Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Fake Banner
By Audrey Amara | July 7th 2008 01:48 PM | 12 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Small World articles

All

About Audrey Amara

I'm a Journalism graduate from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and I recently spent two years in Bulgaria as a volunteer in the United States Peace Corps where I worked as a high school English/Literature


... Full Bio

Upon opening a shelf in the kitchen of a Splenda, or sucralose, addict it is certain one will find a treasure trove of regular foods that have been touched by the most popular sugar substitute in the U.S. Vitamin C drops, cookies and canned fruit—all with Splenda are a few examples of the extensive list of over 3,000 Splenda products.

On the surface the zero-calorie Splenda, marketed with the catchy phrase “made from sugar so it tastes like sugar,” may seem like the sweetener of all sweeteners. However, similar to the mantra that getting a little requires giving a little, the consumption of Splenda doesn’t come free.

The book “Splenda—Is it Safe or Not?” by Dr. Janet Starr Hull, who studies the effects of artificial sweeteners, talks about the illusions behind the modified sugar. She describes the artificial birthing process as the crest of the harmful wave Splenda brings.

“Basically, the chemists force chlorine into an unnatural chemical bond with a sugar molecule, resulting in a sweeter product,” said Hull who goes on to describe the toxicity of sucralose in the process of becoming a low-calorie product. “A huge amount of artificial chemicals must be added to keep sucralose from digesting in our bodies. These toxic substances also prevent (hopefully) the dangerous chlorine molecules from detaching from the sugar molecule inside the digestive system, which would be a carcinogenic hazard.”

Hull, who was diagnosed with Graves Disease, an incurable illness she discovered was a result from aspartame poisoning, points out some of the effects of sucralose. She uses the delicate make-up of children to exemplify her point.

“We wonder why the younger generation is angry, ill, and ridden with ADHD, depression, hypoglycemia and diabetes. How many kids do you see taking a sip of mom’s diet cola or chewing a stick of dad's sugar-free gum?” asks Hull who also provides the answer. “Children raised on chemical diets are more likely to develop physical and mental disorders and, the evidence is surfacing at epidemic levels in America and other developed countries using chemical sugar substitutes.”

“Weight” is a word that is associated with Splenda. Whether the word that follows “weight” is “loss,” or “gain” varies. Many sucralose consumers eat or drink Splenda products for weight control. Information from American Psychological Association on results of tests in lab rats given yogurt sweetened with Splenda can be found in the February 2008 article “Artificial Sweeteners Linked to Weight Gain” on the sciencedaily website.

Authors Susan Swithers, PhD, and Terry Davidson, PhD, said that rats given yogurt sweetened with a zero-calorie sugar substitute later consumed more calories, gained more weight, put on more body fat, and didn't make up for it by cutting back later.

In fact, the list of professionals who are part of the “anti-sucralose club” is ongoing. Marcelle Pick who is an OB/GYN talks about the scientific properties of the substitute in order to prove their toxicity on the health website called “women to women.”

“While some industry experts claim the molecule is similar to table salt or sugar, other independent researchers say it has more in common with pesticides. That’s because the bonds holding the carbon and chlorine atoms together are more characteristic of a chlorocarbon than a salt — and most pesticides are chlorocarbons,” said Pick who also points out sucralose as having caused shrunken thymus glands and enlarged livers and kidneys in rodents.

Skin rashes or coloring, anxiety, dizziness and numbness, diarrhea, muscle aches, headaches, intestinal cramping, bladder issues, and stomach pain are some of the side-effects Pick lists in her comprehensive article on sucralose and other artificial sweeteners. Her recommendation for living a healthy lifestyle when it comes to sugar has to do with living the natural life.

“Use refined sugar rarely, if ever. Instead, sweeten sparingly with the more nutritionally complex natural sugars such as honey, rice syrup, molasses, and maple syrup,” said Pick who points out that sugar-eating habits have to do with ones lifestyle and there is no such thing as a free ride. “After taking a closer look at what you eat, it may also be useful for you to examine the role sweet food plays in your life,” she said.

Comments

I think Audrey Amara should try to learn a little about science before writes anything else for a science site. This idiotic story has been debunked over and over and over!

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/aspartame.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/healthscares.html
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1999/699_sugar.html

Audrey Amara is basically an idiot repeating what other idiots have said.

Hank's picture
It is unclear how 10 year-old articles on aspartame absolve Splenda, which is mostly dextrose and which can and will produce fat - along with other possible effects yet unknown since Splenda has not been around a hundred years like saccharine. There's also the issue of confusing the body's digestive reflex. That's from an article published this millenium so a little more recent than yours.

Citing old articles and name calling is tobacco industry strategy. Do you work for Big Sugar Substitute or something?

Maybe you should learn a little science yourself. There is a difference between aspartame (Equal) and sucralose (Splenda). At least two of your references are about aspartame. However, I would suggest checking into the type of chemical bond the chlorine has in Splenda before making any decisions.

Where does one start?

“Basically, the chemists force chlorine into an unnatural chemical bond with a sugar molecule, resulting in a sweeter product." What on earth is "an unnatural chemical bond?" All chemical bonds are the result of natural forces arising from the physical characteristics of atoms. This statement is misleading, suggests sloppy thinking by the writer of the statement, and appeals to the myth that "natural" is healthier than "unnatural," without defining what that means.

"Hull . . . goes on to describe the toxicity of sucralose in the process of becoming a low-calorie product." Toxic in what concentration, duration of exposure, route of contact, and in which species? Every chemical in the universe is toxic to some living things in sufficient quantity and particular exposure. Put water in your lungs, you die. Put air in your blood (in the form of bubbles) you may or may not die, depending on how much and how fast you put it there. So, let's abstain from any contact with water and air, right? Rule of thumb: never take anyone's assertions about toxicity seriously, unless they clarify species, concentration, route, and duration early and often in their essay. If they do not, they are either being careless, or they do not understand enough about toxicology to be credible.

“A huge amount of artificial chemicals must be added to keep sucralose from digesting in our bodies. These toxic substances also prevent (hopefully) the dangerous chlorine molecules from detaching from the sugar molecule inside the digestive system, which would be a carcinogenic hazard.” Dear reader: you already have chlorine in your body. So does everyone else. It is only toxic in sufficient concentration. This sentence embodies the same fallacious reasoning as described in the previous paragraph.

"Hull, who was diagnosed with Graves Disease, an incurable illness she discovered was a result from aspartame poisoning." I am very sorry to read that Dr. Hull has Graves Disease, and wish her the very best. However, I am also interested in knowing exactly how "she discovered [Graves Disease] resulted from aspartame poisoning." How, exactly, did she rule out all other possible explanations? Why do some people who have never been exposed to aspartamin get Graves Disease? Why were our ancesters vulnerable to Graves Disease long before chemists used their knowledge to modify food? How did she determine that she would not have gotten this disease in time, regardless of aspartame exposure? How is it that physicians, including board certified toxicologists have not been able to make such judgments, but she has? Rather than just writing an unfounded statement, please reveal the data that supports it. That would be far more instructive than spouting unfounded notions, which is what a conclusion without data is.

Using people’s emotional revulsion to the words like "unnatural" and "toxic" is not science. It is not even good reporting. It is propaganda.

PS: Hank, I am sure that you are a fine fellow and a careful thinker, so please explain to me why the fact that information is ten-years old is relevant to the accuracy of the information. If the research from which the information was derived is flawed, then please explain the flaws so that we can all be better informed. If, on the other hand, you cannot identify fatal flaws in the data, then how is your time reference relevant to anything? And no, I do not work for "big artificial sweetener," whatever that is. I have no personnal or financial interest in this issue at all. I am just an ordinary guy who hates bad science because it contributes to bad public policy.

Hank's picture
Calling someone an 'idiot' because you disagree with their article is not science, nor is using old articles on aspartame to dispute that a newer product like Splenda may have health issues. Since Splenda does not contain aspartame, it's a straw man.

Quackwatch is a terrific group but those are not studies defending all artificial sweeteners, they are short articles lambasting quacks who dislike artificial sweeteners withour solid evidence.

It was over 300 years before there was any solid evidence that smoking was bad for people. This did not mean it was a smart thing to do until the 1960s regardless of the data and Quackwatch, had it existed then, would likely have ridiculed people who worried about smoking.

The phrase "aspartame poisoning" sums it up. She's an idiot!

I cant believe this garbage is on a scientific website. The editors intelligence needs to be called into question just as much as the authors. Holy crap this was moronic.

Audrey's write-up is very unscientific.
Just goes to show that not just any journalist should write about science.

Hank:

You are right. Name calling is distasteful and destructive. That is why most of the respondents to this article abstained from it, as did I.

"It was over 300 years before there was any solid evidence that smoking was bad for people. This did not mean it was a smart thing to do until the 1960s." Right again, Hank. But how are the health effects of tobacco, and the inability of previous generations to recognize them, relevant to this discussion? This is a common bit of specious logic that one sees in discussions like this. Essentially, you are implying that, since science failed to recognize the health effects of tobacco before 1960, it must be wrong about aspartame today. Excuse me? How are they related? Noone is arguing that science is eternally infallible, so identifying unrelated fallacies from the past is irrelevant to the question of aspartame and its effects on the body.

I have addressed specific statements written in the article, and challenged them with information. If I am wrong, please address the information, and describe why my use of the information is unfounded. Or, contribute some as yet undiscussed data for us all to consider. Changing the subject by pointing out that 18th century doctors where not omniscient in their understanding of smoking is the logical equivalent of shouting, "I know you are but what am I!" and thinking you have contributed to a debate.

Hank, please come back with information, and a logical schema within which that information may be understood. Then we can have a useful conversation about facts, and the best way to understand them.

One reason I never blog unless I have something to say--and I mean something, not just getting off on the fact that I can type--is exemplified by this exchange. Good luck ob playing manners police to a medium that attracts bullies.

audreyamara's picture
Dear Greg Critser,

I appreciate your comment, especially from a respected journalist like yourself. The reason for my initial interest in the subject had to do with the extent that I saw my sister consuming splenda.

Upon looking more into it I was surprised at how little information there actually was compared with how huge the product has become.

I also teach high school so I have been in the line of fire for my fair share of critical remarks, though they are still heard. However, I openly welcome any advice about ways I could have improved this article so that it may have been effective on a greater scale.

Sincerely,

Audrey

A,

The comment I made was not directed at you, which goes to show how I should never blog something until I really have something of substance to say. Keep writing--when you have something to say. Sugar and sugar metabolism is always heated, with bullying usually prevailing. Hank is a good referee and I hope to return to blogging when I finish my current book. I will watch for you in these pages.

G

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.