Beware NutraSweet!!

haleyvision
haleyvision Posts: 16
edited September 18 in Food and Nutrition
Beware your consumption of NUTRASWEET

I watched a movie last night about Nutrasweet. "Sweet Misery: A poisoned world"

Synopsis:
Filmmaker Cori Brackett's riveting documentary probes the link between various health problems and the artificial sweetener aspartame. Diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, Brackett set out to expose the toxicity of aspartame, prevalent in many foods despite warnings by the National Institutes of Health. Interviews with doctors, a former Food and Drug Administration investigator and other experts reveal controversial information about the sweetener.

Although the FDA approved this,
All of the Independent UNIVERSITY studies found nutrasweet NOT SAFE or VERY QUESTIONABLE

http://www.dorway.com/nonindus.html (read the Universitys symptom descrips)

Not Convinced? See more, it's all over the internet. More bad than good, I know that!
http://www.aspartamekills.com/
http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/dangers.htm

NUTRASWEET= Diet Coke/Pepsi , Crystalite, Sugar Free Jello and the list goes on.

Maybe splenda wont kill us.

Replies

  • haleyvision
    haleyvision Posts: 16
    Beware your consumption of NUTRASWEET

    I watched a movie last night about Nutrasweet. "Sweet Misery: A poisoned world"

    Synopsis:
    Filmmaker Cori Brackett's riveting documentary probes the link between various health problems and the artificial sweetener aspartame. Diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, Brackett set out to expose the toxicity of aspartame, prevalent in many foods despite warnings by the National Institutes of Health. Interviews with doctors, a former Food and Drug Administration investigator and other experts reveal controversial information about the sweetener.

    Although the FDA approved this,
    All of the Independent UNIVERSITY studies found nutrasweet NOT SAFE or VERY QUESTIONABLE

    http://www.dorway.com/nonindus.html (read the Universitys symptom descrips)

    Not Convinced? See more, it's all over the internet. More bad than good, I know that!
    http://www.aspartamekills.com/
    http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/dangers.htm

    NUTRASWEET= Diet Coke/Pepsi , Crystalite, Sugar Free Jello and the list goes on.

    Maybe splenda wont kill us.
  • yellow_pepper
    yellow_pepper Posts: 708 Member
    Aspartame (Nutrasweet) has come under more fire than sucralose (Splenda) despite the fact that Spleanda is actually a LESS natural product.

    Aspartame is the combination of 2 essential amino acids: phenylalanine and aspartic acid. You eat each one separately in almost all fruits. Whenever they are present together, they are in an equilibrium between the separate amino acids and the combined one. So even people who never drink diet soda probably have some aspartame in the body at some point.

    Splenda is another story. Splenda is essentially a chlorinated sugar molecule. By replacing one of the carbon groups (CH3) in a sugar molecule with Chlorine, scientists changed its thermodynamic properties - i.e. how many calories it requires to combust. That's why splenda has 1/4 the calories of sugar: because there's a Chlorine atom where nature intended a Carbon and 3 hydrogens.

    So which one should you eat? The great thing about having multiple sugar substitutes available is that it allows us to consume less of each one! Ideally, we should just not crave sweets so much that we eat ANY sugar substitutes, but we sweet tooths know that's unrealistic. There are lots to choose from.

    When I took Organic Chemistry, my professor said the one food we might want to avoid DUE TO links between its consumption and MS is alfalfa sprouts. Even then, it's more of a concern when you've already been diagnosed with MS than for the general public.

    Don't believe everything you read on the internet. (Of course a website called "ASPARTAME KILLS" is going to have bad stuff to say about it.) Or even by "university studies." Unless its in a reputable journal of MEDICINE (JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine), it's probably based on very dubious evidence.
  • beep
    beep Posts: 1,242 Member
    Switch to Stevia
  • kittybellenir
    kittybellenir Posts: 128 Member
    Yes Switch to Stevia, it has Fiber Too!!!!!!!!:happy:
  • Eve23
    Eve23 Posts: 2,352 Member
    Agave nectar is good.

    I have written many times about my families experiences with artificial sweetners.

    Personally I am not a Splenda fan either.

    I know everyone will have their own opinions but here is a site that does have some information on it.
    http://www.truthaboutsplenda.com/factvsfiction/index.html#1
  • yellow_pepper
    yellow_pepper Posts: 708 Member
    It also has an aftertaste and clumps in my oatmeal!

    If you do use Stevia, check the ingredients for silica. You don't want to breathe that in (which is easy to do when you rip open some of these packets).
  • haleyvision
    haleyvision Posts: 16
    I havent seen stevia yet. Is it a specialty thing, or am i just missing it? My girlfriend planted some in her herb garden and the leaves are very sweet, but she said when she ground it up and put it in her coffee it tasted like...well grass.
  • His_Kelly
    His_Kelly Posts: 248
    I am taking nutrition classes for my degree... finds on stevia have been slightly scary. Just because something is natural doesn't automatically make it safe. I just wanted you guys to be aware of this.

    Kelly


    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/stevia/AN01733/rss=2

    ...Side effects of stevia are generally mild, such as muscle weakness, dizziness and nausea. But questions about the risks of stevia linger, including possible effects on the reproductive system and kidneys. In the United States, stevia is available only as a dietary supplement. The Food and Drug Administration hasn't approved the use of stevia as an artificial sweetener or food additive. If you're considering taking stevia as a dietary supplement, consult your doctor about the possible risks and benefits...
  • msarro
    msarro Posts: 2,748 Member
    I am taking nutrition classes for my degree... finds on stevia have been slightly scary. Just because something is natural doesn't automatically make it safe. I just wanted you guys to be aware of this.

    Kelly


    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/stevia/AN01733/rss=2

    ...Side effects of stevia are generally mild, such as muscle weakness, dizziness and nausea. But questions about the risks of stevia linger, including possible effects on the reproductive system and kidneys. In the United States, stevia is available only as a dietary supplement. The Food and Drug Administration hasn't approved the use of stevia as an artificial sweetener or food additive. If you're considering taking stevia as a dietary supplement, consult your doctor about the possible risks and benefits...

    Honestly, I don't think stevia is that much of an issue. It has been used in the middle east and asia for a few thousand years with absolutely no problem. However, most of them use the whole root to sweeten, as opposed to the extracted, purified crystals that get sold in the US. It was also 100% legal in the US until the FDA was made aware of a single study which was later debunked for having shoddy methodology and few clinical controls. The history of this phone call is actually somewhat controversial, and is believed to be related to one of the artificial sweetener companies (check wikipedia for info). They then revoked its ability to be sold overnight. However it was later approved by the FDA a second time as an herbal supplement, stating that it is 100% safe for consumption.

    This makes stevia the only food item both to hold both approved, and banned status by the FDA at the same time.

    The main chemicals have been shown to be, in theory, slightly mutagenic. However the amount needed to reach a level of toxicity is impossible unless you consume ungodly amounts of the extracted sweetener. If you get the whole root you really can't go wrong. Basically, buy stevia, if its brown, you're ok. If its white and looks like creme of tartar, then don't eat too much. But like every other food out there, the more its processed the worse it is for you.

    I'd say you're safer eating stevia than breathing the air in LA or NYC.

    If you're super duper concerned, check out agave nectar, or honey. Both are healthier for you than regular sugar and have unique flavors without an icky aftertaste like the artificial stuff. Just don't give honey to babies :)
  • edyta
    edyta Posts: 258
    Wouldn't it be easier just to use a little sugar here and there instead of all those sweeteners? If you want something sweet have a fruit or honey.
    Of course you'd have to add those extra calories but it really isn't so much. And food really doesn't have to be extra sweet to taste good, believe me, you can enjoy it :smile:
  • yellow_pepper
    yellow_pepper Posts: 708 Member
    Wouldn't it be easier just to use a little sugar here and there instead of all those sweeteners? If you want something sweet have a fruit or honey.
    Of course you'd have to add those extra calories but it really isn't so much. And food really doesn't have to be extra sweet to taste good, believe me, you can enjoy it :smile:

    I so agree with you Edyta. We'd lose the calories AND the cravings if we'd only wean ourselves off the NEED for food to be so sweet.
  • beep
    beep Posts: 1,242 Member
    It's funny, I have weaned myself of the need for most sugars. No longer can stand sugar in my coffee, but then there is tea.................... I can't not have something sweet in my tea. So, i use stevia (and have never had a problem with it) bought in packets in a health food store.... and if I can afford the rise in glucose levels, honey.
  • astridfeline
    astridfeline Posts: 1,200 Member
    There are indications that artificial sweeteners do not induce satiety, unlike normal sugar (sucrose). The body is signaled by the sweet taste that carbs are coming, but none arrive, leading to more sugar cravings and eating the "real thing" in addition to the substitute, in turn leading to eating too many calories.


    Sucrose activates human taste pathways differently from artificial sweetener
    Guido K.W. Frank,a Tyson A. Oberndorfer,b Alan N. Simmons,b Martin P. Paulus,b
    Julie L. Fudge,c Tony T. Yang,b and Walter H. Kayeb,d,⁎
    aUniversity of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Department of Psychiatry, The Children’s Hospital, 13123 E. 16th Avenue,

    "Implications
    There are various potential implications that can be raised from
    the results of this study. It is not resolved yet if the long-term use
    of artificial sweeteners truly leads to reduced body weight. If it
    holds, that caloric sucrose stimulates taste reward brain regions
    more, but that sucralose (Splenda)-activated brain regions are
    more connected, one wonders if sucralose (Splenda) stimulates the
    food reward system faster or more efficiently. Since sucralose
    (Splenda) does not provide calories and thus no natural feedback
    mechanism of biologic satiety, it is possible that this lack of
    feeling of satiety has to be met with other – probably caloric –
    means and therefore potentially defeating the purpose of sucralose
    (Splenda) use.
    Second, the anterior insula is here once again highlighted as a
    sensory but also hedonic emotional integration area. If it is true that
    the insula sets the tone for downstream food-pleasantness-related
    reward activation, then this area, and in particular the left-sided
    FO/AI, may be a target for food reward modulation."


    Here's another link that might have further information:
    http://whattoeatbook.com/2007/08/19/do-artificial-sweeteners-induce-sugar-cravings/
  • songbyrdsweet
    songbyrdsweet Posts: 5,691 Member
    Aspartame (Nutrasweet) has come under more fire than sucralose (Splenda) despite the fact that Spleanda is actually a LESS natural product.

    Aspartame is the combination of 2 essential amino acids: phenylalanine and aspartic acid. You eat each one separately in almost all fruits. Whenever they are present together, they are in an equilibrium between the separate amino acids and the combined one. So even people who never drink diet soda probably have some aspartame in the body at some point.

    Splenda is another story. Splenda is essentially a chlorinated sugar molecule. By replacing one of the carbon groups (CH3) in a sugar molecule with Chlorine, scientists changed its thermodynamic properties - i.e. how many calories it requires to combust. That's why splenda has 1/4 the calories of sugar: because there's a Chlorine atom where nature intended a Carbon and 3 hydrogens.

    So which one should you eat? The great thing about having multiple sugar substitutes available is that it allows us to consume less of each one! Ideally, we should just not crave sweets so much that we eat ANY sugar substitutes, but we sweet tooths know that's unrealistic. There are lots to choose from.

    When I took Organic Chemistry, my professor said the one food we might want to avoid DUE TO links between its consumption and MS is alfalfa sprouts. Even then, it's more of a concern when you've already been diagnosed with MS than for the general public.

    Don't believe everything you read on the internet. (Of course a website called "ASPARTAME KILLS" is going to have bad stuff to say about it.) Or even by "university studies." Unless its in a reputable journal of MEDICINE (JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine), it's probably based on very dubious evidence.

    Awesome post! Props to you for taking O-chem...my bf is a biochem major and he had to suffer through that as well hehe :laugh:

    I definitely agree on the internet sources...you really have to look at who is sponsoring and executing the study, and then look at the controls/variables. Even studies from reputable databases like PubMed or InfoTrac can be poorly controlled and lead to unreliable results. We also all have to remember that correlation does not imply causation, so just because something occurs in a study doesn't mean that the variable had anything to do with it.
  • spaul82478
    spaul82478 Posts: 709 Member
    I read Skinny B**** and it had a lot to say about sweetners too.. although I am no vegan or vegatarian by any means it made me think about all the DIET POP i drank. .I now if i have any drink regular... I just stick to water.... It sucks taht even diet foods can hurt you.
  • haleyvision
    haleyvision Posts: 16
    Seriously Guys.
    Alright... You said don't believe what you read on the internet So I went digging
    DEEPER and have more resources. There are too many resources to ignore.

    I have been a web hound the last couple days and I think people should BEWARE!
    I know it sounds crazy, but do your own research, research, research!

    Check out Links Here. There is SO MUCH info available that will make you want to grow your own food.
    Monsanto has it's hands in too many areas now and I wonder what their hidden agenda is.

    FACTS:
    Monsonto bought Aspartame and got it approved by FDA.
    1. Monsanto is buying up Worlds seed companies
    2. Monsanto is genetically altering seeds.
    3. Monsanto is buying pharmaceutical companies
    4. Monsanto is suing farmers for accidental cross polination of their seeds.
    5. The FDA is approving Monsanto products without TESTING.
    6. Monsanto is taking over or has taken over the FDA.

    Here's the kicker
    The FDA is RUN by Monsanto affiliates. See list of FDA affiliates who came from Monsanto
    http://www.monsantosucks.com/revolvedoor.htm

    :devil:
    Monsanto contaminating Cows and Milk with synthetic hormones and NOT REVEALING DANGERS
    http://www.psrast.org/bghsalmonella.htm

    FDA - Monsanto: dangerous relations
    the FDA's approval of Posilac, Monsanto Corporation's ... showed that the FDA had never even reviewed Monsanto's original studies
    http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/11/30/fda_monsanto_dangerous_relations.htm

    Monsanto is buying up 2/3 + World seed companies
    US: Monsanto ”Seed Police” Scrutinise Farmers
    http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11796

    Monsanto is genetically engineering/ALTERING world food crops
    Movie The Future of Food www.thefutureoffood.com
    Excerpts found on youtube.com by searching the future of food
    Guys THIS ONE IS SCARY! :devil:

    Artificial Sweetener Warning :drinker:
    WORLD ENVIRONMENTAL CONFERENCE and the MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS FOUNDATION - F.D.A. ISSUING FOR COLLUSION WITH MONSANTO http://www.heall.com/body/askthedoctor/nutrition/artificialsweeteners.html

    Who is Monsanto? What they've tried to Hide, Approve and Get away with.
    http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Monsanto-Checkered-HistoryOct98.htm

    Watch Monsanto. I found out more about them than I probably wanted to know.
    Google your own keywords and see what you find. Scary! :noway:
  • littlespoon
    littlespoon Posts: 165
    Aspartame (Nutrasweet) has come under more fire than sucralose (Splenda) despite the fact that Spleanda is actually a LESS natural product.

    Aspartame is the combination of 2 essential amino acids: phenylalanine and aspartic acid. You eat each one separately in almost all fruits. Whenever they are present together, they are in an equilibrium between the separate amino acids and the combined one. So even people who never drink diet soda probably have some aspartame in the body at some point.

    Splenda is another story. Splenda is essentially a chlorinated sugar molecule. By replacing one of the carbon groups (CH3) in a sugar molecule with Chlorine, scientists changed its thermodynamic properties - i.e. how many calories it requires to combust. That's why splenda has 1/4 the calories of sugar: because there's a Chlorine atom where nature intended a Carbon and 3 hydrogens.

    So which one should you eat? The great thing about having multiple sugar substitutes available is that it allows us to consume less of each one! Ideally, we should just not crave sweets so much that we eat ANY sugar substitutes, but we sweet tooths know that's unrealistic. There are lots to choose from.

    When I took Organic Chemistry, my professor said the one food we might want to avoid DUE TO links between its consumption and MS is alfalfa sprouts. Even then, it's more of a concern when you've already been diagnosed with MS than for the general public.

    Don't believe everything you read on the internet. (Of course a website called "ASPARTAME KILLS" is going to have bad stuff to say about it.) Or even by "university studies." Unless its in a reputable journal of MEDICINE (JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine), it's probably based on very dubious evidence.

    Awesome post! Props to you for taking O-chem...my bf is a biochem major and he had to suffer through that as well hehe :laugh:

    I definitely agree on the internet sources...you really have to look at who is sponsoring and executing the study, and then look at the controls/variables. Even studies from reputable databases like PubMed or InfoTrac can be poorly controlled and lead to unreliable results. We also all have to remember that correlation does not imply causation, so just because something occurs in a study doesn't mean that the variable had anything to do with it.


    Yeah - haha - correlation is a way of making a study say SOMETHING without actually having to prove ANYTHING!!!
  • abbychelle07
    abbychelle07 Posts: 656 Member
    I avoid nutrasweet or any other artificial sweetener like the plague! I also avoid high fructose corn syrup if possible (it's in everything!)

    I prefer sugar, agave nectar, pure maple syrup, or honey. I just try to use less!
  • barracudamuscle
    barracudamuscle Posts: 313 Member
    When I feel the need for something sweet I pop the head on the good ole Aunt Jemima syrup bottle and take a few good swiges, then that hold me over for about an hour, maybe two if I get a good half bottle down because then it coat my mouth and throat with a delicous sweetness that will linger for hours!:drinker:
  • astridfeline
    astridfeline Posts: 1,200 Member
    When I feel the need for something sweet I pop the head on the good ole Aunt Jemima syrup bottle and take a few good swiges, then that hold me over for about an hour, maybe two if I get a good half bottle down because then it coat my mouth and throat with a delicous sweetness that will linger for hours!:drinker:

    Please consume HFCS in limited quantities

    google HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP obesity for a ton of information on HFCS's link to obesity epidemic
  • astridfeline
    astridfeline Posts: 1,200 Member
    HFCS from commercial corn growing practices is also linked to environmental impacts such as the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico

    http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/7/16/161412/560

    OK, off the soapbox now...sorry...
  • barracudamuscle
    barracudamuscle Posts: 313 Member
    I was only kidding! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
  • astridfeline
    astridfeline Posts: 1,200 Member
    I was only kidding! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

    phew!! you never know what people will eat ...:blushing:
  • haleyvision
    haleyvision Posts: 16
    I read your link astridfeline (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/7/16/161412/560 ). I dont understand why they're using corn for fuel, it sounds good in theory, but what happens when there is a drought and they cant produce enough? It appears all that run-off is just as bad for the environment.
  • butterjoy
    butterjoy Posts: 303 Member
    IS SPLENDA OKAY?
  • astridfeline
    astridfeline Posts: 1,200 Member
    I read your link astridfeline (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/7/16/161412/560 ). I dont understand why they're using corn for fuel, it sounds good in theory, but what happens when there is a drought and they cant produce enough? It appears all that run-off is just as bad for the environment.
    I have seen in the news that corn for biofuel is being blamed for world food shortages. Run-off I think is exactly the problem: nitrates from the fertilizers run off into the Mississippi River, which then goes into the Gulf of Mexico, creating the marine dead zone. I haven't had time to examine the issues thoroughly since it's finals time, so I hope I have the details right. I'll put this on my list of "things to do"!
  • sr2000
    sr2000 Posts: 230 Member
    The closer to nature, all natural, unaltered, unprocessed, un-messed with the better. The same is true for ALL the foods we eat, why not follow the same guidelines for sweeteners. Use sweeteners in the purest form, but use sparinly. We probably wouldn't eat a chemically formed carrot, why eat a chemically formed or processed unnatural anything? I know is is nearly impossible to eliminate processed food from our life, we all want to have a eggo with syrup once in awhile, but as we all know we should limit those "bad foods" for the best health possible. I guess it goes back to "everything in moderation"
    Scary about that company that is ruling the agriculture in our country isn't it? I recently read about it myself and am going to dig deep to find the most organic, unalterd seeds for my garden this year.
  • yellow_pepper
    yellow_pepper Posts: 708 Member
    Splenda hasn't been around enough for there to be any meaningul studies on it. Whenever we eat a food additive, we're taking a chance on it. The question is whether you think the benefits outweight the costs. And that's a highly personal choice.
  • haleyvision
    haleyvision Posts: 16
    Who knows? There isnt AS much publicity about splenda as aspartame, but there were a couple websites talking about it...

    Splenda is not a natural substance, it is an artificial chemical sweetener manufactured by adding three chlorine atoms to a sugar molecule.
    excerpt from.... http://www.truthaboutsplenda.com/factvsfiction/index.html

    Splenda is the trade name for sucralose, a synthetic compound stumbled upon in 1976 by scientists in Britain seeking a new pesticide formulation. It is true that the Splenda molecule is comprised of sucrose (sugar) — except that three of the hydroxyl groups in the molecule have been replaced by three chlorine atoms... the bonds holding the carbon and chlorine atoms together are more characteristic of a chlorocarbon than a salt — and most pesticides are chlorocarbons.

    Artificial sweeteners are not subject to the same gauntlet of FDA safety trials as pharmaceuticals. Most of the testing is funded by the food industry, which has a vested interest in the outcome. This can lead to misleading claims on both sides.
    excerpts from... http://www.womentowomen.com/nutritionandweightloss/splenda.aspx
This discussion has been closed.

Categories