[Grovenet] What happened to Dairy Queen?

[chuck]

I personally stay away from Splenda as well.  But that's me.  There's 
tons of information on Splenda.  The real trick is deciphering the facts 
from the fiction (or advertising).  The truth is, the whole artificial 
sweetener market is a multi-billion dollar industry.  The more we buy, 
the richer they get.  I truly do not think our health is one of 
big-industry's concerns - but more like profit. 

There are lots of people who love their diet pop with Nutrasweet, or who 
buy the Splenda brand of sweeteners.   Most will see no obvious problem 
in their health.  And there are also many thousands of people who are 
having serious health problems due to ingesting the stuff.  Over the 
long term, I don't think anyone really knows what it's doing to our 
bodies.  But as a nation, it is pretty obvious that in the last 30-40 
years, we haven't been doing very well.      

The active ingredient in Splenda is Sucrolose, which was accidentally 
discovered while formulating a new pesticide formula.  Several of the 
hydrogen/oxygen molecules are replaced with chlorine.  This combination 
of bonding carbon and chlorine atoms together are characteristic of a 
chlorocarbon - most pesticides are chlorocarbons.  Of course Sucralose 
is 600 times sweeter than sugar.  So most of the ingredients in the 
little Splenda packets are fillers.  The actual Sucrolose content is 
less then 5%.  The fillers are dextrose and maltodextrin. Both Dextrose 
and Maltodextrin are carbohydrates/sweeteners derived from Corn Starch.  
I would bet a pretty penny this is not organically grown corn.  It's 
genetically modified.

I personally try to buy products that are as 100% natural as I can get.  
If there are words on the label that I can't pronounce, or have to look 
up, to eventually find out they are made out of GMO Corn anyway - I stay 
away.

chuck

Carol Morgan wrote:
>
> I actually use Splenda quite often, because my husband is watching his 
> weight and doesn't really want to pay any price to do that.
>
> I know artificial sweeteners have their detractors, but I actually 
> feel better about them than real sugar (of any kind)  for the 
> following reasons:
>
> First, all of the artificial sweeteners from saccharine, the most 
> panned, have been extensively studied in terms of what harmful effects 
> they might have. People were sure that they were to good to be true 
> and have blamed them for pretty much every potential harm and they 
> have pretty much come out unscathed. 
>
> I think that the discrepancy between people thinking that 'artificial' 
> chemicals (if there really were a distinction) are bad for us and the 
> fact that very few have ended up having the severe bad effects that 
> were forcasted is that I think it is very likely that the more a 
> chemical is designed not to interact with the systems of our body in 
> any real way, the less it has the capacity to affect it to the worse.
>
> For instance, my friend made the argument that she was avoiding the 
> use of artificial coloring because she saw it come out in her child's 
> #2. I asked her whether she thought that might mean that unlike real 
> sugar, which as it travels through the body is doing all kinds of very 
> powerful things to the various systems of the body, these artificial 
> colors are doing absolutely nothing and thus pass all the way out of 
> the body  unchanged.  One of the reasons fiber is good for us is 
> precisely because of this. She was dumbfounded by my argument and 
> though undeterred at going natural, admitted that this made sense and 
> was something she had never thought of.  Very much the reaction I 
> often get.  Interesting and unusual, though mostly inconsequential.
>
> I do agree that unintended consequences on living organisms should be 
> considered, both theoretically and experimentally, but if something 
> isn't designed (unlike sugar and insulin and corn) to interact with 
> biological systems, it won't, not even in unpredicted or longterm 
> ways.  It is kind of like when King James 1 put a bear and a lion 
> together in a pen to see what would happen.  They aren't natural 
> enemies so they ignored each other.
>
> This is kind of why I like Splenda.  It is based on a real sugar 
> molecule, but is modified so that it doesn't even interact with our 
> metabolism. 
>