The Story of Artificial Sweetners!!!!!!

8/7/2019 The Story of Artificial Sweetners!!!!!!

1/24

Sucralose

Sucralose is an artificial sweetener. The majority of ingested sucralose is not broken down bythe body and therefore it is non-caloric.In the European Union, it is also known under the Enumber (additive code) E955. Sucralose is approximately 600 timesas sweet as sucrose (table sugar), twice as sweet as saccharin, and 3.3 times as sweetas aspartame. It is stable under heat and over a broad range of pH conditions. Therefore, itcan be used in baking or in products that require a longer shelf life. The commercial successof sucralose-based products stems from its favorable comparison to other low-calorie

sweeteners in terms of taste, stability, and safety. Common brand names of sucralose-basedsweeteners are Splenda,Sukrana, SucraPlus, Candys, Cukren,and Nevella.

sucralose, is converted from cane sugar to a no-calorie sweetener. It isnt recognized as sugar by the body and therefore is not metabolized. Splenda is marketed as a healthful andnatural product since it is derived from sugar. However, its chemical structure is verydifferent from that of sugar and sucralose is actually a chemical substance.Sucralose wasdiscovered in 1976 by researchers working under the auspices of Tate & Lyle Ltd., a large

British sugar refiner. Sucralose is made from sucrose by substituting three chlorine atoms forthree hydroxyl groups to yield 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-BETA-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside. This is accomplished in a five-step process. Prolongedstorage, particularly at high temperatures and low pH, causes the sucralose to break downinto 4-chloro-4-deoxy-galactose (4CG) and 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxyfructose(1,6 DCF).

In 1980, Tate & Lyle arranged with Johnson & Johnson, the worlds largest health carecompany, to develop sucralose. Johnson & Johnson formed McNeil Speciality ProductsCompany in 1980 to commercialize sucralose. In 1991, Canada became the first nation toapprove the use of sucralose. In April, 1998 the US Food and Drug Administration grantedapproval for sucralose to be used in a variety of food.Diet RCcola was the first US productwith sucralose, introduced in May 1998. Sucralose is not yet approved for use in most

European countries, where it is still under review.

In the United States, the FDA has granted approval for the use of sucralose in 15 food and

beverage categories:

Baked goods and baking mixes

Chewing gum

Confections and frostings

Fats and oils (salad dressings)

Fruit and water ices

Jams and jellies

Processed fruits and fruit juices

Sweet sauces, toppings and syrups


2/24

Beverages and beverage bases

Coffee and tea

Dairy product analogs

Frozen dairy desserts and mixes

Gelatins, puddings and fillings

Milk products

Sugar substitutes

Despite the manufacturers claims to the contrary, sucralose is significantly absorbed andmetabolized by the body. According to the FDAs Final Rule report, 11% to 27% ofsucralose is absorbed in humans, and the rest is excreted unchanged in feces. According tothe Japanese Food Sanitation Council, as much as 40% of ingested sucralose isabsorbed. Plasma sucralose has been reported to have a half-life of anywhere from 2 to 5hours in most studies, although the half-life in rabbits was found to be much longer at about36 hours. About 20% to 30% of absorbed sucralose is metabolized. Both the metabolites andunchanged absorbed sucralose are excreted in urine. The absorbed sucralose has been foundto concentrate in the liver, kidney, and gastrointestinal tract. According to The SucraloseToxicity Information Center,sucralose is broken down into small amounts of1,6-dichlorofructose, a chemical which has not been adequately tested in humans.

Few human studies of safety have been published on sucralose. One small study of diabetic patients using the sweetener showed a statistically significant increase inglycosylatedhemoglobin (Hba1C), which is a marker of long-term blood glucose levels and is used to

assess glycemic control in diabetic patients. According to the FDA,increases inglycosolation in hemoglobin imply lessening of control of diabetes. With no establishedsystem for monitoring and tracking post-approval adverse effects, how can it ever beestablished whether large-scale and long-term consumption of sucralose is safe?

Some chlorinated molecules serve as the basis for pesticides such as D.D.T., and accumulatein body fat. You would just as soon have a pesticide in your food as sucralose

because sucralose (Splenda) is a chlorocarbon. Sucralose is made from sugar, but is derivedfrom sucrose (sugar) through a process that selectivelysubstitutes three atoms of chlorine forthree hydrogen-oxygen groups on the sucrose molecule. The manufacturer claims that thechlorine added to sucralose is similar to the chloride atom in the salt (NaCl) molecule. That isnot the case. Sucralose may be more like ingesting tiny amounts of chlorinated pesticides, but

we will never know without long-term, independent human research.

The chlorocarbons have long been known for causing organ, genetic, and reproductivedamage. It should be no surprise, therefore, that the testing of sucralose reveals that it cancause up to 40 percent shrinkage of the thymus: a gland that is the very foundation of ourimmune system. Sucralose also causes swelling of the liver and kidneys, and calcification ofthe kidney.


3/24

The corporate researchers claim that the chlorine atoms are so tightly bound; they create amolecular structure that is exceptionally stable under extreme pH and temperature conditions.

They are testing these conditions in lab rats, and these types of corporate studies have forcedand selective results. Aspartame research is the proof of this! We value independent

research above that which is funded by corporations. The corporations say sucralose is safe.They said the same thing about aspartame, and look at the rampant disease and obesity taking

over America since aspartame was put into the food supply over 20 years ago. The history ofaspartame has unfortunately proven that individuals within government agencies cannot andshould not be trusted to make such empowering public decisions behind closed doors.

Any animal that eats chlorine (especially on a regular basis) is at risk of cancer. The MerckManualand OSHA 40 SARA 120 Hazardous Waste Handbook states thatchlorine is acarcinogen and emergency procedures should be taken when exposed via swallowing,inhaling, or through the skin. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hasfound dioxin (a toxic byproduct of chlorine) to be 300,000 times more potent as a carcinogenthan DDT. Dioxins and other toxic chemicals, when consumed, accumulate in the fattytissues. These contaminants are also hormone disrupters because they mimic estrogen. TheEPA has observed and documented hormonal imbalance, suppressed immune systems,

reproductive infertility and alterations in fetal development of animals. In viewing the big picture, these factors are perhaps the most frightening results from the widespread use ofchlorine.

A compound chemically related to sucrose, 6-chloro-deoxyglucose, is known to have anti-fertility and neurotoxic effects, although animal studies of sucralose have not shown theseeffects. According to the FDAs Final Rule report, Sucralose was weakly mutagenic in amouse lymphoma mutation assay. The FDA also reported many other tests as havinginconclusive results. The FDA acknowledges that sucralose is produced at an approximate

purity of 98%. While that may sound pretty pure, just what is in that other 2%? It turns outthat the final sucralose product contains small amounts of potentially dangeroussubstances such as:

Heavy Metals (e.g., Lead)

Arsenic

Triphenilphosphine Oxide

Methanol

Chlorinated Disaccharides

Chlorinated Monosaccharide

Although manufacturing guidelines do specify limits on these substances there is noguarantee that such limits will always be met. Despite the fact that a portion of sucralose ismetabolized into some chemicals of questionable safety, a majory of the consumed sucraloseis excreted unchanged in the feces and urine. While that may be good for the person using the

product, it may not be so great for the environment.


4/24

Although sucralose is being flushed down toilets wherever sucralose is approved for sale,what happens to it next is simply a matter for speculation. There are no known studies

showing what happens to the chemical when the raw sewage is treated and then released backinto the environment. Of course, we will likely not know the answers to these questions for

many years, if at all. One of the main reasons for this is that the FDA did not require anEnvironmental Impact Statement for sucralose, because in their words, the action will not

have a significant impact on the human environment. One study did find that sucralose ismetabolized by microrganisms in both the water and soil. However, the ecological impact ofthis new chemical being introduced into the environment is unknown.

Research in animals has shown that sucralose can cause many problems such as:

Shrunken thymus glands (up to 40 percent shrinkage)

Enlarged liver and kidneys

Atrophy of lymph follicles in the spleen and thymus

Increased fecal weight

Reduced growth rate

Decreased red blood cell count

Hyperplasia of the pelvis

Extension of the pregnancy period

Aborted pregnancy

Decreased fetal body weights and placental weights

Diarrhea

The manufacturer claims sucralose doesnt react with other substances in the body and is not broken down in the body. They claimed the same thing aboutsaccharin. If the body isdigesting properly, anything you put into the body will be assimilated. If it happens to berancid, the stomach will throw it out immediately by vomiting or diarrhea. It is totally out ofthe realm of biological science to think the body will not immediately attack a toxic chemical.Hence, we find migraines from aspartame, and diarrhea from Splenda.

If the body is fed an indigestible product such as plastic (like in margarine) that it is incapableof dissolving through normal digestion, it will pass through undigested (if it doesnt get stuckin the gall bladder). So, if sucralose is indigestible due to its laboratory compounding, thenwe have yet another serious health problem to consider.

Just how few studies currently exist on sucralose is an issue. Endurance News provides thefollowing table illustrating this fact:


5/24

Sweetener -- of Studies

Saccharin -- 2374

Aspartame -- 598

Cyclamates -- 459

Acesulfame-K -- 28

Sucralose -- 19

The regulatory agencies and scientific review bodies that have endorsed the safety ofsucralose have not required any warning information to be placed on the labels of productssweetened with sucralose. While it is unlikely that sucralose is as toxic as the poisoning

people are experiencing from Monsanatosaspartame, it is clear from the hazards seen in pre-approval research and from its chemical structure that years or decades of use maycontribute to serious chronic immunological or neurological disorders. As Americans

continue to choose ever-increasing amounts of such foods and beverages, sweeteners maysoar to higher consumption levels.

McNeil Specialty Products Company (MSPC), a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson &Johnson, along with Tate & Lyle PLC, a world leader in sweeteners and starches, all shareresponsibility for developing and manufacturing sucralose for commercial use.Internationally, McNeil Specialty markets sucralose in the United States, Canada, LatinAmerica, the Caribbean, Australia, New Zealand, and the Middle East; Tate & Lyle marketssucralose in Africa, Asia, Europe and Canada. Internationally, McNeil Specialty marketssucralose under the name Splendarbrand Sweetener. Splendaris a registered trademark ofMcNeil Specialty Products Company.

The maker of sucralose, the key ingredient behind Splenda, is having trouble keeping up withdemand. Tate & Lyle said interest has so outpaced expectations the company wont take onnew U.S. customers until it has doubled production at its plant in McIntosh, Ala., sometimein early 2006. The company also plans to open a second plant in Singapore, according to awritten statement.

Buoyed by a surge in anti-sugar diets such as Atkins and South Beach, Splenda has enjoyedsweet success since its introduction in 2000, appearing in everything from soda and ice creamto candy and jams. Splenda, which won fans with its sugar-like sweetness and stability in

baking, now dominates the $337 million U.S. retail market for sugar substitutes, beating outaspartame sweetenerEqual, made by Chicago-based Merisant Corp.

More Deceptive Splenda Propaganda

McNeil Nutritionals, a division of Johnson & Johnson and makers of the no-calorie artificialsweetenerSplenda, are astute marketers for they have now joined forces with The American

Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) to support an AAFP fitness project: Americans inMotion (AIM).


6/24

AIM is a 10-year endeavor designed to improve the lives of individuals, families andcommunities. The initiative was created in response to the growing obesity epidemic in

the United States and specifically focuses on physical activity, nutrition and emotional wellbeing. According to a member of the AAFP, AIM is a great opportunity to help eliminate the

health problems associated with a deficiency in fitness such as:

Diabetes

Depression

Hypertension

Heart disease

McNeil Weasels Their Way into the "Health Spotlight"

Support for AIM is made feasible due to an education grant given by McNeil Nutritionals.The grant will fund the development and distribution of a tool kit designed to help family

physicians improve the health of their patients. The kit not only holds valuable resources tohelp health care professionals interact with patients, but also take-home materials for patientsto incorporate healthy eating and exercise habits into their daily lives.

Materials include:

A patient education guide that includes tips on healthy eating and active living called "1-2-3Sensible Steps to Help You Manage Your Weight"

A food and activity tracker for patients to record their daily food intake and physicalactivities

Health guideswhich include advice to help patients remain motivated through their weightmanagement journey

Fitness prescription pads for physicians to prescribe fitness-related activities to their patients

Aspartame alert: Diet soda destroys kidney

function

Scientists from Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston have revealed results from a study

outlining some of the effects of artificial sweeteners on the body. Conducted on a group of3,000 women, the results indicated that those who drank two or more artificially-sweetened

beverages a day doubled their risk of more-rapid-than-normal kidney function decline.

The study accounted for various other risk factors including the woman's age, her bloodpressure, if she smoked, and if she had any other pre-existing conditions such as heart diseaseor diabetes. The 11-year study evaluated the effects of all sweetened drinks on progressive

kidney decline and discovered that two or more diet drinks leads to a two-fold increase

in rapid kidney decline incidences.


7/24

Though study results did not show any correlation between sugar- or corn syrup-sweeteneddrinks and the onset of rapid kidney decline, these ingredients are implicated in causing

diabetes and obesity and should not be perceived as safe merely because they did not have adirect correlation in this particular study topic.

High sodium intake was also implicated in the study as promoting progressive kidneydecline. Since diet soda contains excessive amounts of sodium, higher than sugar soda, it isno surprise that diet sodas were the primary offenders in the study. However it is unclearfrom this particular study which ingredient plays the larger role in progressive kidney decline,the artificial sweeteners or the sodium content.

Studies on aspartame

When aspartame was first approved in the 1970s under the name "NutraSweet",

studies were submitted as supposed proof that the artificial chemical was safe. The

FDA initially approved the chemical in 1974 for use in a limited number of foodsbased upon the studies submitted by G.D. Searle Co., the company that invented

aspartame.

Following a discovery made shortly thereafter by are search psychiatrist who found

that aspartic acid, a primary ingredient in aspartame, caused holes to form in the

brains of mice, the FDA decided to form its own internal task force to investigate

the initial claims made by the Searle Co.

What the agency discovered was a series of falsified claims, compromised studyresults, and missing information. The claims made in favour of aspartame were so

dubious and the evidence so faulty that the FDA decreed that a grand jury shouldinvestigate Searle Co.'s claims. Unfortunately, the case failed to move forw ardwhen U.S. Attorney Thomas Sullivan and Assistant U.S. Attorney William Conlon

failed to initiate any legal action. Conlon was later hired by the law firm that

represented Searle Co.

Investigation revealed that aspartame had caused tumours, seizures, brain holes,

and death in many of the studies .All negative findings had been altered orscrubbed from the final reports delivered to the FDA when aspartame was first

reviewed.

Time and time again the question over whether aspartame is safe has led to

investigations that never go anywhere. Studies are continually released in support

of the chemical's safety even though they fail to address the results of other studiesthat show it to be harmful.


8/24

Other artificial sweeteners

A study published in the January, 2008 issue of the Journal of Toxicology and EnvironmentalHealth revealed that the newer artificial sweetener, sucralose, alters gut micro flora andinhibits the assimilation of dietary nutrients.

Commonly marketed as being "made from sugar", sucralose had undergone no long-termhuman studies to verify its safety in humans. Like aspartame, initial studies revealed negativereactions by lab animals on whom it was tested, indicating that there could be the same

potential problems in humans.

The EU Food Commission, Canadian health officials, and the U.S. FDA all rejected theinitial studies submitted by McNeil Nutritionals, the marketers of sucralose, because of thenegative results. However they encouraged the company to continue researching until they"got it right". McNeil simply lowered the levels of sucralose used in their studies until anacceptable limit was found. After several tries, sucralose was finally approved.

Stevia, a safe alternative

A great many varieties of artificial sweeteners have been approved, many scandalously,

despite the fact that safe, natural alternatives exist. Stevia, for instance, is a sweet herb from

South America that is up to 300 times sweeter than sugar. Claiming inadequate safety

research, the FDA has long refused the herb from being included on the "generally

recognized as safe" (GRAS) list.

Up until last year, all forms of stevia could only be sold as dietary supplements. The extract

could not be labelled as a "sweetener" and it could not be included in any food items.

Once the parent companies of both Pepsi and Coca-Cola discovered how to manipulate and

patent a segment of stevia, however, it suddenly became safe to use as a sweetener and is

now sold on grocery store shelves in packets similar to the artificial sweeteners. The FDA

reluctantly added the natural stevia extract to the GRAS list as well.

Stick with natural and unprocessed When it comes to health, a person's best bet is to avoid

artificial sweeteners altogether. There are plenty of preferable, safe alternatives such as stevia

which will allow for a little extra sweetness without all the harmful side effects.

Artificial Sweeteners are Continually Found to be Unsafe and Toxic

A recent study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology in

San Diego found that adult women who drink at least two diet sodas a day experience a 30

percent drop in kidney function over the course of a decade. Findings indicate that artificial


9/24

sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose are the culprits in the rapid degeneration of

glomerular filtration rates in the kidneys of those consuming excessive amounts of

artificially-sweetened diet sodas.

Dr. Julie Lin of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and her colleague Dr. Gary

Curhan conducted the research correlating artificial sweetener intake to kidney degradation,

highlighting one of the many dangers of artificial sweeteners.

A 2005 study conducted by Dr. Morando Soffritti of the esteemed European Ramazzini

Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences and the Cesare Maltoni Cancer

Research Center confirmed once again what independent scientists discovered over thirty

years ago; aspartame consumption leads to all sorts of illness and disease including cancerous

tumors, lymphomas, leukemias, lesions in various organs, transitional cell carcinomas, nerve

damage, seizures, and premature death.

Original approval of aspartame by the FDA involved questionable studies that were later

investigated by the drug enforcement division of the Bureau of Foods. Though found to be

faulty and ridden with errors, the FDA ignored both these reports and the slew of adverse

event data that surfaced following aspartame's approval. Between 1974 when aspartame was

approved and 1990, the number of brain tumors in people over the age of 65 had increased by

67 percent.

Similarly sucralose, a chlorocarbon popularly marketed as the artificial sweetener derived

from sugar, has been implicated in severe chronic illnesses including brain and nervous

system disorders, migraine headaches, cancers, and immune-system debilitation.


10/24

Though touted as safe, the chlorocarbon components of sucralose are verifiable toxins. Those

who have experienced negative symptoms from sucralose often recover following the

discontinuation of its consumption. Among other results, laboratory tests have concluded that

long-term sucralose consumption shrinks the thymus gland, the biological source of the

immune system.

According to Dr. Soffritti's research group, most studies alleging the safety of artificial

sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose fail to use internationally-recognized "Good

Laboratory Practices" for conducting carcinogenicity bioassays and thus arrive at faulty,

corporate-controlled outcomes. Rather than objectively seek results, the studies used to allege

safety are often funded by the companies producing the additive in question.

Preferable options include natural foods like raw honey and raw agave nectar which are

healthy, enzyme-rich sweeteners that work great in moderation. Natural stevia extract is

another excellent option as it contains no sugar and no calories, and it is completely safe and

suitable for those with a diabetic condition or for those who are looking to cut sugar intake.

Soda alternatives include stevia or fruit-juice sweetened soda water. Some stevia extracts are

available in various flavors including root beer and vanilla, offering multitudinous options in

creating quick, healthy beverages. Fruit juices mixed in soda water also offer a refreshing

thirst quencher for those who don't mind a little natural fruit sugar every now and then.

There are plenty of alternatives to artificial chemical sweeteners like aspartame, sucralose,

and saccharin but they are often difficult to find in processed foods. Chalk this up as another

great motivation to pursue whole, healthy foods that are as close to their natural states as

possible.


11/24

Artificial Sweeteners Stay in the Water Supply

A new study investigating the ability of water treatment facilities to remove artificial

sweeteners from municipal water supplies has found that significant amounts remain despite

the implementation of high-tech industrial water purification.

Researchers from the Water Technology Centre in Karlsruhe, Germany examined levels of

seven common sweeteners - acesulfame, saccharin, aspartame, cyclamate (currently banned

in the US and Canada), sucralose, neotame and NHDC - using a new method that enables

detection of the substances simultaneously. Analysis of the water samples revealed that up to

80% and 59% of sucralose and acesulfame remained respectively, despite treatment and

advanced filtration. Acesulfame was found to be the most treatment resistant sweetener, with

several hundred nanograms of saccharin and cyclamate also remaining.

"The persistence of some artificial sweeteners during soil aquifer treatment was demonstrated

and confirmed their environmental relevance", wrote the scientific team in the journal

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, before expressing concern that "the occurrence of

such sweeteners in the aquatic environment may become an issue for consumers."

The study authors cited the lack of research on the levels of artificial sweeteners in water as

being a motivating factor behind their investigation. One previous study on sucralose,

conducted by scientists from the Swedish Environmental Research Institute, also found

industrial water treatment to be of limited efficacy in removing the sweetener from the


12/24

municipal water supply with significant sucralose concentrations being found in each sample

analyzed and at each of twenty-five treatment faculties investigated throughout Sweden.

Writing in a report entitled 'Sucralose in surface waters and STP Samples', the Scandinavian

team expressed particular anxiety that water levels may continue to build substantially over a

long period of time due to the extremely slow rate at which sucralose breaks down in the

environment.

The sweeteners under investigation in the current study have been claimed to be related to a

number of persistent health concerns. Of the five substances legally available for use in the

US, acesulfame and saccharin have caused concerns over being linked to cancer with the

former also cited as a cause of excessive insulin secretion. Aspartame and neotame have been

linked with neurological illness, while sucralose has been studied in relation to migraine

symptoms. Of the banned substances, there are concerns that cyclamate may decrease fertility

in men.

Lead researcher Marco Scheurer, along with co-researchers Frank Thomas and Heinz-Jurgen

Brauch, conceded that the effect of such treatment-resistance substances on drinking water

remains unknown but could be significantly influenced by potential metabolites of the

sweetener pollutants.

[1] Scheurer et al. Analysis and occurrence of seven artificial sweeteners in German waste

water and surface water and in soil aquifer treatment (SAT). Analytical and Bioanalytical

Chemistry. 2009 July. 394; 6: 1585-1594.

[2] Brorstrn et al. Measurements of Sucralose in the Swedish Screening Program 2007, Part I;

Sucralose in surface waters and STP samples. IVL Swedish Environmental Research

Institute, 2007.


13/24

[3] Takayama et al. Long-Term Toxicity and Carcinogenicity Study of Cyclamate in

Nonhuman Primates. Toxicological Sciences. 2000. 53: 33-39 (2000)

Stevia: The FDA's Attack on a Beneficial Supplement

Let's be honest for a moment. There's no question that over the years I've tweaked the FDA,

Canadian, and European regulators for some of the outrageously absurd positions they've

taken when it comes to alternative health and supplements. Then again, I've also praised them

on those occasions that I believe they've done the right thing. But of all their positions and all

their calls, none brings their credibility more into question than their position regarding

stevia. Understand, I have no investment in stevia. I use it in a couple of formulas, but it is

hardly essential to what I do. That said, I believe that an exploration of the regulators'

position on stevia speaks volumes as to their overall position on alternative health. So,

without further ado...

What is stevia?

Stevia is a tropical plant native to South America. Its extract has up to 300 times the

sweetness of sugar. Although some people complain of its staying power in the mouth or its

sometimes licorice-like aftertaste, it is a popular natural alternative sweetener. As a

sweetener, it is low glycemic and has added benefits in potentially helping tocontrol

obesity,enhance glucose tolerance, andreduce blood pressure. You would think that with this

kind of pedigree, it would qualify as the perfect sugar substitute and be approved for use asan alternative sweetener everywhere. You would be half right. It is widely used throughout

Asia (particularly Japan) and South America -- not so in the US, most of Europe, and Canada,

where it is banned as a food additive. In the United States, and Canada it's allowed as a

supplement, but not in food. In Europe, it's only allowed as an additive to animal feed.

This whole separation thing between food additives and supplements as seen in the US and

Canada is actually very nebulous -- and deliberately so. Although the rulings as written by the

various government agencies might appear clear, government authorities choose to interpret

them as the mood suits. A good example is the recent censure of Celestial Seasonings teas.

Celestial Seasonings followed the letter of the law by labeling their Zingers tea an herbalsupplement and including a supplements facts panel on the label, but as it turns out, that

didn't matter. To quote from theFDA notice, "Notwithstanding your use of the term 'Herbal

Supplement' to identify the product and your use of a supplement facts label for nutrition

labeling, your Zingers Tangerine Orange Tea is subject to regulation as a conventional food

and not a dietary supplement... Therefore, your stevia-containing Zingers Tangerine Orange

Tea is adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(2)(C) of the Act."


14/24

To better understand the situation, let's take a more detailed look at stevia.

What are the studies that support it?

In fact, stevia has been studied extensively. In addition to the studies cited above showing itsbenefits in regard to obesity, glucose tolerance, and high blood pressure, there are numbers of

other studies proving its safety. For example, a1991 study in Thailandfound that even at

doses 1,000 times normal human dosage, hamsters demonstrated no difference in growth rate

or sexual performance -- even through three generations.

In 2004, researchers at the KU Leuven (Belgium) organized an international symposium on

"The Safety of Stevioside." Scientists from all over the world who attended concluded that

stevioside is safe:

y Stevioside is not carcinogenic. On the contrary, studies in Japan have proven thatstevioside reduces breast cancer in rats as well as skin cancers in animals models.

y Stevioside is not absorbed by the human gut. Only bacteria of the colon degradestevioside to steviol. Part of this steviol is absorbed through the intestine but isquickly metabolized to steviol glucuronide and excreted in the urine.No free steviol isdetected in the blood.

y Although steviol showed a weak mutagenic activity in one very sensitive strain ofbacteria, even high concentrations of oral steviol were harmless (up to 2 g/kg bodyweight)!

What are the problematic studies?

So is everything rosy for stevia? Not necessarily. There have been some problematic studies.

For example:

y A 1984 study found that although stevioside was not cancer causing, steviol, ametabolite of stevioside, is indeed mutagenic in the presence of a specific metabolicactivation system -- although subsequent studies have either not found it so, or foundthe effect to be so low as to be insignificant (1,2). And again, as discussed earlier, any


15/24

steviol that passes through the intestinal tract is metabolized to steviol glucuronideand excreted in the urine. In fact, some studies have shown that stevia may actually be

cancer preventive.

y There were also studies that indicated stevia might negatively affect fertility in rats,but those studies were later refuted by more reliable studies involving higher numbersof rats and more controlled protocols. And this merely reinforces the results ofnumerous other studies.

The bottom line is that there is no compelling evidence that stevia in any reasonable dosage

causes cancer. In fact, it is worth noting that the incidence of cancer in Japan is very low,

although stevioside has been used there for over 25 years. And as for the fertility issue, there

is no meaningfullaboratory evidence that stevia has any effect on male or female fertility, nor

on the development or state of the fetus. And again, despite a quarter of a century of use in

Japan, there is no actual evidence of any negative effect on fertility or any other aspect of

health for that matter.

It should also be noted that all of the problematic studies have used purified stevia at levels

far, far, far higher than would ever happen in a normal human diet. Is this important (after all,

testing for mutagenic effects at high doses is standard procedure)? The problem is that just

because it's standard doesn't make it meaningful. Keep in mind that even things that are

healthy can become deadly if taken in large amounts. For example, if you have 100 times the

normal dosage of protein each day, you will destroy your liver in short order. If you have a

100 times the normal dosage of water, you will die in a single day -- in a rather messyexplosion.

The bottom line here is that all of the problematic studies have been conducted on rats and

hamsters with absurdly high doses. In the real world, stevia has been in use with hundreds of

millions of people throughout Asia and South America for as much as a quarter of a century.

We're talking billions of doses and no sign of increased cancer or lowered fertility. If only the

alternative sweeteners that the regulators allow could match that kind of track record.

What are the absurdities of the regulators' positions on sweeteners?

But all that aside, it would at least be understandable if the regulators played with a fair deck

and applied equal standards to all alternative sweeteners. But they do not.

Aspartame


16/24

y According to the FDA's own audit on aspartame, the Bressler Report, aspartametriggers brain tumors, mammary tumors, pancreatic tumors, ovarian tumors, pituitaryadenomas, uterine tumors, etc. A senior FDA toxicologist, the late Dr. Adrian Gross,who tried to prevent the approval of aspartame, told Congress that it violated the

Delaney Amendment because it triggered brain tumors (Congressional RecordSID835:131 - 8/1/85).

y Aspartame has also been shown to trigger birth defects and miscarriages -- not just ifthe mother uses it, but the father also.

y Before aspartame was approved in beverages in 1983, the National Soft DrinkAssociation created a THIRTY PAGE PROTEST (that was later read into theCongressional Record) declaring that aspartame was NOT stable, and that it couldactually make unwary users FATTER!

The bottom line on aspartame is that its safety record and evaluation record do not even come

close to matching the safety of stevia. In fact, FDA's own evaluation committees rejected

aspartame. But in 1983, the Commissioner of the FDA, Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, overrode his

own committees and approved NutraSweet (aspartame) for soft drinks two months before

leaving office. A couple of months later, after he had retired from the FDA, he accepted a

position as Senior Medical Advisor to Burson Marsteller, the public relations firm thatpromoted NutraSweet for G.D. Searle, NutraSweet's manufacturer -- at the rate of $1,000 per

day. An unfortunate coincidence, one might say.

"Only six human trials have been published on sucralose. Of these six trials, only two of thetrials were completed and published before the FDA approved sucralose for humanconsumption. The two published trials had a grand total of 36 total human subjectsThelongest trial at this time had lasted only four days and looked at sucralose in relation to toothdecay, not human tolerance."

How Sweet It Is: Our Love-Hate Relationship With Sweeteners

Our love-hate relationship with sweeteners has often been a question of choosing one'spoisons, as no choice has been without its problems. Sugar and artificial sweeteners tend todisrupt satiety, which causes overeating, spike the fat storing hormone insulin and lead toage-accelerating molecules. But now, thanks to natural sweeteners such as Stevia and xylitol,our sweets can do exactly the opposite.

Artificial sweeteners have been used for years, but not without problems. The most common


17/24

are saccharin, aspartame, and sucralose.

Saccharin, the oldest artificial sweetener, has been around since 1878 and under scrutinysince 1907.Approved in the U.S. for use as a tabletop/beverage sweetener and as an

ingredient in medicines such as cough syrup, saccharin does not convert to glucose, but isreadily absorbed and excreted unchanged by the kidneys. This causes it to be without food

value and also without calories, which made it popular with diabetics and dieters.

Consumers using saccharin need to know about its carcinogenic links. During the 1960's,studies on rats indicated saccharin was related to bladder cancer. Inexplicably, the FDA hasallowed saccharin to remain as a food additive. The consumer should always check labels,

because food, beverage, and pharmaceutical manufacturers still use calcium saccharin inmixtures with other low-calorie, sugar-free additives.

The integrity of the FDA has been questioned for its position on this carcinogen and otherartificial sweeteners. It is known that some FDA investigators have left the agency to take

more lucrative positions with artificial additive producers. The FDA has also denied approvalfor the use of natural sweeteners in processed foods, even though there have been no

carcinogenic links found. Questions about saccharin spurred researchers to develop safersugar substitutes and aspartame became popular. Aspartame is different from other artificial

sweeteners because it is made from protein. Unlike saccharin, it is digested and can beabsorbed anywhere in the body.

Aspartame breaks down in heat so is not useful in cooking or in many beverages. Another

early concern about aspartame is that people with PKU, a genetic disorder, cannot metabolizethe amino acid phenylalanine, which it contains.

Researchers maintain that aspartame poisoning is commonly misdiagnosed because itssymptoms mock textbook 'disease' symptoms. Aspartame changes the ratio of amino acids inthe blood, blocking or lowering the levels of serotonin, tyrosine, dopamine, norepinephrine,and adrenaline. Therefore, aspartame symptoms cannot typically be detected in lab tests andon x-rays. Textbook disorders and diseases may actually be a toxic load as a result ofaspartame poisoning.

Europe often is ahead of us in health-related measures. In December of 2007 the IrishAssociation of Health Stores agreed to take aspartame off of their shelves, beginning in 2008,

because of the potential dangers. The press release cited proven links with a variety ofproblems such as cancers, infertility, birth defects, ADD and ADHD, Parkinson's andAlzheimer's, depression, memory loss, vision loss, vertigo and fibromyalgia, plus others.

Not surprisingly, it is the industry-sponsored studies that found no problems with aspartame

use. However, of the non-industry-sponsored independent studies, 92% identified one ormore problems with aspartame, such as the chemical's potential neurotoxicity, a linkage tobrain tumours, seizures, mood disorders, headaches, and paradoxical effects on appetite.

Sucralose, the sweet saviour of the 1990's, is a drug/chemical which is about 600 timessweeter than sugar and is the only non-nutritive sweetener actually made from sugar. Thoughit tastes like sugar, the body doesn't metabolize it as sugar, which means that sucralose givesyou the sweet taste without carbohydrates or calories.


18/24

Many animal studies on sucralose revealed serious problems, such as:

* Decreased red blood cells - sign of anemia - at levels above 1,500 mg/kg/day;

* Increased male infertility by interfering with sperm production and vitality, as well as brainlesions at higher doses;

* Enlarged and calcified kidneys;

* Spontaneous abortions in nearly half the rabbit population given sucralose, compared tozero aborted

pregnancies in the control group;

* A 23% death rate in rabbits, compared to a 6% death rate in the control group.

Because sucralose doesn't occur in nature, your body doesn't metabolize it nor recognize it.

But itdoesget absorbed; at least 15% of it does get stored in the body.

Splenda's mode of manufacture is problematic. To make sucralose, chlorine is used. Chlorine,a poisonous gas, has a split personality; it can be only moderately harmful or it can be life

threatening. Combined with sodium, chlorine forms an "ionic bond" to yield table salt.Sucralose producers often highlight this irrelevant fact to defend its safety. Still, as we know,

table salt is detrimental to health.

When used with carbon, the chlorine atom in sucralose forms a "covalent" bond. The endresult is the historically deadly "organo-chlorine". Its originator was trying to create a newinsecticide, but accidentally tasted the sucralose and found out it was sweet. So he decided tosell it as a sweetener instead.

Organo-chlorine isnotsafe. Agent Orange is also an organo-chlorine. It is lethal because itallows poisons to be fat-soluble while rendering the natural defense mechanisms of the bodyhelpless. Sucralose is only 25 percent water soluble. This means three fourths of it mayexplode in the body. Resulting problems may be weakened immune function, irregular heart

beat, agitation, shortness of breath, skin rashes, headaches, liver and kidney damage, birthdefects, and cancer. Worse yet, it can affect future generations because it can affect DNA.

A happier development for the sweet-toothed was the introduction of the non-sugaralternative sweeteners, called polyols or sugar alcohols. Examples are maltitol, sorbitol,isomalt, and xylitol. Sugar alcohols are carbohydrates. Part of their chemical structureresembles sugar, and part of it resembles alcohol the reason for the confusing name.Equivalent to sugar in sweetness, they are used cup-for-cup in the same proportion as sugar.

Sugar alcohols have the taste and texture of sugar with about half of the calories.

The World Health Organization has carefully reviewed polyols and concluded that they aresafe for human consumption. The FDA classifies some sugar alcohols as GRAS (generallyrecognized as safe), while others are approved as food additives. They are not all exactlyalike however, differing in their amount of health benefits.

As a whole, the main problem with polyols is that they are not completely absorbed and canferment in the intestines, causing bloating, gas, or diarrhea. People can have different


19/24

reactions to different sugar alcohols. It is advisable to test each polyol in small quantities tofind out which one best suits each individual.

Xylitol, the most common, is a low-calorie sugar made from birch bark, fibrous vegetables

and fruit. It had been known to the world of organic chemistry since it was first manufacturedin 1891 by a German chemist. A natural, intermediate product, xylitol regularly occurs in the

glucose metabolism of animals as well as in the metabolism of several plants and micro-organisms. Xylitol is even produced naturally inourbodies, up to 15 grams daily duringnormal metabolism. Better yet, it metabolizes without using insulin.

By the 1960s, xylitol was being used in Germany, Switzerland, the Soviet Union and Japan asa preferred sweetener in diabetic diets and as an energy source for infusion therapy in patientswith impaired glucose tolerance and insulin resistance. Italy and China have been using itwith remarkable health benefits.

Xylitol isn't just safe for us, but it has health-enhancing benefits as well. It serves as an

immunitybooster, a protector against chronic degenerative disease and an anti-aging aid. Xylitol is

considered a five-carbon sugar, which means it is an anti-microbial, preventing the growth ofbacteria. While sugar in its various forms creates acid, xylitol is alkaline enhancing.

This alkaline quality is also good for teeth. Xylitol helps to raise plaque pH, thereby reducing

the time that teeth are exposed to damaging acids caused by sugar as well as starving harmfulbacteria of their food source. Studies have found a reduction in cavities with regular xylitol

use in chewing gum.

Such gum has also been found to reduce the incidence of middle ear infections by 40% inyoung children, potentially eliminating the need for tube insertions. Xylitol also has beenused to prevent ear and sinus infections, allergies and asthma.

Bone density enhancing properties have been studied as a result of xylitol's ability to aid theabsorption of calcium by the intestines. Using xylitol instead of sugar in addition to reducingintake of high-glycemic, refined carbohydrate foods helps to lower the risk of PolycysticOvarian Syndrome, ovarian cysts, fibroids, endometriosis, PMS, hot flushes, weight gain anddepression.

Xylitol has no known toxic levels and was approved by the FDA in 1963. Some diarrhea orslight cramping may occur at first if a large amount is consumed all at once. It isrecommended that one start small and let the body's enzymes adjust, which they will do.

The biggest problem with xylitol is that it is poisonous to dogs, even in small amounts.

Extreme care should be taken that gums, candies or baked goods, just as with chocolate, mustbe kept far away from and inaccessible to Fido. Also, if your dog is a scavenger, extra caremust be taken if any such items end up in the garbage.

Two more sweeteners found in natural food stores are fructose and the less familiar D-mannose. Fructose is not recommended, but it is included here as an example of a substancefound naturally in fruit that becomes harmful once it is artificially separated from the fruit. Inlarger quantities, fructose has been implicated in the increased incidences of type 2 diabetes.


20/24

The simple sugar D-mannose, on the other hand, is effective in the treatment and preventionof over 90

percent of bladder infections, even when used in small quantities. A teaspoon in green tea,once a day, is a great way to keep your bladder healthy.

Lastly, an herb that is much sweeter than sugar with no known side effects is gaining in

popularity. Stevia is a non-caloric herb native to Paraguay that has been used as a sweetenerfor over 1,500 years in South America, without harmful effects. The herb, related to thelettuce family, has also been used in Japan since the early 1970s to sweeten pickles and otherfoods.

Stevia has many helpful properties. It has:

* No sugar and no calories.

* Anti-inflammatory effects.

* Is 100 percent naturally derived.

* 250 to 300 times the sweetness of sugar.

* Heat stability to 200 degrees Celsius (392 degrees Fahrenheit).

* No fermentation properties.

* Flavor-enhancing qualities.

* Plaque-retardant and Anti-caries properties to help prevent cavities.

* Been recommended for diabetics because it does not spike insulin.

* Anti-bacterial, anti-viral and anti-fungal properties.

* Been shown to lower blood pressure in those with hypertension.

Over 100 phytochemicals have been discovered in Stevia, and it is rich in terpenes andflavonoids. Besides having been in use for hundreds of years, extensive testing in animals hasdemonstrated no harmful effects. Its main sweet chemical, stevioside, has been found to benontoxic in acute toxicity studies with rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, and birds. It also has beenshown that it does not cause cellular changes nor affect fertility. The natural stevia leaf also

has been found to be nontoxic and has no mutagenic activity.

Stevia can be used in cooking and as a tabletop sweetener. It is available from most grocerystores, in liquid form, powder and even in the convenient small packets. Since it is so

powerful, one of the new Stevia cookbooks would probably be a good purchase for those whowant to use it in recipes. Only a very small amount is recommended and that is all that isnecessary to obtain the same amount of sweetening as sugar.

Stevia has become popular in spite of the FDA. In 1997 it was reported by 60 Minutes thatmanufacturers of aspartame paid off the FDA to keep Stevia from being approved. Yet


21/24

aspartame is a sweetener with dangerous side effects.

With xylitol, D-Mannose and Stevia, it is possible to satisfy our need for sweets and improveour health, instead of harming it. Just remember to limit consumption to small quantities until

your body adjusts. There can be a laxative effect if too much is consumed. With moderate useof these natural sweeteners, we can turn our love-hate relationship with sweets into an all

love relationship.

In addition,pre-approval research shows that sucralose causes up to 40% shrinkage of thethymus gland and enlarges the liver and kidneys.

High fructose corn syrup

And, of course, high fructose corn syrup, the number one sweetener used in the world today

is a health disaster.

What lies in the future?

One has to wonder why aspartame, sucralose, and high fructose corn syrup -- all with proven

major negative health effects -- are approved by regulatory agencies in the US, Canada, and

Europe and are currently in widespread use; whereas stevia is not. Not to be cynical, but

perhaps the companies behind aspartame, sucralose, and high fructose corn syrup (G.D.

Searle, Royal DSM, Tate and Lyle, and ADM) have a political clout that small independent

stevia producers cannot muster for a non-patentable natural sweetener.

If that's true, we can be fairly sure that we will never see stevia approved for commercial use

in Europe, Canada, and the US until one of those large corporate entities finds a way to patent

it. But wait! Forgive my cynicism! Cargill and Coca Cola are doing just that even as wespeak! I think we can look forward to an approval of stevia -- in a patented form -- in the not

too distant future. Will this version be safer? No, of course not. It will merely have a different

name, Rebiana. Oh yes, and Coke and Cargill will back it. In the world of nutrition

regulation, it appears that money talks... and real nutrition walks. It's enough to give you high

blood sugar, tiny thymuses, brain tumors, and shrunken sex glands!

Conclusion

I originally titled this article the Stevia Shibboleth. A shibboleth, as described in the Bible,

was a secret word used by the ancient Gileadites to identify outsiders who were unable to

pronounce the word correctly. In a sense, we can see that stevia is being used as a shibboleth

by regulatory agencies to separate the insiders (the large commercial entities with major

political influence) from the outsiders (the purveyors of all-natural healthy products). And

just as the Gileadites put outsiders who failed the test to death, so it would seem our

regulators would do the same to manufacturers such as Celestial Seasonings who fail the

modern Shibboleth test and pronounce their sweetener: stevia.


22/24

This article was originally written as a newsletter which is read by tens of thousands of

people in over 120 countries. Of those thousands of subscribers, six have email addresses that

carry [email protected]. This particular issue was written for them -- and for the other handful

of subscribers who represent the European regulatory agencies.

Guys, as long as you approve aspartame, sucralose, and high fructose corn syrup as healthyand refuse to allow stevia to be used, calling it unsafe, despite all reasonable evidence to the

contrary, you will have no credibility among thinking people. It is tantamount to an open

admission that approval has nothing to do with safety -- only what's bought and paid for.

Many bodybuilding supplements and protein powders are loaded with chemical sweeteners

If you take a look at the ingredients in bodybuilding supplements and protein powders at

most health food stores, you'll find that they contain an array of questionable ingredients,

such as aspartame, saccharin, fructose, and artificial colors. I've always found it interesting to

note how unhealthy many of these bodybuilding products really are. Rather than being made

with natural ingredients, and sweetened with items like stevia, they are sweetened with

chemicals and made with ingredients that are certainly less than healthful. And why? Because

bodybuilders continue to purchase these supplements. In other words, the supplement

manufacturers are simply meeting the demands of bodybuilding consumers.

But one question remains: why are so many bodybuilders so unconcerned with their health?It's something that's been frequently observed in the bodybuilding community: peopleconsuming any products, no matter how dangerous to their health, in order to build more lean

body mass and look better for competitions and photo opportunities. This is the case, ofcourse, with the use of illegal steroids for enhancing muscle mass. It's a dangerous trend --not only in terms of steroids, but also with protein supplements that contain toxic ingredientssuch as aspartame.

Let's take a closer look at the problem with aspartame, and see how it affects the humanbody. In my opinion, aspartame should have been banned a long time ago due to its toxicityand potential for nerve damage. When aspartame is consumed, it breaks down into twochemical compounds in the human body: formic acid and formaldehyde. Formic acid is anirritant -- the same chemical produced by fire ants -- and doesn't belong in the bloodstream.But the bigger problem here is formaldehyde. Formaldehyde, as you may remember fromhigh school biology class, is a preservative. Now, this doesnt mean that by consuming

aspartame you are going to stop aging. Rather, it means that you are going to suffer the sideeffects from ingesting this preservative chemical.

Formaldehyde is listed as an environmental toxin by the EPA, and when ingested in thehuman body, it causes widespread nerve damage: damage to the optic nerve, brain cells, andthe nerve cells that control body movement. That's why aspartame has been so stronglylinked to migraine headaches, muscle tremors, vision problems, and mental confusion. Theseare characteristics that most bodybuilders should hope to avoid. After all, how can you appear


23/24

healthy if your nervous system is being destroyed by a toxic ingredient you are consuming ona regular basis?

The only sweetening ingredient that I recommend in a bodybuilding supplement is stevia.

Stevia is derived from an herb-- the sweetleaf herb -- that's native to Central and SouthAmerica. Stevia does not affect blood sugar levels, it has virtually no calories, and there are

absolutely no toxicities associated with its use. It has been used safely around the world forliterally thousands of years, and is, in fact the alternative sweetener of choice in diet softdrinks in countries such as Japan. However, in the United States, stevia has been oppressed

by the FDA, which has denied its use in food and beverage products, most likely to protectthe profits of aspartame manufacturers. Because, after all, if stevia were legalized, aspartamesales would plummet, and as we know, the FDA is far more interested in protecting the

profits of private industry rather than public health.

However, it is perfectly legal to use stevia in nutritional supplements and whey proteinpowders, and this is the sweetener that I strongly recommend. Look for whey proteinpowders that are made with stevia and have no other sweeteners at all. The best proteinpowder I've found that meets these guidelines is Jay Robb's Whey Protein Powder, which

comes in a variety of flavors: chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla. I've written up a separatereview of Jay Robb's Protein Powders, but the short version is that these are absolutely the

best whey protein products I've found yet, and I highly recommend them, not only tobodybuilders, but to anyone who wants a source of high-quality protein for their diet.

In the meantime, I urge bodybuilders and fitness enthusiasts to start reading the labels of thefoods, drinks, and energy bars they purchase, and check for chemical sweeteners such asaspartame,sucralose, and saccharin. These chemical sweeteners should be avoided at allcosts, and only products sweetened with natural sweeteners such as stevia should beconsumed by any person concerned about their health.

Artificial sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose may actually promote obesity and weight

gain, says research

Groundbreaking new research published in the International Journal of Obesity reveals that

artificial sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose -- precisely the kinds of chemical

sweeteners found in diet soft drinks or many low-carb food products -- may actually promote

obesity by tricking the body into thinking that sweet-tasting foods and drinks don't contain as

many calories as they really do.

In the experiments, rats who were fed artificially-sweetened foods tended to overeat foods

containing real sweeteners, causing them to gain weight. In humans, it's the same result: drinkdiet soft drinks and consume enough foods made with artificial sweeteners, and you'll verylikely overeat the sweets when the real thing comes along: apple pie, cookies, cake, icecream, and so on.

This result is rather obvious, come to think of it: I don't recall ever seeing a thin personbuying a twelve-pack of diet Pepsi at the grocery store. The people you see buying diet soft


24/24

drinks are inevitably overweight or obese. Obviously, if diet soft drinks made people thin,you'd see lots of thin people buying them, right? It's common sense.

Further, all the thin people I know (including myself) wouldn't touch diet soft drinks, nor

regular soft drinks. In fact, soft drinks are simply off the menu for anyone concerned withtheir health. They tend to be consumed by lower-income, lower-intelligence people who are

more prone to advertiser influence and can't think for themselves.

But the real problem with artificial sweeteners today is their skyrocketing use in low-carbfoods: Sucralose is used in practically every low-carb food bar, drink, snack, recipe or meal.And Sucralose very likely has the same effect as aspartame in this case: it trains your body toover consume genuine refined carbohydrates when you encounter them.

The Story of Artificial Sweetners!!!!!!

Documents

Transcript of The Story of Artificial Sweetners!!!!!!