-calorie” sugar with a complicated process that results in Splenda’s chemical formula: 1,6-dichloro-1, 6-dideoxy-BETA-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside.

This is Splenda. They say it is a perfectly safe sugar molecule.

Sucralose is patented as a manmade “chlorinated sucrose sweetener” and it is registered as “chlorinated sucrose.” Chlorinated sucrose is not found anywhere in nature, like real sugar (sucrose) that is extracted from sugar cane and sugar beets. Chlorinated sucrose exists because of man.

The FDA states in their Final Report on Splenda that sucralose is “produced at an approximate purity of ninety-eight percent.” The other two percent does not have to be reported to the FDA, nor listed as added ingredients. So what’s in the other two percent? The chemicals used to synthesize sucralose in the five-step process:

1. Acetone
2. Acetic acid
3. Acetyl alcohol
4. Acetic anhydride
5. Ammonium chloride
6. Benzene
7. Chlorinated sulfates
8. Ethyl alcohol
9. Isobutyl ketones
10. Formaldehyde
11. Hydrogen chloride
12. Lithium chloride
13. Methanol
14. Sodium methoxide
15. Sulfuryl chloride
16. Trityl chloride
17. Toluene
18. Thionyl chloride

Although manufacturing guidelines specify limits on these veiled substances, there are no assurances these limits have been met since they do not have to be reported. In addition, the FDA does not presently require an Environmental Impact Statement for sucralose, so it’s open season for the rules, at present.

Now you can see why I do not recommend sucralose for pregnancy or for children, especially after reading this list.

It’s time to admit that there is no free ticket to eating all the sugar-free products you desire without paying the high price of harming your body in the long run. The “technology of foods” (artificial sweeteners and manmade foods) has gone too far, and will not secure eternal health, beauty, slimness, or youth. Laboratory chemicals are not the answer.

____________________________________

This information is based on research from Dr. Janet Starr Hull. For more information on Splenda, see Dr. Hull’s newly released book SplendaÆ: Is It Safe Or Not? at http://www.issplendasafe.com.

The findings come from eight years of data collected by Sharon P. Fowler, MPH, and colleagues at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio. Fowler reported the data at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association in San Diego.

"What didn't surprise us was that total soft drink use was linked to overweight and obesity," Fowler tells WebMD. "What was surprising was when we looked at people only drinking diet soft drinks, their risk of obesity was even higher."

In fact, when the researchers took a closer look at their data, they found that nearly all the obesity risk from soft drinks came from diet sodas.

"There was a 41% increase in risk of being overweight for every can or bottle of diet soft drink a person consumes each day," Fowler says. Read more by clicking the link below.

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/107/108476.htm

The manufacturers of chlorine-containing sucralose say the chlorine in their sweetener will pass harmlessly out of your body. What if it doesn’t? How do you know your body won’t digest it? Everyone is individual. Chlorine is a dangerous carcinogen according to the research on tap water. The FDA has stated the chlorine in sucralose found in Splenda® is safe, but here is scientific evidence on chlorine in tap water that may help you decide whether or not to avoid drinking additional chlorine until the issues are resolved. So, before you crack open that ring top on your diet cola can, please read the research proving harmful effects of chlorine in the human body, especially during pregnancy.

According to recent research in Europe, pregnant women in their first trimester who drink five or more glasses of chlorinated tap water a day may be at a much higher risk of miscarriage than women who drink non-chlorinated water.

Concerned that chlorine may cause spina bifida and stillbirths, the British government has ordered an independent study on chlorine-treated drinking water. Scientists from Imperial College, London University, are interested in this new research from doctors in Norway, Canada and the United States reporting higher levels of birth defects in areas where chlorine is used, compared with drinking water treated by alternative methods.

John Fawell, a leading specialist on water quality and an independent industry consultant, says: "The people who have done this work in Norway and in the United States are reputable researchers and the government and water companies have commissioned their own research from London University. All of Britain's and the United State’s water companies chlorinate their public water supplies. The only people who use non-chlorinated water are those with their own water wells.

A Norwegian study of 141,000 births over a three-year period found a fourteen percent increased risk of birth defects in areas with chlorinated water. Scientists have already found an association between chlorine and an increased risk of bowel, kidney and bladder cancer, but it is the first time that a link has been verified with higher levels of spina bifida.

Dr. Per Magnus, the research scientist who carried out the Norwegian study, states: "This is an important finding because we know there are chemicals released by the action of chlorine on organic particles at treatment works. We have observed mutations in these chemicals that seem to tie up with mutations that are found in babies. We were in a unique position in Norway to make these observations because in some areas our water comes from the mountains and doesn't require cleaning with chlorine."

A study by Dr. Niels Skakkebaek of the University of Copenhagen demonstrated that the average human sperm counts have dropped in Denmark by almost fifty percent due to the presence of manmade chlorine found within human tissues and breast milk.

The Norwegian government has ordered more research be done. Concerned families have begun filtering their tap water. A popular method is to place sachets of coral sand, dredged from Norwegian fjords, into water before it is consumed, removing all traces of chlorine in tap water after fifteen minutes.

In Canada at Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, researchers found that high levels of trihalomethanes, a by-product of chlorine in drinking water, significantly increased the risk of stillbirth.

Bladder cancer has been linked to chlorinated drinking water in an average of ten out of eleven studies. One of the studies in Ontario, conducted with funding from Health Canada, found that fourteen to sixteen percent of bladder cancers in Ontario showed a direct correlation to drinking water containing high levels of chlorine by-products. Chlorinated water has been linked to colon and rectal cancers in the studies, but the occurrences were not as common as those for bladder cancer.

Solutions? Dr. John Marshall, of the Pure Water Association, an American consumer group campaigning for safer drinking water, states: "It shows we should be paying more attention to the chemicals we put in our drinking water and should be looking for other alternatives to chlorination. A number of safe, non-toxic options exist, such as treating water with ozone gas or ultra violet light."

For now, investigate the purest “spring” water sources available in your region of the country. Keep a water jug close by and constantly full, sipping natural water all day long. Use it for your coffee or tea, and teach your children the difference between pure water sources and chemically altered water. Investigate the safety of the piping in your home, and add a water filter to the house tap if possible. Place filters on icemakers, and don’t drink from the garden hose. If you have access to a water well, have it tested for heavy metals, and place a filter on that tap, if necessary.

Pure water is a human being’s primary survival mechanism. Don’t take the importance of water lightly. I’d rather sip on a bottle of purified water than a diet cola any day.

Links to Dr. Janet Starr Hull’s web sites:

Janet Starr Hull, PhD, CN

Dr. Hull's Alternative Health Newsletter

FORT WASHINGTON, Pa., May 23 /PRNewswire/ -- McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, a Johnson & Johnson company and the makers of SPLENDA® No Calorie Sweetener, recently launched a comprehensive educational effort designed to help US Hispanic families take small positive steps towards healthier eating by reducing sugars and calories.

The increasing prevalence of obesity among Hispanic populations, as in all other ethnic groups in the U.S., is a mounting health concern. In fact, Mexican-American children are more likely to be overweight (22 percent) than black children (20 percent) and non-Hispanic white children (14 percent). With cooking and baking at the core of Hispanic lifestyles, increased use of low calorie sweeteners presents a unique opportunity to reduce sugar and calories in one's overall diet. Given the fact that during the past 10 years, the rate of obesity, which increases a person's risk of developing metabolic syndrome (a collection of health risks including obesity and high blood pressure which increase the chance of developing heart disease and diabetes) has doubled among Hispanic youth, it is imperative to create awareness campaigns to help Hispanic consumers understand how to make each calorie count.

Read the rest of the article at:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050523/nym141.html

Corporate giants try to squeeze new profits from old products Diet Coke, Tide getting new versions
- Bruce Mohl, Boston Globe
Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Two huge consumer brands have been busy cloning themselves.

Procter & Gamble Co. rolled out a cold-water version of its blockbuster Tide laundry detergent earlier this month. Coca-Cola Co., meanwhile, unveiled plans to start selling a seventh version of Diet Coke, this time sweetened with Splenda instead of aspartame.

In the parlance of marketing professionals, both companies were doing line extensions, trying to expand the popularity of an existing brand by tweaking it slightly or significantly. Each time a company comes up with a new and improved version of an old product -- and there are thousands of them each year -- a consumer has to decide whether the new version is really any better.

"It's confusing. There's no doubt about it," said Kathleen Seiders, associate professor of marketing at Boston College. "It can get very complicated when people go into the supermarket and see 45 versions of Tide."

The reason companies do so many line extensions and product reformulations is because it's far less risky than creating a new product. It's a way of testing the waters to see whether a consumer need can be filled by tweaking an existing product. The trick, from the marketer's standpoint, is to attract new customers without alienating too many of the existing ones.

Coca-Cola, which had a disastrous experience trying to replace original Coke with New Coke in 1985, is now about as cautious as you can get in tinkering with its current products.

Last week, it said it would add another version of its market-leading Diet Coke that would substitute one synthetic sweetener for another. The new Diet Coke with Splenda will complement, but not replace, the existing Diet Coke with aspartame.

"Many consumers told us they liked the taste of Splenda and wanted a Splenda-sweetened option under the Diet Coke brand, so we're obliging them," said Dan Dillon Jr., a Coca-Cola vice president. "The millions of current Diet Coke devotees across America shouldn't be concerned -- the Diet Coke they love will stay just as it is."

Coke management is probably hoping that Diet Coke with Splenda will bring new customers to the brand, but the move is also a way of easing existing customers ever so gently toward Splenda. The new Diet Coke packaging will feature the name of the sweetener and a yellow streak on the front label. Usually such information is buried in the fine print on the back.

PepsiCo Inc. is making a similar move, replacing the aspartame in its one- calorie Pepsi One product with Splenda, while leaving its aspartame-sweetened Diet Pepsi unchanged.

Sales of Splenda, the brand name for sucralose, are exploding, while aspartame appears to be fading. Splenda has a longer shelf life and doesn't react to heat, and Johnson & Johnson, the marketer of Splenda in the United States, makes it sound almost natural.

"It's made from sugar so it tastes like sugar, with no unpleasant aftertaste," the company says in its literature, downplaying the fact that Splenda is created by adding chlorine atoms to sucrose, or table sugar.

Whole Foods Market, the chain that bars what it considers unhealthy products from its aisles, refuses to stock any product that contains either aspartame or Splenda. On its Web site, Whole Foods said it has "avoided selling nonnutritive artificial sweeteners because they are not in concordance with our philosophy of promoting 'real' food."

Like Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble is rolling out a new version of a popular product without dumping the old one. But the approach being taken by P&G is much more risky because of the way the company is positioning its new Coldwater Tide.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/02/22/BUGHOBEBE31.DTL

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/02/2
2//chronicle/info/copyright/ ©2005 San Francisco Chronicle

Feb. 16, 2005 -- Courtroom battles between the makers of Splenda and Equal have many questioning the safety of artificial sweeteners.

Since early 2000 McNeil Nutritionals has been advertising that its product -- Splenda -- is "made from sugar so it tastes like sugar." But the National Sugar Association and Merisant Worldwide (maker of Equal brand sweetener) have challenged that claim in a lawsuit.

McNeil Nutritionals shot back with a countersuit implying the case against them was more about corporate sour grapes than truth in consumer advertising.

But court battles and corporate backstabbing aside, the question on consumers' minds is not so much whether advertising slogans are right or wrong, but do they really make a difference -- at home, on the dinner table where it really counts?

Dietitian Nancy Restuccia, MS, RD, says they most definitely do. "Splenda is not sugar -- and to piggyback it on to the reputation of the centuries' old profile of sugar is more than misleading, it could come back to haunt us, perhaps sooner than we think," says Restuccia, a nutritionist at the Center for Obesity Surgery at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center in New York City. Indeed, while there are currently only a handful of studies that question Splenda's safety and more than 100 which attest to it's safe use, Restuccia says it simply hasn't been around long enough to amass any long-term data -- or even short-term data involving heavy consumption.

According to the manufacturer of Splenda, Johnson & Johnson/McNeil, since its introduction more than a decade ago, millions of people have safely eaten products made with sucralose - which is the basis of Splenda.

J. Roberto Moran, MD, director of medical and nutritional affairs for McNeil Nutritionals LLC, says, "More than 80 countries have approved the use of sucralose in foods, including the United States FDA in 1998."

McNeil also says sucralose is one of the most tested food ingredients ever introduced and its safety has been confirmed by regulatory agencies around the world. Studies, he says, number more than 100 over a 20 year period, all demonstrating that sucralose has no harmful effects.

What Happens When Sweeteners Interact?
"Sugar may have its health drawbacks, but at least we know we're not in for any major surprises -- and we just can't say that about Splenda yet -- so to imply that it's got the same profile as sugar is misleading and that is important today, as well as in the long run, " she says. Samantha Heller, MS, RD, agrees. "Saying Splenda is made from sugar is like taking the round wheels off a car and putting on square wheels. Is it still a car? Yes. But can it still perform like a car? No -- and what's more we don't know what's going to happen when people try to 'drive it' cross country," says Heller.

Indeed, while Splenda starts out as sugar, some serious scientific tinkering goes on before it gets into your coffee. As Heller explains, this involves removing three atoms found in sugar and replacing them with three atoms of the chemical chlorine. But while all that may not matter much to your taste buds, experts say it takes on a new and more important meaning as plans roll out to include Splenda in a wide variety of treats, including more diet sodas, baked goods, and even processed foods. "It's not like you're going to be using a teaspoon in your coffee once in a while -- it's going to be everywhere, in everything, which makes it even more important for people to understand what they are and are not getting with this product," says Restuccia.

Also important to note: Experts say we have almost no data on the way in which artificial sweeteners interact with each other -- particularly at high amounts. And that, says Restuccia may come back to haunt us even more. "As more and more products are being made with artificial sweeteners, there is more likelihood that we will not only be consuming more of them but also mixing different ones, sometimes in a single meal -- and we really have no idea what that means health wise, in the short or the long run," says Restuccia.

What About Other Artificial Sweeteners?
The FDA has approved five artificial sweeteners:
Acesulfame potassium (Sunett)
Aspartame (NutraSweet or Equal)
Sucralose (Splenda)
D-Tagatose (Sugaree)
Saccharin (Sweet 'N Low) You may be surprised to see saccharin on that list. In the 1970s, the FDA was going to ban saccharin based on the reports of a Canadian study that showed that saccharin was causing bladder cancer in rats. A public outcry kept saccharin on the shelves (there were no other sugar substitutes at that time), but with a warning label that read, "Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals." That warning label is no longer needed, says Ruth Kava, PhD, RD, director of nutrition for the American Council on Science and Health. Further research has shown that male rats have a particular pH factor that predisposes them to bladder cancer. "A lot of things that cause harm in animals don't always cause harm in humans," she says.

Like saccharin, aspartame is another artificial sweetener that -- though thoroughly tested by the FDA and deemed safe for the general population -- has had its share of critics who blame the artificial sweetener for causing everything from brain tumors to chronic fatigue syndrome. Not so, says Kava. The only people for whom aspartame is a medical problem are those with the genetic condition known as phenylkenoturia (PKU), a disorder of amino acid metabolism. Those with PKU need to keep the levels of phenylalanine in the blood low to prevent mental retardation as well as neurological, behavioral, and dermatological problems.

Since phenylalanine is one of the two amino acids in aspartame, people who suffer from PKU are advised not to use it. Some people can be sensitive to artificial sweeteners and experience symptoms such as headaches and upset stomach, but otherwise, there is no credible information that aspartame -- or any other artificial sweetener -- causes brain tumors, or any other illness, says registered dietitian Wendy Vida, with HealthPLACE, the health and wellness division of Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield in Pittsburgh.

Kava says that since artificial sweeteners are so much sweeter than sugar, a very small amount is needed to achieve the same sweetness one gets from sugar. "If used normally, the amounts you take in are so minuscule as to be of no concern at all."

Another sweetener receiving much publicity of late is stevia, an herbal sweetening ingredient used in food and beverages by South American natives for many centuries and in Japan since the mid-1970s. According to Ray Sahelian, MD, author of The Stevia Cookbook, stevia has shown no significant side effects after more than 20 years of use in Japan. "There are no indications at this point from any source that stevia has shown toxicity in humans," says Sahelian, though he agrees that further research is warranted. Because stevia is not FDA-approved, it cannot be sold as an artificial sweetener; however it can be -- and is -- sold as a dietary supplement.

Because these supplements are not regulated as well as those that have received FDA approval, and therefore have no guarantee of purity, Kava is leery about the use of stevia. "This is a product that's just asking for good research studies," she says. "We just don't know enough yet."

With reporting by Carol Sorgen.
SOURCES: Nancy Restuccia, MS, RD, Center for Obesity Surgery at NY
Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center in New York City;
Samantha Heller, MS, RD, senior clinical nutritionist at NYU Medical Center,
New York City;
Americans Opt for Sweetness and Lite, FDA Consumer, December, 2004;
Use of Nutritive and Non-Nutritive Sweeteners, Position Paper, American
Dietetic Association.
WebMD Feature Archive: "The Truth on Artificial Sweeteners." J. Roberto
Moran, MD, director of medical and nutritional affairs for McNeil
Nutritionals LLC.

Pepsi Cola will dump its slow-selling Pepsi Edge by the end of the year, marking a short shelf life for a drink that, like competitor Coca-Cola C2, offers about half the calories of regular colas, reported the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Pepsi's plans, reported Friday by Beverage Digest and confirmed by the company, raise questions about the future of Coke's C2. While Coke is holding to claims it will keep selling the brand, C2 hasn't had a strong start. U.S. sales totaled 25 million cases during C2's six months on the market in 2004, according to Beverage Digest.

Pepsi Edge sold just 8.6 million cases during the same time frame.

Last year, Pepsi was modest in its forecasts about Edge, which has 50 calories per 8-ounce serving. Coke, however, cranked up the hype achine when it introduced C2.

From the beginning, some were skeptical about the prospects for C2 and Edge, including Morgan Stanley analyst Bill Pecoriello. By fall, it as clear the drinks weren't catching on.

C2's 2004 sales of 25 million cases were far lower than the comparable introduction of Vanilla Coke, which sold 90 million cases during its first partial year in the market in 2002.

While reduced-calorie colas could peter out, big soft drink companies are still looking for ways to reach calorie-conscious consumers, especially men who don't like traditional diet drinks.

Pepsi has just reformulated its one-calorie Pepsi One with a new sweetener, and Coke is preparing to introduce Coca-Cola Zero, which is meant to taste more like Coke Classic than Diet Coke. Morris said he might switch to such a drink if the taste is right.

Editor's Insight: Keep in mind that Pepsi Cola has introduced nearly a dozen low-calorie sodas, according to industry sources, in addition to traditional Diet Pepsi. Diet sodas to an extent are also competing against the rising number of noncarbonated drinks that consumers view as a healthier alternative to traditional soda.

Diet soda's share of the total soda market has gained steadily since the mid 1990s.

http://www.amonline.com/article/article.jsp?id=13954&siteSection=1

Today, deposition of chlorine within the human body is an increasing reality, and the chlorine compound we must add to this list: Chlorinated sucrose—the “newly-marketed” chlorocarbohydrate (chlorocarbon) found in food products with Splenda®, the new chemical sweetener with unknown side effects from long-term internal use.

Thanks to chlorine pollution, Americans are exposed to a daily amount of chlorine toxins 300 to 600 times greater than the EPA's "safe" dose.¹ Monitoring chlorine-containing products from animal feed to artificial sweeteners is a critical step in reducing human exposure to chlorine because, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, ninety-five percent of exposure to chlorine compounds occurs through the diet.

Cancer-causing residue from chlorine bleaching can be found in products like coffee filters, the manufacturing of chlorine-bleached paper, disposable diapers, paper towels and bathroom tissue. Dioxins (chlorine-containing compounds) are recognized as one of the most carcinogenic chemicals known to science and have been linked to:

• Endometriosis
• Immune system impairment
• Diabetes
• Neurotoxicity
• Birth defects (including fetal death)
• Decreased fertility
• Testicular atrophy
• Reproductive dysfunction in both women and men.

Industry Is Beginning To Change Its View Of Chlorine:

Ben & Jerry’s® ice cream has the following printed on their cartons:

“This is an unbleached ‘eco-pint.’  Bleaching paper with chlorine releases different dioxins, one of which the EPA identifies as the most toxic ever created.  This eco-pint is part of our efforts to use environmentally safe packaging.  Enjoy!”

Way to go, B&J!

Here’s More Chlorine-Based Poisons You May Have Been Exposed To: Along with common manufactured chlorine comes a long and dangerous list of pollutants humans, and other animals, have been exposed to over time:²

• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were banned in North America in 1997 due to their destruction of the ozone layer. Scientists predict it will take seventy-five to one hundred years for the ozone layer to fully recover.

• Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were widely used as electrical insulators until they were banned in the 1970s. PCBs remaining in the environment continue to damage reproduction of wildlife, cause birth defects and suppress the immune system.

• The North American pulp and paper industry currently pumps one hundred million tons of organochlorines—including dioxins and furans—into our waterways each year.

• Household chlorine bleach produces trace amounts of chloroform, a known animal carcinogen and suspected human carcinogen.

Most of the chemicals produced in the laboratory using chlorine and carbon are still unknown to nature. They resist breakdown yet deposit (bioaccumulate) in both the environment and in animal body fat. Often chlorine and its breakdown byproducts are very slow to decompose, and, in some cases, it may take years or decades to completely break down. Some chlorine compounds actually become more toxic once unleashed in the environment.³

Reducing Your Exposure To Chlorine

A healthy diet and lifestyle are the best ways to reduce exposure to chlorine, namely by reducing the amount of processed foods in your diet, along with seeking out clean and natural food sources. By avoiding or at least decreasing your consumption of processed foods, you significantly reduce your chances of eating any manmade chlorine found in chlorinated water and pesticides sprayed on the crops. Combine this with clean, organic if possible, vegetables and naturally raised meat and eggs (unpasteurized is preferable), you will be on the right health track.

The Chlorine Chemistry Council supports efforts to better understand the role that chlorine plays in human health and the environment. Supporting their commitment to science education and to local communities, the CCC stated, “We are working to further reduce emissions into the food supply, while at the same time provide the building blocks of chlorine chemistry that help produce essential products that make our lives safer, healthier and more convenient." 

Dr. John Marshall of the Pure Water Association, an American consumer group campaigning for safer drinking water, states, "It shows we should be paying more attention to the chemicals we put in our drinking water and should be looking for other alternatives to chlorination. A number of safe, non-toxic options exist, such as treating water with ozone gas or ultra violet light."

The Norwegian government has also ordered more research to be done. Concerned families have begun filtering their tap water with a popular method of placing sachets of coral sand dredged from Norwegian fjords into the water before it is consumed, removing all traces of chlorine after fifteen minutes.

Here are some safety tips you can follow to reduce your daily chlorine exposure:

• Filter your tap water in your kitchen, bath and shower or any other source that you will consume or expose your body to chlorinated water
• Convert your chlorinated swimming pool to a salt water pool or a system that uses ozone or peroxide to clean the pool
• Eat organic foods if at all possible
• Use chlorine-free packaging
• Switch to non-chlorine-based cleaning products 
• Avoid chlorine-bleached feminine products, disposable diapers and paper products like toilet paper and paper towels

And now,

• Avoid deliberately consuming artificial sweeteners containing chlorine!

1. J. Chlorine is a chemical whose time has passed: persistent organic pollutants (POPs) threaten the health and well-being of humans and wildlife. Chlorine Quandary. 2001 http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/2001/1/chlorine_ban/print.phtml

2. Chlorine Chemistry Council. Arlington, VA. http://c3.org/about_ccc/index.html

3. Chlorine facts: http://www.bidness.com/esd/cl2facts.htm

Additional References

Ames BN, Gold LS. Another perspective ...Nature's way. Consumer's Research Magazine. Vol. 76. No. 8. p. 20. August 1993.

Institute of Occupational Health. Solna, Sweden. PMID: 8833460, UI: 96430334. Mar, 34 (3): 176-8O.

Environmentally safe mixtures. Biodegradable ingredient cleaners. http://www.inlandtech.com

Have your kids been out of sorts lately?  Do they complain of more frequent tummy aches, malaise, mood swings or aggression?  Have you read the labels on what they are eating at home, at school, and away from the house?

“Consumption of even moderate amounts of aspartame during pregnancy may produce a dramatic increase in the number of children born with diminished brain function,” warned Diana Dow-Edwards, PhD research scientist, SUNY Health Science Center, Brooklyn, NY¹.  Dow-Edward’s research began in the mid-1980s, but her early warnings of aspartame’s harmful effects on fetuses during pregnancy have fallen upon deaf ears.  With the rapid rise in mental illness amongst children, AD/HD and hyperactivity, depression, and lower IQs,  why hasn’t research such as Dow-Edward’s been considered as a probable cause for rising mental disease amongst modern children?  Why haven’t mothers been warned that artificial sweeteners can cause birth defects and mental retardation if taken at the time of conception and early pregnancy?

I can relate many case histories of children having mal seizures and other mental disturbances while using NutraSweet®. Unfortunately, it is not always easy to convince a mother that aspartame is to blame for her child's illnesses. Only by trial and success will she be able to warn other mothers to take their children's health into their own hands.

The manufacturers of Splenda even admit: "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."²

Pay attention to this statement....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 ADHD, depression, hypoglycemia, and diabetes.  How many kids do you see taking a sip of mom's diet cola or chewing a stick of sugar-free gum?

Children raised on chemical diets are more likely to develop physical and mental disorders, and as Dow-Edwards predicted, the evidence is surfacing at epidemic levels in America and other developed countries.  FDA toxicologist Dr. Jacqueline Verett told Congress at the time of aspartame’s approval in 1981 that “all aspartame studies were built on a foundation of sand and should be thrown out.”³ Has the FDA repeated aspartame’s questionable approval process for sucralose found in Splenda®, allowing a product with proven carcinogens to flood our food supply?  Only time will tell, as it has with aspartame. Yet at the cost of human lives.

As a parent, you’ll be the first one to notice health and behavioral changes in your children. Children are reacting to artificial sweeteners in harmful ways, but this aspect of the recent sweetener wars has gone unnoticed in the mainstream health community. The sweetener corporations market to children by placing soft drink machines in public elementary schools, and by influencing doctors that diet sweeteners don’t cause abnormal behavior and emotional stress in children. When you have exhausted all the other reasons for your child’s poor health or mental/emotional problems, then diet chemicals could be the culprit.

The chemicals in diet products are no doubt toxic, and the rise in the number of childhood diseases and mysterious health symptoms are proving to us, the public, that the use of artificial chemicals in a child’s diet disrupts normal development both emotionally and physically, especially before and during puberty when the human hormones have not yet fully developed.

Reactions to chemical sweeteners may vary among people, especially among children. Depression can hide behind a smiling face, a temper tantrum or hyperactivity. But don’t ignore the warning signs! Take away all the diet sugar substitutes immediately—and don’t forget that diet sweeteners are found in medications, too.

Here is a Rule of Thumb: Children who drink diet colas and eat foods with artificial sweeteners may be reacting to the chemicals in their foods when they express a depressed mood that stays around without letting up. Being “down in the dumps” over a period of time is not a normal part of growing up. Take away all diet food and drink products sweetened with artificial sugars, and eliminate processed foods replete with preservatives, food colorings and artificial chemicals. See if their mood returns to normal and if they resume their usual daily routine. This is the first place to start.

At the first sign of behavioral changes and depression, especially for a child, remove all artificial sweeteners and food chemicals from the diet. Even if your primary doctor doesn’t recognize the influences of diet sweeteners on depression or aggression, it does no harm to remove these toxic food chemicals and return to a natural, whole foods diet. Overall physical fitness and a balanced diet are crucial ways to avoid illnesses that can bring on depression, hyperactivity or anxiety symptoms in your children.

Knowledge is power.  As an educated consumer, you have the awareness to choose what you and your family will ingest.  Unnatural artificial sweeteners may affect your health.  Why take the chance, especially when it comes to your children?

1. Hull, JS. Sweet Poison: How The World’s Most Popular Artificial Sweetener Is Killing Us-My Story. New Horizon Press, 1997. http://www.sweetpoison.com

2. Sucralose: http://tuberose.com/Sucralose.html

3. Hull, JS. Sweet Poison: How The World’s Most Popular Artificial Sweetener Is Killing Us-My Story. New Horizon Press, 1997. http://www.sweetpoison.com

People forget that originally, sweetness was actually a by-product of food: nature’s way to encourage living creatures to consume nutritious foods. Forced sweetness, revved-up sweetness, and artificial sweetness - all altered foods - are a trap that addict people to sweeter tastes. 

Artificial sweeteners are marketed as  “being super-sized with more sweetness and no penalty.” People with eating disorders, children who are first learning about healthy food habits, diabetics and those with degenerative illnesses are being seduced by crafty advertising campaigns.  “And the added plethora of laboratory chemicals are entirely unnecessary to put in the public food supply,” says Kelly Goyen, CEO of Empirical Labs.

It’s time to admit that there is no free ticket to eating all the sugar-free products you desire without paying the high price of harming your body in the long run.  The “technology of foods” (artificial sweeteners and manmade foods) has gone too far, and will not secure eternal health, beauty, slimness, or youth.  Laboratory chemicals are not the answer and create an artificial need for more.

“We’ve done a great job of redefining sweetness, and it’s great to see it pay off,” says Anne Rewey, Splenda marketing director for Ft. Washington, Pennsylvania-based McNeil. “We’re committed to the leadership position in this market.”

According to the Conference of the American College of Physicians “we are talking about a plague of neurological diseases caused by these deadly poisons.” (aspartame, sucralose, acesulfame-K)

As an educated consumer, you have a choice.  You can protect yourself from avoidable illnesses by simply being aware of the sweet deception from the chemical sweeteners surrounding you.

What Are Artificial Sweeteners and Why Are They Harmful?

Artificial sweeteners are a mix of unnatural chemicals, combined in a laboratory that the body can’t naturally process.  Basically, these chemicals either accumulate in your vital organs (causing possible damage later), pollute your bloodstream (causing possible damage later), or form the basis for eventual mutations of your cells (causing possible damage later).

NATURE VERSUS MANMADE:  The Key To “Safe” Food

In a nutshell, what nature generally creates for food is typically safe for your body:  whatever man creates for food (from chemicals in the laboratory) may not be accepted by your body as safe and can result in illness.  Our bodies are like machines (only natural) that operate today just as they did thousands of years ago. They don’t “understand” manmade chemicals as a source of nourishment and cannot fully process them. Forcing “foreign” materials into your body is like pouring shampoo into your car’s gas tank: it wasn’t meant to process it, so the engine stalls and stops working, and the chemical by-products obstruct your body systems.

Which Artificial Sweeteners Should You Avoid?

• Sucralose (Splenda®)
• Aspartame (NutraSweet/Equal®)
• Acesulfame-K (Sunett®)
• Neotame®
• Alitame®
• Cyclamate

SPLENDA: THE NEW KID ON THE BLOCK

What Exactly Is Splenda?

Splenda is the trade name for sucralose, a relatively new manmade, artificial sweetener. Johnson & Johnson bought the rights in 1998 to sell sucralose in the United States as Splenda. Its basic characteristics are:

• Its taste is nearly identical to sugar because it’s made from sugar
• Its “trademark” inability to break down in processing or in storage

So why is Splenda potentially harmful?

It contains chlorine, which is a carcinogen.  The Splenda marketers insure the chlorine is chemically “bound” so it cannot be “released” in the body during digestion.  I question that, and wonder if this artificial chemical can safely pass through the human body.  Wait until you read what chlorine can do to the body.  Bad news.

Sucralose (Splenda) is a chlorocarbon - a chlorine-containing compound. The chlorocarbons have long been known for causing organ, genetic, and reproductive damage. It should be no surprise, then, that testing of sucralose revealed organ, genetic, and reproductive damage.  Research on lab rats showed up to forty percent shrinkage of the thymus gland: a gland that is the very foundation of our immune system.  The contamination of water supplies by chlorocarbons is a serious problem in most European countries today, making many people very ill and warranting cancer studies. Due to the chlorine content in Splenda, sucralose can inflame swelling of the liver and kidneys, and calcification of the kidney, as shown in animal studies.  If you experience kidney pain, cramping, or an irritated bladder after using sucralose, stop using it immediately.

Sucralose is patented as a manmade “chlorinated sucrose sweetener” and it is registered as “chlorinated sucrose.”  Chlorinated sucrose is not found anywhere in nature, like real sugar (sucrose) that is extracted from sugar cane and sugar beets. If it were, it would be a carcinogen!

Why is chlorine harmful? Doesn’t it kill germs in my tap water?

Let’s deviate for a moment: Manmade chlorine (found in Splenda) is essentially bleach.  There is natural chlorine found in nature, but it is compounded totally differently from Splenda’s laboratory concoction and the form of chlorine you sterilize your bathroom tile.

Splenda marketers stress that sucralose is “made from sugarbut is derived from this sugar through a process that selectively substitutes three atoms of chlorine for three hydrogen-oxygen groups on the sucrose molecule.”  While this is true, it is a deceptively simple description, implying that sucrose is a simple benign sugar substituted with chlorine, thereby, safe for consumption.  According to research on the hydrolysis of sugars, just the process of inserting chlorine into the sugar molecule (hydrolysis means breaking it into smaller molecules) ultimately allows these chemicals to penetrate the intestinal wall.

As an environmental engineer, I always reference what OSHA (the Federal Occupational Safety and Hazard Association) says in its regulations for toxic chemicals. Here’s what OSHA states concerning manmade chlorine, again the chemical used in Splenda.

OSHA States: Any animal that eats or drinks 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 through the skin.  Currently in Norwegian studies, the safety of chlorine added to the public water supply is being questioned as a cause of cancer.

References

Bellin J. New Scientist. pg 13. Nov 23, 1991.

Federal Register. Vol. 63. No. 64. Rules and Regulations 16417-16433. Friday. April 3, 1998.

Patent info: http://www.cas.org/motw/sucrapub2.html

Chlorine facts: http://www.bidness.com/esd/cl2facts.htm

Grant D.L. Toxicological Evaluation. Division Health and Welfare Canada. For the entire research report, visit the following link: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scf/out68_en.pdf

Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. RC 46.H333, 2001.

Current Medical Diagnosis and Treatment. RC 71.A14, 2004.

Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy. RC 55.M4, 1999.

By Colette Bouchez

WebMD Medical News          Reviewed By Michael Smith, MD

Feb. 16, 2005 -- Courtroom battles between the makers of Splenda and Equal have many questioning the safety of artificial sweeteners.

Since early 2000 McNeil Nutritionals has been advertising that its product -- Splenda -- is "made from sugar so it tastes like sugar." But the National Sugar Association and Merisant Worldwide (maker of Equal brand sweetener) have challenged that claim in a lawsuit.

McNeil Nutritionals shot back with a countersuit implying the case against them was more about corporate sour grapes than truth in consumer advertising.

But court battles and corporate backstabbing aside, the question on consumers' minds is not so much whether advertising slogans are right or wrong, but do they really make a difference -- at home, on the dinner table where it really counts?

Dietitian Nancy Restuccia, MS, RD, says they most definitely do.

"Splenda is not sugar -- and to piggyback it on to the reputation of the centuries' old profile of sugar is more than misleading, it could come back to haunt us, perhaps sooner than we think," says Restuccia, a nutritionist at the Center for Obesity Surgery at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center in New York City.

Indeed, while there are currently only a handful of studies that question Splenda's safety and more than 100 which attest to its safe use, Restuccia says it simply hasn't been around long enough to amass any long-term data -- or even short-term data involving heavy consumption.

What Happens When Sweeteners Interact?

"Sugar may have its health drawbacks, but at least we know we're not in for any major surprises -- and we just can't say that about Splenda yet -- so to imply that it's got the same profile as sugar is misleading and that is important today, as well as in the long run," she says.

Samantha Heller, MS, RD, agrees. "Saying Splenda is made from sugar is like taking the round wheels off a car and putting on square wheels. Is it still a car? Yes. But can it still perform like a car? No -- and what's more we don't know what's going to happen when people try to 'drive it' cross country," says Heller.

Indeed, while Splenda starts out as sugar, some serious scientific tinkering goes on before it gets into your coffee. As Heller explains, this involves removing three atoms found in sugar and replacing them with three atoms of the chemical chlorine. Some say that form of chlorine is similar to what's found in pesticides -- though in published reports the manufacturer has denied that claim.

But while all that may not matter much to your taste buds, experts say it takes on a new and more important meaning as plans roll out to include Splenda in a wide variety of treats, including more diet sodas, baked goods, and even processed foods.

"It's not like you're going to be using a teaspoon in your coffee once in a while -- it's going to be everywhere, in everything, which makes it even more important for people to understand what they are and are not getting with this product," says Restuccia.

Also important to note: Experts say we have almost no data on the way in which artificial sweeteners interact with each other -- particularly at high amounts. And that, says Restuccia may come back to haunt us even more.

"As more and more products are being made with artificial sweeteners, there is more likelihood that we will not only be consuming more of them but also mixing different ones, sometimes in a single meal -- and we really have no idea what that means health wise, in the short or the long run," says Restuccia.

What About Other Artificial Sweeteners?

The FDA has approved five artificial sweeteners:

• Acesulfame potassium (Sunett)
• Aspartame (NutraSweet or Equal)
• Sucralose (Splenda)
• D-Tagatose (Sugaree)
• Saccharin (Sweet 'N Low)

You may be surprised to see saccharin on that list. In the 1970s, the FDA was going to ban saccharin based on the reports of a Canadian study that showed that saccharin was causing bladder cancer in rats. A public outcry kept saccharin on the shelves (there were no other sugar substitutes at that time), but with a warning label that read, "Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals."

That warning label is no longer needed, says Ruth Kava, PhD, RD, director of nutrition for the American Council on Science and Health. Further research has shown that male rats have a particular pH factor that predisposes them to bladder cancer. "A lot of things that cause harm in animals don't always cause harm in humans," she says.

Like saccharin, aspartame is another artificial sweetener that -- though thoroughly tested by the FDA and deemed safe for the general population -- has had its share of critics who blame the artificial sweetener for causing everything from brain tumors to chronic fatigue syndrome.

Not so, says Kava.

The only people for whom aspartame is a medical problem are those with the genetic condition known as phenylkenoturia (PKU), a disorder of amino acid metabolism. Those with PKU need to keep the levels of phenylalanine in the blood low to prevent mental retardation as well as neurological, behavioral, and dermatological problems. Since phenylalanine is one of the two amino acids in aspartame, people who suffer from PKU are advised not to use it.

Some people can be sensitive to artificial sweeteners and experience symptoms such as headaches and upset stomach, but otherwise, there is no credible information that aspartame -- or any other artificial sweetener -- causes brain tumors, or any other illness, says registered dietitian Wendy Vida, with HealthPLACE, the health and wellness division of Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield in Pittsburgh.

Kava says that since artificial sweeteners are so much sweeter than sugar, a very small amount is needed to achieve the same sweetness one gets from sugar. "If used normally, the amounts you take in are so minuscule as to be of no concern at all."

Another sweetener receiving much publicity of late is stevia, an herbal sweetening ingredient used in food and beverages by South American natives for many centuries and in Japan since the mid-1970s.

According to Ray Sahelian, MD, author of The Stevia Cookbook, stevia has shown no significant side effects after more than 20 years of use in Japan. "There are no indications at this point from any source that stevia has shown toxicity in humans," says Sahelian, though he agrees that further research is warranted.

Because stevia is not FDA-approved, it cannot be sold as an artificial sweetener; however it can be -- and is -- sold as a dietary supplement. Because these supplements are not regulated as well as those that have received FDA approval, and therefore have no guarantee of purity, Kava is leery about the use of stevia. "This is a product that's just asking for good research studies," she says. "We just don't know enough yet."

With reporting by Carol Sorgen.

SOURCES: Nancy Restuccia, MS, RD, Center for Obesity Surgery at NY Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center in New York City; Samantha Heller, MS, RD, senior clinical nutritionist at NYU Medical Center, New York City; Americans Opt for Sweetness and Lite, FDA Consumer, December, 2004; Use of Nutritive and Non-Nutritive Sweeteners, Position Paper, American Dietetic Association. WebMD Feature Archive: "The Truth on Artificial Sweeteners."

Coca-Cola North America has now introduced Coca-Cola Zero, a new zero-calorie cola, to be on the grocery shelves in the United States in June.

"Coca-Cola Zero is exactly what young adults told us they wanted - real Coca-Cola taste, zero calories and a new brand they can call their own," said Dan Dillon, vice president, Diet Portfolio, Coca-Cola North America. "Young people today do not want to compromise on flavor or calories and we think Coca-Cola Zero's taste and personality will appeal to them."

Coca-Cola Zero will be supported by an extensive marketing campaign including television, radio, print, and out-of-home advertising, on-line activation, and sampling programs. "Coca-Cola Zero's personality will be different than any of our other brands, and our marketing will reflect that with some fresh ideas we haven't tried before," said Christine Holland, director of marketing, Coca-Cola Zero. Further details on marketing plans will be made available closer to the introduction.

For the curious who can't wait until June for their first taste of Coca-Cola Zero, a special Coca-Cola Zero sample pack will be listed on eBay, the World's Online Marketplace, in early April. All proceeds from the listing will be donated to charity. The sample pack will come with six unique bottles of Coca-Cola Zero and limited edition Coca-Cola Zero-branded premiums. The charity auction marks the first time The Coca-Cola Company has offered any new product on eBay prior to launching it nationally. For further information on the charity auction visit the Coca-Cola Zero website at www.cocacolazero.com.

Coca-Cola Zero will be sweetened with a blend of aspartame and acesulfame potassium (Ace-k), and will be available in a broad range of package sizes. The launch of Coca-Cola Zero will have no impact on Coca-Cola North America's ongoing support for Diet Coke, America's #1 diet soft drink, as the target audiences are different.

The launch of Coca-Cola Zero continues a year of innovation for Coca-Cola North America, including a range of new product offerings across all beverage categories. Full Throttle energy drink, Coca-Cola with Lime, and Dasani Lemon and Dasani Raspberry flavored waters have already been launched, with Diet Coke sweetened with Splenda as well as Coca-Cola Zero slated for later this year, as well as new packaging for POWERade.

The Coca-Cola Company is the world's largest beverage company. Along with Coca-Cola, recognized as the world's best-known brand, the Company markets four of the world's top five soft drink brands, including Diet Coke, Fanta and Sprite, and a wide range of other beverages, including diet and light soft drinks, waters, juices and juice drinks, teas, coffees and sports drinks. Through the world's largest distribution system, consumers in more than 200 countries enjoy the Company's beverages at a rate exceeding 1 billion servings each day.

For more information about The Coca-Cola Company, please visit our website at www.coca-cola.com. Coca-Cola North America today announced that it will introduce Coca-Cola Zero, a new zero-calorie cola, in the United States in June.

"Coca-Cola Zero is exactly what young adults told us they wanted - real Coca-Cola taste, zero calories and a new brand they can call their own," said Dan Dillon, vice president, Diet Portfolio, Coca-Cola North America. "Young people today do not want to compromise on flavor or calories and we think Coca-Cola Zero's taste and personality will appeal to them."

Coca-Cola Zero will be supported by an extensive marketing campaign including television, radio, print, and out-of-home advertising, on-line activation, and sampling programs. "Coca-Cola Zero's personality will be different than any of our other brands, and our marketing will reflect that with some fresh ideas we haven't tried before," said Christine Holland, director of marketing, Coca-Cola Zero. Further details on marketing plans will be made available closer to the introduction.

For the curious who can't wait until June for their first taste of Coca-Cola Zero, a special Coca-Cola Zero sample pack will be listed on eBay, the World's Online Marketplace, in early April. All proceeds from the listing will be donated to charity. The sample pack will come with six unique bottles of Coca-Cola Zero and limited edition Coca-Cola Zero-branded premiums. The charity auction marks the first time The Coca-Cola Company has offered any new product on eBay prior to launching it nationally. For further information on the charity auction visit the Coca-Cola Zero website at www.cocacolazero.com.

Coca-Cola Zero will be sweetened with a blend of aspartame and acesulfame potassium (ace-k), and will be available in a broad range of package sizes. The launch of Coca-Cola Zero will have no impact on Coca-Cola North America's ongoing support for Diet Coke, America's #1 diet soft drink, as the target audiences are different.

The launch of Coca-Cola Zero continues a year of innovation for Coca-Cola North America, including a range of new product offerings across all beverage categories. Full Throttle energy drink, Coca-Cola with Lime, and Dasani Lemon and Dasani Raspberry flavored waters have already been launched, with Diet Coke sweetened with Splenda as well as Coca-Cola Zero slated for later this year, as well as new packaging for POWERade.

The Coca-Cola Company is the world's largest beverage company. Along with Coca-Cola, recognized as the world's best-known brand, the Company markets four of the world's top five soft drink brands, including Diet Coke, Fanta and Sprite, and a wide range of other beverages, including diet and light soft drinks, waters, juices and juice drinks, teas, coffees and sports drinks. Through the world's largest distribution system, consumers in more than 200 countries enjoy the Company's beverages at a rate exceeding 1 billion servings each day.

For more information about The Coca-Cola Company, please visit our website at http://www.coca-cola.com.

March 29, 2005

Tate sweetener hides taste of rising costs By Times Online

Tate & Lyle today said that its flagship sweetener was helping ward off problems in other parts of its business as it reported continued good trading.

Tate said that a strong performance by Splenda sucralose had offset lower sweetener margins in its European food and industrial ingredients business.

Splenda had also helped it to reduce the impact on the group of higher cost export licenses in its European sugars operation.

Tate, which makes sweeteners and other ingredients for food and drink firms, said it was using all its current production capacity to manufacture the high intensity Splenda.

The group said construction work was on track to expand a plant in Alabama in the US and to build a new factory in Singapore for Splenda.

Tate has experienced increasing success with the sweetener, whose exceptional growth helped it boost half-year profits by 9.2 per cent to £130 million in November.

It bought Splenda last year from partners McNeil Nutritionals. Last month, it said Coca-Cola was planning to use the product in a new version of Diet Coke.

Tate runs more than 40 plants and 20 additional production facilities across 28 countries and employs 6,700 people in its subsidiaries and a further 4,800 in joint ventures. Sales in the year to March 31 totaled £3.1 billion.

In a trading update today, the company said its overall trading performance had continued to be good and in line with its expectations.

It said its sugar operations in Canada, Vietnam and Mexico had continued to perform in line with its expectations and its food and industrial ingredients business in the Americas had done well.

Analysts' current consensus is for profits of £238 million in the year to the end of March, compared with £228 million a year earlier.

Andrew Saunders, the Numis analyst, said that the weaker European performance had been well flagged up and that Splenda remained the key to future performance.

Splenda had strong prospects and the company's inability to produce enough Splenda was the main factor holding it back.

"It's well positioned for the long term," Mr Saunders said.

Tate & Lyle shares stood 5p higher at 545.5p in morning trade.

Published: April 4, 2005

Splenda, the popular artificial sweetener, is going brown.

The manufacturer of Splenda, the brand name given to the chemical sweetener sucralose, is releasing a version that can be used as a replacement for brown sugar. It will be called Splenda Brown Sugar Blend.

"People can use it for baking their favorite recipe or sprinkle it on top of cereal the same way they would use brown sugar," said John Leahy, marketing director for Splenda at McNeil Nutritionals, the division of Johnson & Johnson that sells and markets the sweetener.

Made from a blend of regular brown sugar and sucralose that has been colored brown, Splenda's brown sugar will give consumers a 50 percent reduction in calories because a smaller amount will be needed for baking and other purposes.

For instance, if a recipe calls for one cup of brown sugar, Mr. Leahy said, only a half-cup of Splenda brown sugar will be necessary. Splenda brown sugar will come in one-pound and two-pound bags when sales start in September.

The popularity of Splenda took its manufacturers by surprise last year. In November, Tate & Lyle, the British ingredients company that makes sucralose, told its customers that its supply of sweetener would have to be rationed because of high demand. McNeil markets Splenda in the United States under a contract with Tate & Lyle.

Over the last year and a half, nearly every major food company has incorporated sucralose into one or more of its products. Both PepsiCo and Coca-Cola have opted to use the sweetener for new colas. This month, for example, Pepsi is introducing PepsiOne with Splenda and Coke will make a new version of Diet Coke sweetened with Splenda that will be in stores in several months.

Splenda brown sugar is likely to add to the legal debate brewing over Splenda's marketing campaign. The Sugar Association, which represents the sugar industry; Merisant, the maker of the aspartame-based artificial sweetener NutraSweet; and a lawyer in San Diego have filed lawsuits against McNeil contending that Splenda's marketing misleads consumers.

"The average consumer assumes that Splenda is related to sugar," said Howard M. Rubinstein, the San Diego lawyer. "They're exploiting the fear some people have around other artificial sweeteners like NutraSweet and presenting this as a more natural alternative."

Mr. Leahy said that its marketing for the new brown sugar product would "remain consistent with Splenda's existing brand communication."

Neither the Sugar Association, based in Washington, nor Merisant, which is based in Chicago, would comment. If Splenda brown sugar catches on with consumers, it is likely to accelerate the decline of old-fashioned sugar. Sales of both white and brown sugar in the United States have been declining for years. Sales have dropped 10 percent since 1999, Mintel International, a research firm based in Chicago, has reported.

In America, muffins are the size of small cakes. A single twenty-ounce bottle of soda is actually 2 1/2 servings. “Care for a large order of French fries? It’s just a few cents more to super-size that order.”  That's a third of the total calories you should eat in one day! But do people resist the fries? Not usually. They simply order a large diet cola to justify the difference.

According to a new study by the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, women are eating 300 more calories a day, and men, 168 more calories than twenty years ago. As any nutritionist will tell you, all it takes is one hundred extra calories a day to gain ten pounds a year. To work off those one hundred calories, you must walk twenty-five minutes every day.

In Sting’s first book, “Broken Music,” he writes about the first time he came to New York City. On a limited budget, he ordered a salad thinking this would be mere rabbit food, yet it was all he could afford for a healthy meal. When the salad arrived at his table he was amazed at how large the portion was, and commented in his book that one of the first impressions he had about America was how much food we ate and how much larger the portions were compared to Europeans’.

Many experts feel Americans overeat because much of the food that makes up our modern diet is inexpensive, dense with the taste of “fat” calories, and highly processed, which translates into: the food isn't satisfying, so we eat more to try to feel full. So, super-size me!

And portions? Portions DO Matter!

The size of your meals DOES make a difference whether sugar-free or not. Modern consumers, especially children, have no idea how to eat normally. The average consumer eats almost twice the portions of food as twenty years ago. The marketing of artificial sweeteners has been a huge contributing factor to a change in the way people look at their meals. Jean Weininger from the San Francisco Chronicle, USA, writes, "Studies have shown that people who use artificial sweeteners don't necessarily reduce their consumption of sugar—or their total calorie intake. Having a diet soda makes it okay to eat a double cheeseburger and a chocolate mousse pie.” 

Instead of loading up on diet products, try cutting your portions of real food in half. Dr. Kristine Clark, RD, director of sports nutrition, Pennsylvania State University suggests: “Eat what you want, but eat half. Leave food on your plate—there is no such thing as a ‘Clean Plate Club!’” She emphasizes more physical activity on a daily basis along with modifying the portions of your foods and beverages. “This should break the cycle of weight gain,” she says.

How To Control Your Portions

Accurately estimating food portions can be difficult if you are dieting or hungry. This chart makes measuring simple, and helps you estimate your portions correctly.

Food Portions:

• One teaspoon (5 ml)
• about the size of the top half of your thumb
• One ounce (28 g)
• approximately a one-inch cube of cheese
• volume of four stacked dice
• slice of cheese is about the size of a 3 1/2-inch computer disk
• chunk of cheese is about as thick as two dominoes
• one handful (palm) of nuts
• Two ounces (57 g)
• one small chicken leg or thigh
• 1/2 cup of cottage cheese or tuna
• Three ounces (85 g)
• serving of meat is about the size of a deck of playing cards meat exchanges)
• 1/2 of whole chicken breast
• one medium pork chop
• one small hamburger
• unbreaded fish fillet
• 1/2 cup (118 ml)
• fruit or vegetables can fit in the palm of your hand
• about the volume of a tennis ball
• 1 cup (236 ml)
• about the size of a woman's fist
• breakfast cereal goes halfway up the side of a standard cereal bowl
• broccoli is about the size of a light bulb
• One medium apple = a tennis ball

Now, think about this:

If you were on a budget and taking the kids out for a quick bite after a long day at work, which fast-food restaurant would you choose? 

• Restaurant A serves a 2.8-ounce hamburger with a 2.4-ounce bag of fries, and a 6.5-fluid-ounce regular cola
• Restaurant B serves a 4.3-ounce burger with cheese, a 7-ounce carton of fries, and a sixteen-fluid-ounce diet cola

Restaurant A represents the common take-out meal in 1954. Total caloric intake was 491 calories (including the cola), and no neurotoxins or carcinogens were in the drink. Restaurant B is the typical carryout in 2004. Super-size it for a total of 1,000 calories (cola included), and people seem to justify the larger portions by drinking “diet” chemicals.

"Super-sizing is a public health issue of the highest priority," said Harvard University's Dr. George Blackburn, a professor of nutrition and surgery. Super-sizing has become so controversial these days, McDonald's, the corporation that popularized the ‘super-size’ concept, announced it was discontinuing its 42-ounce ‘super-size’ soda as well as its seven-ounce ‘super-size’ order of fries at all 13,000 U.S. stores as part of a ‘healthy lifestyle initiative’.”

Try these suggestions:

• In restaurants, share entrees or ask the waiter to put half the entree in a doggie bag before you even touch it.
• Order lunch-sized portions. Many restaurants serve 4 to 6 ounces of meat at lunch, compared with 8 to 10 ounces at dinner.
• At home, use smaller plates and bowls. It will look as if you're eating more.
• Check food labels for serving size. Eat one serving only.
• Drink water when you’re hungry for a snack.
• Instead of drinking soda (regular or diet), drink water (add a squirt of lemon or lime for flavor).
• Measure label servings to see their sizes.
• Buy smaller packages of candy, popcorn and snacks, or better yet seek out healthy alternatives like raw vegetables, nuts and seeds, fruit, cheese and hardboiled eggs.
• Do not eat or drink diet products with any meal.
• As you gradually reduce fake foods and artificial sweeteners in your daily meals, replacing them with whole, nutritious foods, your body will feel satisfied. It is only when you give your body plenty of the real food nutrients it needs and maintain a healthy level of activity that you will be able to eat until you feel full without gaining weight and without feeling hungry.

References

Rockett HR, Colditz GA., Assessing diets of children and adolescents., Am J Clin Nutr 1997;65(4 suppl): 1116s-1122s.

Prevalence of Overweight Among Children and Adolescents: United States, 1999-2002, Results from the 1999-2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/overwght99.htm

International Food Standard Organization Faces Challenges, http://www.consumeralert.org/pubs/research/

Rolls BJ. Effects of intense sweeteners on hunger, food intake, and body weight: a review. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991 Apr; 53 (4):872-8.

SWEET CHOICES: Questions & Answers about Sweeteners in Low-Calorie Foods and Beverages,http://www.caloriecontrol.org/benefit.html

THE OBESITY CRISIS: Perils of portion distortion. Why Americans don't know when enough is enough. Kim Severson, San Francisco Chronicle, March 2, 2004.

“Portions Matter Nutrition Tips for Optimal Health”, Dr. Kristine Clark, RD Director of Sports Nutrition, Pennsylvania State University.

Americans have become notorious consumers of sugar and sweet-tasting foods and beverages. “We have developed a relentless sweet tooth and a severe addiction to sweetness," states Joan Gussow, Ed.D., Professor of Nutrition and Education at Columbia Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics on the amount of caloric sweeteners used in modern foods, there has been an increase of added sugars of more than sixteen percent per person over the past two decades, and more than half of the increase has occurred since 2000.  “Added sweeteners” include:

• Sugar
• High-fructose corn syrup
• Pure honey
• Edible syrups

Paul Lachance, Chairman of the Department of Food Science at University in New Jersey, estimates that, based on a 2,000-calorie-a-day diet, the average American consumes about 300 calories from sugars added to foods. That adds up to nearly fourteen teaspoons of table sugar per person a day.

Dr. Gussow has her own theory why sugar has become so prominent in the American diet. “It's for taste,” she says. "I grow my own vegetables and fruit. And when I pick, cook and eat my parsnips, for example, they are as sweet as sugar."

Why is sugar so prominent in our modern diet? When food is shipped and stored, it can get old, turning its natural sugar into starch. It loses its natural sweetness; so many times sugar is added to restore the flavor.

“If people eat increasingly larger quantities of … sweeteners in general,” writes Jane Hurley, Associate Nutritionist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Washington, D.C, “these can compete with and crowd out other nutrients. People are better off having an apple as a snack than a candy bar."

Research shows that human beings have an inborn desire for sweets, one of the four fundamental taste sensations. Newborn infants have been observed to react positively to sweetness. Studies demonstrate that the response to sweets is an involuntary, reflex reaction rather than a learned response.

But “sweeteners” are a manmade concept.  Humans have always strived to make things “better”, and since the sensation of sweetness is the most pleasurable of the taste sensations, products that are sweet – sell!

Consider a box of cereal.  One reason it has so much added sugar is because it’s been processed to the point it doesn’t taste good without it.  An organic box of whole grain cereal needs less - to no - added sweetening because the natural sugars in the grain are enough - if you let them be, that is. 

Honey and fruits were originally the main sources for satisfying our “sweet” tastes. However, since it was first refined some 600 years ago, refined table sugar (sucrose) has been the standard for sweetness.  Until recent decades, sucrose was the only sweetener in general use.

By the turn of the twenty-first century, the USDA recorded sixty-seven pounds of sugar from sugar cane and sugar beets, eighty-six pounds of sugar from corn sweeteners, and one pound of other natural sweeteners such as honey and maple syrup were delivered (per capita) into the American food supply. That adds up to a total carbohydrate sweetener availability of around 154 pounds per person.  The sugar to watch out for is the eighty-six pounds of corn syrup, which climbed from zero consumption in 1966 to 62.6 pounds per person in 2001.

The Problem May Not Be Sugar, But Corn Syrup
“Perhaps the most commonly used nutritive sweetener is high-fructose corn syrup, a sweet product manufactured from cornstarch and containing a high level of fructose,” explains Kyd Brenner, Director of Public Affairs for the Corn Refiners Association in Washington, D.C. High-fructose corn syrup is very close to the composition and calorie content of cane sugar, and corn syrup is used as a direct and inexpensive substitute for cane sugar when liquid sweeteners are called for. It is used extensively in soft drinks, condiments, jams, jellies, and wine, but is not available for home use.

An advantage of high-fructose corn syrup is that it "tastes sweeter than refined sugar," making it a popular ingredient for food manufacturers because it enables them to use less. Today, sweeteners made from corn are the leader, racking up $4.5 billion in annual sales and accounting for fifty-five percent of the sweetener market. This switch largely reflects the steady growth of high-fructose corn syrup.

Syrup In Your Cola: One very common misconception is the statement "there are up to twelve teaspoons of sugar in every regular cola." Read your labels - there is rarely actual granulated sugar in popular carbonated sodas – merely high-fructose corn syrup. As a liquid, the syrup is easier to blend into beverages than refined sugar, according to the National Soft Drink Association (NSDA).

Have you ever considered how many pounds of sweetener the soft drink industry buys? High-fructose corn syrup costs a few pennies less than refined sugar, but it is millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, in savings.

Recent research suggests there may be some unexpected nutritional consequences of using corn syrups. Fructose absorbs differently than other sugars, and it doesn't register in the body metabolically the same way glucose does. Research also suggests that fructose may alter the magnesium balance in the body. That, in turn, can accelerate bone loss, according to a USDA study published in 2000 in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

In November 2003, a review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition examined evidence from multiple studies on high fructose corn syrup. The researchers concluded that large quantities of fructose from a variety of sources, including table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup:

• Induce insulin resistance
• Impair glucose tolerance
• Produce high levels of insulin
• Boost a dangerous type of fat in the blood
• Cause high blood pressure in animals

Numerous nutritive and nonnutritive substitutes for sugar compete for top place in the market. Do YOU have a sweet tooth?

References:

http://www.sugar.org/

Squires S. Sweet but Not So Innocent? High-Fructose Corn Syrup May Act More Like Fat Than Sugar in the Body. Washington Post. March 11, 2003.

Byrnes SC. Conquering Candidiasis Naturally.

Evaluation of Health Aspects of Sugars Contained in Carbohydrate Sweeteners, Report from the FDA's Sugars Task Force, 1986. J Nutr 1986;116(11S):S1-S216.

Center for Science in the Public Interest. Press Release. Sugar Intake Hit All-time High in 1999. May 18, 2000. Release accessible at http://www.cspinet.org/new/sugar_limit.html.

Over the last several decades, sugar has become a villain in the modern American diet. General sugar-bashing has led to a sugarphobia, which can lead to a dependency on chemical sweetener substitutes, which then creates a craving for “replacement foods.”  Sugar is blamed for causing many health problems including heart disease, diabetes, anxiety, fatigue, depression, hyperactivity, and even criminal behavior.  But:

• Is this accurate information?
• Are we blaming the “right” form of sugar for our health problems?
• Has dis-information over time created a false fear of sugar?

According to the 1986 FDA Report from the Sugars Task Force, added sugar at current levels is not detrimental to health.  They stated, “when normal or moderate quantities (of sugar) are consumed, sugar cannot be linked to any disease, nor does it create a dependency.”

Walter Glinsmann, M.D., FDA associate director for clinical nutrition and   

senior author of the Task Force, reports that eating unlimited amounts of sugar is not advisable. "There are not good or bad foods, only good or bad diets," he says. "If half your diet is pure sugar, that is not healthy. In a normal, varied diet, there are no adverse effects of sugar itself."

They are making a valid point, even though I am not sure if I totally agree with their conclusion. Let’s see what the experts have to say…

Despite the report, many consumers persist in linking sugar consumption to assorted illnesses, such as hyperactivity and aggressive behavior in children. Parents who say that their children are uncontrollable after eating candy and other sugary sweets often report this reaction. But artificial sweeteners are not the solution.

Use Natural Sugar As Opposed To Artificial Sugars

According to Consumer’s Research Magazine: “refined sugars and chemical sugar substitutes benefit the corporations manufacturing and marketing them, but do not benefit the consumers.”  They write: “Are such foods truly beneficial and desirable?  Diabetics, weight watchers, and the general public might make better food choices by selecting basic, rather than highly processed foods; for example, apples rather than turnovers; or plain dairy foods rather than sweetened.”

As of 1990, Americans were consuming an average of twenty pounds of artificial sweeteners. Yet, as the consumption of sugar-substitutes rises, so too has the consumption of sugar.

“Sugar, averaging fifteen calories per teaspoon,” states Andy Briscoe of the National Sugar Association, “is blamed for America's obesity epidemic, a perception perpetuated by the artificial sweetener market.”

What do the artificial sweetener manufacturers say?  "A moderate coffee drinker who chooses sugar, consumes an additional 20,000 calories a year, and a heavy coffee drinker adds 80,000," says Lael Edelstein, Manager of Nutrition Communication for Chicago's Merisant Corp., now manufacturing Equal®. 

So the debate continues. The study's authors suggest sugar-free foods may play a role in the nation's obesity epidemic. Other scientists, however, dismiss that conclusion. But for every advocate touting the health advantages of the artificial sweeteners, there are at least as many cautioning against their use.

Some of the most disturbing weight statistics these days focus on children. Results from the 1999-2000 NHANES Survey, using measured heights and weights, indicate that an estimated fifteen percent of children and adolescents aged six to nineteen years are overweight. This represents a four percent increase from the overweight estimates of eleven percent obtained from NHANES III from 1988 to 1994.¹

This is nearly a three-fold jump since NutraSweet came on the market in 1981.No one can say with certainty whether one cause of childhood obesity outweighs another, but considerable blame can be placed on the fact that kids don't get enough proper nutrition and are consuming more and more diet products daily.

School Vending Machines: Ditch the Fizz!
Children are encouraged to consume junk food at schools where the extensive influences of fast food and soft-drink companies are prominent. The wrong influences seem to govern the types of food and drinks that are sold in schools these days. But, are these soft drink machines on their way out? Some people hope so.

There is a growing movement against soft drinks in public and private schools. School programs discouraging the sale of carbonated drinks appear to reduce obesity among children. A British study in London showed that reducing young students' intake of sweetened carbonated beverages reduced obesity among the students. A one-year ''ditch the fizz'' campaign discouraged both sweetened and diet soft drinks among elementary school children. The results showed a decrease in the percentage of children who were overweight or obese. The improvement occurred after a mere reduction of less than a can of soda a day. According to the study, a high intake of carbonated drinks contributed to childhood obesity.² Apparently, such programs to eliminate access to soft drinks at schools are working.

Of course, representatives of the soft drink industry contest these results, claiming carbonated drinks provide only a fraction of children's daily calories, and that they should not be blamed for the childhood obesity epidemic.

However, independent experts say otherwise. In Florida, USA, the Governor's Task Force on Obesity stopped short of admitting soda machines can make kids fat. They suggested a variety of remedies to the state's obesity epidemic—less TV, more exercise in schools—but did not recommend the removal of soda or snack machines from pubic campuses. “The machines often offer milk and other alternatives to carbonated drinks,” they stated.³ (Can we trust children to make good choices—after all, they are children!)

School vending machines raise considerable cash, funds that many high schools use to support athletic and other extra-curricular activities. Most school principals support the idea of choice and don't want to eliminate the “cash cow” of colas.⁴

Most US state laws protect the sale of carbonated beverages on campuses if fruit juice is also sold. But many districts around the country are trying to get control of the situation in an effort to improve the their students’ nutrition. For example, in Broward County, Florida, the school board's policy permits vending machine sales for only one hour following the close of the last lunch period.

A British report studied 644 children, ages seven to eleven, in six primary schools in Christchurch, England during the 2001-2002 school year. One-half of the classes participated in a program discouraging both regular and diet sodas, stressing the benefits of a healthy diet, while the other half did not.

Consumption of soft drinks dropped by 0.6 glasses a day among the children in the study, but increased by 0.2 glasses a day among the children who did not participate in the program.

The percentage of overweight and obese children increased by 7.5 percent in

the group that did not participate in the program, and dipped by 0.2 percent among those who did.⁵

Don’t be discouraged. You can change your lifestyle, not with trendy chemical diets, but with the tried and true methods (whole, natural foods and moderate exercise) our bodies recognize and celebrate. Ditch the fizz and see how your body responds with vibrant health. Your child’s teacher may thank you, too!

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health/nutrit/pubs/statobes.htm#what

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/yourweight/whatis_stats.shtml

BMJ USA: Editorial, “School soft drink intervention study. Too good to be true?” BMJ 2004;329:E315-E316 (14 August), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7462.E315

American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on School Health. Soft drinks in schools, Pediatrics 2004;113: 152-154.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/yourweight/whatis_stats.shtml

Life is full of choices. What to wear – which car to buy – what colored packet sweetener to use.  White, pink or blue? Now, there’s a new yellow packet of chlorinated sweetener called sucralose to choose from. Have you ever considered using a natural sweetener or no added sweeteners at all? 

The following is an alphabetized list of the best natural choices for sweeteners that are safer for long-term health as opposed to the refined sugars and the artificial chemical sweeteners. Remember nothing is without consequence. Natural is always a better choice, but all of these alternatives should be eaten in moderation, as most can impact blood sugar levels. It is best to use any type of sweetener, even the all-natural ones, sparingly, if at all, with the optimal choice being to savor the natural flavors in your food and resist the urge to add extra sweetness.

Natural sweetener choices:

• Barley Malt
• Brown Rice Syrup
• Date Sugar
• Honey (raw unpasteurized honey is best)
• Maple Syrup and Sugar
• Molasses
• Sorghum
• Stevia
• Sucanat

“Grey area” sweeteners (those that are natural, yet are either slightly altered in laboratory processing or naturally tend to spike blood sugar):

• Fructose
• Fruit Juice Concentrate
• Sugar Alcohols
• Turbinado® Sugar
• Tagatose

New natural sweeteners:

• Lo Han
• Trehalose

A Quick Glance at the Natural Sweetener Choices:

BARLEY MALT: Barley malt is a thick, dark, slow-digesting sweetener made from sprouted, roasted barley grainwith a nutty, malt-like flavor.Barley malt can be bought in granular form or as syrup. It is called “malt” because maltose is the sugar that occurs when starch in the barley sprouts. Barley malt is used in brewing beer, and some say barley malt is to beer as grapes are to wine. It is ideally suited to brewing for many reasons:

• Malted barley has a high balance of enzymes for converting its starch into simple sugars
• It also contains protein, which is needed for yeast nutrition

Barley malt extract is used medicinally as a bulking agent to promote bowel regularity.Because the malt comes from sprouted barley, the malt can be concentrated into a soluble fiber, so it has laxative qualities similar to psyllium, oats and the pectin in fruits. Beneficial bacteria in the colon uses barley fiber for food. Barley malt is helpful in chronic constipation, irritable bowel syndrome, diverticulosis, hiatal hernia and diabetes. Soluble fiber can even lower cholesterol ten percent to fifteen percent.

Because barley malt is an actual food sugar, it should be refrigerated for extended storage.

BROWN RICE SYRUP: Rice syrup is made by slow-cooking brown rice until it develops thick sweet syrup. Few people have allergies to rice, so this offers an alternative sweetener choice for consumers with allergies or asthma, particularly children. Rice syrup has a light flavor because it is a food. There is no need to refrigerate rice syrup. If the syrup hardens, simply run the jar under warm water.

DATE SUGAR: Date sugar is made by dehydrating and pulverizing dates. The date fruit has a high concentration of naturally occurring sugars. This particular sugar does not dissolve well, but it is acceptable for cooking and baking. Date sugar should be stored in a cool, dry place.

Date sugar is high in fiber and contains a long list of vitamins and minerals, including iron. Substitute one-cup date sugar for each cup granulated sugar for a better choice of sweeteners.

HONEY: For centuries, honey has been referred to as “nature’s gold.”  After gathering the nectar from flowers and flowering plants, bees return to the hive and process the nectar as honey. (Local bee pollen, the precursor to honey in the hive, is great for allergies.) The flavor of the honey reflects upon the flower. Sources commonly include buckwheat, blackberry, heather, clover, orange blossoms, wildflowers and sage. To process raw honey, remove it from its wax comb, strain or heat and filter. The downside to this process is that heating the honey destroys many of its natural enzymes and nutrients. For this reason, I highly recommend you seek out a source of raw honey, which is a much healthier alternative to the commercial pasteurized honey in most supermarkets. You can find raw honey in some health food stores or from local farmers.

Honey should be stored in a dry place. If the honey begins to crystallize, place the jar in a pot of hot water until the sugar crystals dissolve. Be careful not to make the water too hot or you risk damaging the nutrients. Honey contains the following nutrients: protein, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin C, calcium and iron.Topical application of honey to infected wounds is an ancient remedy, and one that has been confirmed by many scientific studies.

MAPLE SYRUP AND MAPLE SUGAR: Thirty-five to fifty gallons of maple tree sap boil down to one gallon of maple syrup. Classified by color and flavor, the lighter the syrup color (Grade A), the lighter the flavor. The grades of syrup have more to do with taste than quality. The darker the color, the longer the syrup has usually boiled, veering it farther from its natural state. Maple syrups and sugars should be refrigerated.

MOLASSES: The liquid that is spun out of refining cane sugar is molasses. Molasses is twenty percent to twenty-five percent water, fifty percent sugar and ten percent ash, with some protein and organic acids remaining. Molasses is graded by color and sugar content, with the lighter color containing more sugar. So look for the darker grades. Because of its very strong flavor, molasses is used mainly in baking and should be kept cool or refrigerated.

SORGHUM: Sorghum is a grain related to millet. It is processed into a sweetener by crushing the plant stalks and boiling the extracted juice into syrup. Sorghum is comparable to molasses but is much lighter and milder tasting. Sorghum should be refrigerated.

STEVIA: Stevia is 250 to 300 times sweeter than sugar. It is isolated and purified from the leaves of the stevia plant.Stevia has been used as a traditional remedy for diabetes and gum disease among the indigenous people of Paraguay and other South American countries for over 1,500 recorded years. (Who knows how many years prior to the records?) Preliminary scientific evidence (performed by independent researchers) shows stevia may indeed improve the function of cells required for insulin production in the pancreas, and may also improve glucose tolerance in people with diabetes. But according to the generations of people who have used stevia as a part of their daily diet, stevia has been proven to regulate blood sugar and is used as a treatment for diabetes and gum disease.

Stevia has been reported to possess anti-viral activity, and preliminary evidence suggests that stevia possesses blood pressure lowering properties and may be a useful treatment for hypertension.

I feel stevia is a much safer alternative compared to the artificial chemicals created in corporate laboratories, especially for use during pregnancy, for children and for diabetics who stand to benefit from its soothing glucose effects. Of course, the key to eating anything properly, whether chemical food replacements or one hundred percent natural foods, is to maintain moderation in its use and monitor your artificial chemicals carefully.

TIPS TO AVOID STEVIA BITTERNESS:

• Try different brands of stevia before giving up on it, as some are milder tasting than others
• Stevia is much sweeter than Equal® and the other chemical sweeteners, so use significantly less than you might think is necessary
• Start with using one-quarter the amount of stevia as you’d use of the other chemicals and increase as needed

SUCANAT®—Sugar Cane Natural: Sucanat is a natural granulated sweetener with a higher nutrition level and a lower sugar level than refined sugar (88.3% vs.99.9%). Fresh cane juice is pressed from the sugar cane stalk and then dehydrated through a co-crystallization process. It is through this process that Sucanat granules are formed. Sucanat granules are an improvement over bleached sugar crystals in shape and function. Unlike processed sugar crystals, Sucanat granules are round, porous and easily compressed, and can be used in the “sugar bowl” as refined sugars are used, but are a much healthier alternative.

Product qualities include:

• No additives or preservatives
• Lower sugar level than refined sugar
• One-for-one replacement for refined white sugar, brown sugar and honey
• Homogenous blending
• Natural rich flavor
• Compressible
• Excellent consistency and texture in baked goods
• Instant solubility

Note: Liquid natural sweeteners (barley malt, brown rice syrup, honey and maple syrup) can be stored at room temperature in the original packaging, but should be refrigerated after opening. Dry, powdered alternative sweeteners should be stored in a dry place at room temperature. Fruit juice concentrates should remain frozen until ready to use.

A Quick Explanation Of The “Grey Area” Sweeteners:

FRUCTOSE: Fructose becomes a simple sugar by refining corn syrup or extracting beet sugar. Because it breaks down more slowly in the body than sucrose, it has a somewhat lesser effect on blood-sugar levels, but it does not provide any nutritional benefits. Also known as levulose and fruit sugar, fructose is the sweetest of all the simple sugars. Fruits naturally contain between one percent and seven percent fructose, although some fruits have much higher amounts. Fructose makes up about forty percent of the dry weight of honey. It is also available in crystalline form, but its sweetness rapidly declines when dissolved in water. Some people react badly to fructose, so it is not a recommended option for those who need to restrict sugar intake.

In fact, I do not recommend fructose as an acceptable form of sugar for anyone despite its acceptance in many nutritional circles. The reasons for this are many:

• Nearly all simple sugars, including fructose, are metabolized rapidly, which disrupts insulin and blood sugar levels
• Fructose contributes to most chronic illness
• One of the primary ways that people ingest fructose is in the form of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which is used to sweeten everything from soda to canned fruits to chewing gum. HFCS contains similar amounts of both fructose and glucose (see below), whereas sucrose (table sugar) is a larger sugar molecule that is metabolized in the intestine into glucose and fructose

The digestive and absorptive processes for glucose and fructose are different. Unlike glucose, which the body uses for energy, when you consume large amounts of fructose, it supplies a relatively unregulated source of fuel for the liver to convert to fat and cholesterol. Fructose converts to fat more than any other sugar.

Further, most fructose is consumed in a liquid form, which significantly magnifies its negative metabolic effects. The devastation it has on our biology would be significantly lessened if it was consumed in solid food, but most fructose is consumed in soft drinks and fruit juices. This is one type of sweetener I don’t advise anyone to add to his or her diet. Note: This does NOT apply as strictly to the fructose ingested in whole fruits. Eating balanced amounts of natural fruits provides less “adulterated” fructose than provided in manufactured forms of fructose products, posing less of a problem for most people. Caution is advised for diabetes or obesity.

FRUIT JUICE CONCENTRATE: This sweetener undergoes little processing, but most people don’t think about sweetening with fruit concentrates. It can be used to sweeten more products than you’d think, such as cookies, candy, cereal and sodas. Fruit juice concentrate is usually made from a concentrate of pineapple, pear, and peach or clarified grape juice. They can be used much more safely than artificial sweeteners when sweetening gelatin, unsweetened powdered drinks and fruit smoothies.

Most fruit juice concentrates are frozen, so keep in the freezer until ready for use.

SUGAR ALCOHOLS: I am not a fan of sugar alcohols extracted from their natural sources. Sugar alcohols are actually made from sugar. Part of their structure chemically resembles sugar and part is similar to alcohol. To complicate matters more, these sweeteners are neither sugars nor alcohols—they are best described as a sugar byproduct refined by nature. Sugar alcohols fall into a “grey area” in the sweetener arena because they are actually carbohydrates (starches) more than they are sugars. They are typically used cup-for-cup in the same amount as refined sugar, but they each vary in sweetness, ranging from half as sweet to as sweet as sugar. Sugar alcohols blend well with other sugars, so they are commonly added to products such as gums, candies and mints, toothpaste and mouthwash. Please keep in mind, these “grey area” sugar alcohols can give people gastric distress if consumed in excess.

Included in this group are:

• Erythritol
• Hydrogenated starch hydrolysates
• Isomalt
• Lactitol
• Maltitol
• Mannitol
• Sorbitol
• Xylitol

Sugar alcohols are used in a wide range of low-calorie, low-fat and sugar-free foods from baked goods to frozen dairy desserts since they provide bulk without all the calories of sugar. Sugar alcohols do not commonly promote tooth decay, so are used in toothpastes, mouthwashes, breath mints and pharmaceuticals such as cough syrups, cough drops and throat lozenges.

THE DOWNSIDE OF SUGAR ALCOHOLS: Some of the sugar alcohols that are not absorbed in the blood are broken down into fatty acids in the large intestine. People on low-carbohydrate diets or who have diabetes may not respond well to the sugar alcohols in place of sugar because some people report that sugar alcohols act as "trigger foods," causing carb cravings or binges.

Since the intestine does absorb the sugar alcohols, over-consumption can produce a laxative effect in some people. Excessive use can cause gas or laxative effects similar to reactions to beans and certain high-fiber foods. Such symptoms depend, of course, on an individual's sensitivity, health status, and what other foods are eaten at the same time. Another positive way to look at it—your body may be showing you its limit on how much sugar it really needs by  “kicking out” too much.

The table below provides a summary of each of the different sugar alcohols currently used in U.S. food products. Nutrition labels include them as either "Sugar Alcohols" or under their individual name.

1. Erythritol is an odorless white, crystalline powder with a clean sweet taste approximately seventy percent as sweet as sugar. Like most sugar alcohols, erythritol does not promote tooth decay. It has approximately seven percent to thirteen percent the calories of other sugar alcohols and five percent the calories of sugar. Because erythritol is rapidly absorbed in the small intestine and rapidly eliminated by the body (within twenty-four hours), laxative side effects are sometimes associated with excessive use.

2. Hydrogenated Starch Hydrolysates (HSH) are a mixture of sorbitol, maltitol and hydrogenated oligosaccharides. Depending on the type of HSH desired (the maltitol and sorbitol content can be varied), the sweetness of HSH varies from twenty-five percent to fifty percent that of sucrose. HSH sweeteners are used in a wide variety of candies, gums and mints. Also known as maltitol syrup and hydrogenated glucose syrup, just remember to read your labels!

3. Isomalt is a complex carb (one of the better sugars) and approximately forty-five percent to sixty-five percent as sweet as sucrose. Isomalt is used in candies, gums, ice cream, jams and jellies, fillings and frostings, beverages and baked products. As a sweetener/bulking agent, it has no off-flavors and works well in combination with other sweeteners.

4. Lactitol is a sweet-tasting complex carb (another good sugar) derived from lactose. Lactitol provides the bulk and texture of sugar with half the calories. Thirty percent to forty percent as sweet as sucrose, it is used in: baked goods, chewing gum, confections and frostings, frozen dairy desserts and mixes, candy, jams and jellies.

5. Maltitolis a complex carb produced by the hydrogenation of maltose, the sugar found naturally in sprouted grain. It occurs widely in nature in chicory and roasted malt. About 0.9 times as sweet as sucrose with similar sweetness and body, maltitol is suitable for many kinds of candies, gums and mints, and is particularly good for candy coating.

6. Mannitolis a simple carb (simple sugar), approximately 0.7 times as sweet as sucrose. Used as a bulking agent in powdered foods and as a dusting agent for chewing gum (interesting!), excessive consumption of more than twenty grams a day may have a laxative effect. Mannitol has been removed from the GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) list, and is regulated as an 'interim' food additive. This means that its current use is considered safe, but some questions have been raised that must be resolved to fully determine what limitations, if any, should be imposed. Mannitol is permitted for use in many countries, including the United States.

Sorbitol (see below) and mannitol are readily converted in the body to fructose and glucose. The problem with these sweeteners is they are slowly absorbed from the intestines and may produce a laxative or gaseous effect, and may affect blood sugar levels more than the other sugar alcohols, so they may not be the better choice for diabetics.

7. Sorbitolis another simple carb sixty percent as sweet as sucrose. Excessive consumption of more than fifty to eighty grams a day may have a laxative effect. Sorbitol is also a sugar alcohol the body uses slowly. It is called a nutritive sweetener because it actually has four calories in every gram, just like table sugar. Sorbitol is found naturally in fruits and is an ingredient in many sugar-free gums, sugar-free breath mints and dietetic candies.

Did you know that sorbitol is also produced by the body? Too much sorbitol in your cells can cause damage, though. Diabetic retinopathy and neuropathy may be related to too much sorbitol in the cells of the eyes and nerves.

CAUTION: Some foods contain sugars that are absorbed slowly, such as fructose in fruit juice or sorbitol in low-calorie sweets. Through a process called osmosis, these unabsorbed sugars hold onto water in the intestines, which sometimes leads to diarrhea. By reading labels, people with chronic non-infectious diarrhea can easily avoid fruit juice, fructose and sorbitol to see if this eliminates the problem.

8. Xylitol seems to be the “favored child” of the sugar alcohols. It is a simple carb, though, extracted from birch tree pulp. The wood sugar “xylose” was first hydrogenated to produce xylitol in 1891 by the German chemist Emil Fischer. Xylitol has been used since the 1960s in the Soviet Union, Germany, Switzerland and Japan as a favored sweetener for diabetics. Xylitol is also used intravenously for patients with impaired glucose tolerance, i.e. for trauma, burns, and in diabetic and insulin-resistant states.

Xylitol is a naturally occurring sweetener also found in:

• Raspberries
• Strawberries
• Plums
• Corn
• Endive
• Mushrooms

Xylitol does not require insulin to metabolize in the body and does not promote tooth decay. Xylitol has the same sweetness, bulk and caloric value as sucrose, so it is one of the most popular sweetener alternatives used in candies, chewing gum and natural-ingredient toothpastes, foods such as gum drops and hard candy, and in pharmaceuticals and oral health products.

Because xylitol helps prevent plaque and cavities, it is a better choice for sugarless gums than aspartame or sucralose. But in the long term, you are better off using neither sugar nor natural unprocessed sugars. As with most sugar alcohols, consumers with hypoglycemia, Candida or diabetes may react negatively to xylitol.

SOMETHING TO WATCH FOR: Kelly Goyen, Founder/CEO of Empirical Labs has observed children with AD/HD react in the same fashion to Xylitol as to aspartame or high doses of refined sugar. “Xylitol passes through the blood-brain barrier,” Goyen states, “and we have observed at our laboratory that after using Xylitol, hypersensitive children become more “active” shortly after use.”

TAGATOSE, labeled Naturlose® for use in pharmaceuticals and toothpaste, tagatose hopes to “take over the market” according to marketing experts. Tagatose, discovered in 1981, is a partially digestible sugar made from whey. It claims to be all natural and low calorie, and almost as sweet as sucrose. It is being studied for unsafe effects on infants and pregnancy, however. Currently, the license contract for tagatose is tied up in arbitration and its patent as a food additive expires in 2008.

Even though fertility issues are under scrutiny, company executives for Sperix (Naturlose manufacturer) claim their sweetener product enhances fertility and high pregnancy rates in laboratory rats fed tagatose, prevents biofilm (bacteria that forms on teeth and medical instruments) and enhances key blood factors critical to fighting anemia.

Tagatose is synergistic with other sweeteners (which is a plus for sweetener blends in Chapter Four) and can improve texture and “mouth-feel” in sugar-free products. Potential uses for tagatose include candies, gums and mints, ready-to-eat cereal, ice cream and baked goods. The Kellogg Company, Battle Creek, Michigan, has received a patent for the use of tagatose in ready-to-eat cereal and other foods.

TURBINADO® SUGAR is the light brown crystalline substance removed from molasses during the first separation of processing, moving from a complex sugar (that doesn’t pass into the blood stream) to a simple sugar (that passes into the blood). Although Turbinado contains trace nutrients, it is identical to white sugar in the way it is absorbed by the body. Turbinado should be stored in a cool, dry place.                 

A Quick Explanation Of New Sweeteners:

LO HAN: The Chinese plant Lo Han Guo Siraitia grosvenorii is a perennial vine in the cucumber, melon, squash and gourd family. Lo Han fruits are used both inside and outside the People's Republic of China as a food, beverage and traditional medicine. Although millions of Lo Han fruit are consumed worldwide each year, Lo Han fruits in Europe and the United States are mostly sold by Chinese grocery and herb stores. The current uses and potential of Lo Han Guo are as a food, seasoning, beverage or non-caloric sweetener plant.

The Chinese book “Fruit as Medicine” (Dai and Liu, 1986) reports these fruits are used for heat stroke (with thirst), acute and chronic throat inflammation, chronic cough, constipation in the aged, and as a sugar substitute for diabetics. In general, the preparation is to boil or simmer the fruit in water and drink it as an herb tea. As a sugar substitute in cooking, the fruits may be simmered into a thick juice and added to food. The prepared block form called "Luohanguo Chongji" is reported to be a popular treatment for colds in China.

TREHALOSE®: Trehalose is one of the most interesting new sweeteners on the market today, and I felt it was worth including in this chapter primarily due to the “honesty in advertising” the company has expressed about their new product. I should probably classify Trehalose as a grey-area sweetener because no one really knows enough about it to date, yet it appears a solid product backed by sound science. This sweetener is a disaccharide (a good carb) with two glucose molecules (a better choice for diabetics because it is a complex carb), but the thing that impressed me the most is the company’s honesty in admitting that Trehalose is fully digested and metabolized. Finally, someone admits their sweetener is digested! This is the most “natural” form of sugar metabolism.

Cargill Health & Food Technologies, makers of Trehalose, markets the new sweetener for sports drinks. In November 2003, PacificHealth Laboratories, Woodbridge, NJ, announced the launch of a ready-to-drink form of its sports drink, Accelerade®. It provides the energy (from complex sugar carbs) needed in sports, according to the company representatives. I’d rather see an athlete drink pure water for body restoration, but Trehalose appears a better choice than the other artificial sweeteners, and that’s all athletes have to choose from when it comes to low-carb sports drinks and energy bars.

Trehalose is found naturally in honey, mushrooms and other foods. One thing I am concerned about, though, is Trehalose is commercially produced from cornstarch, which can cause allergic reactions and stomach irritations in some people. Its functions include coloring adjunct, flavor enhancer, humectant, nutritive sweetener, stabilizer, thickener and texturizer. Trehalose can also protect and preserve food’s cell structure, which can help maintain food texture during freezing and thawing. Trehalose is found in candies, gums and mints, processed foods, such as dried vegetables and fruits, and dairy and fruit products.

YACÓN®:  Yacón is not a commercial sweetener yet, but look for this natural sweetener coming to the American market in the near future. A distant relative of the sunflower, yacón grows from Venezuela to Argentina in small farm orchards in the inner mountain valleys. Yacón is a natural plant root with a rich sweet flavor. In spite of its sweetness, Yacón is composed of complex plant sugars, so it will not penetrate the intestines and contribute to weight gain. This is also a plus for diabetics because Yacón contains traces of inulin.

Inulin is a chemical believed to improve blood lipid levels and is currently being studied as a pre-cancer nutrient. Recent animal research shows that inulin prevents adverse precancerous changes in the colon. Inulin is recommended for diabetics, and because it is not absorbed into the bloodstream, it does not affect blood sugar levels. Inulin has a mildly sweet taste, and is filling like starchy foods. It is a preferred food for the lactobacilli in the intestine and can improve the balance of friendly bacteria in the bowel.

Yacón can be eaten raw, just like a fruit, and once the roots have been dried in the sun, they become sweeter. Expect this new sweetener sometime in the near future.

Sweetening Tips

Don’t use any added sugars at all. Ideally, learn to appreciate the natural sweetness of your food. The more natural the food, the sweeter the taste. This is always the best option!

Use more spices and herbs when preparing meals instead of adding sweetness.

If eating a dessert, choose a natural fruit. Apples, cheese, grapes, fruits and nuts are common desserts in European countries. If you must sweeten, select from the safe sweetener list.

Honey can be used to replace sugar in a recipe: 3/4 cup of honey can replace one cup of sugar in a recipe. You will have to reduce the liquid by one-half cup for each cup of honey you add to the recipe though.

If you want to cut down on your total intake of sugar, consider decreasing all sugars—white, brown, powdered, raw, as well as honey. You could limit your intake of foods high in sugar to once a week rather than eating sweets daily. Another significant reduction in sugar could be made by adding only one-half to one-third the amount of sugar or honey called for in a recipe. You will be surprised how good cookies taste with half the sugar. There are also many healthy recipes out there that call for no added sugar at all!

Instead of trying so hard to sweeten your food, wouldn’t it be refreshing if you were satisfied with fresh berries or a simple piece of fruit? Maybe this should be your goal—to return your taste buds to normal stimulation. So, have an apple or a cup of berries before you reach for that colored packet of sweetener.

References

Report. The Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA).

0-.alpha.-D-glucopyranosyl-D-sorbitol (1,1-GPS), mannitol, sorbitol, hydrogenated or non-hydrogenated oligosaccharides. http://www.pharmcast.com/Patents/Yr2002/April2002/041602/6372271_Chewing041602.htm

Stevia and Stevioside. Foods Stands Agency. March 27, 2002. http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/webpage/stevia

Stevia toxicity. http://www.Pubmed.com

http://wilstar.com/lowcarb/sugaralcohols.htm

Department of Health & Human Services.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Search&DB=pubmed

Xylitol.http://www.xylipro.com/faq.html

Mung bean. http://www.sproutpeople.com/seed/mung.html

http://www.ethnohealth.com/eng/yac/yacintro.htm

http://medherb.com/92INULIN.HTM

February 24, 2005

Division of Advertising Practices Bureau of Consumer Protection Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20580

To Whom It May Concern:

On behalf of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), I would like to submit a formal complaint against the deception-filled marketing campaign being conducted by Johnson & Johnson's McNeil Nutritionals for its artificial sweetener Splenda. The marketing campaign, which continually uses the word "sugar," is designed to confuse consumers into believing that Splenda is a low-calorie natural sweetener. The OCA advocates for clear, truthful labeling and advertising, and J&J's marketing campaign thumbs its nose at those ideals.

Splenda is made through a complex chemical process that involves toxic chemicals, including phosgene gas. That's hardly a process anyone would link to a natural product. But, through its marketing campaign, J&J is trying to do just that.

J&J understands that more and more consumers are trying to buy natural, organic products. Consumers are trying to eat healthy, natural foods and are closely watching what they put in their bodies. Unfortunately, J&J is attempting to cash in on this trend by deceiving consumers that its product, Splenda, is natural. But Splenda doesn't grow in a field like sugar cane or sugar beets, it's made in a huge chemical plant. By using deliberately confusing marketing techniques, J&J is hurting family farmers across the country who can't compete with chemicals masquerading as natural products.

The most troubling aspect of J&J's misleading marketing campaign is that it has been successful. The Center for Science in the Public Interest learned in a poll that nearly half of Americans have been taken in by J&J's deceptions and believe that Splenda is a natural ingredient. They don't seem to realize that the final product does not contain any sugar whatsoever.

OCA urges consumers to read labels carefully. Whether it's genetically-engineered food or chemically processed additives, consumers shouldn't be led to believe that the products they are buying are natural and come from the earth. Sadly, J&J's campaign hinders consumers' ability to ferret out the truth about Splenda.

Sincerely, Ronnie Cummins - National Director]]> http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/03/letter_from_the.html http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/03/letter_from_the.html Politics Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:36:16 -0600 Lawsuits Put New Focus on Splenda and Other Artificial Sweeteners

By Colette Bouchez

WebMD Medical News          Reviewed By Michael Smith, MD

Feb. 16, 2005 -- Courtroom battles between the makers of Splenda and Equal have many questioning the safety of artificial sweeteners.

Since early 2000 McNeil Nutritionals has been advertising that its product -- Splenda -- is "made from sugar so it tastes like sugar." But the National Sugar Association and Merisant Worldwide (maker of Equal brand sweetener) have challenged that claim in a lawsuit.

McNeil Nutritionals shot back with a countersuit implying the case against them was more about corporate sour grapes than truth in consumer advertising.

But court battles and corporate backstabbing aside, the question on consumers' minds is not so much whether advertising slogans are right or wrong, but do they really make a difference -- at home, on the dinner table where it really counts?

Dietitian Nancy Restuccia, MS, RD, says they most definitely do.

"Splenda is not sugar -- and to piggyback it on to the reputation of the centuries' old profile of sugar is more than misleading, it could come back to haunt us, perhaps sooner than we think," says Restuccia, a nutritionist at the Center for Obesity Surgery at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center in New York City.

Indeed, while there are currently only a handful of studies that question Splenda's safety and more than 100 which attest to its safe use, Restuccia says it simply hasn't been around long enough to amass any long-term data -- or even short-term data involving heavy consumption.

What Happens When Sweeteners Interact?

"Sugar may have its health drawbacks, but at least we know we're not in for any major surprises -- and we just can't say that about Splenda yet -- so to imply that it's got the same profile as sugar is misleading and that is important today, as well as in the long run," she says.

Samantha Heller, MS, RD, agrees. "Saying Splenda is made from sugar is like taking the round wheels off a car and putting on square wheels. Is it still a car? Yes. But can it still perform like a car? No -- and what's more we don't know what's going to happen when people try to 'drive it' cross country," says Heller.

Indeed, while Splenda starts out as sugar, some serious scientific tinkering goes on before it gets into your coffee. As Heller explains, this involves removing three atoms found in sugar and replacing them with three atoms of the chemical chlorine. Some say that form of chlorine is similar to what's found in pesticides -- though in published reports the manufacturer has denied that claim.

But while all that may not matter much to your taste buds, experts say it takes on a new and more important meaning as plans roll out to include Splenda in a wide variety of treats, including more diet sodas, baked goods, and even processed foods.

"It's not like you're going to be using a teaspoon in your coffee once in a while -- it's going to be everywhere, in everything, which makes it even more important for people to understand what they are and are not getting with this product," says Restuccia.

Also important to note: Experts say we have almost no data on the way in which artificial sweeteners interact with each other -- particularly at high amounts. And that, says Restuccia may come back to haunt us even more.

"As more and more products are being made with artificial sweeteners, there is more likelihood that we will not only be consuming more of them but also mixing different ones, sometimes in a single meal -- and we really have no idea what that means health wise, in the short or the long run," says Restuccia.

What About Other Artificial Sweeteners?

The FDA has approved five artificial sweeteners:

• Acesulfame potassium (Sunett)
• Aspartame (NutraSweet or Equal)
• Sucralose (Splenda)
• D-Tagatose (Sugaree)
• Saccharin (Sweet 'N Low)

You may be surprised to see saccharin on that list. In the 1970s, the FDA was going to ban saccharin based on the reports of a Canadian study that showed that saccharin was causing bladder cancer in rats. A public outcry kept saccharin on the shelves (there were no other sugar substitutes at that time), but with a warning label that read, "Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals."

That warning label is no longer needed, says Ruth Kava, PhD, RD, director of nutrition for the American Council on Science and Health. Further research has shown that male rats have a particular pH factor that predisposes them to bladder cancer. "A lot of things that cause harm in animals don't always cause harm in humans," she says.

Like saccharin, aspartame is another artificial sweetener that -- though thoroughly tested by the FDA and deemed safe for the general population -- has had its share of critics who blame the artificial sweetener for causing everything from brain tumors to chronic fatigue syndrome.

Not so, says Kava.

The only people for whom aspartame is a medical problem are those with the genetic condition known as phenylkenoturia (PKU), a disorder of amino acid metabolism. Those with PKU need to keep the levels of phenylalanine in the blood low to prevent mental retardation as well as neurological, behavioral, and dermatological problems. Since phenylalanine is one of the two amino acids in aspartame, people who suffer from PKU are advised not to use it.

Some people can be sensitive to artificial sweeteners and experience symptoms such as headaches and upset stomach, but otherwise, there is no credible information that aspartame -- or any other artificial sweetener -- causes brain tumors, or any other illness, says registered dietitian Wendy Vida, with HealthPLACE, the health and wellness division of Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield in Pittsburgh.

Kava says that since artificial sweeteners are so much sweeter than sugar, a very small amount is needed to achieve the same sweetness one gets from sugar. "If used normally, the amounts you take in are so minuscule as to be of no concern at all."

Another sweetener receiving much publicity of late is stevia, an herbal sweetening ingredient used in food and beverages by South American natives for many centuries and in Japan since the mid-1970s.

According to Ray Sahelian, MD, author of The Stevia Cookbook, stevia has shown no significant side effects after more than 20 years of use in Japan. "There are no indications at this point from any source that stevia has shown toxicity in humans," says Sahelian, though he agrees that further research is warranted.

Because stevia is not FDA-approved, it cannot be sold as an artificial sweetener; however it can be -- and is -- sold as a dietary supplement. Because these supplements are not regulated as well as those that have received FDA approval, and therefore have no guarantee of purity, Kava is leery about the use of stevia. "This is a product that's just asking for good research studies," she says. "We just don't know enough yet."

With reporting by Carol Sorgen.

SOURCES: Nancy Restuccia, MS, RD, Center for Obesity Surgery at NY Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center in New York City; Samantha Heller, MS, RD, senior clinical nutritionist at NYU Medical Center, New York City; Americans Opt for Sweetness and Lite, FDA Consumer, December, 2004; Use of Nutritive and Non-Nutritive Sweeteners, Position Paper, American Dietetic Association. WebMD Feature Archive: "The Truth on Artificial Sweeteners."

People forget that originally, sweetness was actually a by-product of food: nature’s way to encourage living creatures to consume nutritious foods. Forced sweetness, revved-up sweetness, and artificial sweetness - all altered foods - are a trap that addict people to sweeter tastes. 

Artificial sweeteners are marketed as  “being super-sized with more sweetness and no penalty.” People with eating disorders, children who are first learning about healthy food habits, diabetics and those with degenerative illnesses are being seduced by crafty advertising campaigns.  “And the added plethora of laboratory chemicals are entirely unnecessary to put in the public food supply,” says Kelly Goyen, CEO of Empirical Labs.

It’s time to admit that there is no free ticket to eating all the sugar-free products you desire without paying the high price of harming your body in the long run.  The “technology of foods” (artificial sweeteners and manmade foods) has gone too far, and will not secure eternal health, beauty, slimness, or youth.  Laboratory chemicals are not the answer and create an artificial need for more.

“We’ve done a great job of redefining sweetness, and it’s great to see it pay off,” says Anne Rewey, Splenda marketing director for Ft. Washington, Pennsylvania-based McNeil. “We’re committed to the leadership position in this market.”

According to the Conference of the American College of Physicians “we are talking about a plague of neurological diseases caused by these deadly poisons.” (aspartame, sucralose, acesulfame-K)

As an educated consumer, you have a choice.  You can protect yourself from avoidable illnesses by simply being aware of the sweet deception from the chemical sweeteners surrounding you.

What Are Artificial Sweeteners and Why Are They Harmful?

Artificial sweeteners are a mix of unnatural chemicals, combined in a laboratory that the body can’t naturally process.  Basically, these chemicals either accumulate in your vital organs (causing possible damage later), pollute your bloodstream (causing possible damage later), or form the basis for eventual mutations of your cells (causing possible damage later).

NATURE VERSUS MANMADE:  The Key To “Safe” Food

In a nutshell, what nature generally creates for food is typically safe for your body:  whatever man creates for food (from chemicals in the laboratory) may not be accepted by your body as safe and can result in illness.  Our bodies are like machines (only natural) that operate today just as they did thousands of years ago. They don’t “understand” manmade chemicals as a source of nourishment and cannot fully process them. Forcing “foreign” materials into your body is like pouring shampoo into your car’s gas tank: it wasn’t meant to process it, so the engine stalls and stops working, and the chemical by-products obstruct your body systems.

Which Artificial Sweeteners Should You Avoid?

• Sucralose (Splenda®)
• Aspartame (NutraSweet/Equal®)
• Acesulfame-K (Sunett®)
• Neotame®
• Alitame®
• Cyclamate

SPLENDA: THE NEW KID ON THE BLOCK

What Exactly Is Splenda?

Splenda is the trade name for sucralose, a relatively new manmade, artificial sweetener. Johnson & Johnson bought the rights in 1998 to sell sucralose in the United States as Splenda. Its basic characteristics are:

• Its taste is nearly identical to sugar because it’s made from sugar
• Its “trademark” inability to break down in processing or in storage

So why is Splenda potentially harmful?

It contains chlorine, which is a carcinogen.  The Splenda marketers insure the chlorine is chemically “bound” so it cannot be “released” in the body during digestion.  I question that, and wonder if this artificial chemical can safely pass through the human body.  Wait until you read what chlorine can do to the body.  Bad news.

Sucralose (Splenda) is a chlorocarbon - a chlorine-containing compound. The chlorocarbons have long been known for causing organ, genetic, and reproductive damage. It should be no surprise, then, that testing of sucralose revealed organ, genetic, and reproductive damage.  Research on lab rats showed up to forty percent shrinkage of the thymus gland: a gland that is the very foundation of our immune system.  The contamination of water supplies by chlorocarbons is a serious problem in most European countries today, making many people very ill and warranting cancer studies. Due to the chlorine content in Splenda, sucralose can inflame swelling of the liver and kidneys, and calcification of the kidney, as shown in animal studies.  If you experience kidney pain, cramping, or an irritated bladder after using sucralose, stop using it immediately.

Sucralose is patented as a manmade “chlorinated sucrose sweetener” and it is registered as “chlorinated sucrose.”  Chlorinated sucrose is not found anywhere in nature, like real sugar (sucrose) that is extracted from sugar cane and sugar beets. If it were, it would be a carcinogen!

Why is chlorine harmful? Doesn’t it kill germs in my tap water?

Let’s deviate for a moment: Manmade chlorine (found in Splenda) is essentially bleach.  There is natural chlorine found in nature, but it is compounded totally differently from Splenda’s laboratory concoction and the form of chlorine you sterilize your bathroom tile.

Splenda marketers stress that sucralose is “made from sugarbut is derived from this sugar through a process that selectively substitutes three atoms of chlorine for three hydrogen-oxygen groups on the sucrose molecule.”  While this is true, it is a deceptively simple description, implying that sucrose is a simple benign sugar substituted with chlorine, thereby, safe for consumption.  According to research on the hydrolysis of sugars, just the process of inserting chlorine into the sugar molecule (hydrolysis means breaking it into smaller molecules) ultimately allows these chemicals to penetrate the intestinal wall.

As an environmental engineer, I always reference what OSHA (the Federal Occupational Safety and Hazard Association) says in its regulations for toxic chemicals. Here’s what OSHA states concerning manmade chlorine, again the chemical used in Splenda.

OSHA States: Any animal that eats or drinks 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 through the skin.  Currently in Norwegian studies, the safety of chlorine added to the public water supply is being questioned as a cause of cancer.

References

Bellin J. New Scientist. pg 13. Nov 23, 1991.

Federal Register. Vol. 63. No. 64. Rules and Regulations 16417-16433. Friday. April 3, 1998.

Patent info: http://www.cas.org/motw/sucrapub2.html

Chlorine facts: http://www.bidness.com/esd/cl2facts.htm

Grant D.L. Toxicological Evaluation. Division Health and Welfare Canada. For the entire research report, visit the following link: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scf/out68_en.pdf

Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. RC 46.H333, 2001.

Current Medical Diagnosis and Treatment. RC 71.A14, 2004.

Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy. RC 55.M4, 1999.

An unidentifed woman pours Splenda into a cup in a coffee shop in Boston Friday, Dec. 3, 2004. Dieters hoping for a slew of new products with the sugar substitute Splenda may be disappointed next year. That's because the maker of sucralose, the key ingredient behind the increasingly ubiquitous no-calorie sweetener, is having trouble keeping up with demand.

Dieters hoping for a slew of new products with the sugar substitute Splenda may be disappointed next year.

That's because the maker of sucralose, the key ingredient behind the increasingly ubiquitous no-calorie sweetener, is having trouble keeping up with demand.

Tate & Lyle PLC, the world's only manufacturer of sucralose, said interest has so outpaced expectations the company won't take on new U.S. customers until it has doubled production at it's plant in McIntosh, Ala., sometime in early 2006.

The company also plans to open a second plant in Singapore, according to a written statement.

Buoyed by a surge in anti-sugar diets such as Atkins and South Beach, Splenda has enjoyed sweet success since its introduction in 2000, appearing in everything from soda and ice cream to candy and jams.

Splenda, which won fans with its sugar-like sweetness and stability in baking, now dominates the $337 million U.S. retail market for sugar substitutes, beating out aspartame sweetener Equal, made by Chicago-based Merisant Corp.

"Sucralose has one of those problems that's both good and bad to have," said John Sicher, editor of Beverage Digest. "The demand is tremendous. The supply is constrained."

Splenda is sold to consumers as a table and baking sugar substitute by McNeil Nutritionals LLC, a Pennsylvania-based unit of Johnson & Johnson. Consumer sales won't be affected by the tight supply, a company spokeswoman said.

Sales of sucralose to manufacturers as an ingredient for use in other products are handled directly by Tate & Lyle, which is headquartered in London.

How many new sucralose-sweetened products will come to market is difficult to tell, says Sicher. It depends largely on how many products already have been developed and how much sucralose companies bought in advance.

He says it's too soon to tell how the tight supply might affect existing sucralose-based products at large companies, such as Coca-Cola Co.'s low-calorie "C2" cola, but Tate & Lyle said the Alabama plant will meet the needs of existing customers.

A Coke spokeswoman wouldn't comment.

Small companies hoping to expand or introduce low-cal products likely will face the most trouble.

Atkins Nutritionals helped spur Splenda's surge by endorsing its use in the company's hugely popular low-carb diet. Matthew Wiant, chief marketing officer for Atkins, estimates sucralose is used in as many as 10,000 products. But he doesn't think companies will have a problem switching to other sweeteners if they can't get it.

Lyn Nabors of the Calorie Control Council, a nonprofit trade group, said more companies probably will switch to sugar and sweetener blends, which have fewer calories but require less of the substitute.

Companies who insist on pure sucralose may have to delay new products, she said.

Dan Conner, a co-owner of Conner Bottle Works, a small Newfields, N.H., company that makes old-fashioned glass-bottled sodas, started feeling the Splenda squeeze two months ago. That's when he got a letter from Tate & Lyle telling him he could buy only small amounts of sucralose each month.

He said that for many years his company resisted making diet sodas because the available sugar substitutes didn't taste right. But sucralose was different, and this year Conner added two diet sodas.

But with supplies tightening, Conner now hopes another company will introduce a sucralose competitor, since the cost of sucralose has jumped significantly.

"Maybe we'll get some price wars going to help people like myself," he said.

Merisant, which acquired the Equal business from Monsanto Co. in 2000, recently sued McNeil Nutritionals, accusing it of false advertising by claiming Splenda is made from sugar.

McNeil Nutritionals claims the lawsuit is without merit, saying sucralose starts as cane sugar. Copyright 2004, The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP Online news report may not be published, broadcast or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.]]> http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/02/should_be_diete.html http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/02/should_be_diete.html News Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:56:32 -0600 Jupiter man leads new player into sweetener market
By Susan Salisbury
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 06, 2005

susan_salisbury@pbpost.com http://www.palmbeachpost.com/business/content/business/epaper/2005/02/06/a1f_neotame_0206.html

For those keeping track of these things, the average stick of chewing gum holds its flavor about seven minutes.

So says Mike Scott, who adds that he's got something better: a sweetener so powerful it will keep Juicy Fruit doing the tropical mambo on your taste buds for a full half-hour.

That product is called neotame, and its advocates say it's the coming thing in artificial sweeteners.

"Neotame is 8,000 times sweeter than sugar," said Scott, 50, a Jupiter resident who heads Sweetener Solutions LLC of Savannah, Ga., a strategic partner of the NutraSweet Co. of Chicago, which invented neotame and saw it win Food and Drug Administration approval in 2002.

Artificial sweeteners such as aspartame (Equal), saccharin (Sweet 'N Low) and the most recent sensation, sucralose (Splenda), are part of the $2.1 billion sweeteners market, which includes natural substances such as sugar and honey.

But there's more to the story than the American craving for something sweet. Neotame and its partners stand to play a key role in the growing demand by consumers for no-calorie products that taste good but won't add to the obesity epidemic.

Look to this year as a major one in that development, analysts say. "2005 will be the year of food and nutrition," said Kantha Shelke, a food scientist who has worked for major food manufacturers such as The Pillsbury Co. and is a principal at Corvus Blue LLC, a Chicago food science and research firm. "Every component of the food business will have a healthier innovation. It is a huge push."

Demand for high-intensity, no-calorie sweeteners as food additives is projected to increase 8.2 percent a year to $89 million in 2008, according to Atlanta-based market analysts The Freedonia Group. Use of artificial sweeteners by beverage manufacturers is expected to grow to $321 million from $274 million in 2001.

The much-publicized shortage of Splenda, used in more than 4,000 products by food and beverage companies, has boosted interest in neotame, Scott said.

Tate & Lyle PLC, the London-based manufacturer of sucralose, said in December it will not take on new customer requests for the product until expansions at a plant in McIntosh, Ala., come on line in early 2006.

That tight supply is an opportunity for other sweeteners such as neotame, Shelke said.

"I believe there is a lot of opportunity in the current non-caloric sweetener market. It's ripe for the picking," she said.

Neotame isn't sold directly to consumers in bulk or even in tiny packets. Instead, it appears as an ingredient on the labels of more than 350 products, including Hershey's Ice Breakers Liquid Ice mints and Roman Meal Carb Aware wheat bread.

At its plant in Pooler, Ga., Sweetener Solutions blends neotame with sweeteners such as sugar, aspartame and Ace-K and sells the five blends to food and beverage manufacturers.

Univar USA, based in Kirkland, Wash., the largest national distributor of food ingredients in the United States, distributes the blends as well as neotame itself. Neotame's selling points are its clean taste and its high potency, giving manufacturers a way to save money because smaller amounts of neotame can replace larger amounts of other sweeteners, including sugar and fructose, Scott said.

Sweetener Solutions and Univar, in conjunction with food chemists at NutraSweet, work closely with food and beverage manufacturers to reformulate their products to make the switch to neotame.

Sugar makers sue

Herr Foods Inc. of Nottingham, Pa., was trying to find the right balance of sweetness and texture in formulating its Honey Wheat Pretzels, introduced in 2004. "We were having difficulty with conventional sweeteners like sugar and honey and even substitutes such as Splenda. One of our suppliers suggested we try neotame," said Phil Bernas, Herr's manufacturing and technical manager. "Neotame gave us the most amount of sweetness for the least amount of volume."

Another company that uses neotame is Dairy House, a St. Louis-based firm that makes fruit juice beverage concentrates that it sells to dairies, which reconstitute and bottle them. Dairy House wanted to cut the calories in its products and sought out the new sweetener.

"It helps sweeten the product, gives it a cleaner taste and cuts the calories by 25 percent," said Bill Bowen, Dairy House vice president of sales. "We can replace some of the corn syrup with neotame and help people who want to lose a little bit of weight."

Sales of plain sugar in dollar terms have fallen 4.8 percent since 2002, according to Mintel International Group Ltd. But the old standby still retains a 41 percent share of the market.

Florida's sugar industry has been under pressure from trade agreements, declining sugar consumption and low prices, but it has traditionally not been affected much by non-caloric sweeteners, said Barbara J. Miedema, spokeswoman for the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida in Belle Glade, one of three companies producing sugar in the state.

The largest impact on sugar has come from beverage manufacturers, who switched to high-fructose corn syrup years ago.

"When Equal came out, we thought we would see another huge decline in the use of sugar," Miedema said. "That didn't happen. People would feel righteous because they had a diet soft drink, then they would go ahead and indulge in a Twinkie or something else. It did not satisfy their craving for something sweet."

Still, three-fourths of the gains made by Splenda have come from consumers who switched from sugar, and one-fourth from consumers who ditched other low-calorie sweeteners, said Monica Neufang, spokeswoman for McNeil Nutritionals, the division of Johnson & Johnson that sells the Splenda made by Tate & Lyle. "Splenda has buoyed the entire sweetener category," Neufang said.

McNeil is the subject of a half-dozen lawsuits from groups that say its advertising portraying Splenda as something that's made from sugar and tastes like sugar is deceptive, because sucralose is a sugar molecule that contains chlorine atoms. One of the suits has been filed by The Sugar Association, a Washington-based trade group whose membership includes the cooperative, Clewiston-based U.S. Sugar and Florida Crystals Corp. of West Palm Beach.

In addition, the association has hired an advertising firm to spearhead a campaign against Splenda and is also working on a separate major campaign to promote sugar.

"We are not concerned about competition as long as it is fair competition," said Sugar Association spokeswoman Melanie Miller. "We think consumers are being misled about Splenda."

In the short term, the future looks good for neotame, the newest entrant in the market.

For one thing, neotame is much cheaper than sucralose, and Shelke of Corvus Blue said because of the current shortage of Splenda, some smaller companies were left out.

"With 2006 looming ahead, they have been told they can't get Splenda until then," she said. "They would be very motivated to try another ingredient."

Sweetener Solutions' Scott said the push for less expensive high-intensity sweeteners such as the fresh-tasting neotame comes from the food and beverage industry.

"We are not doing this as a way to attack sugar," Scott said. "We are doing it because manufacturers are asking for it. We have the most cost-effective sweetener in the business."

And then there's the appeal of tradition. Shelke said sugar always will set the gold standard for taste and the way it works in foods.

"The reason why the old-fashioned chocolate cake will never die is that on your wedding day, you are not going to have an artificial cake," Shelke said. "Every sweetener tries to re-create what sugar does, and they have never succeeded completely.

"It's just like nobody can replace your mom. There is always something that will be missing."

Copyright © 2005, The Palm Beach Post. All rights reserved. By using PalmBeachPost.com, you accept the terms of our visitor agreement. Please read it. Contact PalmBeachPost.com]]> http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/02/are_splenda_sho_1.html http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/02/are_splenda_sho_1.html News Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:48:38 -0600 (The following is a corporate-generated article.)
http://www.jnj.com/news/jnj_news/20040121_101952.htm

American Diabetes Association and McNeil Nutritionals, Maker of SPLENDA® Brand Products, Announce Sponsorship SPLENDA®, the Nation's Number-One No Calorie Sweetener, Supports National Diabetes Cause

New York, NY (January 20, 2004) – McNeil Nutritionals, maker of SPLENDA® Brand products, announced today that it has provided the American Diabetes Association (ADA) with a sponsorship to support the Association's efforts to fund research, information and advocacy programs on behalf of people with diabetes. This is just one example of how the makers of SPLENDA® have demonstrated their commitment to the diabetes cause.

McNeil Nutritionals' support is helping to ensure that the ADA will be able to continue to pursue its mission by providing support to people with diabetes and their families, especially in the area of educational initiatives and youth programs. As part of this support, the makers of SPLENDA® are helping to reach out to approximately three million people through an ADA pre-diabetes public awareness effort as the sole sponsor of the ADA's publication, "Pre-diabetes – What Is It and What Can I Do?" The 12-fold brochure defines pre-diabetes and its risks and provides insight into how to prevent or delay type two diabetes through physical activity and weight loss.

The makers of SPLENDA® are also supporting the Association's camp program for children with diabetes, which has been in existence for more than 50 years and operates nearly 100 camps and retreats nationwide. Additionally, the makers of SPLENDA® are supporting the Association's Wizdom YouthZone® Web site, which provides children and their families with a fun, interactive way to learn about living with diabetes and good diabetes care as it relates to food, exercise and medication.

"The American Diabetes Association greatly appreciates the support of McNeil Nutritionals, the makers of SPLENDA®, as part of our ongoing mission to prevent and cure diabetes and to improve the lives of all people affected by diabetes," said Vaneeda Bennett, chief development officer for the American Diabetes Association. "Support from organizations like this, which have already enhanced the lives of so many people with diabetes, provide excellent opportunities to further develop information and programs that enable people affected by diabetes to live fuller lives."

The makers of SPLENDA® will also be contributing a number of diabetes-friendly recipes to the Association's Web site, www.diabetes.org. Because it retains its sweet taste during cooking and baking, SPLENDA® No Calorie Sweetener is used by more and more people with diabetes as a main ingredient in many of their recipes.

The makers of SPLENDA® have also supported the ADA's Philadelphia Tour De Cure, a fundraising bicycle event, as well as the ADA 2003 Scientific Sessions' Council on Nutrition. Additionally, the makers of SPLENDA® No Calorie Sweetener have incorporated the ADA's Proud Sponsor logo into its products' packaging.

"At McNeil Nutritionals, we are committed to improving the lives of people with diabetes, and are making this possible, partly through our sponsorship of the ADA," said Colin Watts, president of McNeil Nutritionals Worldwide. "We are especially excited about the positive impact we have had on the ADA's many youth and family programs. It is extremely rewarding to see how the ADA Camps for Children with Diabetes and the Wizdom Youth Program have significantly helped kids and their families living with diabetes."

SPLENDA® No Calorie Sweetener is available to consumers in packets, as well as in a granular form that measures cup for cup like sugar. In the two-and-a-half years since its launch in September 2000, SPLENDA® has become America's favorite sweetener for home use, attracting users of other no calorie sweeteners as well as users of sugar itself.

About the American Diabetes Association

The American Diabetes Association is the nation's premier voluntary health organization supporting diabetes research, information and advocacy. Founded in 1940, the Association has offices in every region of the country, providing services to hundreds of communities. The Association's commitment to research is reflected through its scientific meetings; education and provider recognition programs; and its Research Foundation and Nationwide Research Program, which fund breakthrough studies looking into the cure, prevention, and treatment of diabetes and its complications.

About SPLENDA® Brand

SPLENDA® Brand products are produced by McNeil Nutritionals, Division of McNeil-PPC, Inc. SPLENDA® No Calorie Sweetener products are available at retail stores in packet and granular form. SPLENDA® Brand Sweetener is also used in more than 3,000 products of major food brands worldwide.

About McNeil Nutritionals

McNeil Nutritionals, with headquarters in Fort Washington, PA, markets innovative nutritional products. In addition to SPLENDA® No Calorie Sweetener, its major brands include VIACTIV® Soft Calcium Chews, LACTAID® Milk and Dietary Supplements, and BENECOL® Spreads and SoftGels.]]> http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/02/american_diabet.html http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/02/american_diabet.html News Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:46:29 -0600 IMPORTANT SPLENDA LAWSUIT: © Copyright Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved. The information contained in this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of Reuters Ltd.

J&J faces lawsuits over Splenda marketing campaign By Sophie Walker

WASHINGTON, Jan 31 (Reuters) - Johnson & Johnson is facing a raft of lawsuits over a marketing campaign related to its artificial sweetener Splenda, which accuse the company of misleading buyers to believe Splenda is a natural product.

Splenda, which has enjoyed rapid sales growth on the back of a boom in low-carbohydrate eating in the last couple of years, is marketed by J&J's McNeil Nutritionals Worldwide division with the line: "Splenda No Calorie Sweetener is made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar."

But the Sugar Association says the marketing pitch does not accurately reflect the end product and is misleading because it gives the impression that Splenda contains natural sugar.

McNeil faces three class-action suits from individuals, one from the Sugar Association and one from Merisant Worldwide Inc, the maker of rival low-calorie sweetener products including Equal and Canderel.

"Johnson & Johnson is misinforming consumers about the reality of the chlorinated product Splenda," said James Murphy, counsel for the Sugar Association, whose lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, a nationwide injunction and corrective advertising.

"We feel the public needs to be aware that Splenda is an artificial chemical sweetener. Splenda is created with chlorine, and the final product does not have sugar in it," he said.

Splenda's Web Site (www.splenda.com) says the product is made "through a patented process that starts with sugar and converts it to a no calorie, noncarbohydrate sweetener. The process selectively replaces three hydrogen-oxygen groups on the sugar molecule with three chlorine atoms."

A spokeswoman for McNeil Nutritional told Reuters that the lawsuits had no merit.

"Consumers are utilizing no-calorie sweeteners versus other sweeteners like sugar, and you would have to draw your own conclusions about why now these efforts are being launched." said Monica Neufang, director of communications for McNeil,

"We have never represented Splenda as being natural," she said.

MARKET SHARE

Splenda has just over 50 percent of the U.S. market for low calorie sweeteners, based on dollar volume, according to data collected by IRI and made available to Reuters by McNeil.

It is used in products which include Kool-Aid Jammers 10 tropical Punch drink, produced by Kraft Foods .

"Obviously, any organization that represents the sugar growers of the world would like to have people know what they are buying when they are buying a sweetener," said Dan Collister, attorney at Squire, Sanders and Dempsey, acting for the Sugar Association.

Separately, the Texas Consumer Association said on Monday it had asked the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to investigate the Splenda marketing campaign.

"With consumers across the country concerned about their health and trying to eat more natural foods, it is alarming that McNeil is engaged in an underhanded campaign to confuse consumers into believing Splenda is natural," commented Sandra Haverlah, president of the Texas Consumer Association.

Haverlah said she was working with the Consumer Federation Network and was not associated with the groups bringing suits against Splenda.

No one from Merisant was available for comment. 01/31/05 19:22 © Copyright Reuters Ltd. ]]> http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/02/johnson_johnson.html http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/02/johnson_johnson.html News Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:36:24 -0600 Generation Green is an advocacy group made up of parents and other concerned citizens throughout the United States favoring corporate and governmental policies to secure children grow up protected from exposure to harmful toxins. They have taken a public stand against Splenda, and sent the following letter to the Federal Trade Commission lodging a formal complaint against their advertising practices, as well as the toxic quality of the chlorine used to manufacture Splenda.

January 13, 2005 Generation Green P.O. Box 7027 Evanston, IL 60201

Division of Advertising Practices Bureau of Consumer Protection Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20580

Re: Misleading Advertising of Sucralose/Splenda

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing on behalf of Generation Green and its member families. We work with parents and other concerned citizens to advocate for corporate and governmental policies that will allow children to grow up protected from exposure to toxins. We place great importance on protecting the consumer's right to know about chemical exposure, particularly related to food so that people are able to make informed decisions, especially with respect to their children's health. With this in mind, we are writing to lodge a formal complaint and seek the Federal Trade Commission's investigation of advertising by McNeil Nutritionals LLC, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson (collectively "Company") for the artificial sweetener Sucralose under the brand-name Splenda ("Splenda").

Our investigation suggests that the Company has no reasonable basis for its marketing slogan "made from SUGAR so it tastes like SUGAR," nor can it substantiate claims that the Splenda is "natural." To the contrary, Splenda is a chemically created product in which sugar molecules are chemically manipulated through chlorination and other processes so as to be completely unrecognizable as sugar. The legal requirement of advertising substantiation- that advertisers and ad agencies have a reasonable basis for advertising claims before they are disseminated-is especially important when consumer health and safety is at issue, such as in a food additive like Splenda.

Without substantiation of its marketing claims, Splenda now holds over a third of the sweetener market only six years after its approval as a food additive by the FDA in 1998. This remarkable growth is attributed to the perception that Splenda is natural and sugar-based. This perception is the result of the Company's intentional efforts to mislead consumers regarding the product. The slogan "made from SUGAR so it tastes like SUGAR" seeks to mislead and confuse consumers into believing that Splenda is a natural product of sugar. It is a deceptive claim. The first step in manufacturing Splenda is the chlorination of sugar. This process chemically changes the structure of the sugar molecules by substituting three chlorine atoms for three hydroxyl groups. Following chlorination, a further chemical process is applied using phosgene, a poisonous gas described by the Centers for Disease Control as a major industrial chemical used to make plastics and pesticides. Notably, the Splenda label does not and cannot list sugar as an ingredient, as sugar is not recognizable in the final product.(1)

Nonetheless, the Company encourages consumer confusion by continually highlighting the word "sugar" in its advertising campaign, seeking to bolster the false association between Splenda and sugar in consumers' minds. Interestingly, the Company's own scientists have conceded in technical journals that any casual link between sucrose and the sweet taste of Splenda is "impossible to prove." Although the Company does not label Splenda as "natural," its broader advertising efforts effectively have conveyed that product as natural. Consider:

* The Philadelphia Inquirer published an article in February 2004 where a physician specializing in internal medicine advised the mother of a saccharin user to consider Equal/Nutrasweet or "the natural low calorie sweetener Splenda."

* In the Sun Herald (Biloxi, MS), a syndicated food columnist described Splenda as a "natural, nonnutritive sweetener."

* When asked by a consumer online whether Splenda could be harmful, Dr. Arthur Agatston, the well-known cardiologist and author of the South Beach Diet, said "Splenda is natural."

This is a dangerous development, as the product is anything but natural.

Recently, the Company expanded its campaign advertising Splenda as a sugar product, now selling Splenda as a sugar substitute for use in baking. The marketing of this new use is an effort to further confuse consumers and reinforce the notion that Splenda is a sugar product. This expanded campaign also is likely to result in the ingestion of Splenda in significantly larger quantities-not simply as a food additive but as a major ingredient to fundamental foodstuffs. Notably, with the introduction of this baking product, Splenda is now cutting into the market share not only of artificial sweeteners but of natural sweeteners like sugar itself. The fact that Splenda is now competing directly with natural sweeteners suggests the extraordinary success of the Company's deceptive advertising campaign that Splenda is natural and sugar-based.

Many of the Splenda ads focus on images of children; these ads convey the message that Splenda is a better, more natural product for children than other artificial sweeteners. These ads aim to encourage children to eat low sugar products suggesting that "low sugar" and "with Splenda" means the product is healthier. In one television commercial, a child's voice says "Splenda and spice and everything nice. That's what little girls are made of." over video of children playing. This advertisement clearly equates Splenda with sugar (replacing "sugar" with "Splenda" in a common expression) and emphasizes the use of the product for children.

Moreover, Splenda's product expansion has focused on creating "low sugar" products like snack foods, breakfast cereals and soda. These products are the types of products children are most likely to choose for themselves. Together, this product expansion marks a clear intention by the Company to target, not only parents, but also children, a less discerning audience, with its misleading advertising.

If, as there appears, the company has no basis for suggesting that Splenda and sugar are closely linked and equally natural products, the FTC should halt the Company's extensive marketing campaign and require the Company to provide substantiation for its marketing claims or disseminate accurate information to its consumers.

Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.

(1) Instead, Splenda's listed ingredients are dextrose, maltodextrin, and the synthetic sweetening compound 4-chloro-4deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranosyl-1, 6dichloro-1, 6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranoside.

Generation Green CONTACT: Bob Brandon, Project Director of Generation Green, +1-202-331-1550]]> http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/02/generation_gree.html http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/02/generation_gree.html News Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:35:22 -0600 Splenda Marketing Campaign Seeks to Mislead, Confuse Consumers; Generation Green Asks the FTC to Investigate

PRNewswire Thursday - January 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 /PRNewswire/ -- Generation Green today called on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate the misleading marketing campaign being conducted by Johnson & Johnson's McNeil Nutritionals LLC for its artificial sweetener, Splenda.

"McNeil is intentionally misleading and confusing consumers into believing that Splenda is natural by repeatedly using the word 'sugar' in its advertising campaign," said Generation Green Executive Director Rochelle Davis. "This couldn't be farther from the truth. Splenda is a man-made chemical compound unrecognizable as sugar."

Given that McNeil has absolutely no basis for suggesting that Splenda and sugar are closely linked and equally natural products, Generation Green's letter urges FTC regulators to halt McNeil's misleading advertising campaign and to compel the company to disseminate accurate information to its customers.

Generation Green is an advocacy group made up of parents and other concerned citizens favoring corporate and governmental policies that will allow children to grow up protected from exposure to toxins.

"Any substance whose listed ingredients include 4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D- galactopyranosyl-1 cannot be considered natural," Ms. Davis said. Phosgene, one of the chemicals used in making Splenda is described by the Centers for Disease Control as a major industrial chemical used to make plastics and pesticides. "Parents need to have accurate information in order to make appropriate food choices for their families," she added.

McNeil has no reasonable basis for its marketing slogan, "made from SUGAR so its tastes like SUGAR." In fact, Splenda is a chemically created product that uses chemicals such as chlorine and phosgene, a poisonous gas. Moreover, the Splenda ingredient label doesn't even list sugar as an ingredient.

McNeil's own scientists have even conceded that any casual link between sucrose and Splenda's sweet taste is "impossible to prove." The complex chemical process involved in making Splenda is hardly what a consumer would expect from a sweetener being touted as being "made from sugar."

Recently, the company expanded its advertising campaign to include a new Splenda product that can be used as a sugar substitute in baking. According to the letter, the marketing of this new use is an effort to further confuse consumers and reinforce the notion that Splenda is a sugar product.

Notably, with the introduction of this baking product, Splenda is now cutting into the market share not only of artificial sweeteners but of natural sweeteners like sugar itself. The fact that Splenda is now competing directly with natural sweeteners suggests the extraordinary success of the company's deceptive message that Splenda is natural and sugar-based.

Although McNeil hasn't labeled Splenda as natural, its advertising efforts have certainly conveyed that message effectively. The Generation Green letter cites a disturbing examples of this perception that Splenda is natural. In one such example, Dr. Arthur Agatston, a well-known cardiologist and author of the South Beach Diet said "Splenda is natural," when asked by a consumer during an on-line forum whether Splenda could be harmful. According to Ms. Davis, "this is a dangerous development, as the product is anything but natural."

Advertisers and ad agencies must have a reasonable basis for advertising claims, and this requirement is especially important when consumer health and safety is at issue.

"Generation Green is especially concerned that many of the Splenda ads focus on images of children and emphasize the use of Splenda for children," said Davis. "What's more, as Splenda shows up in products like breakfast cereals, reduced calorie fruit juices and snack foods, the impact of McNeil's deceptive advertising, if it is allowed to continue, is inevitably going to be much greater consumption of this unnatural product by our children. Parents have the right to know that Splenda is not just like sugar," Davis concluded.

The text of the letter follows:

January 13, 2005 Generation Green P.O. Box 7027 Evanston, IL 60201

Division of Advertising Practices Bureau of Consumer Protection Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20580

Re: Misleading Advertising of Sucralose/Splenda

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing on behalf of Generation Green and its member families. We work with parents and other concerned citizens to advocate for corporate and governmental policies that will allow children to grow up protected from exposure to toxins. We place great importance on protecting the consumer's right to know about chemical exposure, particularly related to food so that people are able to make informed decisions, especially with respect to their children's health. With this in mind, we are writing to lodge a formal complaint and seek the Federal Trade Commission's investigation of advertising by McNeil Nutritionals LLC, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson (collectively "Company") for the artificial sweetener Sucralose under the brand-name Splenda ("Splenda").

Our investigation suggests that the Company has no reasonable basis for its marketing slogan "made from SUGAR so it tastes like SUGAR," nor can it substantiate claims that the Splenda is "natural." To the contrary, Splenda is a chemically created product in which sugar molecules are chemically manipulated through chlorination and other processes so as to be completely unrecognizable as sugar. The legal requirement of advertising substantiation- that advertisers and ad agencies have a reasonable basis for advertising claims before they are disseminated-is especially important when consumer health and safety is at issue, such as in a food additive like Splenda.

Without substantiation of its marketing claims, Splenda now holds over a third of the sweetener market only six years after its approval as a food additive by the FDA in 1998. This remarkable growth is attributed to the perception that Splenda is natural and sugar-based. This perception is the result of the Company's intentional efforts to mislead consumers regarding the product. The slogan "made from SUGAR so it tastes like SUGAR" seeks to mislead and confuse consumers into believing that Splenda is a natural product of sugar. It is a deceptive claim. The first step in manufacturing Splenda is the chlorination of sugar. This process chemically changes the structure of the sugar molecules by substituting three chlorine atoms for three hydroxyl groups. Following chlorination, a further chemical process is applied using phosgene, a poisonous gas described by the Centers for Disease Control as a major industrial chemical used to make plastics and pesticides. Notably, the Splenda label does not and cannot list sugar as an ingredient, as sugar is not recognizable in the final product.(1)

Nonetheless, the Company encourages consumer confusion by continually highlighting the word "sugar" in its advertising campaign, seeking to bolster the false association between Splenda and sugar in consumers' minds. Interestingly, the Company's own scientists have conceded in technical journals that any casual link between sucrose and the sweet taste of Splenda is "impossible to prove." Although the Company does not label Splenda as "natural," its broader advertising efforts effectively have conveyed that product as natural. Consider:

* The Philadelphia Inquirer published an article in February 2004 where a physician specializing in internal medicine advised the mother of a saccharin user to consider Equal/Nutrasweet or "the natural low calorie sweetener Splenda."

* In the Sun Herald (Biloxi, MS), a syndicated food columnist described Splenda as a "natural, nonnutritive sweetener."

* When asked by a consumer online whether Splenda could be harmful, Dr. Arthur Agatston, the well-known cardiologist and author of the South Beach Diet, said "Splenda is natural."

This is a dangerous development, as the product is anything but natural.

Recently, the Company expanded its campaign advertising Splenda as a sugar product, now selling Splenda as a sugar substitute for use in baking. The marketing of this new use is an effort to further confuse consumers and reinforce the notion that Splenda is a sugar product. This expanded campaign also is likely to result in the ingestion of Splenda in significantly larger quantities-not simply as a food additive but as a major ingredient to fundamental foodstuffs. Notably, with the introduction of this baking product, Splenda is now cutting into the market share not only of artificial sweeteners but of natural sweeteners like sugar itself. The fact that Splenda is now competing directly with natural sweeteners suggests the extraordinary success of the Company's deceptive advertising campaign that Splenda is natural and sugar-based.

Many of the Splenda ads focus on images of children; these ads convey the message that Splenda is a better, more natural product for children than other artificial sweeteners. These ads aim to encourage children to eat low sugar products suggesting that "low sugar" and "with Splenda" means the product is healthier. In one television commercial, a child's voice says "Splenda and spice and everything nice. That's what little girls are made of." over video of children playing. This advertisement clearly equates Splenda with sugar (replacing "sugar" with "Splenda" in a common expression) and emphasizes the use of the product for children.

Moreover, Splenda's product expansion has focused on creating "low sugar" products like snack foods, breakfast cereals and soda. These products are the types of products children are most likely to choose for themselves. Together, this product expansion marks a clear intention by the Company to target, not only parents, but also children, a less discerning audience, with its misleading advertising.

If, as there appears, the company has no basis for suggesting that Splenda and sugar are closely linked and equally natural products, the FTC should halt the Company's extensive marketing campaign and require the Company to provide substantiation for its marketing claims or disseminate accurate information to its consumers.

Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.

(1) Instead, Splenda's listed ingredients are dextrose, maltodextrin, and the synthetic sweetening compound 4-chloro-4deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranosyl-1, 6dichloro-1, 6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranoside. Generation Green

CONTACT: Bob Brandon, Project Director of Generation Green, +1-202-331-1550]]> http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/02/splenda_marketi.html http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/02/splenda_marketi.html News Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:33:34 -0600 By MELANIE WARNER

Published: December 22, 2004

Vance Collins, the chief executive of Fuze Beverage, had planned to introduce three more flavors in the company's fast-growing line of Slenderize juice and tea drinks next year. But now, he will introduce only one.

Cadbury Schweppes will be selling two new Snapple flavors beginning in January but is rethinking what other new products it will be able to offer next year.

The problem, these companies say, is that they cannot get enough sucralose, the no-calorie artificial sweetener that has grown from a tiny piece of the sweetener market four years ago to a major player this year. In fact, sold under the brand name Splenda, its yellow packets are now more popular than the blue packets of Equal and the pink ones of Sweet'N Low.

The company that makes sucralose, Tate & Lyle of London, informed customers last month that it could not keep up with demand and that all shipments would have to be rationed on a monthly basis and calculated from past sales.

"Tate & Lyle has decided that we will not be in a position to supply any new customers effective today," Tate & Lyle's vice president for sales, Robert Turner, wrote. Because sucralose is under patent, there are no other manufacturers.

Driven by low-carb dieting and the general desire of many Americans to cut calories, sales of sucralose have skyrocketed over the last year. Its little yellow packets carry the tagline "Made from sugar so it tastes like sugar." Some consumers and health professionals have interpreted this to mean sucralose is less of a chemical than other major artificial sweeteners like aspartame (marketed as Equal and NutraSweet) or saccharin (Sweet'N Low). Dr. Arthur Agatston, a cardiologist and deviser of the South Beach Diet, has endorsed sucralose and has plugged it as "natural."

Manufacturers love it because it has at least twice the shelf life of aspartame. And unlike aspartame, it does not react to heat and can be easily used in baking and in products like yogurt and cereal that use high temperatures during their manufacture.

Even though the market for artificial sweeteners has grown, the success of sucralose has left its rivals struggling. Losses have been particularly acute in the American market for tabletop sweeteners. For Merisant Worldwide, a company in Chicago that makes Equal, its share of the American tabletop sweetener market dropped to 19.4 percent as of Oct. 31 from 23.7 percent last year, according to Information Resources Inc., a market research firm. Sweet'N Low's share also declined, to 15.6 percent from 17.8 percent. The share for Splenda, which is sold by McNeil Nutritionals, a division of Johnson & Johnson, under a long-term contract with Tate & Lyle, has risen to 48.5 percent from 37.3 percent a year ago.

For Tate & Lyle, which also makes traditional sugar products and more than 100 kinds of food starches, the sucralose supply constraints are good problems to have. Thanks in large part to sucralose, which carries much higher margins than the company's other products, profits were up 9 percent for the six months that ended Sept. 30. Since January, Tate & Lyle's shares, which trade on the London Stock Exchange, have soared 54 percent.

The combination of low-carb dieting and the popularity of sucralose among manufacturers has led to a much wider universe of food products that are artificially sweetened. According to Productscan Online, the number of new products introduced each year using sucralose continues to soar, from 573 new products last year to 1,330 through Dec. 13 of this year. Many of these are not just traditional candidates for artificial sweeteners like sodas and gum, but foods like salad dressings, orange juice, breakfast cereal and bread.

Manufacturers say they believe that adding synthetic sweeteners will make their products more appealing to consumers who are conscious about eating less sugar, which, according to the NPD Group, a market research firm, is currently 22 percent of all Americans.

Paul R. Block, the chief executive of Equal's maker, Merisant, acknowledged in a recent interview that the brand had become "a little bit dusty." Mr. Block said he was focused on doing a better job on the marketing and packaging of Equal. He also said that Merisant was considering creating different flavors of Equal. He declined to elaborate.

The NutraSweet Company, which sells aspartame to food and beverage companies, is hitching its future to a new sweetener called neotame, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2002. The chemical is far sweeter than any of its competitors, so manufacturers will need less of it to sweeten their products, resulting in a cost that is nearly half that of sucralose, according to NutraSweet's chief executive, Craig R. Petray. Mr. Petray said the first products with neotame would reach the market in the next 6 to 12 months. NutraSweet is a unit of J. W. Childs Associates.

In the meantime, Merisant hopes to take some of the air out of Splenda's success with a lawsuit filed on Nov. 26. The suit contends that McNeil's marketing is elaborately misleading and intended to trick consumers into thinking sucralose is similar to sugar. "There is no sugar in Splenda and Splenda's sweet taste does not come from sugar," the lawsuit says. "The truth is that Splenda is sweetened with a synthetic compound that is the result of a complex chemical process."

Two weeks later, on Dec. 10, the Sugar Association also fired a legal shot at McNeil, filing a lawsuit contending that McNeil has "positioned Splenda to compete in the market for wholesome, natural sweeteners, like sugar, molasses and honey." Tate & Lyle is not mentioned in either lawsuit because it has not been involved in Splenda's marketing.

According to the McNeil Web site, sucralose is made by adding chlorine to sugar. Aspartame is not made from sugar but from two amino acids that are isolated from bacteria. Saccharin is produced from a combination of the flavor chemical methyl anthranilate and ammonia.

McNeil officials said they thought the suit had no merit. "We never represented our product as being natural, only that it is made from sugar," said a McNeil spokeswoman, Monica Neufang. NutraSweet said it was not involved in Merisant's lawsuit.

Not everybody has been so taken by sucralose. Whole Foods Market decided four years ago to remove all products containing sucralose from its stores. Margaret Wittenberg, vice president of marketing and public affairs at Whole Foods, said that she was skeptical of the safety of sucralose and that the product did not fit into the company's philosophy of promoting "real food."

Ms. Wittenberg notes that no long-term human studies have yet been conducted on sucralose and that the 172 studies done so far have been financed by Tate & Lyle, McNeil or organizations representing them. Whole Foods also does not carry products containing aspartame, which has been mired in safety concerns on and off since it was introduced in the early 1980's, or saccharine, which for 20 years carried a warning label that it could cause cancer. That label was removed four years ago after new studies.

David L. Katz, a nutrition specialist who is a professor at the Yale School of Public Health, said he had a problem with all sugar substitutes. He said studies had shown that they did nothing to curb sugar cravings and might even cause overeating. "If people really care about eating healthy, they would consume less processed food and eat things like vegetables, fruit, legumes and fish," he said. Ms. Neufang, of McNeil, said that sucralose was safe and that it had been deemed so by the F.D.A.

The immediate problem for manufacturers is getting enough sucralose for products in development. Tate & Lyle has announced plans to increase its capacity, but those moves - spending $75 million to expand its sole sucralose plant, in McIntosh, Ala., and building a new $175 million plant in Singapore - will not have a significant impact until April 2006.

Coca-Cola and PepsiCo both insist that they will not have supply issues. "I think the big companies will likely be in pretty good shape because they will have the resources to reallocate ingredients globally," said John Sicher, publisher of Beverage Digest.

Pepsi has said that it will reintroduce its no-calorie soda Pepsi One next year with the sweetener, and Beverage Digest has reported that Coke will also offer a sucralose sweetened drink.

But smaller manufacturers say they are hurting. By killing two of Fuze's three planned new drinks, Mr. Collins is forfeiting not only future sales but also several million dollars in promotion fees that were already paid to retailers. This was no small move as Fuze's Slenderize line is growing 75 percent a year and represents more than a third of its sales.

Jim Trebilcock, senior vice president of marketing at Cadbury Schweppes, said that the company would have enough sucralose for existing products like 7Up Plus and the two new Snapple flavors, but that Tate & Lyle's rationing was constraining what it could do in terms of creating new products. "I can't get as much as I want," Mr. Trebilcock said. "We're making strategic choices about how to allocate it for our products."]]> http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/02/ny_times_today.html http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/02/ny_times_today.html News Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:30:42 -0600 Splenda Interview with Dr. Hull
By Dr. Janet Starr Hull

Featured on http://www.truthaboutsplenda.com/resources/links.html

SPLENDA INTERVIEW from the December 2003 issue of Dr. Hull's Newsletters.

Splenda: Is It Safe Or Not?

The following interview was conducted with 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% 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 twenty-five 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 twenty 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 diabetis?? 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 SPLENDA® Brand Sweetener. SPLENDA® is a registered trademark of McNeil Specialty Products Company.]]> http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/02/splenda_intervi.html http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/02/splenda_intervi.html Splenda Toxicity Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:27:54 -0600 Weird Science: How Splenda Was Discovered
By Dr. Janet Starr Hull

It seems that each of the artificial sweeteners has been discovered by accident, and sucralose is no exception. It is yet another strange “fortuitous discovery” of yet another chemical sweetener.

In 1976, Tate & Lyle, a British sugar company, was searching for ways to blend sucrose (sugar) with laboratory chemicals. In collaboration with Professor Leslie Hough’s laboratory at Queen’s College in London, halogenated sugars were currently being tested. Responding to a request for “testers” for these experimental chlorinated sugars, foreign graduate student Shashikant Phadnis signed up for “taste tests.”  His participation in the research project led to the discovery that chlorinated sugars are sweet and have potencies hundreds to thousands of times greater than sugar. ¹

Excited at their new discovery, the manufacturers of Splenda are spreading the word about their new sweetener, but they do admit real sugar (unprocessed sucrose) is better for the body than sweeteners from the laboratory:

“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 state. ²

The Tate & Lyle study was originally investigating the sweetness of sugar spin-offs, specifically those substituted with halogens. Halogens are powerful elements that help dissolve one substance into another. The researchers at Queen’s College determined that five closely related halogens - fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and astatine (see below) - change the sweetness of the sugar molecule, with chlorine and bromine being the most effective.

The Halogens:

• Fluorine - poisonous pale yellow gas
• Chlorine - poisonous pale green gas
• Bromine - toxic and caustic brown volatile liquid
• Iodine - shiny black solid which forms aninspiringly beautiful violet vapor when heated
• Astatine – (means unstable); a manmade radioactive chemical that does not occur in nature   

Chlorine was chosen because as a lighter halogen, it more easily dissolves in other substances, and combines readily with the sucrose for sugar substitution. The chlorine has to be chemically altered, though, to be very tightly bound so that it doesn’t break down inside the human body. 

Food For Thought

If the chorine in sucralose breaks free before it is completely excreted from your body, doesn’t it make the contents of sucralose a carcinogen because chlorine causes cancer in humans and other animals?

Canada became the first country to approve the use of Splenda in 1991, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted American marketing approval in 1998. Johnson & Johnson purchased the rights to develop sucralose in the United States as a commercially available product. They created an individual company, McNeil Specialty Products (renamed McNeil Nutritionals), as a part of the Johnson & Johnson corporate umbrella for the exclusive purpose of marketing the new sucralose product “Splenda” in 2000.

How Do They Make Splenda?

Splenda (sucralose) is created in the lab, using a complex process involving dozens of chemicals you and I can barely pronounce (let alone consume).  Basically, the chemists force chlorine into an unnatural chemical bond with a sugar molecule, resulting in a sweeter product, but at a price: a huge amount of artificial chemicals must be added to keep sucralose from digesting in our bodies. These toxic substances also prevent (hopefully) the dangerous chlorine molecules from detaching from the sugar molecule inside the digestive system, which would be a carcinogenic hazard.

To illustrate the alarming “chemical soup” required to create sucralose, I have listed here the actual process for producing this sweetener. I highlighted the chemicals in bold type for emphasis.

According to the Splenda International Patent A23L001-236 and PEP Review #90-1-4 (July 1991), sucralose is synthesized by this five-step process: ³

   1. sucrose is tritylated with trityl chloride in the presence of dimethylformamide and 4-methylmorpholine and the tritylated sucrose is then acetylated with acetic anhydride,

   2. the resulting TRISPA (6,1',6'-tri-O-trityl-penta-O-acetylsucrose) is chlorinated with hydrogen chloride in the presence of toluene,

   3. the resulting 4-PAS (sucrose 2,3,4,3',4'-pentaacetate) is heated in the presence of methyl isobutyl ketone and acetic acid,

   4. the resulting 6-PAS (sucrose 2,3,6,3',4'-pentaacetate) is chlorinated with thionyl chloride in the presence of toluene and benzyltriethylammoniumchloride, and

   5. the resulting TOSPA (sucralose pentaacetate) is treated with methanol (wood alcohol, a poison) in the presence of sodium methoxide to produce sucralose.

And the Splenda marketers stress that sucralose is “made from sugarbut is derived from this sugar through a process that selectively substitutes three atoms of chlorine for three hydrogen-oxygen groups on the sucrose molecule.”  While this is true, it is a deceptively simple description, implying that sucrose is a simple benign sugar substituted with chlorine, thereby, safe for consumption.  According to research on the hydrolysis of sugars, just the process of inserting chlorine into the sugar molecule (hydrolysis means breaking it into smaller molecules) ultimately allows these chemicals to penetrate the intestinal wall. ⁴

So sucralose becomes a “low-calorie” sugar with a complicated process that results in Splenda’s chemical formal: 1,6-dichloro-1, 6-dideoxy-BETA-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside. ⁵

This is Splenda. And they say it is a perfectly benign sugar molecule.

More Hidden Chemicals In Splenda

Did you know if a product includes an ingredient that is a proven carcinogen but is less than two percent of its total chemical make-up, it does not have to be listed as an ingredient, nor does it have to be tested for product safety or labeled as a carcinogen?  Just as an example, a food product could have 2.5 percent rat poison as a minor ingredient, but does not have to name the rat poison on the ingredient list.  With the number of chemicals used in manufacturing food products today, the ingredient lists would be too long to fit on any of the labels, needless-to-say.

The FDA states in their Final Report on Splenda that sucralose is “produced at an approximate purity of ninety-eight percent.” The other two percent does not have to be reported to the FDA, nor listed as added ingredients.  So what’s in the other two percent?⁶

• acetone
• acetic acid
• acetyl alcohol
• acetic anhydride
• ammonium chloride
• benzene
• chlorinated sulfates
• ethyl alcohol
• isobutyl ketones
• formaldehyde
• hydrogen chloride
• lithium chloride
• methanol
• sodium methoxide
• sulfuryl chloride
• trityl chloride
• toluene
• thionyl chloride

Although manufacturing guidelines specify limits on these hidden substances, there are no assurances these limits have been met since they do not have to be reported.  In addition, the FDA does not presently require an Environmental Impact Statement for sucralose, so it’s open season for the rules at present.

Now you can see why I do not recommend sucralose for pregnancy or for children, especially after reading this list.

Is Splenda Digested Or Not?

Because of their patented multi-step process, corporate marketers insist the body doesn’t recognize Splenda as a sugar, a carbohydrate, or “anything”, so it doesn’t metabolize it AT ALL.  I disagree.

The only way sucralose can be prevented from breaking down and passing through the intestinal wall is to be altered into a substance the body doesn’t recognize, and that requires using the myriad of chemicals listed above.

Ingesting these grossly mutated molecules can create tremendousstress in the body. Many people complain of stomach cramping, bloating or diarrhea from using sucralose.  More bladder infections, blood in the urine, kidney problems, and accompanying lower backache have appeared since both aspartame and sucralose came onto the market. The number of pharmaceutical sales for bladder control medication, recurring bladder infections, and kidney disease support this connection, as do the hundreds of case histories I receive daily from people whose symptoms vanish when they stop using sucralose, aspartame, and blends of chemical sweeteners.

NOTE: An individual’s reaction to sucralose and other artificial sweeteners depends upon how much is used and how often, past and current health status, and the degree of other toxins present inside the body.

Yet, Splenda representatives are aggressively pushing sucralose into the international market and defending its safety as completely risk-free to human health.

“Sucralose is harmless, poorly absorbed, and does not accumulate in the body. There is absolutely no need for concern about the safety of sucralose due to the chlorine molecules used in its manufacture,” states Dr. Leslie Goldsmith, Vice President, Safety and Science Affairs, McNeil Nutritionals.

Again, I disagree.  Laboratory chlorine is laboratory chlorine. Replacing natural sugar with manmade chlorine can be harmful, especially for pregnant women, developing fetuses, the sick, and the elderly.

If You Have A Healthy Digestive System, You Just Might Digest Splenda

How do you know that you would or wouldn’t digest the chlorine in Splenda?  How does McNeil know?  Every human being is unique.

We forget the whole purpose of eating: human beings require food to grow, reproduce, and maintain good health.Foods are supposed to digest to provide fuel for survival. The human digestive system is amazing, and it will do anything to assimilate what you give it to support life. And you’re trying to fool it when you feed it fake foods.

The breakdown of a diet cola is achieved through a combination of mechanical and enzymatic processes. To accomplish this breakdown, the digestive tract acts as a team, requiring considerable assistance from the digestive organs such as the salivary glands, the liver, and pancreas, which dump their secretions into the digestive tract system. Without the pancreatic enzymes, you would starve from lack of nutrients and become malnourished.

In many ways, the digestive system is like a well-run engine where a large number of complex tasks take place. Look how many major organs are dedicated to digestion alone:

• Mouth
• Esophagus
• Stomach
• Liver
• Pancreas
• Small Intestine
• Large Intestine

It is unlikely sucralose can escape this arduous journey through your body without breaking down in some way. If your body is digesting properly, resistance is futile.

In fact, research shows that artificial sweeteners create a fatty liver. The liver enzymes are elevated because the body is working so hard to digest something it doesn’t understand. ⁷

Conflicting Reports About Splenda’s Absorption In The Body

With all this information on the dangers of aspartame - and now sucralose - whom do we believe anymore – the corporations, the government, researchers, or consumers?According to the FDA’s “Final Rule” report, eleven to twenty-seven percent of sucralose is absorbed in the human body, and the remainder is excreted unchanged in the fecal waste. According to the Japanese Food Sanitation Council, as much as forty percent of ingested sucralose is absorbed. According to McNeil Nutritionals, zero percent is absorbed. According to the creators of sucralose, Tate & Lyle, fifteen percent is absorbed. Who do we believe?

The FDA also states in their final report, “Because sucralose may hydrolyze in some food products…the resulting hydrolysis products may also be ingested by the consumer.” They also report that there is some concern about tumor growth in certain studies with mice, and many of the other tests submitted have “inconclusive” results.

Toxicologist Judith Bellin reviewed studies on rats starved under experimental conditions, and concluded that their growth rate was reduced by as much as a third without the thymus losing a significant amount of weight (less than seven percent). The changes were much more obvious in rats fed sucralose. While the animals’ growth rate was reduced by between seven and twenty percent, their thymus glands shrank by as much as forty percent. ⁸

The absorbed levels of sucralose were found in laboratory studies to concentrate in the liver, kidney, and gastrointestinal tract of laboratory animals.  Understanding how digestion works, now we know why.

Research animals fed sucralose exhibited the following symptoms:

• Unexplained death
• Shrunken thymus glands (up to forty percent shrinkage)
• Enlarged liver and kidneys
• Atrophy of lymph follicles in the spleen and thymus
• Reduced growth rate
• Decreased white blood cell count
• Hyperplasia of the pelvis
• Extension of the pregnancy period
• Aborted pregnancy
• Decreased fetal body weight and placental weights
• Chronic diarrhea
• Maternal gastrointestinal disturbances

What’s Good For the Rat Is Good For the Human

McNeil representatives state negative animal study results do not apply to human sucralose consumption, as decreased sweetness throughout several studies was found to only occur in the rat studies. The decreased taste pleasure led to decreased thymus weight only in the rats.

So why do studies on rats, then? Are they saying that only positive lab results apply to human product safety, and negative results don’t count? If all the studies on rats attempt to prove safety for humans, aren’t the studies proving significant danger as well?

References

1. SRI Consulting (SRIC). PEP Review 90-1-4 Sucralose - A High Intensity, Noncaloric Sweetener. http://pep.sric.sri.com/Public/Reports/Phase_90/RW90-1-4/RW90-1-4.html

2. Ibid.

3. The Chemical Abstracts Service Registry number for sucralose: 56038-13-2.

4. Hydrolysis of sugars: the hydrolysis of sugar polymers by acid or enzymes converts non-reducing polysaccharides to reducing oligo- andmonosaccharides. Biochemistry 2344 Lecture 11: Carbohydrates, March 29-April 2, 1999.

5. The Chemical Abstracts Service Registry number for sucralose: 56038-13-2.

6. Ibid.

7. Keith JN. Report 2.1460. Gastroenterology Section, AMB S401F (MC 4080): 188-1477. jnewton@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu.

8. Bellin J. New Scientist. pg 13. Nov 23, 1991.

Did you know that over the past twenty years a war has been going on?  It’s a sweetener war. A battle for your dollar to satisfy an ever demanding “sweet-tooth.” It started in the United States, but has spread worldwide.  Thousands of people have been injured, and hundreds have lost their lives.  It’s a battle of health versus profit.

Medical doctors, holistic doctors, nutritionists, journalists, researchers, and professors – many people have fought for the truth about the dangers of artificial sweeteners. In this unseen battle, these men and women you do not know have been fighting to save you and to protect your children from injury and death. With more new chemical sweeteners on the market today, the battle is far from being won. 

After twenty years of NutraSweet (aspartame) dominating the sweetener market, people are realizing for themselves that aspartame really is a foul food chemical tragically harmful to their health. But the corporations deny there is a connection between aspartame and epidemic obesity, mental disturbances, and disease.  They have left the proof to the consumer, who is getting the picture now at great personal cost. The corporations work against the thousands of claims of bodily harm and death connected to artificial sweeteners.

Now, people think Johnson & Johnson’s Splenda, made from sucralose, has “come to the rescue” as the newest chemical sugar replacement “made from real sugar.” People don’t want to hear that it may be just as dangerous as aspartame, and this “white knight” of sweeteners is no better improvement. 

New chemical sweeteners (like sucralose) and the sweetener blends (aspartame, sucralose and acesulfame K blended together in one product) may be causing users to show signs of weight gain, disruption of sleep patterns, sexual dysfunction, increases in cancer, MS, Lupus, diabetes, and a list of epidemic degenerative diseases. The corporations continue to stand tough in their denial of any connection to chemical sweetener additives.

NEVER ENOUGH:  Artificial Sweeteners Create An Artificial Need

People forget that originally, sweetness was actually a by-product of food: nature’s way to encourage living creatures to consume nutritious foods. Forced sweetness, revved-up sweetness, and artificial sweetness - all altered foods - are a trap that addict people to sweeter tastes. 

Artificial sweeteners are marketed as  “being super-sized with more sweetness and no penalty.” People with eating disorders, children who are first learning about healthy food habits, diabetics and those with degenerative illnesses are being seduced by crafty advertising campaigns.  “And the added plethora of laboratory chemicals are entirely unnecessary to put in the public food supply,” says Kelly Goyen, CEO of Empirical Labs.

“We’ve done a great job of redefining sweetness, and it’s great to see it pay off,” says Anne Rewey, Splenda marketing director for Ft. Washington, Pennsylvania-based McNeil. “We’re committed to the leadership position in this market.”

According to the Conference of the American College of Physicians ‘we are talking about a plague of neurological diseases caused by these deadly poisons.’ (aspartame, sucralose, acesulfame-K)

As an educated consumer, you have a choice.  You can protect yourself from avoidable illnesses by simply being aware of the sweet deception surrounding you.

What Are Artificial Sweeteners and Why Are They Harmful?

Artificial sweeteners are a mix of unnatural chemicals combined in a laboratory that the body can’t process.  Basically, these chemicals either accumulate in your vital organs causing severe damage later, pollute your bloodstream causing severe damage later, or cause eventual mutations of your cells causing severe damage later.

NATURE VERSUS MANMADE:  The Key To “Safe” Food

In a nutshell, whatever nature creates for food is usually safe for your body.  Whatever man creates for food in the laboratory may not be accepted by your body, resulting in illness.  Our bodies are like machines (only natural) that operate today just as they did thousands of years ago. They don’t “understand” manmade chemicals and cannot fully process them. Forcing “foreign” materials into your body is like pouring shampoo into your car’s gas tank: it wasn’t meant to process it, so the engine stalls and stops working.

Which Artificial Sweeteners Should You Avoid?

• Sucralose (Splenda)
• Aspartame (NutraSweet/Equal®)
• Acesulfame-K (Sunett®)
• Neotame®
• Alitame®
• Cyclamate

CLEVER ADVERTISING:  What Was “Harmful” Yesterday Can Be “Hidden” Today!

Diet RC® cola was the first U.S. product with sucralose introduced in May 1998 with the tagline “No Aspartame” on the can.  Nowadays, the tagline has been dropped and is no longer on the can because sucralose is now found blended with aspartame in numerous products such as The Coca-Cola Company’s new C2 Coke®.

Is Saccharin Still Safe?

Despite the misleading report twenty years ago that saccharin causes cancer, in my opinion, saccharin remains the safest of all the artificial sweeteners.  Its simplicity may be the key to its ability to be used by the body as a sugar substitute.   Saccharin is not a “chemically combined” sweetener like the other artificial sweeteners, and is the safest choice for diabetics from this group of sugar replacements.

If you get confused on which colored packet sweetener is what, remember this good rule of thumb:  Color Matters

• The yellow packet (Splenda) = caution like in a traffic light
• The blue packet (Equal) = makes you feel blue
• The pink packet (Sweet’N’Low® or generic saccharin*) = you’re in the pink!

What Are Safe Natural Sweeteners?

• Stevia*
• Raw, unprocessed sugar (Sucanat®)
• Brown Rice Syrup
• Barley Malt
• Date Sugar
• Honey
• Maple Syrup
• Molasses
• Sorghum

*Safe for diabetics.  Stevia is similar to saccharin – use it sparingly or it is bitter – otherwise, it’s “naturally” delicious and a much healthier choice!

Secondary Natural Sweetener Choices (Use With Discretion)

• Fructose
• Fruit Juice Concentrate
• Juice Concentrate
• Sugar alcohols (Polyols)
• Isomalt
• Lactitol
• Malitol
• Mannitol
• Sorbitol
• Xylitol
• Turbinado® Sugar
• Tagatose

SPLENDA: THE NEW KID ON THE BLOCK

What Exactly Is Splenda?

Splenda is the trade name for sucralose, a relatively new manmade, artificial sweetener. Johnson & Johnson bought the rights in 1998 to sell sucralose in the United States as Splenda. Its basic characteristics are:

• Its taste is nearly identical to sugar
• Its “trademark” inability to break down in processing or in storage

Why is Splenda potentially harmful?

It contains chlorine, which is a carcinogen. ¹The Splenda marketers insure it is chemically “bound” so it cannot be “released” in the body during digestion.  I question that, and wonder if this artificial chemical can safely pass through the human body.  Wait until you read what chlorine can do to the body.  Bad news.

Sucralose (Splenda) is a chlorocarbon - a chlorine-containing compound. The chlorocarbons have long been known for causing organ, genetic, and reproductive damage. It should be no surprise, then, that testing of sucralose revealed organ, genetic, and reproductive damage.  Research on lab rats showed up to forty percent shrinkage of the thymus gland: a gland that is the very foundation of our immune system. ²The contamination of water supplies by chlorocarbons is a serious problem in most European countries today, making many people very ill. Due to the chlorine content in Splenda, sucralose can inflame swelling of the liver and kidneys, and calcification of the kidney, as shown in animal studies. ³If you experience kidney pain, cramping, or an irritated bladder after using sucralose, stop using it immediately.

Sucralose is patented as a manmade “chlorinated sucrose sweetener” and it is registered as “chlorinated sucrose.” ⁴Chlorinated sucrose is not found anywhere in nature, like real sugar (sucrose) that is extracted from sugar cane and sugar beets. If it were, it would be a carcinogen!

1. Chlorine facts: http://www.bidness.com/esd/cl2facts.htm

2. Bellin J. New Scientist. pg 13. Nov 23, 1991.

Dr. Jacqueline Verett, a FDA toxicologist, told Congress in 1981 that “all aspartame studies were built on a foundation of sand and should be thrown out.” It's all a matter of public record for us to learn from our past mistakes.

Dr. Adrian Gross was the FDA toxicologist who tried to stop the “second” approval of aspartame. He told Congress that aspartame violated the Delaney Amendment that forbid putting anything in food that was suspect of causing cancer. He said thatbeyond any shadow of a doubt, aspartame could cause brain tumors and brain cancer. Because of this, he told Congress they shouldn't be able to set an allowable daily intake. His last words to Congress will always be remembered, " … and if the FDA violates its own law, who is left to protect the public?" 

Stated in the Delaney Clause [section 409(c)(3)(A) of the act], “…no food additive shall be deemed to be safe if it is found to induce cancer when ingested by man or animal.” But a loophole exists as the FDA states in the Final Rule report for acesulfame K:

“The Delaney clause applies to the additive itself and not to constituents used to process the additive. Thus, where an additive has not been shown to cause cancer, even though it contains a carcinogenic impurity, the additive is not subject to the legal effect of the Delaney Clause. Rather, the additive is properly evaluated under the general safety standard using risk assessment procedures to determine whether there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the proposed use of the additive (Scott v. FDA, 728 F.2d

322 (6th Cir. 1984)).”

Therefore, even though the constituents methanol and chlorine used to make aspartame and sucralose, respectively, are proven carcinogens, it is not considered as such according to the final product safety rulings for aspartame and sucralose.

Patent Registration

When examining the patent information submitted for Splenda, I discovered some very interesting information surfaced that is not widely known.  The information is technical, yet it is important to transcribe the data as it is written in the patent.

What do these reports reveal?In the Abstract for the International Patent, the company referred to Splenda as chlorinated sucrose, which we have determined is quite toxic. The corporation also lists toxic chemical compounds used in the chlorination of sucrose. When comparing the two CAS Registry Reports, not only do the additional chemicals in the process of formulating sucralose come into the light, but there appear to be conflicts of interest in the promotion of sucralose, as well.

One patent report records sucralose as being 600 times the sweetness of sugar, while a second patent report states sucralose as having the sweetening power four to 2000 times that of sucrose.  Mike R. Jenner, one of the inventors of sucralose, co-authored the report “History and Development of Sucralose” with Samuel V. Molinary.  Molinary is the Research Director for PepsiCo and was the former Director of Scientific Affairs for GD Searle Pharmaceuticals, owner of Monsanto Chemical Company and The NutraSweet Company.  He is also panel Co-Chairman of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI).    

What Is The ILSI? As written on their website, ILSI, founded in 1978, “is a global network of scientists devoted to enhancing scientific basis for public health decision-making.”  They work closely with the World Health Organization (WHO), and “receive the majority of their funding and financial support through government funding, corporations, and foundations throughout the world.” Some of their members include:

• McNeil Nutritionals
• Tate & Lyle LTD
• The Coca-Cola Company
• Merisant Corporation
• Monsanto Chemical Company
• PepsiCo
• Abbot Laboratories
• Merck & Company
• Ajinomoto
• McDonalds
• The Kellogg Company
• Novartis
• The Kodak Company

(A complete list of members is included on this link...)

Foreign Approval Of Splenda

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and government food authority committees and the Health Ministries in 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.

Re-read the list of these countries: Mexico, Jamaica, Tajikistan and Tanzania. These are the countries in which Splenda was first marketed. These are the countries used as sites of approval.

These are wonderful countries with vivid cultures and interesting people, but these countries are not nations with the same lifestyle, technology, or mass marketing strategies compared to the United States’. These countries are more concerned with birth control, food staples, hostile take-over, and drought - not diet sweeteners, weight loss campaigns, and soft drink machines placed in every business and school.  Let's compare apples to apples.

Totally And Completely Harmless?

McNeil Nutritionals markets sucralose as flawlessly safe for everyone. They claim it has been repeatedly tested so they can prove it is completely harmless. Nothing is totally and completely harmless. They also claim that sucralose is the most tested food additive in history.  I quote, "...more than one-hundred studies on the safety of sucralose designed to meet the highest scientific standards have been conducted and evaluated over the course of twenty years."  Having worked with the aspartame issue over the past thirteen years, I know this statement is debatable.

McNeil representatives state: “Millions of people have safely enjoyed Splenda, and products made with sucralose, since its introduction more than ten years ago.  It is one of the most tested food ingredients ever introduced and its safety has been confirmed by regulatory authorities in more than sixty countries.”

They also said the same thing about aspartame, which had over 200-documented research studies performed by both corporations and independent researchers. Don’t be fooled by the numbers. A large number of studies usually imply negative results that require more scrutiny. I am suspicious of a product that claims to be safe if an inordinate number of tests are run.  To me, this implies negative results that must be retested.

Consumers are witnessing the same “set-up” with sucralose as with aspartame in so many ways. There are comparisons between sucralose and aspartame throughout this book. As I wrote in my first book, Sweet Poison, no long-term corporate studies on humans have been done, corporate payrolled researchers are responsible for the results submitted to the FDA, to the media, and to scientific journals, only selective results are reported (out of the hundreds of experiments performed), and “government / corporate involvement” is clearly documented.¹ We must remember to value independent research results as being just as valid as those funded by the corporations.

Safe And Natural

The corporations maintain sucralose is safe and natural. They said the same thing about aspartame, and after two decades of warnings from independent researchers and consumers, look at the rampant disease and obesity taking over America. We must remember to value independent research results as being just as valid as those funded by the corporations.

"While there are a lot of industry-sponsored safety studies on these substances, I don't believe there is enough independent research to tell us whether we should be using them in moderation or at all," said Dr. Jeanette Newton Keith, a gastroenterologist and an assistant professor of medicine at The University of Chicago's Pritzker School of Medicine. ²

In the absence of independent data, she advises patients to avoid the non-nutritive sweeteners entirely. She accredits anecdotal reports linking aspartame (Equal®) to memory loss, seizures, chronic headaches and neurological disorders. After years of personally working with hundreds of patients suffering from aspartame poisoning, I agree with Dr. Keith and encourage all practitioners to consider artificial sweeteners as a probable cause of illness, especially when their doctor cannot offer any known cause for observable health symptoms.

1. Hull JS. Sweet Poison: How The World’s Most Popular Artificial Sweetener Is Killing Us-My Story. New Horizon Press, 1997.

2. Keith JN. Report 2.1460. Gastroenterology Section, AMB S401F (MC 4080): 188-1477. jnewton@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu.

The cat’s out of the bag. Splenda’s safety is in question. Although the debate on the safety of sucralose in Splenda primarily focuses on chlorine, the creators of sucralose (Tate & Lyle) and the manufacturer (Johnson & Johnson’s McNeil Nutritionals) both claim absolute safety, making statements like, “Splenda has no known side effects.” Yet the science doesn’t back this up.

Since we depend on the corporations to provide us with the safety data on their products, we must be aware of the claims concerning the presence of chlorine (and the chemicals used to manufacture it) in sucralose and Splenda. As a consumer, don’t forget they are trying to sell you something—it’s simple marketing. Consider the source of the information about the long-term safety of sucralose, and how far into the future of your personal health and safety the marketers have projected. Concerning sucralose, are you willing to risk your health or your child’s health based on clever wording and attractive advertising?

The most important questions we need answered concerning the safety of chlorine in Splenda are:

• Is chorine present in Splenda?
• Will the chorine in Splenda harm human health? Who says “yes” and who says “no”?
• Does chlorine cause cancer?
• Is the chlorine in Splenda natural or manmade?
• Does the chlorine in Splenda break down in the human body? (At least fifteen percent does—read on!)
• Is chorine a chlorocarbon?
• What is a “chlorocarbohydrate”? (Is there such a thing? Highly questionable.)

It’s up to you, the consumer, to consider all the possible information concerning the chemicals you consume. Unfortunately, companies whose jobs do not tolerate overzealous questioning of the safety of their products can hamper your fair access to this information. “Freedom of speech” is not what it used to be. Consider this chapter true drama.

Instant Retaliation for a Splenda Article

In the summer of 2004, a health reporter named Martina Watts from Brighton, England contacted me for some last-minute help concerning an article on Splenda she had written for a local newspaper. Martina’s article, Junk mail highlights a problem junk food,¹ is a short but sweet exposé on artificial sweeteners, including Splenda. She sent me the following e-mail:

“I am a nutritionist and health writer from Brighton in the UK. After reading information on Splenda, I summarised the main points in a recent article for my local newspaper, The Argus.

The problem, Tate & Lyle (the developers of Splenda) now want to sue the paper in response to my article on Splenda. They say that sucralose is not a chlorocarbon but a chlorocarbohydrate, which is freely water soluble, is completely safe, has no health risks, does not accumulate in body tissues and does not bioaccumulate.

I wonder if it is possible to speak with you so that I can gather some more facts to defend myself.

I would appreciate your help ASAP--I have until tomorrow morning to formulate a response!”

Many thanks for your help,

Martina Watts

Incredibly, the newspaper was contacted by Tate & Lyle’s attorneys and was given less than two working days to respond to the threat of being sued. They stated they would take action to include the financial loss of Tate & Lyle (including a claim for loss of sales) by their claims of false and defamatory allegations against Splenda.²

In order to avoid legal proceedings, the law firm required the newspaper to:

• Publish the “attached apology” (that Tate & Lyle actually wrote) in The Argus with equal prominence to the article complained of
• Undertake not to repeat these false and defamatory allegations or similar allegations against Tate & Lyle
• Immediately remove the article from the newspaper’s Web site,
• Pay all of Tate & Lyle’s costs incurred in this matter

The attorneys offered the newspaper a bargain to forego payment of damages, and presented the editor an opportunity to “promptly” respond by agreeing to Tate & Lyle’s requests. 

Martina received a phone call from her newspaper editor on Monday morning, August 23, 2004, and had until that same afternoon to provide her sources of reference. “That’s when I e-mailed you,” she said. The newspaper editor passed by their lawyers the sources I supplied to them, and were to get back to the attorneys for Tate & Lyle by the end of the following working day, August 24, 2004. Her original article was taken out of print and off the Internet. Tate & Lyle lawyers wrote and submitted the retraction for the paper to publish. The newspaper condensed the retraction and published the following:

“In our 10 August edition, we included an article by Martina Watts, which suggested that the no-calorie sweetener, sucralose, might be harmful to humans. The article described sucralose as a chlorocarbon and claimed it to be toxic. These allegations are entirely untrue.

Sucralose is in fact a water-soluble chlorocarbohydrate. The expert scientists of over 60 regulatory agencies around the world have considered the scientific data and have all concluded that sucralose is entirely safe. Every agency that has considered it, including the Food and Drug Administration in the United States and the Food Standards Agency in the United Kingdom, has approved sucralose for human consumption.

We apologize unreservedly to Tate & Lyle, the manufacturers of sucralose, for these false accusations.”

Martina’s article was well written and to the point, but she seems to be the first “target” for the bullying tactics against anti-Splenda information—tactics I’ve witnessed for over twenty years concerning NutraSweet. Here we go again …

Food For Thought

Twenty to thirty years ago, we could sue companies for making us sick.  Now the corporations sue us for speaking out against them when we’re merely questioning the safety of their products.

Freedom of Speech For A Chosen Few?

Martina had many reasons for writing her article on Splenda, none of which was to “go on a crusade.” She told me she was merely exercising her right to examine research and explore safety concerns. Martina is a professional, trained nutritional therapist and health writer, and was responding to multiple queries from clients about the safety of Splenda. Logically, she began to investigate sucralose. Apparently, that was her mistake!

“It’s problematical if you’re born with a conscience, isn’t it?” stated Martina in reference to the paper’s retraction. “It’s depressing that in this day and age we still don’t have freedom of speech, but I have bounced back.”

As in America, the aggressive mass marketing of products is almost inescapable and brings to mind who, exactly, has the right to “push” information on whom. Martina writes this additional concern:

“A Splenda promotion was sent out via the weekly newspaper, telling people to say yes, yes, yes, YES to more sweetness in their lives.” 

Martina’s kids picked up the sample and wanted to taste it. “If something is pushed through my letterbox, it invites comment, but if they don’t like the comment, they call it libel,” said Martina. “It’s an uphill struggle when sweeteners are marketed as a desirable lifestyle choice when they clearly are not.”

The irony of her situation is hard to miss. The companies can “force-feed” their product and literature right into her home, but she has no right to explore their claims.

An example of “turnabout is fair play”:  In the October 5, 2003 issue of The Dallas Morning News, humor columnist Dave Berry wrote an article that Martina Watts would appreciate reading about now.³ Tired of the onslaught of calls from telemarketers, Berry decided to switch roles and began calling them. He published the telephone number of the National Do Not Call Registry and the American Teleservices Association (ATA) and encouraged his readers to call them as much as they had been called and at the same inappropriate times of day. They called the ATA so much, the telemarketing company begrudgingly disconnected their phone number.  

Martina and Dave Berry have something in common: they’ve noticed that corporations appear to have the right to invade your homes and your mailboxes with their products, dis-information and propaganda, while you appear to have lost the right to defend yourself and to publicly question your safety. Are companies pushing their products on you, while taking away your right to say no, no, no, NO?

As consumers, we need to become aware of any restriction of information to stay in control of our personal health.

By the time I had contacted Martina to see how I could help with her problem, it was too late to stop her local paper from printing the Tate & Lyle retraction. But she shared some incredible information to share with you in hopes of setting the record straight.

If history repeats itself concerning the possible dangers of sucralose, this information will be kept secret, and future media challenges will remain oppressed by legal threats. But if we choose to change this direction, we shall retain our freedom of speech and our right to publicly communicate product safety disputes.

1. Watts M. Junk mail highlights a problem junk food, The Argus. Argus, Brighton BN1 8AR. August 10, 2004.

2. OLSWANG. Law Offices: representatives for Tate & Lyle plc. London. WC1V 6XX. August 20, 2004.

3. Berry D. The Dallas Morning News. pg. 5E. October 5, 2003.

Diabetes may be a common disease these days, but it is still misunderstood.  Most people think diabetes is simply a disease that means you just can’t eat sugar. The artificial sugar industry markets fake sugars as totally harmless to the diabetic, and tempts them into believing they can eat and drink all they want by “tricking” their bodies. But what works for one person may not work for another. What makes this matter even more difficult to understand: diabetes is just a little bit different for every diabetic.  This is why no one artificial sweetener company can truly make a blanket statement that their product is “safe for diabetics.” 

If you have diabetes, to determine your correct amount and type of medication and/or insulin you need, your doctor must individualize your case of diabetes. Whether Type I or II, every diabetic is different. Treating diabetes is not like setting a broken leg where the procedure to cast the bone is the same for everyone - every case of diabetes should be treated uniquely.  There is no standard unit of insulin for every Type I diabetic, no standard dose of medication for every Type II diabetic, and some diabetes can be controlled with diet alone. Even for those on insulin, there is not just one type of insulin nor just one regimen for taking it.  Many insulin-dependent diabetics take more than one kind of insulin during a single day. In the same way they require and respond to medication and insulin differently, diabetics respond to foods differently. And diabetics react to chemical sweeteners differently!

As delicate as diabetes is, how, then, can diet chemical sweeteners be safe when a person with diabetes requires such precise chemical management? 

Diabetes is a disease that interferes with the way the body uses food. For those of us who do not have diabetes, we take for granted that our bodies properly digest carbohydrates (sugars and starches) and easily changes them into glucose (blood sugar), one of the body's major sources of energy.  After twenty years of aspartame use, it seems apparent that artificial sweeteners are not the answer for diabetics with a sweet tooth. Why, you ask? Read on…

Basically, diabetics need tools for self-help – the proper tools, that is!  Today, “sugar-free” marketers attempt to convince diabetics that life cannot go on without “sweets”, and artificial sweeteners are the answer. But diabetes survived long before the sugar-free frenzy, and the number of diabetics merely twenty years ago was much fewer than today. So, take control of your diabetes and get control of your life by making a few lifestyle changes such as eating healthier foods (minus the sugar free), drinking plenty of pure water, and maintaining regular exercise.  These changes may make living with diabetes much easier and put YOU back in control of your life rather than diabetes controlling you.

Don’t lose heart. Having diabetes doesn't mean that you have to give up the things that are important to you such as enjoying a good meal, working, sport activities, or having children. With planning, even travel can be easy and relatively carefree. Those with diabetes do have to be more conscientious about eating and taking medication at regularly scheduled times, and many times may need to educate their friends and family on the nature of diabetes and the treatments necessary to maintain a stable blood sugar level.        

Can Chemical Sweeteners Interact With Insulin? The manufacturers for the various sugar-free products market their diet sweeteners as completely safe for diabetics. But, their clinical studies represent merely a fragment of the diverse effects chemical sweeteners can have on diabetic individuals, particularly Type I diabetics. An important point that is overlooked: it is vital to monitor chemical sweetener interactions with the various types of diabetic medications.

There are many different types of medications and insulin for the many different types of diabetes. For example:

• One medication helps control insulin production, while another regulates insulin resistance, and yet another helps the body use its insulin more efficiently.
• When using Glucophage®, a popular medication for non-insulin diabetics, it is recommended to have your liver checked every three months.
• There is short-acting insulin (used primarily after meals to help process the food) and long-term insulin (regulates blood sugar throughout the day without the need for short term insulin). 
• Some diabetics need both short–acting insulin after meals and long term insulin morning and night, and there is more than one kind of long-acting, and more than one kind of short-acting insulin.  Question: if all diabetics are the same, why are there so many different kinds of medication to treat it?
• The insulin pump constantly delivers throughout the day short-acting micro-doses of approximately one-tenth a unit of insulin, and all pumps don’t use the same type of insulin.

So let me stress again: it is vital to monitor chemical sweetener interactions with the various types of medications, and no one can assume artificial, chemical sweeteners will react the same in individuals with diabetes.

Net Carb Alert For Diabetics!

“Net carb” is a new catchword these days for people watching their carbs.  It means that the carbs from fiber don’t count in your total carb intake, which is a good thing for the weight conscious consumer, but it doesn’t work the same for a diabetic. “Net carb” means something different, and so do the carbs from fiber. (To determine the net carbs, take the total carbs and subtract the amount of fiber.) Diabetics must monitor the “total carbs” in packaged products.

A carb is a carb is a carb to a diabetic. It doesn’t matter if it’s a fiber carb or a sugar carb. And, there is a difference between longer acting carbs (complex sugars and starches) and short response carbs (simple sugars and refined grains), and the impact they have on diabetes. Let’s say you have a choice to eat a piece of cake (a simple carb) versus a sandwich on soy-based, whole grain bread (long-acting carb). Choose the sandwich, of course, because the “total complex carbs” will have less harmful glucose effects on your body.

As a diabetic, “net carbs” may affect blood sugar much like a carb load. Many diabetics use “net carb” products as high protein and in-between-meal snacks, thinking they are eating less “total carbs.” The result, these products may require you to take more insulin because your blood sugar can spike. So, keep in mind that “net carb” products actually contain more carbs than most diabetics have in one meal. Read your labels carefully and plan your meals in a good way, but remember to watch out for the supplemental products full of “net carbs.”

The goal of diabetic management is to keep blood glucose levels as close to normal as safely possible, reducing the risk of developing major complications. With this in mind, why take the risk of jumbling your immune system with toxic chemicals  - methanol in aspartame – chlorine in sucralose – methylene chloride in acesulfame K?  Ideally, researchers search for less harmful drugs to aid the diabetic.  Why, then, do we promote more toxic food chemicals for the diabetic’s diet?

What Do The Sweetener Corporations Say About Diabetes? The corporations typically default safety issues to research studies, and as you are discovering, those studies are corporate-funded and are generally re-run, re-adjusted, and re-calibrated until they “pass” FDA approval standards. Here’s a good example: a small independent study of diabetic patients using sucralose resulted in a significant increase in glycosylated hemoglobin (Hba1C), which is a marker of long-term blood glucose levels used to assess glycemic control in diabetic patients.  (Translation: blood sugar increases were observed from sucralose use in diabetics.)

The FDA reviewed the study, and responded with: “…increases in glycosolation in hemoglobin imply lessening control of diabetes.”  (Translation: from this study, they agreed with the apparent results that sucralose raised blood sugar levels in the diabetic control group.)

Because of the small patient group size of this study, however, McNeil Nutritionals defended that the clinical significance was not determined, so the FDA suggested more research, which McNeil did.  The studies were modified from the original tests performed, and it was eventually determined that sucralose at lower doses were safe for diabetics.  But, the tests were not the same. As stated in the FDA Final Rule report relating to the final studies performed: “Serum insulin levels were not measured in this (subsequent) study.” ¹

So, do the original tests showing increases in serum glucose levels be thrown out completely? Does this mean all negative results be discarded and retested until a positive corporate result is achieved? So what does safety testing really mean?  So, can all people with diabetes safely use SPLENDA® No Calorie Sweetener? “Yes” the corporations say. “Numerous studies have shown that SPLENDA® Brand Sweetener, or sucralose, is suitable for people with diabetes,” they state.  Why is it safe?  Well, they claim: “Sucralose is not recognized by the body as sugar or as a carbohydrate, so it is not metabolized by the body and does not affect blood glucose levels. Sucralose has no affect on carbohydrate metabolism or insulin secretion. Foods and beverages sweetened with SPLENDA® Brand Sweetener can provide good-tasting, lower-calorie alternatives for people with diabetes who are interested in reducing their calorie or sugar intake.”

Most people with diabetes will tell you it’s really not that simple.  Diabetics work hard to maintain control of their blood sugar levels.  If you’re diabetic, your doctor more than likely recommends you test your blood sugar at least four times every day. If you are insulin dependent, you take, on average, from one to three shots of insulin every day.  Your doctor probably recommends that you eat three carefully regulated meals plus three snacks daily.  If you are ill, you test your blood sugar more frequently. If you exercise, you must eat extra food so you won’t have a low blood sugar reaction. If your blood sugar strays from your target goal, you must adjust your medication. Even with discipline, maintaining control of diabetes can be difficult. Without discipline, it is impossible.

Sugar-free chemical products can be dangerous for diabetics for many obvious reasons, and popping open a can of diet cola throughout your day isn’t what I recommend as a wholesome diet for the average diabetic.

Most nutritionists agree that artificial sweeteners trigger cravings for sweet treats, making it difficult to diet or control blood sugar. But don’t forget that artificial sweeteners substitute a non-nutritive food, for foods that have vitamins and other nutrients - for example, a muffin made with Splenda may have the same number of carbs as a carrot, but the carrot is better for you.

Are Diet Sweeteners An Overload For The Diabetic? The American Diabetes Association Joslin Diabetes Center says no. They recommend artificial sweeteners and the sweetener blends as safe for diabetics, stating:

“Artificial sweeteners make food taste sweet but they have no calories and do not raise blood glucose levels. They do not count as a carbohydrate, a fat, or any other exchange.

Artificial sweeteners can easily be added to your diet, and are very useful for people with diabetes. However, you should not depend entirely on foods made with artificial sweeteners.

The American Diabetes Association approves the use of these four artificial sweeteners in moderate amounts:

• Aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal)
• Acesulfame Potassium (Sweet One)
• Saccharin
• Sucralose (Splenda)”

As the market for sweeteners expands, the sugar industry is not suffering, according to Pierre Wursch from the Nestle Research Centre in Lausanne, Switzerland. The market will widen much further with the advent of new sweeteners. The “new generation” will enable the food industry to produce more and more artificially sweetened baked goods - cakes, biscuits and breakfast cereals, for example.

If these sweeteners are really safe for diabetics, then why has diabetes reached all-time epidemic highs, and at younger and younger ages? Apparently, artificial sweeteners are not the solution.

References

1. Federal Register. Vol. 63. No. 64. Rules and Regulations 16417-16433. Friday. April 3, 1998, age 16426, paragraph two.

Modern day chemical sweeteners are part of an alarming trend worldwide – the subtle introduction of more and more chemical toxins into our food supply.  From pesticides to hormones to steroids, antibiotics, preservatives, dyes, and now fake sugars – the list goes on and on.

During a 1990 conference in Brussels, Tate & Lyle’s vice chair of the International Sweetener’s Association (ISA) Public Relation’s Committee Lesley Yeoman stated, “Industry itself would like to see fewer regulations.  We can’t avoid the fact that sweeteners are classed as additives and regulated heavily.  But the ISA’s position is that this is unnecessary.”

A Known Toxin:

Richard Wurtman, MD, Director and neuroscientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), stated as early as 1987, “ Aspartame is a synthetic compound. We should not try to imply that synthetic compounds have the same fate in the body as naturally occurring foods.  The advertising is deceptive.”

With the onslaught of illness and disease syndromes plaguing our modern world today, I’d say Wurtman has been proven right over Yoeman.

The rapid increase of chemicals in our environment, food and medicine has greatly challenged the human body’s ability to rid itself of toxins.  Symptoms related to chemical toxicity vary from person to person as each person’s body is individual, but one common symptom of toxicity is the breakdown of the human immune system.  This response opens the gateway for various diseases in the human body. Reactions to toxic chemicals found in artificial sweeteners can damage the nervous system, followed by anxiety, depression, increased nervousness, blood disorders, and hormone dysfunction.

SYMPTOMS OF CHEMICAL TOXICITY ARE:

• Abnormal hardening of the bones
• Accelerated aging
• Aches and pains in bones and muscles (i.e. Fibromyalgia)
• Allergies
• Anemia
• Angina

• Birth defects
• Behavioral changes
• Blood problems
• Blurred vision
• Brain damage
• Breathing problems

• Cataracts
• Colitis
• Constipation
• Cramping

• Depression
• Disorientation
• Distractibility
• Dizziness/vertigo
• Dry skin and eyes

• Eye damage

• Fatigue/malaise
• Fever/low-grade

• Headaches/migraines
• Hyperactivity/ADD-ADHD

• Indigestion/acid reflux
• Impulsiveness/OCD
• Injury to cells
• Insomnia
• Irritability

• Lack of concentration
• Liver damage
• Loss of appetite
• Loss of hair
• Loss of memory
• Loss of libido
• Lung damage

• Metabolic problems
• Mineral deficiencies

• Nausea
• Nerve disorders
• Numbness
• Neurological disorders

• Protein/sugar in urine

•  Seizures
• Sexual disorders
• Skeletal malformation
• Skin ailments/rashes

• Tumors

• Vitamin deficiencies

Are Artificial Sweeteners Safe For Children?

Have your kids been out of sorts lately?  Do they complain of more frequent tummy aches, malaise, mood swings or aggression?  Have you read the labels on what they are eating at home, at school, and away from the house?

“Consumption of even moderate amounts of aspartame during pregnancy may produce a dramatic increase in the number of children born with diminished brain function,” warned Diana Dow-Edwards, PhD research scientist, SUNY Health Science Center, Brooklyn, NY.  Dow-Edward’s research began in the mid-1980s, but her early warnings of aspartame’s harmful effects on fetuses during pregnancy have fallen upon deaf ears.¹

With the rapid rise in mental illness amongst children, AD/HD and hyperactivity, depression, and lower IQs,² why hasn’t research such as Dow-Edward’s been considered as a probable cause for rising mental disease amongst modern children?  Why haven’t mothers been warned that artificial sweeteners can cause birth defects and mental retardation if taken at the time of conception and early pregnancy?

Children are especially at risk for neurological disorders and should NOT be given aspartame and its blend with sucralose or acesulfame K.

I can relate many case histories of children having mal seizures and other mental disturbances while using NutraSweet®. Unfortunately, it is not always easy to convince a mother that aspartame is to blame for her child's illness. Only by trial and success will she be able to warn other mothers to take their children's health into their own hands.

Splenda manufacturers even admit: "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 to this statement....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 ADHD, depression, hypoglycemia, and diabetes.  How many kids do you see taking a sip of mom's diet cola or chewing a stick of sugar-free gum?

Children raised on chemical diets are more likely to develop physical and mental disorders, and as Dow-Edwards predicted, the evidence is surfacing at epidemic levels in America and other developed countries. 

1. Hull JS. Sweet Poison: How The World’s Most Popular Artificial Sweetener Is Killing Us-My Story. New Horizon Press, 1997.

2. Wolraich ML, Hannah JN, Pinnock TY, Baumgaertel AI, Brown J. Comparison of diagnostic criteria for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in a county-wide sample. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 35 319-324, 1996.

"Baking studies have shown that Splenda is exceptionally heat-stable," brag McNeil representatives. "No measurable breakdown of Splenda occurred in any of the baked goods tested. One-hundred percent of sucralose was recovered from cakes, biscuits, and crackers after baking at typical temperatures of 350oF, 410oF, and 450oF, respectively." Splenda studies prove that Splenda maintains its sweetness during cooking and in storage for long periods of time, and in contrast these studies have proven for us that aspartame does not.

Barndt and Jackson performed one such study in 1990.¹ The purpose of the sucralose processing study was to demonstrate sucralose stability in a variety of common baked goods. Yellow cake, cookies, and graham crackers were selected because they represent a common cross section of common ingredients and typical process conditions used in the baking industry. For each baked product, no peaks other than sucralose could be detected. Using aqueous/methanolic (methanol) extracts of the baked products, a one-hundred percent sucralose recovery was found, which proved sucralose did not interact with any other ingredients during baking, and that the compound remained stable under baking conditions. Its inability to break down when heated also proves it maintains extremely unnatural physical properties both in baked food products and in the human body.²

Kim Clay, director of communications for Merisant Corp., the current Chicago-based manufacturer of NutraSweet/Equal was quoted as admitting in reference to Equal not used well in baking, "There are special recipes that the Equal test kitchen has developed, so Equal can be used in baking," Clay explained. "You just have to do it a certain way, at the end of the baking cycle."

So, Equal doesn't bake safely and Splenda doesn't "bake" at all - what is this doing to the health of a five year old?

Splenda is marketed as being 600 times sweeter than sugar, but its sweetness can vary up to 4,000 times sweeter according to the patent information, and depending on the food application it is found in and what other artificial sweeteners it is blended with. And the "bigger the number" doesn't mean it's necessarily better. The more inflated a chemical sweetener is (such as 600 times or 4,000 times sweeter than real sugar), the farther from natural it is, the more chemicals are required to prevent it from "digesting" which makes it harmful to the body, and the harder it is to cook with.

"What most people don't know," comments Kelly Goyen, CEO of Empirical Labs, "is sweeteners merely fifty to one-hundred times sweeter than sugar bake better and retain more of the texture of real food. And to enhance sucralose's sweeter taste, it is bulked-up with maltodextrin, a starchy powder, so it can measure more like sugar."

A basic law of physics: when any matter is heated, it physically changes, typically breaking down. How unnatural is a substance that doesn't break down when heated? I wouldn't want that in my cocoa!

Splenda's Shelf-Life
Results of a 1999 McNeil study of carbonated cola at pH 3.1 (very acidic) sweetened with either Splenda or aspartame, showed that after one year of storage at seventy-three degrees Fahrenheit, ninety-nine percent of the Splenda remained unchanged compared to twenty-nine percent of the aspartame. The effect of storage on the flavor of cola drinks sweetened with sugar (control group), sucralose, aspartame, and an aspartame/acesulfame K blend was studied over a period of six months in storage at twenty degrees Centigrade at pH 3.0.

Sucralose stability and flavor retention were of particular focus. An "expert sensory panel" confirmed each sweetener system to be of equal sweetness and comparable in flavor:

• The sucralose cola retained an initial flavor, except for a slight increase in metallic flavor, and maintained its approximate sweetness intensity over the duration of six months.
• In comparison, both other experimental sweeteners decreased in sweetness intensity and increased in bitterness.
• The sucralose cola retained its cola flavor over six months.
• Aspartame and aspartame/acesulfame-K blend colas decreased in cola flavor.
• The control sugar cola retained its initial flavor and sweetness.

So if sucralose is "indigestible" due to its laboratory compounding as the manufacturer claims, and corporate studies show it preserves almost completely unaltered after sitting in a can for six months, then we have yet another serious health problem to consider – the body by nature will work even more diligently to digest the chemicals, elevating liver enzymes, stomach enzymes, and intestinal bacteria – all placing stress and trauma on the body, and depleting its nutrients.

References:

1. Barndt, R. L., & Jackson, G. (1990). Stability of sucralose in baked goods. Food Technology, 44, 62-66.
2. Ibid.

Washington D.C. [January 10, 2005] -- A group of concerned consumers, led by sugar cane and sugar beet farmers across America, today launched the website www.truthaboutsplenda.com http://www.truthaboutsplenda.com/ to better educate consumers about the chlorinated artificial sweetener Splenda.

Johnson & Johnson, which markets Splenda, has led consumers, reporters and the general public to believe that this chemical sweetener is somehow natural. The highly publicized slogan “Made from Sugar so it Tastes Like Sugar” is deceptive and misleads consumers about what they are feeding their families. Just one indication of the public’s confusion can be seen in a recent poll, undertaken by a national consumer group, stating that nearly half of present and past Splenda users believe it is “natural.”

“The truth is Splenda is not grown in a sugar beet or a sugar cane field. It’s manufactured in a chemical plant,” Andy Briscoe, President and CEO of the Sugar Association, recently commented. “It’s a highly processed chlorinated sweetener, and no one knows for sure what the long term effects may be. I am sure of one thing: it’s not natural.”

The website, www.truthaboutsplenda.com http://www.truthaboutsplenda.com/ , is only the first step in building a nationwide coalition of people and organizations committed to ensuring that the American people are better educated about the fact that Splenda is an artificial sweetener which contains chlorine.

For more information about the “Truth About Splenda” campaign or to get involved, please contact Rich Masters at Qorvis Communications, 202-496-1000, e-mail rmasters@qorvis.com , or visit the website at http://www.truthaboutsplenda.com/.]]> http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/01/the_truth_about.html http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/01/the_truth_about.html Politics Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:18:39 -0600