12-02-2004, 10:01 PM
What do you all think of this? It appears this fellow/group thinks it's deadly. Splenda (http://www.wnho.net/splenda.htm)


12-03-2004, 03:52 PM
Dieters May Face Splenda Shortage

Dec 3, 3:20 PM (ET)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Coke spokeswoman wouldn't comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

McNeil Nutritionals claims the lawsuit is without merit, saying sucralose starts as cane sugar.

link (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041203/D86OCL1O0.html)

12-03-2004, 04:01 PM
In a simple word you would just as soon have DDT in your food as Splenda, because sucralose is a chlorocarbon. The chlorocarbons have long been famous for causing organ, genetic, and reproductive damage. It should be no surprise, therefore, that the testing of sucralose, even at less than the level demanded by FDA rules, reveals that it has been shown to cause up to 40%shrinkage of the thymus: A gland that is the very foundation of our immune system. It also causes swelling of the liver and kidneys, and CALCIFICATION of the kidney.
Lying and deceit on the artificial sweetener issue has been the FDA's Modus Operandi ever since Donald Rummsfeld broke everything decent in the US government to put Aspartame on the market as a "contract on humanity". It has no commercial purpose other than a contract on humanity. Either they have done but little testing of sucralose, or they are so afraid of what the public would think of sucralose, and the government if the public but knew what was going on, that they will not tell us! BECAUSE: we have been told nothing about the extensive studies which would have to have been done if very reasonable, and scientifically sound FDA rules had been followed.

Such study results as have been made known, catches the company in great big whopper lies! When questioned about the Thymus shrinkage which would disqualify sucralose forever, by the FDA's own rules, the company merely said. "Well the rats wouldn't eat the food with sucralose in it, so the thymus lost weight from starvation." The FDA allowed that explanation even though it was an admission that the rats hadn't ingested the required amount of sucralose, but had demonstrated immense damage anyway! In fact, if research animals won't voluntarily eat the required dose of experimental substance it can be given by gastric gavage, which is a common and well-known research method. Moreover, the rats so fed were only 7-20% underweight Vs the average for the control group. Rats who are severely starved to create a 30% weight loss, only shrink their thymus by an average of 7%. The net conclusion from all this is, that both the thymus shrinkage and the growth retardation caused by sucralose were enough to in each case disqualify sucralose from the marketplace.

All of these KNOWN findings only pointed out that the testing was so flawed that it could never be used as a basis for approval on one hand, and that the effects which were detected anyway were so severe that sucralose should never be allowed into the human body. It should be classified right along with DDT, and dioxin as illegal to even release into the environment much less put into your body!

The company blandly and heinously denied that sucralose is a chlorocarbon. They stated that it was merely a salt, like sodium chloride! That whopper wouldn't even get past a sophomore chemistry student. Facts, and concern for human welfare are obviously irrelevant in our Bush dominated government, and the Rummsfeld dominated media. What their incredulously lying statements about what sucralose is, did bring to mind though, is that it flies in the face of what its known breakdown product , 1, 6, dichloro, fructose, is: Another highly toxic chlorocarbon. They admittedly did not do toxicity studies on it, as FDA rules require, or perhaps the findings were so dangerous that they felt it better to confess to the "minor omission", of not even complying with the law and doing the required studies! They further tried to side step the toxicity issue by saying "Sucralose is not even absorbed from the digestive tract anyway, because it is after all, a chlorocarbon.": Another bold faced lie. Chlorocarbons are significantly absorbed from the digestive tract and sucralose is no exception! It is significantly absorbed from the GI tract. Of course, at that point their lies had compounded and contradicted themselves.

What you need to know about sucralose is that it is of a class of compounds which places it amongst some of the most dangerous chemicals on earth. The known studies, and science verify this fact. Lies and dissimulations, which have been totally, and inexcusably left unchecked by the FDA, point to gross governmental/corporate corruption, and massive cover up and peril. They say "Oh, It's just made from sugar, what could be more natural and harmless."


Dr. Jim Bowen

12-03-2004, 05:19 PM
But it tastes great, and it's less filling!!!

12-03-2004, 05:52 PM
Ok, so far no one cares. Im curious as I said if any of you know more of dangers using Splenda.

Most of you whether you know it or not consume this product every day. Yet no replies.

I could say a word about Kerry or Busch, then you'd reply? Which is more important, feuding over mistakes they made or a product that might kill you?

Ya I know Busch is going to kill you. Well maybe inderectly but isn't this the same?


12-03-2004, 06:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rod:</font><hr> Ok, so far no one cares. <hr /></blockquote>I care. I use Splenda every morning in my coffee. I don't know what to think about what you posted. I've never heard of such a thing before, and the claims seem outlandish.

There are, however, claims about other artificial sweeteners that make it seem like something you wouldn't want to ingest.

It seems that no matter what the topic or object, you can find extremists on both sides. (see politics, religion, etc.)

So I don't know what to think, and now I don't know whether I should stop using Splenda based on this one article that sounds rather extreme. The recent reports about taking Vitamin E increasing your chances of death were quickly labeled by legitimate sources as not necessarily valid. However, I don't fully trust any government agency to actually tell the public the whole truth either, especially when they say "trust us, it isn't bad for you" or "trust us, this is good for you".

12-03-2004, 06:18 PM
Sorry Rod, I guess I should have at the very least, thank you for pointing out this info.
I have followed you links and have done futher reading and it looks like this Splenda is also used in my Diet-Rite soda. I guess I will have to go back to water for quenching my thirst.
I gave up sugar a long time ago, along with cream or milk in my coffee.

I also gave up white bread, almost all fast food, but, I still crave a sausage and biscuit from McDonalds once in awhile.

Eating healthy has become a chore since the late 80s, seems large amounts of everything can KILL ya.

Thanks for the informative post.

p.s.; I usually read all your posts anyway, sorry if I don't acknowledge them as often as I should. You have always been a good resource of info.

Cueless Joey
12-03-2004, 09:37 PM
Damn, Rod.
Now what do I use?
The blue one or the pink one?
The pink one is supposed to be nasty too.

12-04-2004, 11:42 AM
No problem Tom. Actually that is all I was doing, pointing it out. I'm not sure it all holds water; I was hoping others here possibly knew more about the subject.

I sarcastically mentioned people caring more about politics than what they consume every day to draw attention. Believe me what you eat can be far more dangerous than the outcome of an election. I realize the younger crowd still thinks there invincible. LOL
As we get older we find out much different.

One day your 20 something and before you know it your over 40 and those bad habits catch up with you. We start to feel the effects but in many cases whatís on the news, elections, killings, whoís who, even playing pool, etc might take more of a preference than what we put in our bodies. We only have one for a lifetime and of course Iíve made my mistakes as well.

About a year ago I switched to Splenda. It was geared more towards weight although I consumed little sugar. I never was a sweets kind of person. Itís still amazing though how much we consume. I cut out all caffeine and started watching my salt intake because of blood pressure. In the last few years it has increased and so did my medication.

Well last week I noticed it was getting very high again. I went through what I normally consume on a daily basis and found my breakfast cereal is high in salt. (There were other products, it was the worst.) Well, what the hell, I switched a while back because my other brand was high in carbs. No real way to win here I suppose but carbs is far less of a problem than salt consumption. I just need to keep up my exercise program. I walk over two miles a day weather permitting. Iím 5 to 7 lbs overweight which isnít bad but my BP is still high.

Iím a heart attack waiting to happen and with all thatís happening to me now I definitely need to get it corrected. No way next week but if I last, the week after. LOL Ah just venting, BTW those biscuits are tasty at times, been at least a year for me. Thanks for the reply Tom.


12-04-2004, 11:54 AM

I'm not sure what's happening either. That is quite a claim so it got my attention. Sucralose has been used in soft drinks for years but that doesn't make it OK.

Personally I'm not going to discontinue use but I will read more on the matter. I'll ask my cardioligist when I see him, he has an opinion about everything. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif


12-04-2004, 02:11 PM
Ok, so far no one cares. Im curious as I said if any of you know more of dangers using Splenda. <hr /></blockquote>

"Is sucralose safe?

Sucralose has an excellent safety profile. More than 100 scientific studies conducted over a 20-year period demonstrate that sucralose is safe for use as a sweetening ingredient. The data from the studies were independently evaluated by international experts in a variety of scientific disciplines, including toxicology, oncology, teratology, neurology, hematology, pediatrics and nutrition. Importantly, comprehensive toxicology studies, designed to meet the highest scientific standards, have clearly demonstrated that sucralose is not carcinogenic.

Which regulatory bodies reviewed the safety profile of sucralose?

Among the regulatory bodies that have evaluated the safety of sucralose are the U.S. FDA, the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA); the Health Protection Branch of Health and Welfare Canada; Food Standards Australia/New Zealand, the European Unionís Scientific Committee on Food, and a host of others in South America and Asia. Sucralose is now permitted for use in over 60 countries. "

"...How is sucralose handled by the body?

Although sucralose is made from a process that starts with sugar, it is not a sugar nor does the body recognize it as a carbohydrate. Sucralose is not broken down for energy in the body so it has no calories. The sucralose molecule passes through the body unchanged, is not metabolized, and is eliminated after consumption.

Is the chlorine in sucralose potentially harmful?

No. Chlorine in the form of chloride is a safe and natural element present in many of the foods and beverages that we eat and drink every day. It is in most natural water supplies, and is also found in lettuce, tomatoes, mushrooms, melons, peanut butter and table salt. In the case of sucralose, the addition of chlorine to the sucralose molecule is what makes sucralose free of calories. Sucralose is an essentially inert molecule and it passes through the body without being broken down for calories."

Link (http://www.ific.org/publications/brochures/sucralosebroch.cfm)

12-04-2004, 02:21 PM
Hi Snake,

That is a very good link. Possibly the fellow that wrote the poor review had interest in another sweetner company. LOL I don't know but everything else I read points to it being a safe product. Thanks for the link.


12-04-2004, 02:51 PM

The extensive testing that must be successfully completed before a product gets FDA approval is reassuring but never failsafe.

Think about it like this: On the non-food front a company like Microsoft will spend millions of dollars and enlist the aid of tens of thousands of beta testers to test a new software package like XP for thousands of hours before it finally decides that it's safe to release it to the public. However, there will never be a beta test group to equal the number of consumers who will eventually decide to buy that product.

That's why in spite of those thousands of beta testers and thousands of hours of testing some errors and security flaws that slip past the beta group will ultimately be caught by the vastly larger group of end users. Because of their large numbers, end users are the most reliable test group of all.

Likewise testing new food additives or new drugs on human subjects are limited in scope by the number of participants in the study group. They can only go so far in confirming that the drug or additive is acceptable for human use. Like the software example above - it's often not until after the products reach the much larger test group of end users that we learn the full story about any hidden problems that they might have.

In the case of sucralose it may be a while before we can know for sure that there aren't any hidden problems. One thing is for sure - the number of humans now consuming that additive on a regular basis is quite large and still growing. In time if there aren't any substantive problems that develop from its use it won't be due to any shortage of human guinea pigs.


12-04-2004, 03:06 PM
In time if there aren't any substantive problems that develop from its use it won't be due to any shortage of human guinea pigs.
<hr /></blockquote>

Well that's for sure and I'm one of them. I think though, I consume far less than most of the subjects, if that is of any significance.