Mercola on sucralose

[Guest guest]

http://www.mercola.com/2005/jan/8/splenda.htm

[Guest guest]

Fletch,

Dr Mercola's site has always been the best. Having

been on the aspartamine group, thought I had posted

here.

My dad worked at Monsanto, and I can remember when

they tore down the saccharin dept. Buried it. Even

after several months, whenever, we went anywhere,

people near dad would smack their lips and look

around. The saccharin was so toxic, and dads system

put off the artificial sweetener. I remember 3/4 of

the guys that worked in that dept. dying of bladder

cancer. Is what my dad died of also. :-( The FDA

bans it and all other artifical sweeteners, and

approves it. Tried to get my dad when he was first DX

with the bladder cancer to sue Monsanto. But he

wouldn't. I have been ill all my life. In and out of

hospitals so much. So many UTI's. When in high

school, had to have a cancerous tumor on my ankle

removed. Several months of radiation. Some may say

aspartamine, nutrasweet, splenda aren't the same.

They are! With different additives. Even the

beverages, that are suppose to be pure sugar

sweetener, has aspartamine. And dry foods, frozen

pizzas, etc. With the monopoly Monsanto, Dupont, drug

companies have, and aspartamine added to everything.

Then there is What is Neotame?

Based on this aspartame research, here is a suggested

ad phrase for Monsanto:

Now that we've embalmed you, let us finish the job

with Neotame!

http://www.holisticmed.com/neotame/toxin.html

Is Neotame a Neurotoxin Like Aspartame?

Back to Neotame Toxicity Info Ctr / Back to Health

Page.

Neotame has similar structure to aspartame -- except

that, from it's structure, appears to be even more

toxic than aspartame. This potential increase in

toxicity will make up for the fact that less will be

used in diet drinks. Like aspartame, some of the

concerns include gradual neurotoxic and immunotoxic

damage from the combination of the formaldehyde

metabolite (which is toxic at extremely low doses) and

the excitotoxic amino acid. Given all of the suffering

being caused by Monsanto's aspartame, the prudent

course would be to start out with the assumption that

it may cause toxic damage or cancer from long-term

exposure and conduct many thorough, long-term, and

independent human studies to see the effects.

Even Monsanto's own pre-approval studies of neotame

revealed adverse reactions. Unfortunately, Monsanto

only conducted a few one-day studies in humans rather

than encouraging independent researchers to obtain NIH

funding to conduct long-term human studies on the

effects of neotame.

It is obvious to anyone who has thoroughly read the

scientific literature on aspartame that 1) nearly 100%

of the independent studies found problems with

aspartame (Monsanto's studies never showed problems);

and 2) that industry-funded studies bordered on

fraudulent research (and a Grand Jury was convened

because the officials wanted to pursue fraud charges).

Much of industry-funded research related to other

Monsanto products such as rBGH and toxic carpeting is

similarly deceptive and poorly designed. In addition,

a " research " organization led by one of Monsanto's

close business parters was caught hiding a

reaction-causing substance in beverages given to

control groups in double-blind studies. (They did this

for 13 years!)

Given all of the problems with aspartame industry

research and scientific abuse, it is clear that any

neotame research that Monsanto, industry groups, or

consultants or research friends of Monsanto have any

part of should be rejected until which time more

trustworthy, independent research can be conducted.

Such experiments should include independent animals

studies and especially long-term (e.g., 4-5 years+)

human studies in various susceptible population

groups.

What is likely to happen, however, is:

Monsanto's subsidiary, the FDA, will accept Monsanto

research as if it were legitimate.

Monsanto will given money to their research

consultants at various institutions (rather than NIH

funding of truly independent researchers) to repeat

poorly designed tests and " confirm " neotame safety.

This is what they did with aspartame so that they

could claim safety.

The FDA and Monsanto will claim that " comprehensive "

research [by Monsanto consultants] at various

institutions proves that neotame is safe. There will

be alot of press releases, PR statements from their

friends in the research community, and from

organizations they fund (e.g., IFIC, ADA, etc.). This

will be a time of a massive PR blitz. Please see

" Toxic Sludge Is Good For You " for information on

these techniques.

The FDA will claim to track adverse reaction reports.

But they made the same claim when they told people

that had received only 16 aspartame toxicity reaction

reports in 1996, but refused to tell people that they

stopped taking such adverse reaction reports in early

1996.

Fortunately, by the time neotame is approved, a very

large percentage of the population will have switched

to healthy sweeteners, gotten off unhealthy or toxic

sodas and made a unwavering decision not to become a

guinea pig for another one of Monsanto's toxic

sweeteners no matter what organizations or trade

groups Monsanto can pay $$$ to get their approval. I

sincerely hope you are amongst those who will move

toward health as opposed to chronic disease and

misery.

Back to Neotame Toxicity Info Ctr / Back to Health

Page.

Neotame is the technical name for a new sweetener

developed by Monsanto Chemical Corp. It is reported to

be approximately 8,000 times sweeter than sugar. The

chemical formula for neotame was published in the

February 10, 1998 Federal Register. It is quite

similar in structure to Monsanto's toxic sweetener

aspartame. There have not been any legitimate,

independent, long-term human studies on neotame.

Go to next question: Will Neotame Be Approved and If

So, When?

__________________

http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cancernet/600319.html

Artificial Sweeteners

CancerMail from the National Cancer Institute

CANCER FACTS National Cancer Institute National

Institutes of Health Data from epidemiologic studies

do not provide clear evidence of an association

between artificial sweeteners and human cancer, nor do

they conclusively rule out such a possibility.

Interest in whether such an association exists

developed when early studies showed that cyclamate,

one of several types of artificial sweeteners, caused

bladder cancer in laboratory animals.

This finding in animals suggested that cyclamate may

increase the risk of bladder cancer in humans; for

this reason, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) banned the use of cyclamate in 1969. However,

results of animal studies conducted in more recent

years have failed to demonstrate that cyclamate is a

carcinogen (a substance that is known to cause

cancer). Nevertheless, other issues must be resolved

before cyclamate can be approved for commercial use in

restricted amounts. These issues include determining

whether cyclamate is a co-carcinogen (a substance that

enhances the effect of a cancer-causing substance) and

ascertaining the potential risk for specific groups

within the population, such as those who would consume

large amounts of cyclamate.

Other animal studies, including one conducted in

Canada several years ago, have linked saccharin,

another artificial sweetener, with the development of

bladder cancer. The FDA consequently proposed a ban on

saccharin in April 1977. However, the Saccharin Study

and Labeling Act, passed by Congress in November 1977,

placed an 18-month moratorium on any action against

saccharin by FDA and required that all food containing

saccharin bear the following warning label: " Use of

this product may be hazardous to your health. This

product contains saccharin, which has been determined

to cause cancer in laboratory animals. " The moratorium

has been extended to May 1997.

_______________

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/sugarfre\

e_blues.html

Between 1981 and 1985, Rumsfeld and Searle began

seeing the payoff for their newly-formed subsidiary,

the NutraSweet Company. Amidst ongoing controversy,

aspartame was slowly but surely given full FDA

approval. Dr. Friedman, then the acting head

of the FDA, later accepted a high-level position at

Monsanto, the corporation which was to purchase the

NutraSweet Company from Searle in 1985.14 Monsanto has

also brought the world such atrocities as Agent

Orange, PCBs, dioxins, Recombinant Bovine Growth

Hormone (rBGH), Round-Up herbicide and a host of

genetically modified foods.

_______________

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=6\

437163 & dopt=Abstract

The artificial sweetener, saccharin, and the secondary

mold product, aflatoxin B1, are present in many foods

consumed by humans. Both chemicals produce cancer in

rats. For this reason, they have aroused concern among

scientists and the public as to the carcinogenic risk

that they pose to humans. A comparison of these two

chemicals reveals striking contrasts in potency,

metabolism, mechanism-of-action, and experimental

approach to assessing metabolism. These contrasts are

examined in detail to illustrate the importance of

metabolism in safety evaluation.

PMID: 6437163 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

_________________________________________

Newsletter Nov01.cdr

--- fletch_82000 <fletch_8@...> wrote:

> http://www.mercola.com/2005/jan/8/splenda.htm

____________________________________________________

Sports

Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football

http://football.fantasysports.

[Guest guest]

I had seen all this on aspartame before. But none of it explains any known

relationship between sucralose, sorbitol, and other alcohol sugars - and

aspartame, which is not one. Mercola presented no such evidence himself, and did

no studies on his own. So it's purely his opinion at this point.

I don't doubt that if people say sucralose makes them feel bad, then it does. I

don't doubt that Mercola really, really thinks it's a bad idea on general

principle. But I have not had that experience. Somehow, I just can't bring

myself to become a Mercola fan. Mainly, I think it's because the guy looks like

a skinny cadaver himself. (I know, I KNOW! That's not even a little bit

scientific, and maybe it's just a bad picture. But...cadaver. Really.)

Serena

www.freeboards.net/index.php?mforum=sickgovernmentb

__________________________________________________