|
splenda
Since we debate over Splenda a lot and just talk about it in general, i figured i would start a thread here listing articles that i find. Might be helpful for some! Feel free to post articles too and discuss them! Enjoy. Here's the first article i find today--
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050324/dcth023_4.html WASHINGTON, March 24 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is being issued by the U.S. Sugar Association: Johnson & Johnson/McNeil has been awarded the 2005 "Rotten Apple" award by the Order of Professional Dieticians of Quebec (OPDQ) for print advertisements touting the chlorinated artificial sweetener Splenda. Johnson & Johnson/McNeil's Splenda ads were nominated for both the television and the print categories "for marketing that evokes the idea that their product (an artificial sugar substitute) can be used everywhere sugar can be used and can be given to children without limitation. The ads also maintain it has the taste of sugar." According to the OPDQ, "the Rotten Apple award denounces a company from the food industry whose ads can carry confusion about the concept of a health food or about the nutritional value of a product." The "winning" ad is Johnson & Johnson's "Dance of the Splenda Plum Fairy" print advertisement, which claims that the chemical sweetener can be used "everywhere you use sugar" and is "an excellent reason to spoil your loved ones." The ad features a young child eating cookies. Canadian nutritionists are not the only ones concerned with the marketing of Splenda. In a recent WebMDHealth article, Samantha Heller, MS, RD, remarked: "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." The Apple awards (the Golden Apple prize and the Rotten Apple prize) are given annually by the Order of Professional Dieticians of Quebec to the companies of the food industry who positively or negatively illustrate respect for nutrition in their marketing of a food product. The OPDQ is a Canadian professional association concerned with matters of nutrition and public health. For more information about the OPDQ or the Apple prizes, please visit http://www.opdq.org. |
Hmmm I just posted about Splenda (and artificial sweeteners in general) in the Acomplia thread, but I'll repost what I wrote here:
Splenda, asparatame and saccharin have been studied and researched for years (saccharin has actually been around for well over 100 years and has a great safety record!) and I personally believe they are safe and can be used with no problems for the vast majority of the general public. Of course there is always going to be a segment of the population who will have an adverse reaction to Splenda or asparatame, just as there are people who have adverse reactions to MSG, dairy products, wheat, peanuts, etc. I know that you've probably seen the anti-sweetener websites (one even run by the Sugar Institute - can't take the competition I guess!) but it is important to realize that the organizations behind them very much have their own agendas at play. You can go to pubmed.com and browse through the published, peer-reviewed studies on pretty much anything...here's one abstract for example... Originally Posted by : Originally Posted by : IMO - the bottom line for any kind of drug or food or whatever comes up to this - if you don't want to use it, then you don't have to...it's a personal choice. Personally I would say that the people going after artificial sweeteners should shift their efforts towards tobacco, trans fats, and high-fructose corn syrup instead - they're FAR more harmful to the general population! ****** It's been awhile since I've mentioned this so for the benefit of those who don't know, my father was a food chemist for 40 years. Specifically he formulated soft drinks, specializing in DIET soft drinks for the most part. Growing up, my sisters and I got to drink a LOT more soda pop than the other kids in our neighborhood, since we had a garage full of it (99% of the time it was diet pop, mostly 'testers' - flavors/formulations that were being tested). Dad started working with aspartame back in the mid-1970s, so the four of us girls (plus mom, dad, and our friends) got to start consuming aspartame earlier than most of the general public (it didn't really start coming out in stores until around 1981 or so). Besides the soda pop, we also had a HUGE bag - like trash-can size - of NutraSweet gumballs (needless to say we were very popular around the neighborhood!) for awhile. Dad doesn't spend a lot of time on the 'net - he's in his 70s now - but he could not BELIEVE the hubbub being made about Aspartame (and besides being a chemist, he also has a medical degree from a prominent East Coast university and practiced medicine in the armed forces). Basically he said that if he had thought that there was ANYTHING harmful about Aspartame or for that matter, ANY ingredient he worked with, that there was NO WAY he would bring it home for us girls and POISON us. And apparently it did no harm - I've been using the stuff for about 30 years now and have had no ill effects (none of my 3 sisters has had weight problems BTW). So there's my 18 cents or so. :lol: |
Funny, my house is the same as this thread. I'm pretty laid back about the sweeteners - I guess because there's always a concern about basically everything we touch our body with, but my husband is very skeptical of Splenda (moreso than other sweeteners). We also use Stevia as a sweetener. I don't like it as much because it's so strong, and I am bad about putting too much on, making it bitter.
|
sorry, didn't see your thread in the other place! Yeah, i always have a problem with putting too much on too! Especially in my ice tea. Then it's too sweet! Have a new article for you guys. I think it's a couple of weeks old, but for some reason i just came across it.
http://www.crankyconsumer.org/archiv...lth_risks.html A Look at Splenda; Is it Worth the Health Risks? Alright I’m going to call this article a spin off of the Recently published Wall Street Journal article that showed the exponentially increasing sales of Splenda, an artificial sweetener that has shown a plethora of health side affects in clinical testing. $172.0 Million Dollars; that is the dollar figure corresponding to the 2004 sales of this product. That number is up from around $70 million in 2002. That’s quite a leap, and Coke and Pepsi have both revealed plans to use the product in a new version of their diet cola. Now what the author of the WSJ article failed miserably at is the problems with this, problems that most consumer are largely unaware of. The author did note that, “McNeil is facing a lawsuit filed by U.S. sugar growers alleging it misled consumers by wrongly depicting the artificial sweetener as a natural product.” But didn’t really go too in depth. This product is being falsely marketed as a natural product, but that is absolutely not the truth; Splenda is a chemical compound known as sucralose, and a potentially dangerous one at that. WOW, but the FDA approved it! Yeah well the FDA has proven to be the a nearly worthless agency in the form of preventing harmful products from entering the market as of recent, don’t make me name the scandals (if you want to read more search my site for key word FDA). The truth is that there are a large amount of consumers having very bad reaction to this product according to the following web site, check out these testimonials Please check out Dr. Mercola’s “dangers of sucralose as well. You can also just Google the two word Splenda and Health and you will get an impressive array of information pointing to some unhealthy side affect to using the product. |
Reading too much of Dr Mercola's stuff makes me feel utterly paranoid about food. Surely it's gotta be balanced. While people are freaking out about the "possible" health issues of various foods - other people are killing themselves on Alcohol, Pure Meth, etc or mashing their brain cells with cannabis. Yet it's socially acceptable in a lot of circles.
Enjoy your food - and don't overdo it. :-) |
Originally Posted by lovemychocolate: I wouldn't exactly call the FDA a 'totally worthless organization'. Sure, they haven't been 100% perfect, but gimme a break - humans aren't perfect. They've made a few mistakes...what organization, company, entity or person HASN'T made a mistake once in awhile? And the sugar growers are the ones filing suit. It is to laugh IMO...of course they're ticked - they're losing MARKET SHARE to Splenda! And as far as Mercola is concerned - it doesn't surprise me that he would say that about the FDA, since he's been the subject of FDA investigations more than once - most recently for making unsubstantiated medical claims for the products he peddles on his website. As I stated before - people have adverse reactions to many many different substances, such as wheat and peanuts, but I don't see anyone calling for the ban of wheat or peanuts. (maybe because there's no one they can sue?) IMO - if you consume something that gives you an adverse reaction, stop using it. If you don't experience any problems, then go fer it! :) |
Originally Posted by MrsJim: What about if it potentially causes long term deathly side effects? I know there's probably a ton of foods or things that we dont' know how it will affect our bodies in the future, but for some reason when something like Splenda for example gets a lot of press about it potentially being harmful, i just get scared! On that note, i'm going to have a piece of chocolate right now, hence my name - made with real sugar! :) |
Originally Posted by lovemychocolate: It blows me away how the sugar folks are trying to make THEIR product look like a 'health food'. Let's not mention the fact that sugar calories (which make up most of the empty calories via simple carbs in most folks' diets) are the primary cause of the obesity epidemic and the related spike in diseases and conditions such as diabetes... :rolleyes: If you want the straight skinny on Splenda (aka sucralose) or Equal (aka aspartame) or anything else...I'd suggest doing a search on Medline and reading some abstracts from peer-reviewed studies that have been done...rather than relying on hype and hysteria. You might also want to check out this article titled "Sugar Substitutes: Americans Opt for Sweetness & Lite" from the FDA website. |
Hmmm, I didn't know that the FDA had sent one of their letters to Mr Mercola. His site is one of the most trafficked health sites on the web. As said above he is so incredibly negative about virtually everything, that the only options left, are... well... his diet books and supplements ;)
|
I use splenda, I like it...so what is the problem?
|
Sorry, Ms Jim and the others are not the end all be all..they are not doctors or nurse. Just people like us. Tired of reading the crap and reading the posts... eat less, exercise..that is the true way to lose weigh....
|
Originally Posted by MrsJim: Originally Posted by MrsJim: Regarding Splenda, I add it to beverages, oatmeal, and other foods when the flavor doesn't suffer. I don't exclude sugar, though. I'd rather have a little piece of real chocolate, than a large piece of the fake stuff. It's all about food quality, to me. |
Chemicals are bad, mmmmkay?
|
Originally Posted by dierkingl: And ya know...that's what I've always said anyway. I'm not a doctor or a nurse...says that in my siggie. Eat less and exercise - that's how I lost 100+ pounds and KEPT THEM OFF for the past 15+ years. I summed that up in my "Big Weight Loss Secret" post. As far as artificial sweeteners are concerned - we all have the freedom to choose whether or not to use them. It's an INDIVIDUAL choice, and dang it, if the Powers that Be are going to allow substances that have actually been proven to cause harm and/or death to remain on the market (e.g. tobacco, alcohol, firearms, etc) then why get all hot under the collar about artificial sweeteners...unless of course the organization or persons who ARE making the big fuss have some sort of agenda... my two cents anyway... |
Originally Posted by SuchAPrettyFace: Just for the record, I am a sugar gal. I've never found a substitute for the real thing that I cared for, so I simply eat less sweets now. But not because the word "chemical" scares me. |
Originally Posted by tealeaf: I read something somewhere once about the carbonation eating away @ calcium stores, wonder if there's any truth to that. Guess I should check out snopes or maybe start a new thread. PS--I knew I should've posted a pic of Mr Mackey from South Park w/my original post. :lol: |
New article update: Just for your reading pleasure
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...nt/weekly/food Chemical Warfare I have no desire to become a statistic in what the Pentagon refers to as "collateral damage." So I have always been careful to stay well out of the line of fire whenever and wherever combatants are combating. Thus far, I have avoided being wounded in the food fight between fats and carbs by maintaining a position of strict neutrality. But there is one currently raging conflict into which I shall leap. I have no sentiment for either side, but I am in the role of what amounts to an arms dealer, because I have important weapons to offer both. The war to which I refer is a chemical one, but its combatants are lobbing lawsuits, not missiles. The Defense Primarily in a defensive posture (although also in suing mode) is McNeil Nutritionals LLC, a Johnson & Johnson company that markets the artificial sweetener sucralose. Sucralose is manufactured by the British firm Tate & Lyle PLC and sold under the brand name Splenda. Sales of Splenda currently far exceed those of any other artificial sweetener, including Sweet'N Low, which contains saccharin; Sunett and Sweet One, which contain acesulfame K; and Equal and NutraSweet, which contain aspartame and had been the top sellers in America until Splenda came along. The Offense On the offensive against McNeil is not only its main competitor -- Merisant US Inc., makers of Equal and NutraSweet -- but the industry that produces real sugar, represented by the Sugar Association. The allegation is that Splenda's widely advertised slogan, "Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar" is "deceptive and/or misleading." Nobody questions whether Tate & Lyle's chemists actually do make sucralose from cane sugar, or sucrose. All McNeil will say about how they do that is to describe "a patented, multi-step process that selectively replaces three hydrogen-oxygen groups on the sugar molecule with three chlorine atoms." In more specific chemical terms: Eight of the sucrose molecule's 22 hydrogen atoms are paired with oxygen atoms as so-called hydroxyl groups, OH. Tate & Lyle's chemists replace three of those eight hydroxyl groups with chlorine atoms. (My guess is they do it by treating sucrose with hydrogen chloride.) But isn't chlorine harmful to humans and animals and damaging to the environment? In some forms, yes. For example, most common insecticides contain chlorine atoms in their molecules. And polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), an industrial byproduct, are among the most persistent environmental pollutants. But in other compounds, such as sodium chloride (table salt), the chlorine is not only harmless but essential to our health. The Sugar Association's Web site makes the calculatedly alarming statement that when eating Splenda, consumers are "actually eating chlorine." Well, la-de-da. So are the consumers who are "actually eating" salt. My point is that chlorine is a common and versatile element that appears in hundreds of compounds with hundreds of different properties -- good, bad and indifferent. The Weapons So here is the weapon I offer to the Splenda forces: The Sugar Association's fright tactic against "eating chlorine" is misleading and disingenuous. And my chemical weapon for the Equal, NutraSweet and Sugar Association forces: Splenda's slogan, "made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar," is also misleading and disingenuous. The lawyers may argue until they're blue in the face about whether Splenda really tastes like sugar, and I'm sure that a witness could be found to testify that it tastes like salt. But what does "tastes like" mean, anyway? Does it mean "tastes exactly like" or "tastes similar to"? The Chemistry But taste is not the point. To a chemist, it's the word "so" in the slogan. It implies that the taste of sucrose survives its chemical transformation into sucralose. But the implication that Splenda tastes like sugar because it was made from sugar flies in the face of what we know about chemical change: that changing any part of a molecule must invariably change its properties. I can take some sugar into the laboratory, modify it chemically and wind up with something that tastes like almost anything you'd want -- or wouldn't want. For example, with nothing but a little sulfuric acid, I can turn sucrose into a steaming, seething, black mass that would dissolve your teeth if you tried to eat it. So while I will swallow Splenda itself without concern (the Food and Drug Administration's imprimatur is good enough for me), I cannot swallow its slogan. I believe it is indeed misleading, just as alleged by the anti-Splenda forces. And while I'm at it, because all sugars (sucrose, glucose, fructose, maltose, etc.) have chemical names ending in -ose, naming the product sucralose is, again, disingenuous. Sweet it is, but a sugar it isn't. Regarding the other arguments swirling around the bitter battle of the sweets -- whether or not sucralose is digested in the body and whether long-term human studies have shown its safety -- I hereby step adroitly out of the combat zone and assert my neutrality, inasmuch as these are not chemical issues. I'll leave them to the lawyers. |
I am a sugar person, I love sweet tea, and coffe...I bought Splenda, tried it and I love it! I use it on my bran flakes and my tea, heck my coffee too. I don't think it has a bad aftertaste at all, nothing at all like sweet & low or equal.
People are always trying to ruin something for someone...if you don't like it, don't use it, eat it or drink it...if you like it, enjoy it and just smile at the person trying to make you think your poisoning yourself...remember you too are eating or drinking something that someone has a problem with :) |
Originally Posted by SuchAPrettyFace: FWIW, I did catch the South Park referance. I have the show tivo'ed, in fact. It wouldn't have mattered how you couched it; I would have, and still do, take issue with the whole "chemicals are bad" sentiment. |
I'm sitting here drinking my yogurt smoothie with Splenda, and I love it. Like Chrissy said, no matter what you eat or drink, someone somewhere will think it's dangerous. Not all natural products are good for you and not all processed products are bad for you. I'm sure something with no sugar or no sugar substitute at all would be better, but if I'm going to have something with a sugar substitute, it will always be Splenda. Why? Well, mainly because all of the other ones leave such a horrible aftertaste that I can't stomach any of the diet drinks. Of course, as much as I hate that flavor, there is someone else (like my mom) who is so used to having it that she prefers it to regular sugar. To each his (or her) own.
|
Splenda just seems to have too many objections right now. They are being attacked from all sides, yet they haven't made any statements or anything. It seems fishy to me. I am not a fan of all these starnge chemicals, especially when I used to be under the impression that it was natural.
|
splenda
I use splenda, and will continue to do so. Everything has side effects, most of them cause no harm to the vast majority of people. Have you ever read the side effects on a bottle of aspirin? Tylenol? Yet they are very beneficial to many people. I don't like the other sweetners, especially stevia, which has a bitter taste. Untill I get more information on splenda I will continue to use it. Oh, and I am a nurse. Why do you think that Dr.'s and nurses know more about nutrition than any one else?
|
I don't use any kind of sweetener.
At all. 3/4 cup sugar when/if I make a pitcher of Kool Aid. I'm not going to spend 3 times as much on artificial sweetener when a bag of sugar lasts me 3+ years. I like my coffee, hot tea, iced tea etc unsweetened. Sugar just isn't an issue for me I guess. Salt, on the other hand...:lol: especially salty carbs like buttered pasta or popcorn or chips or bread & butter, look out. |
As a person who is allergic to every type of artificial sweetner I've tried.. I'm most definitely weary of them. My logic is simply, my body is sensitive, and if it has such a reaction with me, how can it be healthy? I also do my best to stay away from sugar all together... but we all do what works for us. So if Splenda or Aspartame works for you, thats your choice, and if it doesn't work for me, also my own choice to avoid them. Whats the point in attacking someone based on it? It's like religion.. touchy subject.. all my opinion of course.
-Aimee |
Hi Everyone, I am new and came across this site looking for weight loss support and how people "diet" without artificial sweetners.
Basically, I am one of the few people out there that has severe adverse reactions to any kind of sugar subsitute. We are talking migraines, vomiting, nausea, etc. It just ain't pretty. Anyway, any "diet" that I try to go on basically tells you drink "diet" soda, eat "diet" yogurt, etc. etc. etc. Well I can't have any of that, and I am tired of everyone just assuming that everyone can tolerate artifical sweetners. Everytime I say something it is like "Oh well, too bad for you, drink water and stop being upset about it." I know moderation is the key, but does anyone out there have the same problem? Are there any "diet" products out there without the artificial sweetners, aspertame, splenda, etc? I know, I should just get over it....... |
For me, a lot of times it's worth it to just have the full calorie/full fat version and less of it. I notice if I drink too much flavored water in a day, I get a headache, and I can only assume that's from the Splenda. As long as I drink it in moderation though, I'm okay. I don't think any product that makes you sick is worth using anyway just because it's the diet version. You have to listen to your body and use common sense.
I don't know if there is anything that is low fat and low calorie as far as the diet products. You may need to start making your own smoothies with real fruit and such to get away from the other options. I'm pretty sure that the rice cakes I eat (caramel corn being so addictive that my 7 year old keeps finishing them off) don't have anything artificial though. They are low calorie and still really good. |
Everyone who has an obsession or desire for "sweet" things be it artificial or not should read "Fat Land" as to learn the 'in your face' way about high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). I hear talk here that Coke contains sugar :lol: Not so! They stopped using sugar back in the 80's. It is all HFCS. Actually until the late 90's HFCS was in EVERYTHING. It has harmed all of us and caused an addictive desire for a sweet taste that isn't anywhere near natural and the body has no clue what to do with it. I have high hopes that Coke is introducing products this summer that will fill the void in my life after learning about HFCS and cutting most of it out. I say most bc I crave Coke and still have about one a week as a treat.
I was raised drinking Equal and now have turned to Splenda. My brother is a physician and father of four and they all drink ice tea sweetened with Splenda everyday. I am dying for Coke to release a product solely using it. ;) |
Originally Posted by Loud_Librarian: |
Originally Posted by Meg: |
Oooh, I don't think it's here yet, but I'll look for it! They announced the Coke-Splenda deal a few months ago, and expected it to prompt a shortage in Splenda for consumers. I stocked up :D
|
Stevia (a bonafide natural sweetener with zero cals) is really quite good! I bought several types of it and I absolutely thought it was the nastiest stuff ever until I realized I was using too much of it <grin>. I use both Stevia and Splenda.
|
Originally Posted by Suzanne 3FC: Doesn't look like there will be a shortage for long, but I still don't agree that this stuff is healthy for you to consume. I found a new article for you guys today. Also, please feel free to post any articles you guys find too! This stuff is so interesting to me.. http://www.al.com/news/mobileregiste...4510292330.xml |
Splenda in the news again:
plenda to Face Charges of False Advertising http://www.legalnewswatch.com/news_570.html A federal court in Los Angeles ruled on April 15 that the makers of the "No Calorie Sweetener" Splenda will face allegations that their marketing and advertising campaign is both false and misleading. The lawsuit, filed by the Sugar Association in December 2004, wants to force McNeil Nutritionals and parent company Johnson & Johnson to change their alleged deceptive advertising practices. The Sugar Association claims McNeil has spent millions on a marketing and advertising campaign that has "mislead many Americans" into believing that "Splenda is as natural as sugar." The Splenda web site says: "What makes SPLENDA Brand Sweetener an ideal no calorie sweetener?" is that it is "Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar." But the Sugar Association says different: "Splenda is a hydrocarbon containing chlorine; it is not sugar, and it is not natural. It is in fact an artificial chemical sweetener." The success of Splenda in America has had a financial impact on the sugar industry. "It is clear that thousands of sugar growers in the United States are suffering financially because of consumer confusion thinking Splenda is natural," the Sugar Association said in a statement. "The Splenda Lawsuit is about protecting profits; protecting profits is about protecting consumers from false advertising," said L. Mario Lozano, Legal News Watch editor. |
That should be an interesting lawsuit to follow! ;)
The thing IS though...I don't know about the 'many Americans' that the Sugar Association claims have been misled by Splenda's advertising, but personally, I've always classified Splenda, along with aspartame, saccharin, etc, as an "ARTIFICIAL sweetener", not a "natural artificial sweetener". :rolleyes: As I've said previously...what it comes down to IMO is this: If you don't want to use Splenda (or Equal/Sweet N Low or for that matter, any other substance) then you have the right to not use it. Likewise...those of us who want to use any artificial sweetener or what have you have every right to do so. It all comes down to PERSONAL CHOICES - again as I've previously stated, if the Powers that Be are going to continue to allow products that have been proven beyond all DOUBT to be harmful to remain on the market - such as tobacco products and alcohol - then they should leave Splenda alone! (IMO of course). |
Yeah it definitely is an interesting lawsuit to follow. Strange that the makers of Splenda have been so quiet too? I definitely agree with you that it's everyone's choice on what to consume. But it's good to know if products are being questioned too :) Have a great weekend!
|
Wow it's really weird their making such a big deal about Splenda. Man they shouldn't drink water either. :s: Cause there's all kinds of crazy looney things in tap water. Even a filter won't filter out the chlorine just the taste ;)
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:24 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.