Say no to Splenda?

Well, it's a chemical, it's not a natural product.
the body wasn't designed to handle it normally. It's sucralose, which is a chemical that is close to sugar, and also close to chlorine. But don't be fooled by people trying to dazzle you with chemistry.
Just cuz one molecule is CLOSE to another one doesn't make it chemically 'like' that first one (this is coming from a guy who spent 3 and a half years as a chemical engineering major in college, so I know my chemistry). for instance, carbon dioxide is a harmless gas expelled when we breath, but carbon monoxide is a deadly gas produced by thermic carbon compound reactions (burning wood, gasoline, other carbon based items). and they are only one oxygen atom apart! Breath one and you feel a little light headed and maybe get a little stinging in the throat after a while (carbon dioxide), breath the other and die rather quickly (carbon monoxide).


BUT, that being said, the testing done on splenda has never turned up anything overtly bad.
Of course it hasn't been around long enough to make any long term studies on it.

some researchers link artificial sweeteners to increased desire for more sugar. I don't find that to be an issue, but some may.

I have it with my coffee, have been for 2 years now, it hasn't affected me (that I know of), but I do try to keep it down to 1 or 2 packets a day.

I personally do try and avoid it, my body doesn't like it. I would just as soon use sugar, which I use so infrequently, I don't stress over it. My kids used to drink Crystal Light all the time, a lot of it and I would worry about it. After some research and thought, I cut that out of their diet. I'd rather them have Kool Aid on occasion, but mostly, much to their dismay, I 'make' them drink water.

I will say when you are eating better and trying to avoid artificial sweeteners, good luck. They are in a lot of things!

Well, splenda killed hundreds of animals and caused miscarriage in rats during testing.

I'd rather not take a chance with my health; whether it can affect humans or not in the same fashion.

honey is really nice in iced tea too.

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090402/LIFE/904020343



NEW YORK — Sprite Green is the latest addition to the world of Coca-Cola products, and its name refers not just to the color of the can or the beverage. This diet soda is green in a deeper sense, deriving its sweetness not from artificial saccharin or aspartame, but from a natural, zero-calorie sugar substitute that many experts believe is primed to take supermarket shelves by storm. It's called stevia, and since the Food and Drug Administration gave it its official blessing in December, some in the beverage industry have been hailing it as the Holy Grail of sweeteners.

"This could be huge," said Daniel Fabricant, vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs at the Natural Products Association, an advocacy and lobbying group. "Stevia is the only non-calorie, natural sweetener that has been approved as a food additive, which means that it can now be used in all conventional food products."

About stevia
Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in late December and given a GRAS (generally recognized as safe) status


Plant grows from 9 inches to 4 feet tall and is native to South AmericaOn the sweetness scale, stevia is 300 to 450 times sweeter than sugarPlant is cultivated on plantations in China, Kenya, Paraguay and, sometime soon, VietnamUsed as a commercial sweetener for decades in Japan and longer in South America.
That could mean a much-needed boost for Coke and Pepsi, whose cola sales have been slumping. With obesity skyrocketing and a natural lifestyle more fashionable than ever, many consumers have shied away from sugary drinks in favor of more healthful refreshment. In response, the beverage giants have devoted more attention to their water and juice lines. But soda is still their flagship product, and using a sugar substitute that comes from a leaf and not from a lab — as do saccharin and aspartame — could be the key to revitalizing sales.

Along with its natural origins and null calorie count, stevia also has less of an aftertaste than its artificial counterparts, according to its fans. All together, that's enough to make beverage executives excited, even as health concerns linger.

While stevia was given only GRAS (generally recognized as safe) status by the FDA in late December, Coca-Cola and Pepsi haven't wasted any time. Coke is already using the sugar substitute (under the name Truvia) in two flavors of its Odwalla juice line and four flavors of Vitamin Water, along with Sprite Green. Pepsi has introduced stevia (under the name PureVia) to its SoBe drinks and is soon to release a stevia-sweetened, reduced-calorie orange juice called Trop50. More stevia beverages are soon to follow. Food companies have also expressed interest, considering the sweetener for use in everything from oatmeal to gravy to gum.

Native to South America, the stevia plant is a bush that can grow from 9 inches to 4 feet tall. Its leaves contain high concentrations of Rebaudioside A, also known as Rebiana or Reb A. Its intense sweetness (300 to 450 times that of sugar) and clean flavor have made it a popular sugar substitute for nearly four decades in Japan, and even longer in South America.

But the United States has been more hesitant to give stevia the go-ahead, in part because studies have shown it to have negative health effects when consumed in large quantities. Until the FDA's recent change, stevia was allowed to be sold only as a dietary supplement, meaning that it could not be labeled as a sweetener or added to food products. Relegated to health food stores, it remained unknown to most consumers.

"Before, it was a very fragmented effort to get stevia approved," said Sidd Purkayastha, a food scientist for PureCircle, the world's largest stevia producer. "But in the past few years, it has been a concerted effort, as consumers and companies these days are going for natural products more and more, and some of the major companies started pushing for stevia to get through the FDA. They made sure that the FDA had all the safety information they needed to approve this."

Government approval could not have come as better news for PureCircle, which supplies both Coca-Cola and Pepsi with stevia extracts. The company currently has stevia plantations in China, Kenya and Paraguay, and is planning to open a new one in Vietnam.

PureCircle produces 1,000 metric tons of the sweet extract annually, and is looking to boost its output to as much as four times that amount within the next few years. That commitment represents a mammoth agricultural undertaking because only 4 percent of each stevia leaf contains the Reb A that can be sold as a sweetener. The planting and harvesting provide many jobs for local farmers, Purkayastha noted, and there has even been exploration of stevia's potential to make inroads into South America's illicit marijuana-growing industry.

But some worry that a boom in stevia consumption may be hasty. Two days before the FDA announced its approval of stevia, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a watchdog group, cited lab tests in which ****stevia had been found to cause genetic mutations in rats.********

"Stevia and rebaudioside A may well turn out to be entirely safe," a statement from the group said, "but until more tests have been conducted and analyzed, it is reckless for food companies to begin adding it willy-nilly to the food supply and equally reckless for the FDA to stand by mutely." The organization went on to suggest that Coca-Cola had improperly influenced the FDA's decision to approve stevia.

PureCircle insists that there is no reason for concern. "There is enough literature and enough clinical studies have been done to show that there is no harmful effect," said Sidd Purkayastha, a food scientist at the company. Fabricant, of the Natural Products Association, agreed. He pointed out that the majority of research on stevia's safety was funded by the government, not Coca-Cola.

Ray Sahelian, co-author of "The Stevia Cookbook," also considers the sweetener safe. He says he has used it in his tea every day for more than a decade without any health problems. He is puzzled, however, by the timing of the FDA's approval. "When natural foods companies petitioned the FDA to allow stevia to be called a sweetener, they were denied," Sahelian recalled. "But somehow, when Coke and Pepsi petitioned the FDA, then it was okay for stevia to be called a sweetener."

Nevertheless, he said that the decision may have a profound effect on the entire food and beverage industry: "I attended a natural products expo this month, and based on what I saw — on the number of companies that are working with stevia, the companies that are likely to put stevia in their nutrition bars, smoothies, drink and food — this will be huge." He added that stevia should also be popular among diabetics, who will be especially eager to replace artificial sweeteners with a natural alternative.

Whether stevia becomes the manufacturer's Holy Grail depends on the public's response — whether consumers see it as a Holy Grail. "People will choose stevia for the same reason they are driving hybrids," said Fabricant. "Folks really want to get away from some of the synthetics. They feel like they've been burned by those products and they don't necessarily know why, but if you have a natural product versus a synthetic product, I think today's consumer is going to pick a natural one the majority of the time."

Especially if it's calorie-free.

sonjavon interesting. I had a similar experience. I tried splenda for a few months and noticed achy joints. I would also wake up in pain. I cut it out and soon the pain was gone. I reintroduced it and the pain returned. I honestly was very surprised becuase I had not read about any adverse reactions.

I personally would prefer using a little regular sugar myself. I also use honey, stevia and agave.

I have been using splenda for 8 years off and on. I have had no bad reaction. BUT- I would like to remind everyone that an argument can be made that just about everything CAN be bad for you. Pestacides on fruits and veggies, Diet pop, Growth hormones in our dairy and meat , Hell the air we breath! If someone can tolerate Splenda and it keeps you on your healthy journey than go for it . Just my humble opinion. Cindy

first, the"study that says that splenda created organ issues in rats is waaay taken out of context. I READ that study, as I have read many research studies.

Organ problems were found in a percentage of the rats ONLY after being subjected to massive amounts of splenda for extended periods (far higher then a person would consume even if they were addicted to splenda) as these types of tests do with all the new products they test, and similar results are seen all the time with harmless products. AND what they don't say, is that the same tests were given to mice, dogs, and primates which did NOT have that effect. You really need to read the actual report, and not an article from a competitor (notice where the article comes from). that's like asking Pepsi if coke is the best soft drink on the market.

As to the chlorine statement, see my first post in this thread. You know what else has a chlorine atom attached to it? Table salt (NACL) the CL part is Chlorine. What do you think happens when the body metabolizes salt, it breaks it down into sodium and a dichlorine atom. We consume far more table salt every day as a nation then we do splenda, you don't see people falling over from cancer from that. Just because table salt forms naturally doesn't make the molecule any different from any other atom.

Really guys, cmon, we need to be reasonable about this stuff. I've nothing against stevia, I think it's fine, I'm also fine with regular sugar too. But if you want a zero cal sweetener, I see nothing wrong with splenda, and I have done the research.

I'm not here to say it's completely 100% safe, because you can't know that until you are completely 100% sure of how every person's body works and we, AS A RACE, don't know that. But empirical evidence has proven splenda to be safe in all normal situations for a number of years.

first, the"study that says that splenda created organ issues in rats is waaay taken out of context. I READ that study, as I have read many research studies.

Organ problems were found in a percentage of the rats ONLY after being subjected to massive amounts of splenda for extended periods (far higher then a person would consume even if they were addicted to splenda) as these types of tests do with all the new products they test, and similar results are seen all the time with harmless products. AND what they don't say, is that the same tests were given to mice, dogs, and primates which did NOT have that effect. You really need to read the actual report, and not an article from a competitor (notice where the article comes from). that's like asking Pepsi if coke is the best soft drink on the market.

As to the chlorine statement, see my first post in this thread. You know what else has a chlorine atom attached to it? Table salt (NACL) the CL part is Chlorine. What do you think happens when the body metabolizes salt, it breaks it down into sodium and a dichlorine atom. We consume far more table salt every day as a nation then we do splenda, you don't see people falling over from cancer from that. Just because table salt forms naturally doesn't make the molecule any different from any other atom.

Really guys, cmon, we need to be reasonable about this stuff. I've nothing against stevia, I think it's fine, I'm also fine with regular sugar too. But if you want a zero cal sweetener, I see nothing wrong with splenda, and I have done the research.

I'm not here to say it's completely 100% safe, because you can't know that until you are completely 100% sure of how every person's body works and we, AS A RACE, don't know that. But empirical evidence has proven splenda to be safe in all normal situations for a number of years.

THANK YOU Banks.
I get sort of surly when I see obviously biased and alarmist 'studies' and articles. :grumble: