Lawsuit Against Splenda Moves Forward

re: Lawsuit Against Splenda Moves Forward

muledeer — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:11:11 GMT

I am diabetic not by choice but because of a automobile accident that left me a paraplegic,the doctor recommended using splenda instead of sugar,but after reading some of the posts I am going to quit using it, it is sad that the FDA defends these large corporation at the detriment of the health of it's citizens/consumers

re: Lawsuit Against Splenda Moves Forward

KateB — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:36:32 GMT

When Splenda first came out I thought it tasted better than Equal. However, I rarely used either--mostly ingested them in diet soft drinks outside my home. In 2006 I joined Weight Watchers and stocked up on numerous Splenda-containing products. After a couple weeks I started noticing that I was experiencing episodes of light-headedness. This was frightening when it happened while driving--I hadn't fainted since I was a kid while having blood drawn after fasting, but I felt the same sensation and pulled over to the side of the road until it passed. My blood pressure was normal. It finally occurred to me that the only major change in my lifestyle since these episodes began was ingesting Splenda-containing products several times per day. I stopped doing so and no more light-headedness, even though I still maintained a reduced calorie diet and was exercising. A couple weeks later I re-challenged my system with Splenda and within a couple days the episodes of light-headedness returned.

re: Lawsuit Against Splenda Moves Forward

DJones3423 — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:21:11 GMT

Our whole economy is built on every company trying to make a buck. This drive is intensified if there are stock holders involved. And most of them don't care if they kill you in the process--unless someone is left behind to file a lawsuit after you're gone. Then they pretend to care or try to shift the blame on someone else, yet they'll continue to sell whatever it was that killed you for as long as they can get away with it.

Americans in particular have gotten too forgiving in what they call "food." We've raised at least one generation now of people who have no clue that the processed junk that you find in the grocery store is going to kill you. These people have been told that butter, eggs, fat, red meat, and milk are bad and that artificial sweeteners, margarine, soy beans, white bread, white meat, and anything that says "reduced calorie" or "low fat" are good. And don't forget that sugary cereals "are part of a complete breakfast."

What the big producers don't want you to know is that most of your diet should consist of vegetables, fruit, unprocessed meat and eggs, milk, and water. They don't want you to think too much past their advertsing gimmicks so you're blissfully unaware of what you're shoveling down your gullet. They want you sick so that you spend money not just on their "foods" but also on health care. Our economy would be in even worse shape if you quit buying the junk passed off as edible and got into good physical shape. Many of those poor pharmaceutical companies would go out of business as would the innocent makers of the processed "foods" and the assorted therapeutic equipment used to help people recuperate from illnesses. Just think of all the poor stock holders! We wouldn't want to hurt them financially, would we?

This is one time where the health insurance companies might actually be on the consumers' side. They don't want to pay, so they're going to look for ways to keep you from getting sick. Interesting twist, isn't it?

re: Lawsuit Against Splenda Moves Forward

ET — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:41:20 GMT

"ET, we all pick our poisons, you included."

You maybe, not me knowingly. Certainly not from the Major's list.

re: Lawsuit Against Splenda Moves Forward

samike — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:55:12 GMT

It doesn't matter who is behind bringing the lawsuit. The truth is that Splenda ads lie and their product is visibly harmful to many people. About 2 years ago, I went though a time of dizzy spells, nausea and headaches and the doctor couldn't find the cause. While searching for anything different I was doing, I realized that I had been using Splenda for quite some time (a couple of years) and had not checked up on it. I found Dr. Mercola's site on the Net. Although most reactions to Spenda seemed to be rashes, depression and anxiety, there was a small mention of dizzy spells and nausea. I cold-turkeyed off Splenda immediately and symptoms disappeared, never to return. That's all I needed to know. However, I am so sick and tired of the Splenda ads which are misleading the public. Anything that will publicize the deception is fine by me.

re: Lawsuit Against Splenda Moves Forward

purchaser — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:36:27 GMT

ET, we all pick our poisons, you included.

re: Lawsuit Against Splenda Moves Forward

T_rex — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 23:34:53 GMT

Chlorine is the key to Splenda's toxicity. One of the earliest uses of chlorine was to poison enemy troops: chlorine was in fact the first poison gas to be used in WWI. Chlorine is also found in 97 per cent of all pesticides. Chlorine is also the key element in Dioxin compounds, the most toxic chemicals known to science.

So, as already made public, splenda is synthesized by replacing three OH RADICALS in the C12H22O11 sugar molecule WITH 3 CHLORINE ATOMS. The result is a chloro-carbon molecule with a structure almost identical to dioxin molecules. No wonder it's not metabolized and has zero calories: it's a chloro-carbon poison ! ( as far as the body is concerned).

As time goes on, it will eventually be revealed that in the process of producing Splenda, Dioxins are also produced as an unintended* by-product, because ALL USES OF CHLORINE LEAD TO DIOXINS.

(* or perhaps covertly "intended" ??)

re: Lawsuit Against Splenda Moves Forward

stevetrishadam.au — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 22:20:49 GMT

I have felt I have know this for some time so I have honey where I can and will pass this info on to as many as I can

re: Lawsuit Against Splenda Moves Forward

Jonathan B — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 20:37:28 GMT

When I read about the different toxic impacts of the various artificial sweeteners in the current food market, I get a mental image of a Monsanto executive, or some other Splenda executive sitting in a secret base in the South Pacific, petting a white cat on his lap. grinning evilly, and saying, " I do not expect you to sweeten your Tea, Mr. Bond, I expect you to DIE!

re: Lawsuit Against Splenda Moves Forward

Dr Rik — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 18:10:27 GMT

The perfectly natural craving for sweet sugar is intended by God to get people to eat lot's of wonderful ripe FRUIT. I eat one meal a day of ripe fruit only, usually for breakfast. I recommend it. High doses of natural antioxidant nutrients! It's not complicated.

re: Lawsuit Against Splenda Moves Forward

Airean — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 13:59:21 GMT

My wife and I went to a retreat this past summer where we were given a cabin to stay in. The cabin had cockroaches, a few of which came home with us. After a month or so we were seeing little baby cockroaches in the kitchen. I had remembered reading somewhere that Splenda was initially created as an insecticide so I thought to give it a try. I sprinkled some where I'd seen them crawling around and a month later realized that I hadn't seen any in awhile. Still haven't seen any. I can, therefore, highly recommend Splenda for this purpose.

Airean

re: Lawsuit Against Splenda Moves Forward

JA — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 12:50:48 GMT

I have a Chiropractor friend that has told me about Diet products years ago and about artificial sweeteners and I will tell anyone the same information he told me:

When looking at the word DIET, the first 3 letters of the word ought to tell you something! "DIE" in otherwords, IT'S NOT GOOD FOR YOU!!! and the same goes for all those other

ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS!!!

For instants:

Mostly all chewing gum nowadays come with different artificial sweetening agents in them which are damaging your mouth, believe it or not. When I use to chew gum, my teeth would hurt till I stopped chewing gum. Their are just a few chewing gum companies that still use natural sugar in their products. YOU MUST READ THE INGREDIENTS IN THE GUM BEFORE YOU BUY IT!

When a new product comes out on the market, the FDA doesn't always tested on the spot, folks!

It's usually 7 years later till they get around to testing it, by that time the damage is already being done to the consumer, the manufactures have made their money and the FDA says it not good for us to consume!

It's all about the money: The Pharmaceutical Companies and the Food and Drug Administration work hand-in-hand with each other to get what they want from the public and they don't care how they get it.

The almighty dollar is number 1.

So, BEWARE!

re: Lawsuit Against Splenda Moves Forward

The Major — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 11:10:40 GMT

Although I don't generally use artificial sweeteners as a rule, I do sometimes use Splenda not wanting to risk cancer from saccharin or a neuro-toxic response from aspartame. What we need to see here is who is being hurt most by Splenda and where the money for this suit is coming from. The answer in both instances is Monsanto, makers of aspartame, who had the number one selling artificial sweetener before Splenda came along and is being squeezed out of the marketplace. I also do not find the Splenda slogan to be patently false at all because to my taste, it does taste more like sugar than other artificial alternatives and it does start with a sugar molecule at the beginning of the process so there is truth in the slogan, even though it may be an incomplete truth. While Splenda may have problems of it's own, I do not want to see aspartame regain it's status as the number one artificial sweetener. I think the toxicity of aspartame is far worse than Splenda and if aspartame gets outcompeted in the marketplace then so be it. We can deal with Splenda later after aspartame is gone.

re: Lawsuit Against Splenda Moves Forward

ThomasT — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:35:07 GMT

The main problem is that most of the population say that, because it has been approved by Govt. as safe, it is safe. When news gets outr that its not rreally safe, the manufacturers conduct a quick animal study and state, you see, nothing going on, not mentining the previous studies nor the reported side effects. It is the same story witrh acesulfame potassium. Most assume it is safe becauuse it is approved. Researching it finds a chequered introduction, initially banned, aka aspartame, then approved. I bought a famous brand whey protein, (should have bought Dr Mercs, I know) When it arriived I noticed sweetened with acesulfame K. Fooled me for a while, till blod pressure went up, sleep patterns went bad, palpitations, and who knows what else at molecular level. The animal studies I dug up showed leukemia, breast, lung and thymus cancers and insulin disruprtion. The agent says, oh, new studies are clean. Usual BS. Shame on Optimum Nutrition for trying to fool me, and YOU..

re: Lawsuit Against Splenda Moves Forward

ET — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 05:37:54 GMT

Recently visited somebody in a new hospital. They had a coffee, and tea bar in the waiting room. The sweetner was splenda. In the basement was a food court type situation with all the good things. Taco Bell, burgers, and pizza, among other junk food.

Is it any wonder that many are obese, and sick in the hospital?

I think the whole economy is built on trying to destroy the population after they take all their money. Then we hear all the rhetoric about health care from the politicians, and how they are going to make it better. They don't have a clue. Or maybe they do, and are lining their pockets as well.