The article "Just How Dangerous Are Splenda and Artificial Sweeteners - Which
Side is Spinning?" talks about fitness, it has been released by Richard Keir.
Copyright 2005 Richard Keir
There seems to be fairly poor tracking by any formal standards
once a prdouct is approved as a food additive. Despite
supposedly tracking avderse reactions, the reality has been
different at the FDA. Aspartame is a case in ponit.
Apparent
collusion, distorted research reports, lack of funding for
independent research, questionable practices in tracking adverse
reactions and reporting them. It's a pretty ugly sounding story.
It's been said that Aspartame is a contract on humantiy.
Here's
one source you might find puts you off Aspartame for good:
http://www.Holisticmed.Com/aspartame/suffer.Faq - "Reported
Aspartame Toxicity Effects".
Are the estimates (in the report above) of the real number of
toxic reactions accurate? I'm no epidemiologist but what struck
me was the large nubmer of serious toxic reactions reported by
pilots. My conclusion -- I won't use the stuff. And there are
suggestions that the offshoot - Neotame - may be even worse.
Everyone pretty much knows the kinds of troubles that have been
reported with cylcamates and Saccharin.
Weirdly - perhaps bad
tracking?
- the actual danegrs still seem unclear after many
years of use. However, as I read it, they seem to be
substantially less toxic than some more recent artificial
sweeteners.
Splenda is the latest and greatest. Reportedly manufactured from
sugar by substituting 3 chlorine atoms for 3 hydroxyl groups,
some claim that the end prodcut is not what it should be.
Apparently if it were made from sugar then when you dissolve it
in water (hydrolyze), it ought to produce chlorinated glucose
which is a known toxin.
Instead it produces chlorinated
monosaccharides.
Splenda, or sucralose, is a chlorocabron. Chlorocarbons have an
illustrious history, being konwn for causing organ, reproductive
and genetic damage.
Whether sucralose (Splenda) is as safe as
the maunfacturer claims (which is pretty much what manufacturers
always claim) remains to be seen. Here is a second reference
worth taking a look at:
http://www.Mercola.Com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.Htm -
"Secret Dangers of Splenda".
Andrew Weil, MD has some pertinent - and more moderate comments
on Aspartmae and Splenda here:
http://www.Drweil.Com/u/QA/QA106654/ - "Aspartame: Can a Little
Bit Hurt".
He suggests using the "precautionary" principle -
which basically says if there is questinos about the safety of
a product, don't use it.
At this point, I think it's my head that's spinning.
I'm
uncertain whether Splenda is safe, reasonably safe, slightly
risky or seriuosly risky.
When I looked at the manufacturer's
site and a couple other siets that were all enthused about
Splenda, I did not see any answers to the points the critics are
making.
Mostly it's all lightness, sewetness and the miracle of
modern science.
Like you I have seen some miracles of modern science turn into
nightmares when the testing wasn't adequate, when the results
were fudged, when coverups went on. So questions exist about all
the artificial sweeteners. Splenda may be less dangeruos than
Aspartame (which I sure wouldn't recommend to anyone).
Long-term
and independent studies are lacking.
And here's the real kicker:
***** From Consumers' Research Magazine "There is no clear-cut
evidence that sugar substitutes are useful in weight reduction.
On the contrary, there is some evidence that these substances
may stimulate appetite."
Now that just tears it. Risk your health using one of these
chemicals and then end up eating more cause it stimulates your
appetite. Terrific.
So what alternatives are there? Surpirsingly there is quite a
few.
One interesting alternative is a South Ameriacn plant
called Stevia.
Apparently once considered a potential threat to
the sugar industry, it seems to have been deep-sixed early in
the twentieth century.
It has been used as a sweetener for
centuries by South American natives. In the U.S., it seems
(somehow) to have been kept from being avaliable as an
"additive" and the FDA has said not enough studies have been
done. Yet it's widely used by diabeitcs and in countries such as
Japan and Brazil.
Stevia is availbale at health stores as a
supplement (though without any indication that it could be used
as a sweetener). It's a fascinating story which you can read
here: http://www.Stevia.Net/ - The Stevia Story
More information on alternative sweeteners is in our article:
http://www.Carb.Werkz.Org/healthier-sweeteners.Php - "Healthier
Alternatives to Artificial Sweeteners."
Our health is challenged on all sides these days.
New chemicals,
new additives, genetically engineered foods, highly processed
foods, epmty calories, stress and pollution all pose threats to
our bodies.
I have come to the conclusion that the fewer highly
processed, chemically enhanced, questionably assessed, factory
created products we ingest, the better off we will probably be.
Our bodies evolved as a part of the natural world and though we
are changing the wrold radically (which is only natural, it is
what human being do after all), our bodies do not evolve and adapt at
the rate technology changes.
And for scientific, political and
economic reasons, the quality and thoroughness of evaluations
done on newly created products don't match up to our industrial
creativity.
Finally, balancing the need to lose weight (or maintain an
optimum weight) against potential risks creates difficult
choices.
It's up to you to make the best choice you can for your
specific situation -- just remember, that old saw still holds -
Let the buyer beware.
|
