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 a