7 responses so far ↓

• Sarah Lea // May 12, 2005 at 2:28 pm

  You sold me (and not on Splenda).

• Sarah Costello // Jun 14, 2005 at 3:35 pm

  Some interesting notions about the McNeil Splenda/Merisant NutraSweet/Sugar Association trials:

  Slenda insinuates links to sugar because there ARE links to sugar. Splenda is made from sugar.

  McNeil DOES intend for consumers to realise Splenda as a sugar substitute - as would all sweeteners.

  Splenda is neither sugar nor chlorine alone, but both. It is marketed as a SUGAR substitute (rather than a chlorine substitue) because this is the use for which it is intended. It would not be useful as a chlorine substitute.

  McNeil has NOT marketed Splenda as natural - only as more like sugar than other sweeteners because of its ingredient; sugar.

  Most foods are not labeled using chemical names. This does not mean they are unsafe to eat.

  If calorific value amounts to less than 5%, a product can be known legally as a zero calorie product.

  Splenda’s success has been attributed wrongly and purposely to consumer confusion which undermines Splenda’s genuine success, with the intention to outlaw a business competitor using spin and smear.

  “thetruthaboutsplenda.com” was created by the PR firm, Qorvis, for The Sugar Association, although they falsely announced that their website was launched by “cane and beet farmers, and concerned consumers”.

  Any products using Splenda instead of sugar are duly labeled “reduced calorie” or “reduced sugar” accordingly.

  40 countries and the EU have deemed Splenda safe enough to authorize use.

• Patricia Flickner // Jul 3, 2005 at 9:40 am

  “Dr.” Martinie presents an entire case against Splenda by ponting to aspartame. Interesting. She provides no qualified evidence of aspartame poisoning throughout her discussion, neither here nor on her website, yet when I pulled together research, the amount of methanol that is produced — in the intestines — is less than that of a glass of milk or fruit juice. As a matter of fact, if you’re wanting to avoid any methanol production in your body, you’d better avoid non-clear alcoholic beverages as well — methanol is what causes the hangover. You may as well stick with unflavored water.

  And interestingly enough, Splenda contains no aspartame. So why the comparison? She likes to make interesting leaps:

  * Glutamate, in animal experiments, damaged areas of the brain controlling endocrine function, which led to pathological obesity.

  * Aspartate has the same ability as glutamate to destroy those brain cells.

  Where is her proof? There is nothing that says that aspartame actually does destroy areas of the brain just as glutamate does, yet somehow, she makes the leap and dares to compare without proof. She also mentions that the pharmaceutical companies are so powerful that they have prevented the FDA — a government agency that controls the pharmaceutical industry — from shutting down aspartame. Didn’t know that they were responsible for aspartame since the Merisant Corporation that makes Equal has their own chemists.

  Dr. Martin also points to a study done in Japan stating that aspartame causes DNA (I think she means chromosonal) damage. Where’s the link? I would like to read that study. Now, she is correct that Stevia is much better for you and truly is all-natural. I use it myself. But I have serious problems with off-the-hip shots that have no valid scientific research behind them. In every single article, even the wnho.com site, there are no links to actual research, just that research “proved” this or that. So where is the research? If it is truly there, why not present it?

  All this makes me wonder: Who is Dr. Martini and who does she work for? After reading several of her articles, I believe she is a paid “expert” for the sugar company. If you google “aspartame site:snopes.com” or “aspartame site:urbanlegends.miningco.com”, you will find plenty of information and links to show the exact opposite, including research from valid health organizations, such as American Council on Science and Health. Come on, Dr. Martini, show us the research. Stop treating us — especially us women — as though we were moronic idiots who will believe anything you say without evidence. The only thing I could find evidence for was that non-calory sweeteners can fool the body into thinking it’s not getting enough carbs, and so you end up eating far more carbs than you should. I want evidence, not congecture. And Dr. Martini does not seem up to the challenge.

• Mary Anne // Jul 14, 2005 at 7:24 am

  The following timeline regarding the intruiging relationship between Dr. Stuart Fischer and the Sugar Association openly attacking Splenda should open your eyes to the coordinated effort to destroy this product that so many of us low-carbers love and appreciate for helping us break our sugar addiction:

  The media advisory sent to promote Dr. Fischer lists Qorvis Communications as the contact. Of note, Qorvis is the PR firm representing the Sugar Association. They are the group behind http://www.truthaboutsplenda.com, press releases, press conferences, etc. They appear to have a very coordinated campaign against Splenda. (my emphasis)

  December 2004

  The Sugar Association filed a lawsuit against McNeil Nutritionals, the makers of Splenda.

  January 2005

  The Sugar Association hires Qorvis communications to launch PR attack campaign against Splenda.

  Qorvis says Splenda is Not So Sweet - http://www.truthaboutsplenda.com/news/01-17-05-qorvis.html

  The Sugar Association and Qorvis launch http://www.truthaboutsplenda.com.

  The ‘Truth About Splenda’ Website Launched; Website Represents First Step in a Major Public Education Campaign. http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0112-08.htm

  Generation Green becomes first ì-consumer group to issue press release about Splenda’s marketing and calling for an FTC investigation.

  Splenda Marketing Campaign Seeks to Mislead, Confuse Consumers

  http://www.generationgreen.org/2005-01_lead-story.htm

  Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy issues press release and files complaint with FTC regarding Splenda advertising

  The Sugar Association and Qorvis issue press release. Five Lawsuits Filed Against Splenda; Johnson & Johnson Under Fire Concerning False Advertising and Misleading Consumers About Splenda

  http://truthaboutsplenda.com/news/01-27-05-lawsuit.html

  February 2005

  The Sugar Association and Qorvis issue press release announcing press conference.

  On Valentine’s Day Nothing is Sweeter than the Truth! Press Conference to Announce Latest Effort in Fight Against Splenda’s Misleading Marketing Practices

  The Sugar Association and Qorvis issue press release regarding press conference organized by Qorvis. Growing Number of National Organizations Raise Concern With Splenda’s Marketing Practices; Certain Groups Urge FTC to Investigate Misleading Advertising Confusing Consumers

  http://www.truthaboutsplenda.com/news/02-14-05-growing.html

  Florida Consumer Action Network issues release demanding FTC probe into Splenda marketing campaign.

  March 2005

  Organic Consumers Association issues release asking Splenda ads be investigated

  The Sugar Association and Qorvis issue press release. Dieticians Think Splenda Ads Are ‘Rotten’;J&J/McNeil’s Splenda Ads Win Canadian ‘Rotten Apple’ Prize

  http://truthaboutsplenda.com/news/03-24-05-dieticians.html

  The Sugar Association and Qorvis issue release, More Nutritionists Questioning Splenda’s Marketing Claims; Ads Saying Splenda is Like Sugar ‘Could Come Back to Haunt Us’

  April 2005

  Alabama League of Environmental Action Voters (AlaLEAVs) sends $1000 checks to environment groups to convince them to protest expansion of a Splenda plant. Media speculates that the Sugar Association was involved.

  PAC checks surround Splenda battle - http://www.al.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1114766225317990.xml

  June 2005

  The Sugar Association and Qorvis issue advisory making Dr. Stuart Fischer available for media interviews.

  How about this? It seems the plot behind the scenes from the sugar industry and its allies has been unfolding for nearly eight months in an all-out assault against the makers of Splenda. With such calculated steps being taken by the sugar industry to protect themselves from economic failure because their product is a major contributer in the obesity epidemic in this country, don’t think they won’t do everything within their means to bring an end to their primary competion. Even if that means trumping up false allegations against a good product like Splenda, they’ll do it and never think twice about it.

  This is such a shame and it must be stopped. Contact your Congressman today and ask him to help stop this harassment by the sugar lobby against Splenda. If you are livin’ la vida low-carb and believe Splenda has played an important role in your weight loss and improved health, then you should stand up and make your voice heard. Do it not only for the sake of your health, but also the health of all those who are being needlessly scared about the alleged “dangers” of Splenda. I contend sugar is a lot more dangerous for you than Splenda will ever be. Our voice must be heard on this issue!

• Elijah // Aug 28, 2005 at 11:18 am

  Wow … what a classic case of “Bullshit baffles brains”! Ok, I’m the first to admit that very few products we routinely use are totally 100% safe, but to spend 99% of an article lambasting Aspartame and then insinuate that this implies that Splenda is equally dangerous, is no science at all, in fact Dr. Betty Martini aught to be ashamed of herself!! No undergraduate student’s paper making a case for not using Splenda (presented as she has done) would get anything but a FAILING grade from the professor marking it. I mean really, lets put to gether a lot of evidence showing that Arsenic is dangerous to our health, and then quickly “slip in one sentence that “then so is honey”. Stupid stupid stupid!

  Anyhow, what’s apparent is that there is a huge professionaly planned lobby to stop the growing popularity of Splenda and to try and shore up sugar sales.

  Look around you … what do you see? Wildly obese youngsters and people of all ages - The leading cause of disease, by the way (more than smoking). Now consider that on average we consume 150lbs of Sugar (you know, the one they are trying to protect) each year, and that translates to roughly 75lbs of weight each year. Ok, so we adapt our diets to compensate by reducing the consumption of other healthy foods, just so that we can go on having our “sugar-fix” and some of us get it right, but most only partially do, and each year some of that 75lbs sticks to our bones and pretty soon we are sitting on the beach feeling like whales and wondering where it all came from - drinking a sugar slushie and eating a candy bar.

  Well … now we know why people are willing to try sweeteners. I have to admit a level of discomfort with pretty much all of them - except, to an acceptable degree, Splenda. Why? Well long before (8+ years)it was used in the USA, a country to our north of some 35 million poeple, who have a very sophisticated health-care system and, amongst other things, are responsible for bring us the treatment of Diabetes (They discovered insulin) has been using Splenda (without any problems) for almost 14 years now, with statistically almost zero complaints! Then suddenly Splenda is rleased in the USA and as it looms as a fierce competitor to several other sweetners (especially sugar) it is attacked on all sides. Why? Well the Canadians have no $$$’s at stake in the sweetener market, being mostly consumers, but several very rich and powerfull industries in the USA have a lot of $$$’s at stake in this game. Really, it’s all about money, and they very cleverly will find all sorts of “front-men (and women)” to try to assasinate a viable competitor who is stealing market share (i.e. 100’s of millions of $’s) from them. Now in Canada, all they stand to lose do by allowing a unhealthy product onto the market, is millions of $’s in health bills by their state funded health care system. Ipso-facto: “Why would they approve (and keep approved) an unhealty product that can only cost them plenty while returning no finacial gain to any of their industries?”

  You may wish to read an interesting anecdotal story at:

  http://www.sweety.com/splendasafety.html

  Anyhow, I hope this adds some perspective to this discussion.

  Elijah.

• Lydia // Sep 27, 2005 at 1:26 pm

  Groups in California believe that no matter how safe splenda is, they are still misleading their consumers. Check this out:

  Consumer Organizations Ask Attorney General to Review Splenda’s Advertising Practices

  Friday September 23, 3:08 pm ET

  They Are Asking: Are Consumers Being Led to Believe Artificial Sweetener Is ‘Natural?’

  SACRAMENTO, Calif., Sept. 23 /PRNewswire/ — Two of California’s leading consumer organizations released a letter today urging California’s Attorney General to look into what may be misleading advertising practices by the makers of Splenda, McNeil Nutritionals, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. The letter, signed by Consumers First and the California Alliance for Consumer Protection, specifically calls attention to a series of advertisements that replace the word “sugar” with the word “Splenda.”

  The rest of the press release is at:

  http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050923/sff038.html?.v=18

• Matthew Hong // Oct 4, 2005 at 9:34 am

  ewwwwwww thisis garbage and me too im am a loner lol

You must log in to post a comment.