Does it Work?Unsure if the latest product or service lives up to it's claims? From popular products to the latest scams, discuss it here before you buy!
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--
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...
Quote:
Ann Oncol. 2004 Oct;15(10):1460-5.
Artificial sweeteners--do they bear a carcinogenic risk?
Weihrauch MR, Diehl V.
Department of Internal Medicine I of the University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. [email protected]
Artificial sweeteners are added to a wide variety of food, drinks, drugs and hygiene products. Since their introduction, the mass media have reported about potential cancer risks, which has contributed to undermine the public's sense of security. It can be assumed that every citizen of Western countries uses artificial sweeteners, knowingly or not. A cancer-inducing activity of one of these substances would mean a health risk to an entire population. We performed several PubMed searches of the National Library of Medicine for articles in English about artificial sweeteners. These articles included 'first generation' sweeteners such as saccharin, cyclamate and aspartame, as well as 'new generation' sweeteners such as acesulfame-K, sucralose, alitame and neotame. Epidemiological studies in humans did not find the bladder cancer-inducing effects of saccharin and cyclamate that had been reported from animal studies in rats. Despite some rather unscientific assumptions, there is no evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic. Case-control studies showed an elevated relative risk of 1.3 for heavy artificial sweetener use (no specific substances specified) of >1.7 g/day. For new generation sweeteners, it is too early to establish any epidemiological evidence about possible carcinogenic risks. As many artificial sweeteners are combined in today's products, the carcinogenic risk of a single substance is difficult to assess. However, according to the current literature, the possible risk of artificial sweeteners to induce cancer seems to be negligible.
INTRODUCTION: Artificial sweeteners are nowadays inevitable food additives, since they provide necessary food diversity to people suffering from diabetes. Aspartame is the most frequently used artificial sweetener ever and its safety profile is much better than that of saccharin or cyclamate. It received marketing approval in 1973, but only 3 months later aspartame was withdrawn because of allegations based on improperly designed experimental studies dealing with its carcinogen effects on rodent brain. However, extensive studies using the same model did not confirm such suspicions, and aspartame received a second marketing approval.
EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES: Almost two decades later an epidemiological study found a relationship between aspartame and an increased frequency of brain tumors in humans. However, this study included a short time span of observation, and it did not estimate actual intake of aspartame, which led to loss of validity. Later on no epidemiological studies found correlation between aspartame use and incidence of brain tumors in humans. Up to now the only safety concern about aspartame, which received valid scientific proofs, is pro-seizure action of its excessive intake. In patients with epilepsy, excessive intake of aspartame can decrease the threshold for seizures or prolong them once they appear. However, if the intake is not above the recommended level of 40 mg/kg b.w./day, aspartame is well tolerated even in this subpopulation. CONCLUSION: Based on detailed analysis of published studies on safety of aspartame, it should not be restricted, but used in recommended amounts.
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).
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.
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.
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...
People reading that link need to keep in mind that it's a blog. It's just someone's opinons...there are a lot of folks who believe whatever they read...and there's a LOT of crap out there on the Internet that passes for 'news' or actual, factual information.
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!
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!
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!
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!
Which is the exact goal of all this press by the sugar board and Mercola - who BTW is *not* an M.D.
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...
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.
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
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....
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!
They also had a fit when the World Health Organization suggested reducing total sugar consumption to 10% to battle obesity, and increasing our consumption of natural fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. The sugar and soda industries wants us to consume 25% sugar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsJim
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.
Well that's interesting, I missed that. I do tend to take what he says with a grain of salt. I agree with some of his reports, but there have been a lot that left me doing my own research, and disagreeing with his opinions.
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.
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....
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...
Bah. Water is a chemical. And arsenic is completely natural. Just throwing a lable on something and appealing to a stereotype isn't really the same thing as making an informed choice.
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.
splenda
