First of all- a big HELLO to you and many of the others I still call friends from our wining and dining adventures. I have been too remiss to not participate here over the last 3 months.
W/R TO SPLENDA, and issues raises. These are my incipient thoughts.
1-The first 80% of what he says are true good scientific fact. Sucralose is not a natural sugar. It has Chlorine bound to carbon eg chlorocarbon. Chlorine is not a natural food when bound to organic [as opposed to inorganic like mineral salt] materials. Chlorine is prevalent in many toxic compunds, like DDT. The sompound is an offshoot product of industrial development.
2- Then the rest is pseudoscience. First, chlorine is not the cause of sweeteness, though he makes it seem that way.
Second, chlorine itself is not he cause of the toxicity per se. Rather, the vast majority of toxic compounds like DDT, Agent Orange, PCB, s etc are toxic because they are BENZENES, which are fat soluble and get stored and built up [think fish and mercury] over time to toxic levels. Sucralose is a synthetic fructose sugar that is water and not fat soluble and not a benzene.
Third, he makes the leap that because in his estimation sufficient safety studies are not available in millions of humans, sucralose is hazardous. This error in judgement is compounded by citing irrelevant information, and certainly no good studies showing the stuff is toxic in normally consumed doses.
Example- He claims studies on rats showed immune effects, organ enlargement etc. Rats were forced fed Splenda and food for over 1 month every day.The doses given in those studies were huge. No immune effects were seen below 750mg/kg/day and those with diminishing thymi all ingested more than 3000mg/kg/day. The lower 750 mg amount corresponds to 60 Splenda packs a day in a 170 pound human for a month. How does this relate to me and my pattern of food ingestion? The response he gives is that some compounds are more toxic to humans in smaller doses than to rats. Fine. All that is important is whether Splenda is or not? No answer .
Also, BTW, after age 50 , the human thymus is basically atrophied normally, and invisible by CT scan. So the significance of this finding is lost on me.
As for organ enlargement, I can't put that anywhere. What is the cause? Hepatic poisoning? Heaptic fat from eating too much? Were these organs sectioned and analyzed under microscope? No. And organ enlargement is meaningless if function is preserved. Shaquille ONeal has every organ enlarged! He seems to be functioning just fine.
2- The claim of absorption of 15 % some say more other less, means little. Especially, if the substance passes into and then out the bloodstream filtered by the kidney without metabolism by the body. Most of the daily vitamins in your morning pill follow this course. What's left passes further you know where, where it can't be absorbed, then into the pooper. In fact, some bacteria may degrade the compound along the way even if the greater amount left unabsorbed in the stool. Is that good or not? I don't know. It can't be presumed bad. Most I suspect goes in and out unchanged.
The role of effect on insulin may be useful to know, since the big problem with natural metabolizeable sugars is the effect and in particular its' spikes is insulin secretion and secondary dysregulation. I can't so far seem to find any adverse effects. If there is a decnet study, let me know.
He seems to give his opinion standing before presenting a foundation of good information on which to present a scientific knowledgeable position. Rather than take a reasonable "I don't know" position or even engendering to undertake such a study himself, the response is what I call "vitriolic vehement vendetta" where all is critique but nothing is solution. This bothers me most of all. SALES BUT NO SUBSTANCE!
Not good in business, horrible in science.
Interestingly, googling Splenda, there are numerous [perhaps related protest group]web sites by many nonacademic authors clamoring the famous phrase of recently passed Oz TV star, Mr.Steve Irwin "DANGER!DANGER! DANGER!" but offering no scientific proof of such. Worse, still, several promote so called natural sweeteners, some of which are unregulated herbals, having passed no scientific testing at all.
I find this disingenuous, and intellectually dishonest.
---
Yes, I am curious about Splenda effects. Maybe the sweetener is not as benign as FDA reviews and analysis suggest. As a user, I want to be as sure as reasonably possible that I'm not harming myself with sucralose. Some studies on massive doses show good relative safety on rats. Can that translate to humans?? Don't know.
But, there is no scientific proof of any value to promote the converse. The uproar of unreasonable fringe scientists or pseudoscientists is not the correct approach.
Further, the toxicity appears to be likely far less than the impact of breathing the air, drinking the water, breathing the particles while cleaning the kitty litter, eating the nitrosamines in my cooked meat, ingesting the saturated and likely hidden partially hygdrogenated fats in cooking materials, the leeching of materials from my cooking pans, the hazard of driving my car, and the stress I suffer at work to make me stop sweetening my coffee with 2 packs once or twice a day.
I don't suggest that Splenda is the safe sugar, but it's the best I've got right now given the information at hand. And, that's good enough for me
Bet the Mets do better than the Stros in 2007
Ciao
Alex