How to count on food – Part 4

This part begins with a little review of a long-running mystery story – it is apparently still unresolved, with strong opinions on both sides about the guilt or innocence of a very common synthetic additive used in countless food products.

June 25, 2017 

By CHRIS CHAN

Beeswax, E901, is used as a glazing agent to make sweets, fruits, confectioneries and medicine pills, etc, externally shiny; that’s how Smarties get that bright, polished look. Photo: VisualHunt.com/Blumenbiene

Read : Part 1  Part 2  Part 3   Part 4   Part 5 

It is almost certain that you would have ingested this compound at some point in your life, and possibly you are even ingesting it every day without even knowing about it.

The compound is the artificial sweetener, E951 (aspartame) – and despite its ubiquity, it is probably even more curious than you might think.

Food regulators in the United States and the European Union assert that aspartame is a non-toxic compound – so how come there is so much controversy?

Well, there have been many odd events in the life of this compound (developed by G. D. Searle & Co) since it first gained approval in 1974 for use as a sweetener additive by the Food & Drugs Agency (FDA) in the United States.

However, this approval was rescinded late in 1975 due to highly questionable issues with the safety studies submitted by G. D. Searle & Co.

E960 is a natural sweetener derived from Stevia leaves and is about 250 times sweeter than sugar. 

Photo: VisualHunt.com/DeathByBokeh

In May 1981, three out of six scientists at the FDA advised against approving aspartame, but in July the same year, the FDA commissioner ignored their concerns and unilaterally approved aspartame for use in dry foods.

This was followed by approval in July 1983 for aspartame use in carbonated drinks and syrups.

Even after approval, various steps were taken to establish the toxicity of aspartame, culminating in the FDA releasing a list in 1992 of over 8,000 complaints categorised by various reported symptoms.

Still, the advice was that aspartame is safe, except for people with phenylketonuria (a rare condition where sufferers cannot metabolise phenylalanine).

Then various European studies appeared to provide contradictory evidence. Tsakiris (2005) reported neurological issues with aspartame consumption by humans within the consumption limits recommended by the FDA – mostly it was related to learning impairment and memory loss.

Even earlier, a study by Trocho (aka Barcelona Study, 1998) had implicated aspartame in both organ and brain damage in test rats.

But possibly the most worrying reports were the 2005 Soffritti Study which claimed that aspartame is a carcinogen in test rats – and this claim was subsequently supported by another study by Ramazzini in 2007.

Fake news

The case against aspartame was really not helped by a fake letter circulated in 1999 by a supposed “Nancy Markle” which claimed that the compound was responsible for multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus, and methanol toxicity, causing “blindness, spasms, shooting pains, seizures, headaches, depression, anxiety, memory loss, birth defects and death”. The false claims were easily disproved and led to justifiable accusations of a smear campaign against aspartame.

Regardless of the politics, the facts are quite simple. Aspartame is manufactured using the waste by-products of genetically-modified Escherichia coli bacteria breeding in warm tanks of carbohydrates, nitrogen compounds and other nutrients – however, medical insulin is also produced in a similar manner so this is not necessarily contentious.

It is almost certain that you would have ingested aspartame at some point in your life, and possibly you are 

even ingesting it every day without even knowing about it. Photo VisualHunt.com/Tony Webster

When ingested, aspartame decomposes into two amino acids (40% aspartic acid and 50% phenylalanine) and 10% methanol. Aspartic acid can be manufactured by the body itself but diet is the only source of phenylalanine (which is used as a precursor for dopamine, norepinephrine and epinephrine). Methanol is a toxic compound and is broken down first in the liver into formaldehyde (also toxic), and then into formic acid (yet another toxic compound) before finally being detoxified into carbon dioxide.

Before you worry too much, methanol is a very common compound also found in fruits, vegetables, beers, et cetera – so this compound is not necessarily substantially contentious either, especially as the overall methanol load from normal consumption of aspartame is quite low.

Affecting the brain?

What is curious is that there is some evidence that both dietary aspartic acid and phenylalanine can cross the Blood-Brain Barrier (BBB), and can therefore affect the brain.

The problem is that normal diets with common foods (eg. fish, meat, legumes, corn, soy-based foods, et cetera) have lots of the same amino acids – and fruits, vegetables, beers, wines, et cetera, contain methanol, so eating standard healthy meals might also be a bit risky if aspartame is indeed acutely toxic.

Also, many of the problematic test results involved rodents as test subjects – not humans, whose physiology is significantly different.

However, the human processing of large amounts of aspartame via carbonated drinks may enhance the uptake of aspartic acid and phenylalanine, not unlike people getting drunk faster with sparkling wines (because the bubbles induce a faster absorption of alcohol) – though no research has established yet whether this is of any relevance.

Perhaps more relevant is a 2015 study which showed that glucose intolerance in rodents and some humans can be induced by artificial sweeteners altering the balance of bacterial colonies in the gut microbiome.

Food regulators in the United States and the European Union assert that aspartame is a non-toxic compound – so 

how come there is so much controversy? Photo: VisualHunt.com/Steve Snodgrass

The theory is that the low-calorie sweeteners favour proliferation of the bacteria that are better at extracting energy (ie. glucose) from food – this extra glucose finds its way into blood and body tissue where it promotes insulin resistance, which can eventually lead to health issues like obesity, diabetes and diseases of the liver and heart.

However, on balance, the evidence still suggests that aspartame itself is not toxic, especially if ingested and buffered with other foods – so perhaps do not drink a litre of diet soda at once without proper food.

In any case, there are no compelling medical or health reasons to ingest aspartame at all, so if you want to be safe, perhaps a sensible course of action might be to limit consumption to, say, a quarter of the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of 40mg per kilo of body weight.

This means if your weight is 60kg, the industry recommended daily limit for aspartame consumption is 60 x 40 = 2,400mg – or if you want to be safe, 600 mg a day. Aspartame is 200 times sweeter than sucrose so a quarter of the ADI at 600mg is still equivalent to an amazing 120 grams (or over quarter of a pound) of sugar.

For reference, a single 330ml can of diet cola can contain 175mg of aspartame.

Even though it is heavily abridged, the overview of E951 above is important not only due to the many unusual scientific controversies over its use – but because there are also other less well-known, equally strident disputes about the safety of many other EU-approved sweeteners such as E950 (acesulfame K), E952 (cyclamic acids), E953 (isomalt), E954 (saccharins), E955 (sucralose), E957 (thaumatin), E959 (neohesperidine DC), E960 (steviol glycoside), E961 (neotame), E962 (salt of aspartame-acesulfame), E964 (polyglycitol syrup), E965 (maltitol), E966 (lactitol), E967 (xylitol), E968 (erythritol) and E969 (advantame).

Of the list above, both E961 and E969 are notably interesting as they are a new breed of super high-intensity sweeteners – neotame is around 9,000 times sweeter than sugar and advantame is an incredible 20,000 times sweeter.

Stevia, yet not really stevia

Just as a comment, E960 is a natural sweetener derived from the leaves of the Stevia Rebaudiana plant and is about 250 times sweeter than sugar – and research has currently found scant evidence of toxicity in the human use of steviol glycoside.

However, if you attempt to buy this rather expensive compound in the supermarkets, many of the packaged stevia-based sweeteners are substantially adulterated with other synthetic sweeteners – so please be aware of this. It seems that additives are even added to other additives now.

The high use and low cost of artificial sweeteners (and indeed sugar itself) means that it has been suggested that modern processed foods can taste around three times as sweet as similar foods only 50-odd years ago.

The per capita use of natural sugar itself has gone up 30% between 1977 and 2010 in the United States – and consumption of High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) there has gone up 245% between 1989 and 2000 alone.

The consumption statistics of artificial sweeteners is not easy to derive given the range of chemicals, producers and uses – but it would be reasonable to assume that the usage of artificial sweeteners has been on a pretty steep upward trend for the last few decades.

For example, in 2014, around 32% of Americans routinely choose to consume artificial sweeteners on a daily basis.

Note that sweeteners are often used to mask the bitterness of other additives – and therefore many societies have generally grown accustomed to the extravagant sweetness of modern processed foods. Think of “honey-cured” meats, caffeine-laden canned drinks or frappucinos, for example.

Other E9xx additives

There are some other curious additives in the E9xx section – and we will start with E900 (dimethylpolysiloxane). In real life, E900 is a compound used to make the silly putty children play with – but it is also used as an additive to frozen French fries and other commercial deep frozen fried foods.

This is because its strong anti-foaming properties help prevent hot oil from splashing or bubbling over when cooking, especially in large commercial deep fat fryers.

How it works is because this silicone compound has a relatively low surface tension and can therefore flow easily onto the external films of hot oil bubbles – once there, E900 acts as a surfactant to reduce the surface tension of the oil bubbles and also weaken the surfaces in between adjoining oil bubbles, causing them to fold gently back into the hot oil.

Glazing

E901 (beeswax), E903 (carnauba wax), E904 (shellac), E905 (paraffin or microcrystalline wax) and E907 (hydrogenated poly-1-decene) are glazing agents, used to make sweets, fruits, confectionaries, medicine pills, et cetera, externally shiny. For example, the use of E901 and E903 is how chocolate Smarties get that attractive bright, polished look.

Sheep wool, human hair and urea

E913 (lanolin) is derived from the oily secretions from the sebaceous glands in the hides of sheep – these secretions are used to oil wool, and apparently often included as part of the gum base for use in chewing gums (though most of the gum base is made from other compounds). Lanolin is also used in cosmetics and bath soaps as a moisturiser.

If chewing on E913 now sounds a little icky, then consider the origins of E920 (l-cysteine) – it is a dough conditioner commonly used to ensure commercial breads remain soft and fluffy long after they have been baked.

E920 was originally derived from human hair though it can also be extracted from bird feathers and animal hairs – in the EU, E920 sourced from human hair cannot be used.

However, in China it seems that much of the E920 produced there is still based at least in part on using human or pig hair – there is no way to test for the origin because the molecules are homogenous after processing into l-cysteine. China is a major exporter of l-cysteine to the world.

E927 (azodicarbonamide) was famous a few years ago for its dual use in making yoga mats and improving the textures of bread rolls in some popular food chains – but it is now banned in the EU.

However, E927b (carbamide) is still permitted as an additive to improve the colour and baking quality of flour. A more common term for carbamide is urea, though of course the urea used in baking is not derived from human or animal waste.

Gassy additives

Gases are also considered additives, though it would be rare to see them listed on a supermarket label as they are usually exhibited only for commercial bulk packaging – E938 (argon), E939 (helium) and E941 (nitrogen) are used as packaging gases to prevent the spoilage of food; E942 (nitrous oxide) is used as a spray propellant for other additives and oils; E943a (butane), E943b (iso-butane) and E944 (propane) are used as flammable gases to char or singe surfaces to finish the presentation of foods such as crème brulee, moussaka, lasagna, et cetera; E948 (oxygen) is used to oxidise food quickly to obtain a matured or aged look; and E949 (hydrogen) is used to hydrogenate fats.

The last of the E9xx series is E999 (quillaia extract) which is used as a foaming agent to improve the bubbles in beer and other fizzy drinks. Photo: VisualHunt.com/Theo Xiong

The last of the E9xx series is E999 (quillaia extract) which is used commonly as a foaming agent to improve the bubbles in beer and other fizzy drinks – it is also a natural humectant, often used to keep cakes, puddings and other desserts moist for extended periods of time.

Yet again, I have to add that over-consumption of many additives may lead to possible health hazards and side-effects – and it is simply not possible to cover all potential reactions due to the numbers and combinations of additives.

However, most food additives are regulated in their use and therefore should not cause problems when processed foods are consumed in reasonable amounts by healthy humans.

The next part has more curious tidbits about other unusual additives and bulking agents – including additives which can peel oranges or glue proteins, yet legally need not be reported, and why.

Read : Part 1  Part 2  Part 3   Part 4   Part 5

\http://www.star2.com/food/food-news/2017/06/25/how-count-food-part-4/

63% of Americans Actively Avoid Soda

August 13, 2014

This post is on Healthwise

Story at-a-glance

• Sixty-three percent of Americans actively try to avoid soda, compared to 41 percent in 2002
• Rates of soda consumption have been dropping for decades, and Americans now consume about the same amount they did back in 1986
• Coca-Cola is engaging in an intensive marketing ploy to “reintroduce” Coke, using smaller serving sizes and personalized cans to target teens
• While carbonated soda sales fell 2 percent in 2013, Diet Coke sales dropped 7 percent amidst fears of aspartame’s health risks
• Adolescent rats fed sugary drinks for one month had both impaired memory and trouble learning

By Dr. Mercola

Americans are finally starting to realize the dangers of soda, with nearly two-thirds (63 percent) saying they actively try to avoid soda in their diet, a new Gallup poll revealed.1

This is a significant increase from 2002, when only 41 percent were trying to avoid soda, and a clear sign that, as TIME reported, “the soda craze is going flat.”2

Soda Consumption Falls to Lowest Level in Decades

The soda industry is a $75-billion market,3 an industry that reached its greatest heights in the US during the 1980s and 1990s, when Coca-Cola began pushing larger drink sizes and “upsizing.” Fountain drink sizes grew more than 50 percent by 1990, and in 1994, the 20-ounce plastic bottle was introduced in the US.

As people drank more and more soda, rates of obesity and diabetes soared, and while the soda industry still denies to this day any connection, research suggests otherwise. The “supersized” mentality seems to have backfired for Coca-Cola and other beverage companies, because as the health risks become clear, sales have been on a steady downward spiral.

As Businessweek reported:4

“For decades, soft-drink companies saw consumption rise. During the 1970s, the average person doubled the amount of soda they drank; by the 1980s it had overtaken tap water. In 1998, Americans were downing 56 gallons of the stuff every year—that’s 1.3 oil barrels’ worth of soda for every person in the country.

And then we weren’t as thirsty for soda anymore, and there were so many new drink options that we could easily swap it out for something else. Soft-drink sales stabilized for a few years…

In 2005 they started dropping, and they haven’t stopped. Americans are now drinking about 450 cans of soda a year, according to Beverage Digest, roughly the same amount they did in 1986.”

Coca-Cola Seeks to ‘Reintroduce’ Coke to Teen Market, and in ‘Guilt-Free’ Sizes

Part of Coca-Cola’s plan to bring soda back is, ironically, introducing smaller sizes, a strategy they believe might reposition Coke so “people stop feeling guilty when they drink it, or, ideally come to see a Coke as a treat.”

Smaller, 7.5-ounce minicans and 8-ounce glass bottles have been selling well. Even Sandy Douglas, president of Coca-Cola North America, says he limits himself to one 8-ounce glass bottle of regular Coke in the morning. Any more would be too many calories, he told Businessweek.

Meanwhile, Coca-Cola decided to target the teen market directly this summer. Teens, while notorious for their soft-drink consumption, have been quickly bailing ship and opting for energy drinks instead.

So Coca-Cola printed the 250 most common teen names on Coke bottles, hoping to entice teens with the “personalized” drinks. It worked. Sales increased by 1 percent in North America in the last three months.5

Beverage consultant Mike Weinstein, former president of A&W Brands, even noted that he goes right into high schools to find out whether teens can identify soda company slogans.

Yet, there seems to be a growing realization within the industry that, as American attitudes about diet change, and more people seek to reduce added sugar and sugary drinks in their diets, appealing to the “healthier” side of their image is needed.

And, here, too, Coca-Cola is quick to respond. They’ve invested heavily in small “healthy” beverage companies like Fuze tea, Zico coconut water, and organic Honest Tea. Coca-Cola also owns Odwalla and Simply Orange juices, Glaceau Vitaminwater, and Core Power sports drinks.

Coca-Cola Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Muhtar Kent has no intention of letting Coca-Cola’s brands, and its namesake product Coke, fall by the wayside.

A $1-billion two-year marketing blitz’s sole goal is to drive its “sparkling” division back to its former glory. And in case you were wondering… its healthy-sounding “sparkling” division includes soda, which is completely delusional.

Your Brain on Soda

When you drink soda, numerous changes happen in your body, including in your brain. A new animal study, presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior, found that sugary beverages may be particularly damaging to the brains of adolescents, one of the key age groups soda companies are trying to “court.”

Both adult and adolescent rats were fed sugary beverages for one month. They then were tested for cognitive function and memory.

While the adult rats did okay, the adolescent rats fed sugary drinks had both impaired memory and trouble learning.6 Next, the researchers plan to study whether soda leads to inflammation in the brain’s hippocampus, which is crucial for memory and learning.

Diet Coke Sales Plummet Amidst Aspartame Health Concerns

Diet Coke may not contain sugar, but that certainly doesn’t make it a better choice than regular soda. Here, too, Americans are catching on to the risks involved, especially in regard to the artificial sweetener aspartame.Businessweek, reporting on the decline in Coca-Cola’s sales, noted that while carbonated soda sales fell 2 percent in 2013, Diet Coke sales dropped 7 percent.

This, they said, was “almost entirely the result of the growing unpopularity of aspartame amid persistent rumors that it’s a health risk.”7 Rumors? Far from it. Research continues to pour in revealing proven health dangers to aspartame.

Among them, a recent commentary that reviewed the adequacy of the cancer studies submitted by G.D. Searle in the 1970s to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for market approval.8

Their review of the data found that the studies did not prove aspartame’s safety, while other recent research suggests aspartame has potential carcinogenic effects. The researchers noted:

“Taken together, the studies performed by G.D. Searle in the 1970s and other chronic bioassays do not provide adequate scientific support for APM safety.

In contrast, recent results of life-span carcinogenicity bioassays on rats and mice published in peer-reviewed journals, and a prospective epidemiological study, provide consistent evidence of APM's carcinogenic potential.

On the basis of the evidence of the potential carcinogenic effects of APM herein reported, a re-evaluation of the current position of international regulatory agencies must be considered an urgent matter of public health.”

You may also be surprised to learn that research has repeatedly shown that artificially sweetened no- or low-calorie drinks and other “diet” foods actually tend to stimulate your appetite, increase cravings for carbs, and stimulate fat storage and weight gain.

A report published in the journal Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolismhighlighted the fact that diet soda drinkers suffer the same exact health problems as those who opt for regular soda, such as excessive weight gain, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and stroke.9 For the record, Coca-Cola maintains aspartame is a “safe, high-quality alternative to sugar." Clearly they’ve not reviewed the hundreds of studies on this artificial sweetener demonstrating its harmful effects…

What Happens When You Drink Soda?

Soda is on my list of the absolute worst foods and drinks you can consume. Once ingested, your pancreas rapidly begins to create insulin in response to the sugar. A 20-ounce bottle of cola contains the equivalent of 16 teaspoons of sugar in the form of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). In addition to contributing to insulin resistance, the rise in blood sugar is quite rapid. Here’s a play-by-play of what happens in your body upon drinking a can of soda:

• Within 20 minutes, your blood sugar spikes, and your liver responds to the resulting insulin burst by turning massive amounts of sugar into fat.
• Within 40 minutes, caffeine absorption is complete; your pupils dilate, your blood pressure rises, and your liver dumps more sugar into your bloodstream.
• Around 45 minutes, your body increases dopamine production, which stimulates the pleasure centers of your brain – a physically identical response to that of heroin, by the way.
• After 60 minutes, you’ll start to have a blood sugar crash, and you may be tempted to reach for another sweet snack or beverage.

As I’ve discussed on numerous occasions, chronically elevated insulin levels (which you would definitely have if you regularly drink soda) and the subsequent insulin resistance is a foundational factor of most chronic disease, from diabetes to cancer. Today, while many Americans are cutting back on sugary drinks, soda remains a dietary mainstay for many. Along with energy drinks and sports drinks, soda is among the top 10 sources of calories in the US diet (number four on the list, to be exact),10 and, in 2012, Gallup found that 48 percent of Americans said they drink at least one glass of soda a day,11 with proven detrimental impacts to their health.

Some Advice for Coca-Cola? Get Ready for a Class-Action Suit

Some advice for Coke, plan your budget to include a class-action lawsuit similar to those filed against the tobacco industry. These products are now well linked to the obesity epidemic and chronic disease. Coca-Cola admits to targeting teens (and has previously targeted children through in-school advertising and product placement). Now, they are making attempts to rebrand Coke with a new, healthier image. Their new “Coke Life,” a low-calorie, low-sugar soda in a green can, no less, was designed to “quiet critics,” as it contains less sugar and no aspartame.12 Yet this new green-washed soda is just basically a cigarette with a filter. 

Then there is Coca-Cola’s even more insidious side. Investigative journalist Michael Blanding revealed in his book, The Coke Machine -- The Dirty Truth Behind the World's Favorite Soft Drink, that Coca-Cola bottling plants in India have dramatically lowered the water supply, drying up wells for local villagers while also dumping cadmium, chromium, and other carcinogens into the local environment. Similar claims have been made in Mexico. In many third-world countries, they already don’t have access to clean water, making soda their only choice for a non-contaminated beverage. As the demand for soda grows, the bottling plants increase, further taxing the water supplies left, in a vicious and dangerous cycle.

Join the Growing Number of People Saying ‘No’ to Soda

In order to break free of your soda habit, first be sure you address the emotional component of your food cravings using tools such as the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT). More than any traditional or alternative method I have used or researched, EFT works to overcome food cravings and helps you reach dietary success. Be sure to check out Turbo Tapping in particular, which is an extremely effective and simple tool to get rid of your soda addiction in a short amount of time.

If you still have cravings after trying EFT or Turbo Tapping, you may need to make some changes to your diet. My free nutrition plan can help you do this in a step-by-step fashion. Remember, nothing beats pure water when it comes to serving your body's needs. If you really feel the urge for a carbonated beverage, try sparkling mineral water with a squirt of lime or lemon juice, or sweetened with stevia or Luo Han, both of which are safe natural sweeteners. Remember, if you struggle with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, or extra weight, then you have insulin sensitivity issues and would likely benefit from avoiding ALL sweeteners.

Sweetened beverages, whether it's sweetened with sugar, HFCS, naturally occurring fructose, or artificial sweeteners like aspartame, are among the worst culprits in the fight against obesity and related health problems, including diabetes and heart and liver disease, just to name a few. Ditching ALL of these types of beverages can go a long way toward reducing your risk for chronic health problems and weight gain, not to mention your exposure to potentially cancer-causing additives like caramel coloring and aspartame.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/08/13/soda-consumption.aspx


Go to Healthwise for more articles

Splenda Side Effects

by Dr. Josh Axe on October 10, 2012

We are all familiar with the little yellow packages of Splenda that promise to satisfy our sweet tooth without the extra calories and the carbohydrates. You may have used Splenda in place of aspartame and saccharine and the -now banned by the FDA- cyclamate because you know they are composed of dangerous chemicals. And Splenda is natural, right? Well, not quite.

 

“Splenda” is the commercial name used for sucralose. The manufacturers advertise Splenda as being more “natural” than other sweeteners, as the main substance, sucralose, comes from sugar. This is very misleading though, as it leads consumers to believe that sucralose comes from sugar the same way that cheese comes from milk.

 

The way that sucralose is produced is much more complicated, but to put it simply splenda is chlorinated sugar (chlorocarbon).  Other common chlorocarbons include carbon tetrachloride, and methylene chloride which are all poisonous!  Chlorine in numerous studies has been proven as toxic to our bodies and can accumulate in our systems over time.

 

The reason that a chemically altered molecule, like sucralose, can be threatening for our health if ingested, is the fact that our bodies are not made to recognize these substances and do not know how to properly deal with them. This is not the case with sugar (sucrose, lactose, fructose) that we have been ingesting for thousands of years.

 

So, What Are the Splenda Side Effects?

 

Sucralose accumulates very slowly and with habitual use. To make it more clear, if we eat something containing sucralose once, our body will manage to eventually get rid of sucralose. But if we ingest it every day, our body does not have enough time to deal with it.  A study showed that with a moderate consumption 96.7% of sucralose leaves our bodies, while high consumption the percentage falls to 92.8%.  This means chlorine is being stored in other areas of your body causing your cells to become toxic!

 

You may say, if it’s so dangerous, then why is it FDA approved?  (FYI, the FDA approves a lot of things that later are pulled off the market once enough people die like cyclamate and Vioxx).  The FDA points to over one hundred studies that claim sucralose is safe. The problem is these studies are typical, and usually conducted by companies who are financially invested in Splenda, and all were short term studies. One of the studies tests if Splenda causes teeth decay, for example, which is of course a serious issue, but not life threatening. The vast majority of the studies used rats, not humans and in very, very limited amounts.

 

What about the other studies though? The ones that show that in amounts of 500 mg/kg sucralose is hepatoxic and nephrotoxic, meaning that it causes damage to the liver and kidneys. Those studies are not taken seriously by the FDA, as the test subjects were -guess what- rats. And their defense mechanism are not considered adequate to simulate the human body’s response. The controversy of the FDA’s behavior here is of course obvious. It is a fact that the amount of sucralose used in these studies is very high, but it is chosen as they want to test the effects of accumulated sucralose in the human body after years of everyday use.

 

Apart from the liver and kidneys, a 2008 Duke University study found that Splenda alters the intestine flora as it destroys beneficial bacteria. This is a major problem because we need good bacteria also known as probiotics for a healthy immune system.

 

Many people report the side effects as resembling allergic reactions. The most commonly reported Splenda side effects are:

• migraines
• dizziness
• intestinal cramping
• rashes
• acne
• headaches
• bloating
• chest pain
• tinnitus
• gum bleeding

And the list goes on! Of course, it’s hard to pin point that Spenda was exclusively responsible for these side effects, but in the reports people claim that they felt better once they stopped using Splenda.

James Turner of “Citizens for Health” is fighting for the labeling of products containing Splenda, to give consumers a choice to avoid sucralose. There is a good reason for that, as even if someone chooses not to use Splenda in their beverages, it is used as an additive in so many low calorie and/or sugar free foods and prepackaged goods, that it is quite hard to avoid it.

What Sweetener to Use Instead of Splenda?

Concluding, Splenda does not have any long term research and we know by its chemical makeup that it is not good for you.  Too much chlorine in your system is toxic and there are healthier, natural sweeteners available today like Whole Leaf Stevia. I suggest you make the switch to Stevia or raw local honey to satisfy your sweet tooth in a healthy way! I recommend a brand called NuNaturals Stevia ($10 Amazon).

Sources and Further Reading: Mayo Clinic article on artificial sweeteners:, National Cancer Institute on artificial sweeteners and the link to cancer:, A complete guide to sweeteners by Brian Rigby, A blog with reports about “Splenda Sickness”

http://www.draxe.com/splenda-side-effects/

Syndrome X: The Sugar Disease

Bob Livingston | Jul 20, 2013

All the chronic diseases of aging thread their roots back to sugar consumption. Of all the species, the human race has a very high proclivity to sugar addiction and sugar dependence. Doctors will issue a bag full of prescription drugs and never once say, “Stay off of all sugar.”

What is sugar? Sugar is any substance that has a high glycemic index. Any food or substance that has a high glycemic index can disturb insulin balance in the body.

It follows then that the more sugar or carbohydrate consumption, the more insulin balance is disturbed. Any sugar or any food or any substance out of which the body can make sugar directly affects insulin balance.

Sugar In Disguise

There are many, many ways to disguise sugar or divert one’s attention from sugar. Most of the manufactured foods sold in supermarkets are loaded with sugar, which is usually listed in the ingredients in small print. The big diverter, “low fat” or “no fat,” is nearly always in bold or set out in a box or different color on the label.

The manufacturers know that the public has been thoroughly programmed against fat consumption. So if they print “no fat,” the customer is drawn to the product, which is most often loaded with sugar.

Sugar is now used not only as a sweetener but as a filler to build volume in “food product.” High fructose corn syrup, a major ingredient, is an extremely sweet filler widely used and deadly to insulin balance.

And would you believe that until recently the only product with no glycemic index was outlawed by the Food and Drug Administration as a sweetener: stevia. Stevia does not disturb insulin; but due to FDA regulations, it was not allowed to be marketed as a sweetener, only as a dietary supplement. Thankfully, that has now changed.

Deadly Syndrome

Now, let’s talk about just one chronic disease that traces back to sugar consumption: Syndrome X. Some 60 million to 75 million Americans have Syndrome X. According to Gerald Reaven, M.D., the discoverer of Syndrome X, it is the No. 1 predictor of heart disease.

That good diet prescribed by your cardiologist can be deadly. If you have Syndrome X, carefully dieting to lower your total cholesterol or LDL cholesterol won’t solve your problem. In fact, it may make a heart attack even more likely.

Syndrome X is a very quiet malady that interferes with the ability of insulin to move glucose (sugar) into certain cells for later use. Unknown millions of heart attacks have been caused by the failure of insulin to do its job.

Insulin resistance is at the heart of Syndrome X. This is why simply lowering HDL and LDL cholesterol — as universally prescribed by American physicians — won’t solve the problem.

About 25 percent to 30 percent of Americans are resistant to their own insulin. This means that greater amounts of insulin are required to get the job done. Unfortunately, excess insulin is the first in a series of events to trigger damage to the lining of the coronary arteries that eventually precipitates a heart attack.

Therefore, more carbohydrates (sugar) equals more glucose, equals more insulin, equals the formula for disaster. For each 30 percent elevation in insulin levels, there is a 70 percent increase in risk of heart disease over a five-year period.

Syndrome X, or insulin resistance, is a cluster of abnormalities that is directly related to heart disease but seems to be unknown to the medical establishment.

Risk Factors

Reaven, in his book Syndrome X, The Silent Killer, outlines the complete list of heart disease risk factors for people with Syndrome X. This list includes known risk factors for heart disease, including the risk factors for Syndrome X — important!

Syndrome X risk factors:

• Impaired glucose tolerance.
• High insulin levels (hyperinsulinemia).
• Elevated triglycerides (blood fats).
• Low HDL “good” cholesterol.
• Slow clearance of fat from the blood (exaggerated postprandial lipemia).
• Smaller, denser LDL “bad” cholesterol particles.
• Increased propensity of the blood to form clots.
• Decreased ability to dissolve blood clots.
• Elevated blood pressure.

Lifestyle factors that worsen Syndrome X:

• Obesity.
• Lack of physical activity.
• The wrong diet.
• Cigarette smoking.
• High intake of sugar/carbohydrates.

The additional independent risk factor is higher than normal LDL cholesterol.

Notice the differences. The Syndrome X heart disease risk factor list includes the rate at which fat clears from the blood, not just the amount of fat in the blood. It also considers the formation and clearance of blood clots, and the physical characteristics of LDL cholesterol (not just the amount). The very important lifestyle factor mentioned above is high consumption of sugar or carbohydrates.

Heart attacks are two to three times more likely to happen after a high-carbohydrate meal and are specifically not likely after a high-fat meal. Why? Because the immediate effect of raising blood sugar from sugar or a high carbohydrate meal is a rise in insulin. This causes arterial spasm and constriction of the arteries, triggering heart attacks.

Substitute stevia for sugar as much as you can. Too much sugar consumption leads to the body’s overproduction of insulin. This is the basis of the chronic disease of aging and Syndrome X.

Ignorance of sugar guarantees more and more degenerative disease, oppression and more murder and suffering at the hands of the government and the pharmaceutical and medical cartels. Ignorance of sugar is the absolute foundation of economic collapse nationally and financial poverty individually. Ignorance of sugar is at the root of social breakdown and a drugged society, broken homes and the forcing of drugs on schoolchildren.

The sugar disease is the biochemical basis of all degenerative disease, especially heart disease, cancer, diabetes and Alzheimer’s.

Why are we not being told about sugar? It’s because it would mean far better and widespread health and happiness and, therefore, far less money flowing to the medical monopoly.

Sugar is America’s No. 1 addiction. It begins with babies. May God liberate us from this curse that plagues the world, but most especially plagues Americans.

http://easyhealthoptions.com/alternative-medicine/syndrome-x-the-sugar-disease/

CSPI Downgrades Splenda From "Safe" to "Caution"

June 26, 2013

Story at-a-glance

• The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has finally downgraded Splenda from its former “safe” category to one of “caution” following an unpublished study that found Splenda may cause leukemia in mice
• Splenda is anything but natural, it is an artificial sweetener that has been found to reduce the amount of good bacteria in your intestines by 50 percent, while no one knows what happens when humans consume this substance for long periods of time
• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Splenda in 1998 based on more than 110 safety studies, only two of which were actually conducted on humans; these two studies consisted of a combined total of 36 people, of which only 23 people actually ate sucralose

By Dr. Mercola

The  artificial sweetener sucralose, better known by its brand name Splenda, has been on the US market for fifteen years. 

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Splenda in 1998 based on more than 110 safety studies, only two of which were actually conducted on humans (these two studies consisted of a combined total of 36 people, of which only 23 people actually ingested sucralose!).  

Since then we’ve seen many red flags that this artificial sweetener is anything but safe, not the least of which are the many personal anecdotes of adverse reactions to Splenda, which are posted on my site 

Research has also been conducted showing that Splenda is not the safe sugar alternative it was promoted to be (see below for a few examples), and now even the consumer advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is sounding an alarm against this popular artificial sweetener.

CSPI Finally Gets It Right About Splenda

CSPI, a consumer watchdog group that focuses on nutrition and food safety, has finally downgraded Splenda from its former “safe” category to one of “caution.” The move came following an unpublished study by an independent Italian laboratory that found Splenda may cause leukemia in mice.¹ According to CSPI:²

“The only previous long-term feeding studies in animals were conducted by the compound's manufacturers.”

After more than 10 years, CSPI has finally gotten it right about Splenda, but generally this is an organization whose guidelines need to be taken with a grain of salt. For starters, while recommending that people avoid artificial sweeteners like aspartame and saccharin, they also consider drinking diet soda to be safer than drinking regular soda.  

Yet, there's little doubt in my mind that artificial sweeteners can be even worse for you than sugar and fructose, and there is scientific evidence to back up that conclusion. I am glad they finally came to their senses. I remember pleading with Michael Jacobson, their director, many years ago to reevaluate his position, but at the time he was convinced of Splenda’s safety.  

CSPI also spearheaded a campaign against the use of healthful saturated fats during the 1980s, touting trans fats as a healthier alternative. It was largely the result of CSPI’s campaign that fast-food restaurants replaced the use of beef tallow, palm oil and coconut oil with partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, which are high in synthetic trans fats (linked to numerous chronic diseases like heart disease).  

In 1988, CSPI even released an article praising trans fats and saying “there is little good evidence that trans fats cause any more harm than other fats” and “much of the anxiety over trans fats stems from their reputation as 'unnatural.'”³  

It wasn’t until the 1990s that CSPI reversed their position on synthetic trans fats, citing it as the greater public health danger, but the damage had already been done. Even to this day, many still mistakenly believe that margarine is a healthier choice than butter… but getting back to Splenda, it’s a step in the right direction that CSPI has sounded an alarm over its use.

"Caution" Regarding Splenda Is Putting It Mildly...

I would instead say that this artificial sweetener should be avoided like the plague. In 2005, I wrote Sweet Deception, in which I expose the many concerns related to the consumption of artificial sweeteners. It's an extremely well-researched book, and it's every bit as valid today as it was when I first wrote it. I spent over three years, and had five health care professionals work on it with me to be absolutely sure of our findings.  

I did this because the maker of Splenda, Johnson & Johnson, had their New York legal firm write me a 20-page letter threatening to sue me if I published the book. Needless to say, the book was published and they never sued me as the information was all true.  

Splenda is a synthetic chemical created in a laboratory. In the five-step patented process of making it, three chlorine molecules are added to one sucrose (sugar) molecule. Some will argue that natural foods also contain chloride, which is true.  

However, in natural foods, the chloride is connected with ionic bonds that easily dissociate. In Splenda, they're in a covalent bond that does not dissociate. In fact, there are NO covalent chloride bonds to organic compounds in nature, only ionic. Covalent chloride bonds only exist in synthetic, man-made molecules. Aside from Splenda, other examples of synthetic covalently bound chloride compounds include:

• DDT
• PCBs
• Agent Orange

Your body has no enzymes to break down this covalently bound chloride. Why would it? It never existed in nature, so the human body never had a reason to address it. And since it's not broken down and metabolized by your body, they can claim it to be non-caloric—essentially, it's supposed to pass right through you. However, the research (which is primarily extrapolated from animal studies) indicates that about 15 percent of sucralose IS in fact absorbed into your digestive system, and ultimately stored in your body.

Splenda May Wreak Havoc Within Your Digestive Tract

Splenda has been found to be particularly damaging to your intestines. A study published in 2008 found that Splenda:⁴

• Reduces the amount of beneficial bacteria in your intestines by 50 percent
• Increases the pH level in your intestines
• Affects a glycoprotein in your body that can have crucial health effects, particularly if you're on certain medications like chemotherapy, or treatments for AIDS and certain heart conditions

Further, some of the initial studies done on Splenda revealed:

• Decreased red blood cells -- sign of anemia -- at levels above 1,500 mg/kg/day
• Increased male infertility by interfering with sperm production and vitality, as well as brain lesions at higher doses
• Enlarged and calcified kidneys
• Spontaneous abortions in nearly half the rabbit population given sucralose, compared to zero aborted pregnancies in the control group
• A 23 percent death rate in rabbits, compared to a 6 percent death rate in the control group

Worse still, the longest of the two human trials conducted on Splenda lasted only four days and looked at sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance! So if you’ve been ingesting Splenda for years, you’re actually acting as a human guinea pig, as no one knows what happens when humans consume this substance for long periods. Even the health food giant Whole Foods counts sucralose on its list of unacceptable ingredients for food…⁵

Aspartame Also Linked to Leukemia

Splenda is not the only artificial sweetener that has been linked to leukemia. The longest-ever human aspartame study, spanning 22 years, found a clear association between aspartame consumption and non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and leukemia in men.⁶ 

The long-term nature of this study is really crucial because one of the primary tricks manufacturers use to hide the toxicity of their products are short-term trials. The longest study prior to this one was only 4.5 months, far too short to reveal any toxicity from chronic exposure. Unfortunately, because there are so many of these short-term trials, manufacturers get away with saying that aspartame is one of the most studied food additives ever made and no health concerns have ever been discovered. Splenda’s maker has used similar tricks as well.  

Aspartame is primarily made up of aspartic acid and phenylalanine. The phenylalanine has been synthetically modified to carry a methyl group, which provides the majority of the sweetness. That phenylalanine methyl bond, called a methyl ester, is very weak, which allows the methyl group on the phenylalanine to easily break off and form methanol. This is in sharp contrast to naturally-occurring methanol found in certain fruits and vegetables, where it is firmly bonded to pectin, allowing the methanol to be safely passed through your digestive tract.  

Methanol acts as a metabolic Trojan horse; it's carried into susceptible tissues in your body, like your brain and bone marrow, where the ADH enzyme converts it into formaldehyde, which wreaks havoc with sensitive proteins and DNA. All other animals, on the other hand, have a protective mechanism that allows methanol to be broken down into harmless formic acid… but, according to aspartame expert Dr. Woodrow Monte, there's a major biochemical problem with methanol in humans, because of the difference in how it's metabolized, compared to all other animals. This is why toxicology testing on animals is a flawed model. It doesn't fully apply to humans who are unable to convert the toxic formaldehyde into harmless formic acid. 

Download Interview Transcript

Take the Artificial Sweetener-Free Challenge

It’s quite possible that you could be having a reaction to artificial sweeteners and not even know it or be blaming it on another cause. For instance, the following reactions have all been reported after the consumption of Splenda: 

Gastrointestinal problems	Blurred vision
Migraines	Allergic reactions
Seizures	Blood sugar increases
Dizziness	Weight gain

To determine if you're having a reaction to artificial sweeteners, take the following steps:

• Eliminate all artificial sweeteners from your diet for two weeks.
• After two weeks of being artificial sweetener-free, reintroduce your artificial sweetener of choice in a significant quantity (about three servings daily).
• Avoid other artificial sweeteners during this period.
• Do this for one to three days and notice how you feel, especially as compared to when you were consuming no artificial sweeteners.
• If you don't notice a difference in how you feel after re-introducing your primary artificial sweetener for a few days, it's a safe bet you're able to tolerate it acutely, meaning your body doesn't have an immediate, adverse response. However, this doesn't mean your health won't be damaged in the long run.
• If you've been consuming more than one type of artificial sweetener, you can repeat steps 2 through 4 with the next one on your list.

If you do experience side effects from Splenda, aspartame or any other food additive, please report it to the FDA (if you live in the US) without delay. It's easy to make a report — just go to the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator page, find the phone number for your state, and make a call reporting your reaction.

Try This Natural Alternative to Artificial Sweeteners

If you’re in the mood for something sweet, the herb stevia is one of my favorite options for an occasional sweetener. It's a safe, natural plant that has been around for over 1,500 years and is ideal if you're watching your weight, or if you're maintaining your health by avoiding sugar. It is hundreds of times sweeter than sugar and has virtually no calories. 

Further, research suggests it may actually have some beneficial properties, as one study revealed that diabetic rats given stevia had a delayed but significant decrease in blood glucose level,⁷ without producing hypoglycemia, while also demonstrating a loss in body weight. 

Personally, I believe stevia is the best sweetener available today. Many complain about a bitter aftertaste with stevia, but this is typically related to the processing. I prefer to use it in its liquid form in flavors like English Toffee and French Vanilla (it only require a few drops to sweeten a drink). That said, like most choices, especially sweeteners, I recommend using it in moderation, just like sugar.

[-] Sources and References

• Center for Science in the Public Interest June 12, 2013
• The Safety Report June 12, 2013
• Fox News June 12, 2013

• ¹ Center for Science in the Public Interest June 12, 2013
• ² See ref. 1
• ³ CSPI, The Truth About Trans Fats 1988
• ⁴ J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2008;71(21):1415-29
• ⁵ Whole Foods Market, Unacceptable Ingredients for Food
• ⁶ The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition December 2012 [Epub ahead of print]
• ⁷ J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2011 Apr;3(2):242-8

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/06/26/cspi-downgrades-splenda.aspx