Artificial Sweeteners

Health, well-being, medicine, aging.
User avatar
gardengirl
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 13605
Joined: Mar 23rd, 2006, 1:01 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by gardengirl »

Any concerns with bacteria in unprocessed honey? Salmonella for instance?
Life is a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death.
User avatar
Nom_de_Plume
Guru
Posts: 6485
Joined: Mar 7th, 2007, 7:13 am

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by Nom_de_Plume »

I thought honey had natural antibacterial properties in it.
Salmonella could only happen in some sort of packaging plan that was riddled with salmonella.
but still because honey has such a low water activity it would be difficult for anything to grow in it.
when I was a kid my granny used to use honey for all sorts of thing besides putting in your tea
The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.
~ Terry Pratchett
User avatar
Lady tehMa
A Peer of the Realm
Posts: 20288
Joined: Aug 2nd, 2005, 3:51 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by Lady tehMa »

There was an article carried by castanet (link to cbc I think) some time back - about how honey had been found in an Egyptian tomb, and was still edible. It is the only food that doesn't go bad, and I believe that it does have antibacterial properties.

http://www.brownielocks.com/honey.html
I haven't failed until I quit.
dirtrider
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3178
Joined: May 18th, 2005, 3:46 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by dirtrider »

UnknownResident wrote:
Do you even know what splenda is? Splenda is the product of insecticide research. Here's how you make splenda, you drop the hydrogen out of a sugar molecule and you add chlorine. Chlorine is a class one carcinogen (cancer causer). Chlorine, doesn't exist in it's free form anywhere in nature, you have to artificial make it. Anyways they add this chlorine to a sugar molecule and force it to bond with carbon, which makes whats called a chlorocarbon, which is toxic. The carbon acts as a delivery system to deliver that chlorine into the cells. That's why it works as an insecticide .

Other chlorocarbons are DDT an insecticide banned in North America due to severe toxicity, chlordane another insecticide banned in 1998 due to harm to humans and the environment, PCBs used as electrical insulators and heat regulators banned in many countries because it can't break down in the environment or food chain, mustard gas... nuff said.. Then you have sucralose (splenda) the only chlorocarbon ever used for human consumption. How long before we figure out that it's toxic? You're eating a chemical.

It's not natural. Now is splenda safe? I don't know, and no one else does either, that's the problem. There's only been 5 human tested studies ever done and the longest one was 13 weeks.


Hate to disagree but..........." In determining the safety of sucralose, the FDA reviewed data from more than 110 studies in humans and animals. Many of the studies were designed to identify possible toxic effects, including carcinogenic, reproductive, and neurological effects. No such effects were found, and FDA's approval is based on the finding that sucralose is safe for human consumption." For example, McNeil Nutritional LLC studies submitted as part of its U.S. FDA Food Additive Petition 7A3987 indicated that "in the 2-year rodent bioassays...there was no evidence of carcinogenic activity for either sucralose or its hydrolysis products."

.....and just because this compound has a couple of chlorine atoms on its chain doesn't mean too much by itself. Take ordimary table salt for instance...it's NaCl...notice the chlorine ion?
Most of these artificial sweetners just pass through the body without breaking down or being used by the body. "........Sucralose belongs to a class of compounds known as organochlorides (or chlorocarbons). Some organochlorides, particularly those that accumulate in fatty tissues, are toxic to plants or animals, including humans. Sucralose, however, is not known to be toxic in small quantities and is extremely insoluble in fat; it cannot accumulate in fat like chlorinated hydrocarbons. In addition, sucralose does not break down or dechlorinate. The chemistry of organochlorides differs from that of inorganic chlorine salts. Therefore, comparisons of sucralose to the safety of chloride salts, such as those made by the International Food Information Council (IFIC), are not relevant."
User avatar
justmyopinion
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3343
Joined: Dec 2nd, 2009, 9:45 am

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by justmyopinion »

dirtrider - are you saying Splenda is ok then? I use it in my coffee at home and have just stumbled on this thread...
dirtrider
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3178
Joined: May 18th, 2005, 3:46 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by dirtrider »

justmyopinion wrote:dirtrider - are you saying Splenda is ok then? I use it in my coffee at home and have just stumbled on this thread...

......I use it....imo, it's just as safe as anthing out there. It's already in use in over 4,500 food and beverage items. ".......Splenda usually contains 95% dextrose and maltodextrin which the body readily metabolizes, combined with a small amount of mostly indigestible sucralose. "
Dextrose is just glucose and maltodextrin is a polysaccaride that is starch based and is used as an additive...so I don't really see anthing that would be harmful according to the current research.....but as always this is just my opinion....it's always a good idea to do your own.
User avatar
justmyopinion
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3343
Joined: Dec 2nd, 2009, 9:45 am

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by justmyopinion »

Oh wait - I'm confused....I looked at lunch and it's actually Sweet'n Low I use....good or bad?
User avatar
UnknownResident
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 739
Joined: Mar 13th, 2010, 5:25 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by UnknownResident »

"I look at that structure and I have an irrational fear of it. I've seen the safety studies, and you feed it to rats and mice forever and nothing happens. But it scares me" - Taste Research Scientist commenting on Splenda.

Splenda contains: Trityl Cholride, Acetic Anhydride, Hydrogen Chlorine (not to be mistaken with chloride which you have already), Thionyl Chloride, Methanol. They are listed as Demethylformamide, 4-methymorpholine, Toluene, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Acetic Acide, Benzyltriethammoniom Chloride, Sodium Methoxide.

The results is I, 6-dicholro-I,6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofurnosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside. Or Splenda.

Make the call if you want that in your body, but it's not quite as peachy as dirtrider makes it seem. Perhaps some people need to do more research. To cite the FDA as a credible source is a joke, everyone knows the FDA is full of CEOs from major food companies. Weird...

You said table salt has chlorine in it. That's just an outright lie, that's chloride. There is no naturally occuring chlorine anywhere. You have to alter it chemically.

Now onto your studies, as of november 2006 (around when splenda made the over 100 studies claim) there were 86 published studies. Of those 15 looked at safety. Fifteen. Of those the longest human trial is 13 weeks. Of those about 200 people were tested. There has been way more than 200 people report side effects from sucralose.

When splenda got approved by your awe-inspiring FDA in 1998 the longest human trial was 4 days, and that was done on tooth decay, not safety. Basically they relied on 3 animal studies, 2 done on mice and rats and one done on dogs, the total time was 2 years. This is the data they used to assure us of the long term safety of splenda.

Back to the 15 studies done, 13 of the studies were funded by the manufacturer. This is important if you remember when aspartame was being studied. Somewhere around 75 (over 90%) industry funded studies found no side effects, where 90 odd (100%) individual studies found adverse side effects. Just to give an eye-opener to the conflict of interest there. So of these 15 studies, 7 were done on humans. Of the seven, 2 were done by respectable neurology journals, which showed a clear relation between the use of splenda and migranes. As it's been on the market longer, we're starting to see researchers find more side effects.

Now if you're going to use splenda twice a month, you don't have to worry, the danger to that is limited. If you're going to use it daily for many years, it appears there is insufficient data to justify the consumption of sucralose for long periods of time. So if you use splenda I would recommend switching, simply because we are unaware of the long time affects. Until there is sufficient data, I would prefer to be safe.
User avatar
UnknownResident
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 739
Joined: Mar 13th, 2010, 5:25 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by UnknownResident »

".......Splenda usually contains 95% dextrose and maltodextrin which the body readily metabolizes, combined with a small amount of mostly indigestible sucralose. "


Oh yea guess what that bulking agent is.... SUGAR. So they say, no sugar or calories. That's crap, there's sugar in there, and calories.
User avatar
daria
Guru
Posts: 7465
Joined: Mar 29th, 2010, 4:26 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by daria »

Our bodies haven't evolved an ability to process artificial sweeteners. If your body can't handle sweeteners, I'd steer clear of them, but when you have to have them then use organic whole cane sugar. Also, try offsetting your use of sugar by taking a chromium GTF (glucose-tolerance-factor) supplement (it aids your body's metabolism of sugar). :)
Don't take my silence to mean I've agreed with you; I easily could've just lost interest in explaining how wrong you are.
History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes.
User avatar
Queen K
Queen of the Castle
Posts: 67265
Joined: Jan 31st, 2007, 11:39 am

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by Queen K »

[quote="UnknownResident"]Stevia is nothing to be worried about, zero calories, it doesn't do anything to your blood sugar levels, simply because it's not sugar. The reason why people try to make us scared of stevia is because it's an herb that grows very well in South America, and is so potent, it could potentially shut down the sugar and artificial sweetener industries. The two studies that people like to use to backup their claims that stevia is bad for you, the authors of those studies will tell you that they were done very poorly and that stevia has no harmful effects.

Well Stevia grew excellently on my deck last summer, sure didn't need to be in South America as I'm downtown Kelowna. The leaves were so sweet that we only gave them to visitors if we wanted to shock them with the "look what's new here" gimmick.

All we did was buy the herb at The Greenery and plant it. It took up very little space in a mid-sized pot.
If Putin stopped, he'd be saving Russian lives as well. Never thought the right would have a field day but June 24/2022 it is.
Imagination
Board Meister
Posts: 398
Joined: Nov 28th, 2009, 10:28 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by Imagination »

QueenK, how did you use the Stevia you grew? Did you just use the leaves to sweeten drinks or did you have to dry and crush them or anything? How would you compare the strength/sweetness of the fresh form over what you usually get in packets? I guess I am just wondering if the fresh version is milder (since I don't like the taste of Stevia but would be interested if I could just use fresh leaves in some things).
User avatar
UnknownResident
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 739
Joined: Mar 13th, 2010, 5:25 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by UnknownResident »

Queen K wrote:
UnknownResident wrote:Stevia is nothing to be worried about, zero calories, it doesn't do anything to your blood sugar levels, simply because it's not sugar. The reason why people try to make us scared of stevia is because it's an herb that grows very well in South America, and is so potent, it could potentially shut down the sugar and artificial sweetener industries. The two studies that people like to use to backup their claims that stevia is bad for you, the authors of those studies will tell you that they were done very poorly and that stevia has no harmful effects.

Well Stevia grew excellently on my deck last summer, sure didn't need to be in South America as I'm downtown Kelowna. The leaves were so sweet that we only gave them to visitors if we wanted to shock them with the "look what's new here" gimmick.

All we did was buy the herb at The Greenery and plant it. It took up very little space in a mid-sized pot.


Nice! We're so pretty lucky, I think anything can grow here! South America is where it originates, but I guess it can grow here too :)
User avatar
Queen K
Queen of the Castle
Posts: 67265
Joined: Jan 31st, 2007, 11:39 am

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by Queen K »

I know Itailians who grow Fig trees up against their house and cover them in the Winter.

Anyways, the Stevia unfortunately went by the way side last summer because of a family tragdy, I can't remember what we ultimately did all summer, much less use the leaves of Stevia. This year we will be more aware of what the do with it as I plan to buy another plant. I hope.
If Putin stopped, he'd be saving Russian lives as well. Never thought the right would have a field day but June 24/2022 it is.
dirtrider
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3178
Joined: May 18th, 2005, 3:46 pm

Re: Artificial Sweeteners

Post by dirtrider »

UnknownResident wrote:"I look at that structure and I have an irrational fear of it. I've seen the safety studies, and you feed it to rats and mice forever and nothing happens. But it scares me" - Taste Research Scientist commenting on Splenda.

Splenda contains: Trityl Cholride, Acetic Anhydride, Hydrogen Chlorine (not to be mistaken with chloride which you have already), Thionyl Chloride, Methanol. They are listed as Demethylformamide, 4-methymorpholine, Toluene, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Acetic Acide, Benzyltriethammoniom Chloride, Sodium Methoxide.

The results is I, 6-dicholro-I,6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofurnosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside. Or Splenda.

Make the call if you want that in your body, but it's not quite as peachy as dirtrider makes it seem. Perhaps some people need to do more research. To cite the FDA as a credible source is a joke, everyone knows the FDA is full of CEOs from major food companies. Weird...

You said table salt has chlorine in it. That's just an outright lie, that's chloride. There is no naturally occuring chlorine anywhere. You have to alter it chemically.

Now onto your studies, as of november 2006 (around when splenda made the over 100 studies claim) there were 86 published studies. Of those 15 looked at safety. Fifteen. Of those the longest human trial is 13 weeks. Of those about 200 people were tested. There has been way more than 200 people report side effects from sucralose.

When splenda got approved by your awe-inspiring FDA in 1998 the longest human trial was 4 days, and that was done on tooth decay, not safety. Basically they relied on 3 animal studies, 2 done on mice and rats and one done on dogs, the total time was 2 years. This is the data they used to assure us of the long term safety of splenda.

Back to the 15 studies done, 13 of the studies were funded by the manufacturer. This is important if you remember when aspartame was being studied. Somewhere around 75 (over 90%) industry funded studies found no side effects, where 90 odd (100%) individual studies found adverse side effects. Just to give an eye-opener to the conflict of interest there. So of these 15 studies, 7 were done on humans. Of the seven, 2 were done by respectable neurology journals, which showed a clear relation between the use of splenda and migranes. As it's been on the market longer, we're starting to see researchers find more side effects.

Now if you're going to use splenda twice a month, you don't have to worry, the danger to that is limited. If you're going to use it daily for many years, it appears there is insufficient data to justify the consumption of sucralose for long periods of time. So if you use splenda I would recommend switching, simply because we are unaware of the long time affects. Until there is sufficient data, I would prefer to be safe.


I reread my response, I didn't mean to come out as harsh as it did......so let me try again.

I guess you missed the chlorine ion part then? It's the same as a chloride...and you're right, chlorine is highly unstable in it's natural state. Because of the electron configuration, it is always trying to acquire an extra electron to make the outer electron orbit more stable. That's why it tries to combine with any atom willing to give up an electron like sodium.

You realize that even if sucralose managed to breakdown, the chloride ion that is attached to sucralose is the same ion that would be floating around from the sodium chloride compound, hey?
You don't have to worry tho", sucralose doesn't breakdown in the body and is insoluble in fat so it will not stick around in your body, instead it will be flushed down the toilet.

But don't let me try and convince you, if you did your own research and found that you don't want to take it.....all the power to you. I just wanted to correct you on a couple assumptions you made which weren't true according to my research.........and by the way do you have the souce that said that there were only 15 studies on sucralose......because I read that the FDA based their approval on more than 100 studies not including their own.

Return to “Health”