Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Simple Stop looking at the sources and look at the science. Splenda has one heck of a safety record, not only in this country but also in the European Commission and others. The arguments against it arent logical. It doesnt contain chlorine, nor does it breakdown like they say,. It contains chloride, like many other foods you eat every day,that is an essential nutrient. Jeff ________________________________ From: on behalf of cronzen Sent: Wed 01/25/06 9:46 AM Subject: [ ] OT - quackwatch Francesca, Every time I " refute " Mercola, et al, with a link to quackwatch, the antagonist then points me to articles, like the following, debunking the debunker: http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html Any idea how reliable quackwatch really is, after all? Kind of a bummer they have this counter available. Is there a newer more reputable organization at the helm these days keeping an eye on groups such as Mercola's? Thanks, - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Simple Stop looking at the sources and look at the science. Splenda has one heck of a safety record, not only in this country but also in the European Commission and others. The arguments against it arent logical. It doesnt contain chlorine, nor does it breakdown like they say,. It contains chloride, like many other foods you eat every day,that is an essential nutrient. Jeff ________________________________ From: on behalf of cronzen Sent: Wed 01/25/06 9:46 AM Subject: [ ] OT - quackwatch Francesca, Every time I " refute " Mercola, et al, with a link to quackwatch, the antagonist then points me to articles, like the following, debunking the debunker: http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html Any idea how reliable quackwatch really is, after all? Kind of a bummer they have this counter available. Is there a newer more reputable organization at the helm these days keeping an eye on groups such as Mercola's? Thanks, - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Hi : Thanks for the link. But do we have reason to believe Canlyme is a credible source of information? I have no opinion. Apart from the fact that reliable sources are a small minority of those making themselves available. Rodney. --- In , " cronzen " <truepatriot@m...> wrote: > > Francesca, > > Every time I " refute " Mercola, et al, with a link to quackwatch, > the antagonist then points me to articles, like the following, > debunking the debunker: > > http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html > > Any idea how reliable quackwatch really is, after all? > Kind of a bummer they have this counter available. Is > there a newer more reputable organization at the helm > these days keeping an eye on groups such as Mercola's? > > > Thanks, > - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Hi : Thanks for the link. But do we have reason to believe Canlyme is a credible source of information? I have no opinion. Apart from the fact that reliable sources are a small minority of those making themselves available. Rodney. --- In , " cronzen " <truepatriot@m...> wrote: > > Francesca, > > Every time I " refute " Mercola, et al, with a link to quackwatch, > the antagonist then points me to articles, like the following, > debunking the debunker: > > http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html > > Any idea how reliable quackwatch really is, after all? > Kind of a bummer they have this counter available. Is > there a newer more reputable organization at the helm > these days keeping an eye on groups such as Mercola's? > > > Thanks, > - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Jeff Novick wrote: > Simple > > Stop looking at the sources and look at the science. > > Splenda has one heck of a safety record, not only in this country but also in the European Commission and others. > I dunno, I do a search for " sucralose " and it looks like Mercola's telling the truth about the literature: he says that the bulk of the work is animal studies and that there have only been 3 studies testing human safety: all with small N. 79 hits come up. Of the first 20, I see one that's really a human safety study (Sucralose doesn't affect blood sugar control; N=128, probably sufficient for intended purpose) The rest of the hits are * qualitative and quantitative analysis of sucralose * animal studies * incorporation of sucralose in medicines * really reductionistic human studies (yes it really gets absorbed in the gut...) There doesn't seem to be any evidence that sucralose is harmful, but I don't see any evidence that it's safe in the long term. I don't see anything that looks like a comprehensive study of safety, post-marketing, and can't imagine that anybody would pay to have that work done. Sucralose is one of a number of compounds, including Olestra, which were known in the 1970's and sat on the shelf for a few decades waiting for the lax regulatory climate of the Clinton years. I've found it particularly disturbing that it's inflitrated the food supply and pharmacopeia so quickly -- it shows up in children's analgesics, mouthwash, almost anything labeled " low carb " , is common in diet colas. When I visit relatives, I regularly find they have packaged foods that contain sucralose that I didn't expect. Unlike Asparatame, products containing sucralose rarely have a conspicuous label. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Jeff Novick wrote: > Simple > > Stop looking at the sources and look at the science. > > Splenda has one heck of a safety record, not only in this country but also in the European Commission and others. > I dunno, I do a search for " sucralose " and it looks like Mercola's telling the truth about the literature: he says that the bulk of the work is animal studies and that there have only been 3 studies testing human safety: all with small N. 79 hits come up. Of the first 20, I see one that's really a human safety study (Sucralose doesn't affect blood sugar control; N=128, probably sufficient for intended purpose) The rest of the hits are * qualitative and quantitative analysis of sucralose * animal studies * incorporation of sucralose in medicines * really reductionistic human studies (yes it really gets absorbed in the gut...) There doesn't seem to be any evidence that sucralose is harmful, but I don't see any evidence that it's safe in the long term. I don't see anything that looks like a comprehensive study of safety, post-marketing, and can't imagine that anybody would pay to have that work done. Sucralose is one of a number of compounds, including Olestra, which were known in the 1970's and sat on the shelf for a few decades waiting for the lax regulatory climate of the Clinton years. I've found it particularly disturbing that it's inflitrated the food supply and pharmacopeia so quickly -- it shows up in children's analgesics, mouthwash, almost anything labeled " low carb " , is common in diet colas. When I visit relatives, I regularly find they have packaged foods that contain sucralose that I didn't expect. Unlike Asparatame, products containing sucralose rarely have a conspicuous label. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 >>I dunno, I do a search for " sucralose " and it looks like Mercola's telling the truth about the literature: he says that the bulk of the work is animal studies and that there have only been 3 studies testing human safety: Granted, but that " is " the process by which these things get approved. Mercola is trying to create fear and hype and is not accurately representing the literature or the process. On the other hand, he over promotes Stevia without giving the same due diligence to the research and process of that. Stevia is banned by Health Canada, European Union, FAO and FDA. It will be re reviewed next year by WHO and we will get an update. >>There doesn't seem to be any evidence that sucralose is harmful, Correct. And, the claims that are being made are just inaccurate. I am not defending it, I am defending " fairness " . The chloride atoms do not break down readily off the glucose molecule (hence why it isnt absorbed well), nor do they turn into chlorine in the body. Chloride is an essential nutrient and occurs naturally in many foods. Where is his hype over that and his hype over the chloride atoms in NaCl? >> Sucralose is one of a number of compounds, including Olestra, which were known in the 1970's and sat on the shelf for a few decades waiting for the lax regulatory climate of the Clinton years. I've found it particularly disturbing that it's inflitrated the food supply and pharmacopeia so quickly -- it shows up in children's analgesics, mouthwash, almost anything labeled " low carb " , is common in diet colas. I agree. I don't think any of them should be pervasive in the food supply, but then again, I wouldn't eat anything type of food that might be a candidate for it. Nor do I think others should. >> Unlike Asparatame, products containing sucralose rarely have a conspicuous label. There is a label icon that I see on many foods that have splenda in them Jeff PS here is some info on Splenda This is from the European Commission Science Committe on the Safety Of Splenda The full report is here... http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scf/out68_en.pdf The Conslusion is..... ' EUROPEAN COMMISSION HEALTH & CONSUMER PROTECTION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Directorate C - Scientific Opinions Management of scientific committees II; scientific co-operation and networks SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON FOOD SCF/CS/ADDS/EDUL/190 Final 12/9/2000 Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Food on sucralose (Adopted by the SCF on 7 September 2000) Conclusions The Committee is satisfied that the range of studies now available is sufficient for a full safety evaluation of sucralose. The studies on glucose homeostasis in both normal subjects and subjects with insulindependent and non-insulin-dependent diabetes have been considered in depth. The Committee considers that the possibility of a small effect on glucose homeostasis in diabetic persons cannot be definitively ruled out. However, there is no consistent evidence of any such effect from the various studies. The Committee has concluded that if any such effect occurred, it would be so small as to be clinically insignificant. There is adequate evidence, both for sucralose and its hydrolysis products, that there are no concerns about mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, developmental or reproductive toxicity. Effects have been observed in some experimental animal studies on immune parameters, the gastrointestinal tract and body weight gain. Consideration of the critical studies on these aspects have identified reduced body weight gain, where it is attributable to direct sucralose toxicity rather than secondary to reduced food intake because of impalatability of the diet, as the pivotal effect for establishing an ADI. The overall NOEL for such reductions in body weight gain was 1500mg/kg bw/day. The Committee concludes that sucralose is acceptable as a sweetener for general food use and that a full ADI of 0-15mg/kg bw can be established, based on application of a 100-fold safety factor to the overall NOEL of 1500mg/kg bw/day. On The Issue Of the Chlorine Atoms. (from another source)... " Chlorine is used to modify the structure of the sugar molecule and produce sucralose. There is no cause for concern about the safety of sucralose due to the presence of chlorine. In the case of sucralose, the addition of chlorine atoms converts sucrose to sucralose, which is essentially inert, unreactive substance. The chlorine atoms present in sucralose do not separate in the body, nor does sucralose accumulate in the body. In fact, it is the presence of these chlorine atoms that prevent sucralose from being broken down in the body for energy, thus making sucralose non-caloric. " A number of foods contain quite complex naturally occurring molecules that contain chlorine. Chlorine is an element naturally present in many of the foods and beverages that we eat and drink every day. It is added to most public water supplies and is found in foods such as lettuce, tomatoes, mushrooms, melons, peanut butter, and table salt. " As you also know, sucralose was discovered in 1976 in England. It has been studied extensively -- as well as its metabolites. As for the chlorine in sucralose, it is safe. Additionally, every regulatory agency which has considered the sucralose research, has approved it for use as a food ingredient. People in Canada, the first country that approved sucralose, have been enjoying Splenda since 1991 - about 15 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 >>I dunno, I do a search for " sucralose " and it looks like Mercola's telling the truth about the literature: he says that the bulk of the work is animal studies and that there have only been 3 studies testing human safety: Granted, but that " is " the process by which these things get approved. Mercola is trying to create fear and hype and is not accurately representing the literature or the process. On the other hand, he over promotes Stevia without giving the same due diligence to the research and process of that. Stevia is banned by Health Canada, European Union, FAO and FDA. It will be re reviewed next year by WHO and we will get an update. >>There doesn't seem to be any evidence that sucralose is harmful, Correct. And, the claims that are being made are just inaccurate. I am not defending it, I am defending " fairness " . The chloride atoms do not break down readily off the glucose molecule (hence why it isnt absorbed well), nor do they turn into chlorine in the body. Chloride is an essential nutrient and occurs naturally in many foods. Where is his hype over that and his hype over the chloride atoms in NaCl? >> Sucralose is one of a number of compounds, including Olestra, which were known in the 1970's and sat on the shelf for a few decades waiting for the lax regulatory climate of the Clinton years. I've found it particularly disturbing that it's inflitrated the food supply and pharmacopeia so quickly -- it shows up in children's analgesics, mouthwash, almost anything labeled " low carb " , is common in diet colas. I agree. I don't think any of them should be pervasive in the food supply, but then again, I wouldn't eat anything type of food that might be a candidate for it. Nor do I think others should. >> Unlike Asparatame, products containing sucralose rarely have a conspicuous label. There is a label icon that I see on many foods that have splenda in them Jeff PS here is some info on Splenda This is from the European Commission Science Committe on the Safety Of Splenda The full report is here... http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scf/out68_en.pdf The Conslusion is..... ' EUROPEAN COMMISSION HEALTH & CONSUMER PROTECTION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Directorate C - Scientific Opinions Management of scientific committees II; scientific co-operation and networks SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON FOOD SCF/CS/ADDS/EDUL/190 Final 12/9/2000 Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Food on sucralose (Adopted by the SCF on 7 September 2000) Conclusions The Committee is satisfied that the range of studies now available is sufficient for a full safety evaluation of sucralose. The studies on glucose homeostasis in both normal subjects and subjects with insulindependent and non-insulin-dependent diabetes have been considered in depth. The Committee considers that the possibility of a small effect on glucose homeostasis in diabetic persons cannot be definitively ruled out. However, there is no consistent evidence of any such effect from the various studies. The Committee has concluded that if any such effect occurred, it would be so small as to be clinically insignificant. There is adequate evidence, both for sucralose and its hydrolysis products, that there are no concerns about mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, developmental or reproductive toxicity. Effects have been observed in some experimental animal studies on immune parameters, the gastrointestinal tract and body weight gain. Consideration of the critical studies on these aspects have identified reduced body weight gain, where it is attributable to direct sucralose toxicity rather than secondary to reduced food intake because of impalatability of the diet, as the pivotal effect for establishing an ADI. The overall NOEL for such reductions in body weight gain was 1500mg/kg bw/day. The Committee concludes that sucralose is acceptable as a sweetener for general food use and that a full ADI of 0-15mg/kg bw can be established, based on application of a 100-fold safety factor to the overall NOEL of 1500mg/kg bw/day. On The Issue Of the Chlorine Atoms. (from another source)... " Chlorine is used to modify the structure of the sugar molecule and produce sucralose. There is no cause for concern about the safety of sucralose due to the presence of chlorine. In the case of sucralose, the addition of chlorine atoms converts sucrose to sucralose, which is essentially inert, unreactive substance. The chlorine atoms present in sucralose do not separate in the body, nor does sucralose accumulate in the body. In fact, it is the presence of these chlorine atoms that prevent sucralose from being broken down in the body for energy, thus making sucralose non-caloric. " A number of foods contain quite complex naturally occurring molecules that contain chlorine. Chlorine is an element naturally present in many of the foods and beverages that we eat and drink every day. It is added to most public water supplies and is found in foods such as lettuce, tomatoes, mushrooms, melons, peanut butter, and table salt. " As you also know, sucralose was discovered in 1976 in England. It has been studied extensively -- as well as its metabolites. As for the chlorine in sucralose, it is safe. Additionally, every regulatory agency which has considered the sucralose research, has approved it for use as a food ingredient. People in Canada, the first country that approved sucralose, have been enjoying Splenda since 1991 - about 15 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 >>> The chloride atoms do not break down readily off the glucose molecule (hence why it isnt absorbed well), nor do they turn into chlorine in the body. Chloride is an essential nutrient and occurs naturally in many foods. Where is his hype over that and his hype over the chloride atoms in NaCl? Correction... The CHLORINE atoms do not break down readily off the glucose molecute nor do they turn into one of the toxic by products. CHLORINE is NOT an essential nutrient but does occur in the food supply as it is in the water of most municipalities and used as a " wash " for fresh produce (ie sprouts) before packing tp eliminate bacteria. PS I need a new keyboard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 >>> The chloride atoms do not break down readily off the glucose molecule (hence why it isnt absorbed well), nor do they turn into chlorine in the body. Chloride is an essential nutrient and occurs naturally in many foods. Where is his hype over that and his hype over the chloride atoms in NaCl? Correction... The CHLORINE atoms do not break down readily off the glucose molecute nor do they turn into one of the toxic by products. CHLORINE is NOT an essential nutrient but does occur in the food supply as it is in the water of most municipalities and used as a " wash " for fresh produce (ie sprouts) before packing tp eliminate bacteria. PS I need a new keyboard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Oh, not at all; it was a random grab. However, I reckon the case against him did take place. My point is just that we may not have so reliable a refuter in quackwatch.com, or at least it is not necessarily perceived by the Mercola'ites as such. I agree with another response to my query that the source should not be the determining factor. However, I don't always have the time or patience to do all the research necessary to refute the arguments myself, so being able to point to a quackwatch was handy while it lasted. Now, we need another. Even the PCRM is seen by many to be a vegetarian front group. - > > > > Francesca, > > > > Every time I " refute " Mercola, et al, with a link to quackwatch, > > the antagonist then points me to articles, like the following, > > debunking the debunker: > > > > http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html > > > > Any idea how reliable quackwatch really is, after all? > > Kind of a bummer they have this counter available. Is > > there a newer more reputable organization at the helm > > these days keeping an eye on groups such as Mercola's? > > > > > > Thanks, > > - > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Oh, not at all; it was a random grab. However, I reckon the case against him did take place. My point is just that we may not have so reliable a refuter in quackwatch.com, or at least it is not necessarily perceived by the Mercola'ites as such. I agree with another response to my query that the source should not be the determining factor. However, I don't always have the time or patience to do all the research necessary to refute the arguments myself, so being able to point to a quackwatch was handy while it lasted. Now, we need another. Even the PCRM is seen by many to be a vegetarian front group. - > > > > Francesca, > > > > Every time I " refute " Mercola, et al, with a link to quackwatch, > > the antagonist then points me to articles, like the following, > > debunking the debunker: > > > > http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html > > > > Any idea how reliable quackwatch really is, after all? > > Kind of a bummer they have this counter available. Is > > there a newer more reputable organization at the helm > > these days keeping an eye on groups such as Mercola's? > > > > > > Thanks, > > - > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 At 08:39 AM 1/26/2006, you wrote: Oh, not at all; it was a random grab. However, I reckon the case against him did take place. My point is just that we may not have so reliable a refuter in quackwatch.com, or at least it is not necessarily perceived by the Mercola'ites as such. I agree with another response to my query that the source should not be the determining factor. However, I don't always have the time or patience to do all the research necessary to refute the arguments myself, so being able to point to a quackwatch was handy while it lasted. Now, we need another. Even the PCRM is seen by many to be a vegetarian front group. Who would ever claim that? http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/23 Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine 5100 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 404, Washington, DC 20016 Phone 202-686-2210 | Fax 202-686-2216 | Email pcrm@... The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. PCRM is a fanatical animal rights group that seeks to remove eggs, milk, meat, and seafood from the American diet, and to eliminate the use of animals in scientific research. Despite its operational and financial ties to other animal activist groups and its close relationship with violent zealots, PCRM has successfully duped the media and much of the general public into believing that its pronouncements about the superiority of vegetarian-only diets represent the opinion of the medical community. “Less than 5 percent of PCRM’s members are physicians,” Newsweek wrote in February 2004. The respected news magazine continued: [PCRM president Neal] Barnard has co-signed letters, on PCRM letterhead, with the leader of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, an animal-rights group the Department of Justice calls a “domestic terrorist threat.” PCRM also has ties to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. An agency called the Foundation to Support Animal Protection has distributed money from PETA to PCRM in the past and, until very recently, did both groups’ books. Barnard and PETA head Ingrid Newkirk are both on the foundation’s board. New York Times columnist Joe Sharkey put it more crisply in a November 2004 piece about PCRM’s annual airport-food ratings. “The physicians’ committee has a PETA link,” he wrote, “and its food rankings reflect that agenda.” While PCRM presents itself as a doctor-supported, unbiased source of health guidance, the group’s own literature echoes Newsweek’s observation that 95 percent of its members have no medical degrees. And even the five-percent doctor membership that PCRM claims is open to question. Anyone claiming to be a physician or a medical student can join without paying a dime -- even if their only motivation is to collect free waiting-room reading material. Maco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 At 08:39 AM 1/26/2006, you wrote: Oh, not at all; it was a random grab. However, I reckon the case against him did take place. My point is just that we may not have so reliable a refuter in quackwatch.com, or at least it is not necessarily perceived by the Mercola'ites as such. I agree with another response to my query that the source should not be the determining factor. However, I don't always have the time or patience to do all the research necessary to refute the arguments myself, so being able to point to a quackwatch was handy while it lasted. Now, we need another. Even the PCRM is seen by many to be a vegetarian front group. Who would ever claim that? http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/23 Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine 5100 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 404, Washington, DC 20016 Phone 202-686-2210 | Fax 202-686-2216 | Email pcrm@... The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. PCRM is a fanatical animal rights group that seeks to remove eggs, milk, meat, and seafood from the American diet, and to eliminate the use of animals in scientific research. Despite its operational and financial ties to other animal activist groups and its close relationship with violent zealots, PCRM has successfully duped the media and much of the general public into believing that its pronouncements about the superiority of vegetarian-only diets represent the opinion of the medical community. “Less than 5 percent of PCRM’s members are physicians,” Newsweek wrote in February 2004. The respected news magazine continued: [PCRM president Neal] Barnard has co-signed letters, on PCRM letterhead, with the leader of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, an animal-rights group the Department of Justice calls a “domestic terrorist threat.” PCRM also has ties to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. An agency called the Foundation to Support Animal Protection has distributed money from PETA to PCRM in the past and, until very recently, did both groups’ books. Barnard and PETA head Ingrid Newkirk are both on the foundation’s board. New York Times columnist Joe Sharkey put it more crisply in a November 2004 piece about PCRM’s annual airport-food ratings. “The physicians’ committee has a PETA link,” he wrote, “and its food rankings reflect that agenda.” While PCRM presents itself as a doctor-supported, unbiased source of health guidance, the group’s own literature echoes Newsweek’s observation that 95 percent of its members have no medical degrees. And even the five-percent doctor membership that PCRM claims is open to question. Anyone claiming to be a physician or a medical student can join without paying a dime -- even if their only motivation is to collect free waiting-room reading material. Maco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.