I’m not on board the anti-Splenda train. Here’s an article that tweaked my tweakables in regards to those who have a love-hate relationship with statism (mine is all hate).
Splenda is bad, according to Dr. Mercola, a guy whose work I find very interesting, and often, I agree with his assessments on health and nutrition. So yes, Splenda is made up of artificial ingredients, but so? Why are “artificial, synthetic” products always considered evil, all the time? What’s the gist of such nonsense? Remember the anti-Frankenfoods arguments?
I tread carefully on the incessant health nazi’ing because, quite often, it stems from anti-progress mindsets, and surely, Dr. Mercola is no exception at times. I find Splenda to be a great substitute for baking healthy, power foods. I’m just not sold on the fact that chemically changing the structure of sugar molecules is disastrous to the human body. Everything everywhere can be linked to some danger, as we often hear. Supposedly, soy kills, but oops, it helps to prevent cancer too! After reading all the literature, one wonders if we should just eat nuts and leaves, though pesticide would surely be an issue there. The health food arguments often go into the ridiculous. Moderation and control – not health-scare fanaticism – is the key to a good, healthy life.
Dr. Mercola often touts government intervention as far as the Nanny HealthState. But here, since he’s anti-Splenda, he likes the fact that McNeil Nutritionals, the maker of Splenda, might be losing its Splenda patent soon, and what a glory it will be to have competition! Of course, consumers lose in the patent deal from the beginning, because Splenda could of had stiff – and better – competition right from the get-go, but patent laws have ruled out generic substitutes. If definitive, scientific research shows that Splenda does turn out to be bad for us, then blame your government for not allowing the market to bring us something better and healthier.
{ 12 comments }
They banned cyclamates and then found much later that there was no real threat to health.
There is one point though – the human body is very complex and no two people are identical – some are allergic to the point where one peanut in a pot can be fatal, others can eat what might be toxic without any noticeable effect. There are some smokers who live longer than nonsmokers.
Combine this with the problem that most tests can only show what short-term exposure does. If there is a cumulative or long term effect, it won’t show up until long after something has been approved. But this can also be true with foods – the Japanese get stomach cancers, we get others, maybe because they eat more (natural) seafood.
And even showing causality is difficult. The splenda “horror stories” might just be a coincident case of flu or running into unseen poison ivy or something, but the anti-testimonial anecdotes are collected on the internet. Some might be a particular sensitivity.
I would also point out Splenda’s promise is that you need neither moderation nor control for a healthy life. You no longer have to deny yourself anything sweet – you can act immoderately and lose control, but won’t have to bear the effects of eating pounds of sugar.
We want someone else to take responsibility for our bodies – instead of cutting back on sweets, we want the sweetness without the nutrition – the pleasure without the natural consequences.
And one of the most common drugs – the birth control pill – is hardly natural, and basically a very strong dose of hormones which intentionally plays havoc with the endocrine system, and with all kinds of side-effects. But I doubt it will ever be banned.
And currently illegal drugs are far better than splenda at creating pleasurable feelings – Although the enforcement is tyrannical, watch out if the people who can’t act with temprance toward food get open access to these.
Karen,
I agree with you that Mercola does tend to favor the nanny-state (though not socialized medicine) and I take his interventionist comments with a grain of salt.
You also commented, “Why are “artificial, synthetic” products always considered evil, all the time? What’s the gist of such nonsense?”
To this, I would suggest you read the definitive work on human nutrition, Dr. Weston Price’s “Nutrition and Physical Degeneration”. Price provided overwhelming evidence for what types of foods people need in order to achieve optimal health and what the consequences are of eating foods that we were not designed to live off of. I am certain that you will be surprised and shocked by many of the discoveries made back in the 1930′s and that you will have a satisfactory answer to your query.
Isn’t the whole point of splenda that it’s just sugar to begin with? I thought everyone was so happy because it didn’t have the evil evil artifical stuff you find in nutrasweet?
D. Saul Weiner –
I’m sure Dr. Weston Price’s book has valuable insight, however, there is major opportunity costs to conforming to absolute perfection in regards to every single thing we eat. Truth is, the division of labor is just as important in food acquisition/consuming as it is in other daily activities. We must measure costs vs benefits, and select those aspects which will benefit us most with the least opportunity cost.
As a bodybuilder, I guarantee you that I eat better, and understand more about nutrition, than 99% of the population (and this costs me huge amounts of time). But, even I draw the line at spending more than a “reasonable” amount of time educating myself on food, looking for that which is absolutely optimal, and going out and acquiring it. Unless we have unlimited time, and we don’t, such a thing is not feasible.
Artificial, synthetic foods sometimes fill a void – at low opportunity costs – to allow one to maintain a healthy yet efficient lifestyle.
Whoa… after reading that doctor’s page, I’m stunned. He has no business saying what he does. Let’s look at his recommendations.
The best way to determine if Splenda or sucralose is affecting you is to perform an elimination/challenge with it. First eliminate it and other artificial sweeteners from your diet completely for a period of one to two weeks. After this period reintroduce it in sufficient quantity.
Holy cow! That’s a scientific test! Apparently he’s not aware of the exotic “placebo” effect. If you say “we think this product is dangerous, remove it from your diet and concentrate on telling us if you feel better,” then you will get positive results, just like any placebo test.
“Considering that Splenda bears more chemical similarity to DDT than it does to sugar, are you willing to bet your health on this data? ”
There’s a substantiated scientific statement. He’s not trying to scare anyone at all. Really.
“If you feel that Splenda affects you adversely, it is valid.”
I like that reasoning. It will certainly make the lawyers happy. If you think Splenda is bad for you, don’t eat it. Don’t ban it for the people who do like it.
This guy is completely off his rocker. He may be right about splenda being bad for you. But nothing he says proves it.
Karen,
You stated the following:
“there is major opportunity costs to conforming to absolute perfection in regards to every single thing we eat. Truth is, the division of labor is just as important in food acquisition/consuming as it is in other daily activities. We must measure costs vs benefits, and select those aspects which will benefit us most with the least opportunity cost.”
I am inclined to agree. I don’t attempt to eat for optimal nutrition 100% of the time and few of us probably do. On the other hand, I don’t believe that it’s truly possible for people to make informed choices about matters involving health and nutrition unless they know what the opportunity costs are. Clearly, you are someone who values good nutrition and has invested significant time researching the topic. I also have an abiding interest in nutrition but I had no idea what the stakes were until I read about Dr. Price’s studies.
To give an example, prior to going through Price’s research, it had not occurred to me that it was not natural for the human race to be prone to crowded, crooked, teeth and to problems such as overbites/underbites. Price, who was a dentist by training, demonstrated conclusively that the peoples that he studied who followed the principles of sound nutrition were completely immune from these problems, i.e. their dental arches formed perfectly every time and they did not have crooked, crowded teeth etc. I won’t go into all of the other things he documented, but I will point out that this particular problem is related to prenatal nutrition. To get back to the point you raised, if we had known about issues like this before my wife and I had our children, we would have made a point of ensuring that our children would have received the nutrition they truly needed prenatally. Instead, I am paying thousands of dollars to my orthodontist to try to compensate for an avoidable problem. I’m sure lots of prospective parents would go to great lengths to ensure that their children got off to the best start possible, but we are all limited in our ability to make the tradeoffs you described above when we don’t have the knowledge required to determine what our opportunity costs really are.
Just another reason the FDA should be eliminated. It’s a shame I’m forced to fund a bureaucracy that provides a poor service for a lot of money, when the free market would provide a superior service for far cheaper and allow me the freedom to choose.
Splenda has allowed me to completely eliminate processed sugar from my diet. With my metabolism and genes, I believe I’ve been saved from a life of inevitable obesity and diabetes. In fact, after losing 30 pounds simply by changing my diet – and not the quantity of the food I eat – I no longer consider myself fat.
What’s more, Splenda tastes good, better than white sugar. Hey – it’s my life and my diet. The government has no business telling me what I should and shouldn’t eat.
Oh, good grief. Not only is the government going to jerk me around over the medicines I actually need, its going to jerk me around about the stuff I like to put in my coffee. I love Splenda, and considering that some of us have to put nasty artificial substances in our bodies all the time just to maintain our health, I think we can handle putting them in our coffee.
Dr. Mercola often touts government intervention as far as the Nanny HealthState. But here, since he’s anti-Splenda, he likes the fact that McNeil Nutritionals, the maker of Splenda, might be losing its Splenda patent soon, and what a glory it will be to have competition!
Wouldn’t more competition just mean lower prices and higher consumption? Sounds like he’s anti-McNeil, not anti-Splenda.
I would be interested to know if corn syrup (which is in nearly everything due to sugar price manipulation) could stand such scrutiny.
I remember trying to buy products without this stuff–can’t be done!
PS: Cola tastes like crap in this country
the health concern with splenda (sucralose) lies with its chemical chlorination (from sucrose, regular sugar). halides biochemically damage your cells extensively. now, the doses and metabolites from sucralose are low, but the health risk is statistically significant.
should the nanny state protect you from ingesting poisons? not at all. (e.g. ethel alcohol in your favorite beverages is only a poison; the pleasure of intoxication comes from your body’s response to that poison — namely endorphins and GHB) and independent, private research has been responsible for conducting and publicising the known health risks of sucralose.
but depending on doseage and frequency of your use of sucralose, you will have varying health risk. occasional use, or minimal use, and the risk will be statistically insignificant. consume sucralose at the rate the average american consumes sucrose today, and your future medical expenses and costs of bodily function will likely require significant spending. but that’s your choice.
Comments on this entry are closed.