Don't take my word for it however. here is a link to an article that Dr. Mercola wrote concerning Splenda..
Dr. Mercola On Splenda
(Excerpt From Article)
"Is Splenda Really As Safe As They Claim It to Be?
As of 2006, only six human trials have been published on Splenda (sucralose). Of these six trials, only two of the trials were completed and published before the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption. The two published trials had a grand total of 36 total human subjects.
36 people sure doesn't sound like many, but wait, it gets worse, only 23 total were actually given sucralose for testing and here is the real killer:
The longest trial at this time had lasted only four days and looked at sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance.
Why Do You Need to Know About Splenda?
Splenda, best known for its marketing ploy, "made from sugar so it tastes like sugar," has taken the sweetener industry by storm. Splenda has become the nation's number one selling artificial sweetener in a very short period of time.
Between 2000 and 2004, the percentage of US households using Splenda products jumped from 3 to 20 percent. In a one year period, Splenda sales topped $177 million compared with $62 million spent on aspartame-based Equal and $52 million on saccharin-based Sweet 'N Low.
McNeil Nutritionals, in their marketing pitch for Splenda emphasizes that Splenda has endured some of the most rigorous testing to date for any food additive. Enough so to convince the average consumer that it is in fact safe. They claim that over 100 studies have been conducted on Splenda. What they don't tell you is that most of the studies are on animals.
Additional Concerns About Splenda Studies
There have been no long-term human toxicity studies published until after the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption. Following FDA approval a human toxicity trial was conducted, but lasted only three months, hardly the length of time most Splenda users plan to consume sucralose. No studies have ever been done on children or pregnant women.
Much of the controversy surrounding Splenda does not focus just on its safety, but rather on its false advertising claims. The competition among sweeteners is anything but sweet. The sugar industry is currently suing McNeil Nutritionals for implying that Splenda is a natural form of sugar with no calories.
Is It REALLY Sugar?
There is no question that sucralose starts off as a sugar molecule, it is what goes on in the factory that is concerning. Sucralose is a synthetic chemical that was originally cooked up in a laboratory. In the five step patented process of making sucralose, three chlorine molecules are added to a sucrose or sugar molecule. A sucrose molecule is a disaccharide that contains two single sugars bound together; glucose and fructose.
The chemical process to make sucralose alters the chemical composition of the sugar so much that it is somehow converted to a fructo-galactose molecule. This type of sugar molecule does not occur in nature and therefore your body does not possess the ability to properly metabolize it. As a result of this "unique" biochemical make-up, McNeil Nutritionals makes its claim that Splenda is not digested or metabolized by the body, making it have zero calories.
It is not that Splenda is naturally zero calories. If your body had the capacity to metabolize it then it would no longer have zero calories."
(My Input) Dr. Mercola gives some valid reasons as i have elsewhere in this BLOG, not to put your faith and trust in organizations like the FDA to protect you.
Here is another excerpt from the article:
"Do You Really Believe These People Are Going to Protect You?
Please consider that the only organizations between you and potentially toxic side effects are the FDA and the manufacturers of sucralose (Tate & Lyle) and of Splenda (McNeil Nutritionals).
The FDA has a long standing history of ineffective screening and rampant conflict of interests as demonstrated in their inability to identify Vioxx as too dangerous to be on the market. This mistake cost 55,000 people their lives.
Now the point I want you to understand here, because it is really important, is that Splenda is not a drug and is only a food additive. As such the number of studies required to receive FDA approval is substantially less than drug. Vioxx had an order of magnitude of more comprehensive clinical trials than Splenda ever did, and despite this rigorous approval process it still killed 55,000 people."
I can strongly recommend Stevia over any other artificial sweetener, and have used it now for over 4 years. Here is why:
- Reason #1 - The FDA will not allow it to be used as a sweetener, only as a supplement. My GUESS is that the soft drink industry and hundreds if not thousands of manufactuer's already use aspartame, equal, splenda etc. and it might cut into their profits.
- Reason #2 - reduces cravings for sweets and sugar and gives steady level energy all day
- Reason #3 - Stevia contains zero calories and it is heat stable so you can use it in baking
- Reason #4 - Stevia does not increase of spike blood sugar levels
- Reason #5 - Stevia is said to be an antioxidant
You have to do our homework, and you have to think.
In closing this post out, "Don't worry about what you cannot change..............just start doing what you can change" Today you can get OFF artificial sweeteners, and give Stevia a try. I promise you will like it and it is better for you.
This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the LORD is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.