RE: Splenda-artificial sweetener problems

[Guest guest]

Arnold,

This is the kind of bad reporting that brings scorn to the nutritional

industry. The study on shrunken thalamus gland implicated starvation and

NOT sucralose as the cause. Dr. , or whoever wrote this should have

read the research paper and not cut and pasted Joe Mercola's drivel.

Secondly, there ARE research papers helping to clarify the long-term safety

of sucralose. This is really disturbing that this urban myth that this

product is bad and yet stevia (which a few of the people involved in the

anti-sucralose group are selling) is somehow a gift from heaven. Bad

reporting and bad science.

In health,

Mark Schauss

**************************************************************

Sour news on sweetener

Q: I recently read your article about using stevia as a

sweetener, which I have done in the past. But recently I

switched to Splenda because I had heard it was a healthful

sugar substitute. Do you still think stevia is best?

JVW: Splenda is actually the brand name of the artificial

sweetener sucralose. Sucralose is created by adding chlorine

molecules to sugar.

In a study published in the FDA's Federal Register, rats who

have been given sucralose have experienced shrunken

thalamus glands, enlarged liver and kidneys, reduced growth

rate, reduced red blood cell count, and diarrhea. Independent

human tests to determine long-term safety have not been

done.

Stevia, on the other hand, has been used for years with no

reports of adverse side effects, and I recommend it over

refined sugar and any of the artificial sweeteners.

**************************************************************

r.