So I grabbed a soda the other day and noticed it was loaded with Aspartame -- yummy. I know that products made with Sucralose cause my stomach to cramp intensely so generally skip the artificial sweeteners, but these kinds of things always get me thinkng about what I'm putting into my body. Turns out Harvard Medical School was thinking about it and went one step further by compiling a report on the safety of artificial sweeteners and whether we should use them. Is the trade off in calories worth possible health issues? Find out by clicking on the link below.
Do you use artificial sweeteners? If so, what do you use and have you ever considered a more natural alternative?
All user-generated information on this site is the opinion of its author only and is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for any medical conditions. Members and guests are responsible for their own posts and the potential consequences of those posts detailed in our Terms of Service.
Add a Comment7 Comments
I heard about this article that blasts Splenda a while ago. I was wondering what others thought about it: http://www.wnho.net/splenda.htm
June 29, 2008 - 2:41pmThis Comment
lowengail, that is enough to scare anyone away from Splenda for life! However, I did a search on the author and he is not held in particularly high regard.
Anyone else know anything about the author?
June 30, 2008 - 1:12pmHe's not held in high regard by whom? You? Do you know him? How thorough was your research? Dr. Bowen is a Biochemist and Medical Doctor. He has written extensively about artificial sweeteners. What are your credentials? You may not care for the passionate intonation of his writings, but dig deeper---biochemistry is factual, and easy to research for truth in content. Gossip, here-say and conjecture are not respectable standards in journalism. As a moderator of this site, Susan, you have a responsibility to ensure factual reporting of what you publish.
Since you've made it clear you don't respect Dr. Bowen's credentials as a scientist and doctor, I've found other sources to confirm what he wrote, which I have included for the edification of your readership:
"The truth is that Splenda is not natural and does not taste like sugar. The sweetness of Splenda derives from a chlorocarbon chemical that contains three atoms of chlorine in every one of its molecules. The manufacturer of this chlorinated compound named it sucralose. The improper use of “ose” in the name creates the illusion that sucralose is natural like sucrose which is the precise name for table sugar.
Johnson & Johnson wants consumers to believe that the taste of Splenda is due solely to natural sugar, that is, due to sucrose. However, the manufacturer has patented several chemical processes for making the chlorinated chemical compound it calls sucralose. The patent literature illustrates that sucralose can be chemically manufactured from starting materials that do not require natural sugar.
In one patent, for example, the manufacturer constructs sucralose from raffinose by substituting atoms of chlorine for hydroxyl groups in raffinose. Raffinose is a molecule found naturally in beans, and onions and other plants, but unlike natural sucrose, it has very little taste.
In another patented process three atoms of chlorine are substituted for three hydroxyl groups in sucrose. The end product of both of these manufacturing processes is an entirely new chlorocarbon chemical called sucralose.
Each molecule of sucralose contains three atoms of chlorine which makes it 600 times sweeter than a natural molecule of sugar which contains no chlorine. Splenda has it’s own artificial taste which is due to this chlorinated compound."
••••••••••••••••••
Splenda is manufactured by McNeil Labs, a division of J&J. It would be naive to confuse the natural 'sucrose' with the manufactured 'sucralose'.
Dr Joseph Mercola, a highly regarded and well respected Chicago MD also has written extensively about artificial sweeteners. Go to www.mercola.com for details.
A Votre Sante,
Kristin Mills, Traditional Naturopath, CNHP
July 4, 2008 - 8:30pmlagunanaturalhealth.com
Kristin,
Thank you for your response. My reference to his not being held in high regard was to the search I did on the doctor.
I do apologize if I " made it clear [I] don't respect Dr. Bowen's credentials as a scientist and doctor" as my short reply on the original post has been interpreted. My question was how well anyone knew the researcher, plain and simple, because I had read some negative articles on his work. That was the extent of my question. My respect for the doctor was never an issue because I have never spoken about it.
As for my credentials - alas, they are neither scientific nor medical! I am simply a reasonably well-educated, reasonably well-read and I hope, reasonable woman.
Which is why I tend to question researchers, research and leading authorities in general.
I have utmost respect for the time, effort and expertise our medical and scientific professionals put into their work. Without them, where would we be?
But authority must be questioned, no matter how many degrees are held or how many plaudits one has garnered.
Questioning the results of a study must not be interpreted as rude or presumptuous. Or wrong. Rather, we all need to look at results and question the methodology and reasoning behind them. No matter how many initials are behind the person's name. As most of us (I hope!) are reasonable people, this should and must be allowed! When one does so, in a reasonable and civil manner - where is the harm? What is there to fear?
This is why Empowher started; one reasonable woman dared to question authority. Dared to question the science and medicine that told her one thing, when she knew another. And for that I'm grateful - I hope we all are!
July 5, 2008 - 9:28amLet's get back on track and return to the original subject of artificial sweeteners, starting with Splenda.
Science has declared Splenda a chlorocarbon by virtue of it's processing and chemistry. Defined, chlo•ro•car•bon:
Pronunciation: (klôr"u-kär'bun, klōr"-), [key] —n.
a chemical compound containing carbon and chlorine, as carbon tetrachloride, or containing carbon, chlorine, and hydrogen, as chloroform.
You may be interested to know that carbon tetrachloride and related chemicals, such as chloroform, are linked to cirrhosis of the liver.
That in itself tells the story about the yellow packets as they relate to Human Health Hazards. No need to get into your anonymous source's opinion of Dr. Bowen....or anyone else, for that matter.
While we're on the subject of artificial sweeteners, we'd be remiss not to review Aspartame, the most highly studied food additive in the history of the FDA (which is of itself a red flag). Here are the facts:
Aspartame is made up of three chemicals:
• aspartic acid, a non-essential amino acid
• phenylalanine, an essential amino acid
• methanol, a known toxin
What does this mean? Amino acids are protein building blocks. Non-essential amino acids are produced by the body. Essential amino acids are not produced by the body, but are acquired through food sources (meat, dairy, legumes). Toxins create Human Health Hazards. I've included a published list of Human Health Hazards associated with Methanol and their sources:
• Developmental Toxicant, CERHR JANK OEHHA-CREL
• Gastrointestinal or Liver Toxicant, RTECS
• Kidney Toxicant, MERCK
• Neurotoxicant, DAN EPA-HEN EPA-SARA HAZMAP KLAA OEHHA-AREL RTECS TANN
• Respiratory Toxicant, RTECS
• Skin or Sense Organ Toxicant, EPA-HEN RTECS
There's plenty of information about Aspartame---largely more of the above.
Make it easy on yourself by researching the research (science) rather than researching the researcher. When researching science, it's easy to stick to scientific fact-finding and it avoids personalizing commentary that could be construed as disparaging, slanderous and defaming. It seems people usually have opinions about other people, whether they know them or not. So what?
Your comments about "questioning results of a study" and "need to look at results and question methodology and reasoning behind them" are worthy, but meaningless in the context of this discussion. This is not about critiquing a study. This is about basic chemistry. You can study all day long but in the end, one plus one equals two.
That said, you and I are kindred spirits in the "questioning" department. Much to the dismay of my parents and (some) teachers, I've "gone to the mats" questioning the authority and methodologies of all kinds of people, starting with my 5th grade teacher, Mrs. Ellison, who I found to be a bit of a bully. Even as a 10 year old, my big mouth opened all kinds of doors, starting with the principal's office. I was never disrespectful or discourteous, just mouthy---and always well prepared, on point and with purpose. I refused to be bullied, even by a grown up. I knew I had nothing to fear, as long as I stuck to the facts and spoke the truth. Thanks, Dad. One day, the faculty "highly recommended" my parents send me off to prep school in Connecticut.
That was just the beginning. My high school motto was "Knowledge is Power" and my university motto was "Veritas". More fuel! These words continue to inspire my passion and thirst for truth in knowledge.
I join you in applauding Michelle for going forward with this site and hope empowHer will grow to report and support a broad and varied range of belief systems and methodologies to truly transform health.
Kristin Mills, Traditional Naturopath, CNHP
July 6, 2008 - 12:14pmlagunanaturalhealth.com
I was disappointed to see that the Medical School failed to disclose the whole story about sucralose. Negligence is not in keeping with Harvard's 'veritas' motto. 'Veritas' means 'truth'. Omission of facts is not truthful.
You asked for suggestions for natural sweeteners---ever try agave and stevia?
Kristin Mills, Traditional Naturopath, CNHP
July 5, 2008 - 10:16amlagunanaturalhealth.com
"Chlorinated organic compounds are found in nearly every class of biomolecules including alkaloids, terpenes, amino acids, flavonoids, steroids, and fatty acids."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organochloride#Natural_occurrence
"Science has declared Splenda a chlorocarbon by virtue of it's processing and chemistry. Defined, chlo•ro•car•bon:
Pronunciation: (klôr"u-kär'bun, klōr"-), [key] —n.
a chemical compound containing carbon and chlorine, as carbon tetrachloride, or containing carbon, chlorine, and hydrogen, as chloroform.
You may be interested to know that carbon tetrachloride and related chemicals, such as chloroform, are linked to cirrhosis of the liver.
That in itself tells the story about the yellow packets as they relate to Human Health Hazards"
source: Kristin Mills
"chlorocarbon (plural chlorocarbons)
1. (chemistry) An organic compound containing at least one covalently bonded chlorine atom.
[edit] Synonyms
* organochloride
* organochlorine"
source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chlorocarbon
Dear Ms Mills,
I think your statement demonstrates either a misunderstanding on how chemistry works or how a dictionary works. The word 'as' is stating an example, not implying that all members of that category consist of one of those two examples. Just because a molecular compound is of the same class as another does not mean it has the same properties or physiological affect. i.e. H20 or 'water' is a molecular bond away from being hydrogen gas and oxygen, a.k.a. 'rocket fuel'. Also, 'Science' is not a proper noun.
July 9, 2009 - 5:30am