Apr 10
30
Not So Sweet Sugar Substitute Additives Causes Political Battle!
When you are a diabetic, you’re told to stay away from sugar. You’re also led to believe that sugar substitutes are better for you. Think again!
Sucralose goes by the name Splenda. Splenda isn’t really as close to the sugar molecule as the manufacturers want you to think. They’ve added chlorine to sugar, not in one molecular location, but three. Tests prove that the thymus gland shrinks from Splenda … and kidney/spleen swelling occurs as well. Kidney calcification and liver enlargement have also been tied to its use.
Chlorinating any compound almost always results in problems for the human body. Chlorine can easily substitute for iodine in the body because chlorine has the same number of valence electrons as iodine. This can account for some of the reasons why chlorine is linked to thyroid dysfunctions.
Whenever researchers report negative findings against a product, you can expect push-back from a different group of researchers. Now that we know it’s common practice for big multinational companies to hire public relations firms to protect their best interests, we also know it’s important to keep digging for who’s behind some of the research. We have to keep an open mind to find the truth.
One of the most recent research reports I’ve read on Splenda is a fine example of push-back. The “experts” decided to argue against new negative reports on Splenda. In fact, they even went the distance and called the title of their article, “Expert Panel Report on a Study of Splenda in Male Rats.”
The original study that reported the negative effects was reported in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Researchers tested granular Splenda, the same type of Splenda that humans would use in their cooking or food consumption patterns.
They found that the microbial flora in the rat gut was affected negatively, decreasing beneficial probiotics. It also increased cytochrome P450 enzymes and a protein that may interfere with nutrient and drug absorption.
Now here’s where you can see right through the words on the page and uncover the political battle. The “experts” who were condemning the researchers’ study wrote:
“An Expert Panel conducted a rigorous evaluation of this study. In arriving at its conclusions, the Expert Panel considered the design and conduct of the study, its outcomes, and the outcomes reported in other data available publicly. The Expert Panel found that the study was deficient in several critical areas and that its results cannot be interpreted as evidence that either Splenda, or sucralose, produced adverse effects in male rats…… .The study conclusions are not consistent with published literature and not supported by the data presented.”
This writing is filled with words that indicate a consumer should be suspicious about its validity. Did you notice how they kept repeating that they were an Expert Panel? Who made them the Grand Master Experts? They were actually an independent research group located in Bumpass, Virginia 80 miles from the capital.
The words, “not consistent with published literature” are a slap in the face to any researcher who is searching for the truth. The experts imply that if no one else reported something in the past, it can’t possibly be true. How closed-minded can they get?
If you’re diabetic, all you want is the truth.
The truth about sugar substitutes or alternatives is that often these products are accompanied by a political and financial agenda and they are man made. And they cause harm to the body!
