We have a new audio show. Listen here. Also, don't forget to subscribe.
 


Artificial Sweeteners


Sucralose (Splenda)

Sucralose has been proven to worsen diabetes, abort pregnancies, and toxify the liver and kidneys. These are unmistakable signs that sucralose is an extremely dangerous substance, but it is the least-studied artificial sweetener. It is one of the more recent sweeteners from the diet industry. One of the reasons for sucralose's fast-track approval is because aspartame cannot be used in baked foods, for it breaks down at high temperatures into toxic substances, as it does during metabolisis within the human body. Sucralose was hailed to be a better alternative for cooking, but it releases chloropropanols when heated, which are toxic chlorine byproducts.

Packet of SplendaA 2008 study by Duke University titled, Splenda Alters Gut Microflora and Increases Intestinal P-Glycoprotein and Cytochrome P-450 in Male Rats, showed that sucralose reduces the amount of beneficial bacteria (flora) in the gastrointestinal tract, and through this action; it is a suspected cause of inflammatory bowel disease. The same study showed that it inhibited the absorption of "orally administered drugs". Sucralose therefore impairs the gastrointestinal system to cause malnutrition. Significant weight and health issues will manifest themselves, since the malnutrition will activate starvation hormones that can take decades to turn off. As a result, both dietary problems and disease states can be expected to become grossly exaggerated.

The makers of Splenda, McNeil Nutritionals, were sued by the Sugar Association, in response to McNeil's dishonest marketing campaign: "Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar". Sucralose is actually a toxic chemical compound that is synthesized by combining sugar (sucrose) with chlorine to produce something unique. The lawsuit was settled out of court, and the makers of sucralose have discontinued implying that their product is similar to real sugar in taste, substance, or safety.

A report published by the National Institutes of Health stated that sucralose is mutagenic (DNA altering), and that it furthermore induces lymphoma (lymphatic cancers) in mice. The report is somewhat ironic, since the National Institutes of Health is the sister organization of the F.D.A., which has been blessing Splenda for years and doing damage control for its manufacturer.

Aspartame (NutraSweet and Equal)

Packet of Equal brand artificial sweetenerThe California Environmental Protection Agency recently urged independent scientists to conduct new animal studies to further expose the link between aspartame and cancers. In 2005, researchers at the Ramazzini Foundation in Bologna, Italy conducted such a study. The study found that rats exposed to aspartame starting at 8 weeks of age, and continuing throughout their lives, developed leukemias, lymphomas, and kidney tumors. In 2007, the same researchers published a follow-up study that exposed rats to aspartame beginning in the womb and continuing throughout their lives. It found that aspartame caused lymphomas, in addition to mammary (breast) cancers. In 2010, the group exposed test mice to aspartame while they were still in the womb again, and made the startling discovery that the mice developed liver cancers and lung cancers too.

The most respected long-term study of aspartame in humans, Consumption of Artificial Sweetener -- and Sugar-Containing Soda and Risk of Lymphoma and Leukemia in Men and Women, was conducted by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health. It provided evidence that aspartame causes an increased risk of cancer in men, but this effect was not mirrored in women. This finding might be due to the fact that men have higher levels of an enzyme that converts the methanol from aspartame metabolisis into formaldehyde, a carcinogen. The cancers that were observed in the Harvard study mimicked the results that were seen elsewhere in animal studies.

There is strong evidence connecting aspartame to Parkinson's Disease. Aspartate is one of the main components that is released when aspartame is metabolized, and it directly effects the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors inside the brain. NMDA receptor excitotoxicity is associated with Parkinson's disease. Regular intake of aspartame damages these receptors, and this sometimes leads to Parkinson's disease. The 2007 study entitled, Aspartame Decreases Evoked Extracellular Dopamine Levels in the Rat Brain, by Muskingum College in Ohio, showed that aspartame reduces dopamine levels in the brains of rats. When dopamine is dramatically reduced, there is a neurological decline matching that which is seen in those with Parkinson's disease. In 2001, the Norwegian University of Science published a research study verifying that aspartame is both an excitotoxin and a neurotoxin that is particularly unsafe for children.

Saccharin (Sweet'N Low)

Sweet'N Low Single Use Package Saccharin is the oldest of the artificial sweeteners. The Monsanto company was founded in 1901 to produce and market saccharin, so it was the company's flagship product. It was discovered accidentally in 1879 by the chemist, Constantin Fahlberg, who was researching coal tar derivatives. Saccharin is the alias that he gave to his discovery. The official chemical name for it is benzoic sulfimide. The "benzoic" part indicates the presence of benzene. In other words, paint stripper. It is one of the most potent carcinogens, which is especially known for causing leukemias, liver damage, and DNA damage. In the 1960's and 1970's, a growing diet food industry embraced the use of saccharin, which led to its widespread usage. It was ironically promoted for the sake of health, since it eliminated the purported dangers of real sugar. As early as 1977, it was discovered that this chemical is quite dangerous. The Food and Drug Administration swiftly moved to get it banned, in light of its propensity for causing cancers. Instead, the U.S. Congress passed the Saccharin Study and Labeling Act, which allowed saccharin to be sold with the 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 U.S. Congress actually passed a law to specifically stop the F.D.A. from banning saccharin, so it still remains on the market after decades. Canada immediately banned saccharin, however.

In 1997, the diet industry began seeking permission to remove the warning label from saccharin products. As a Christmas present to the chemical industry, the U.S. Congress passed another law specific to helping it on December 21st, 2000, wherein it removed the mandatory warning label requirement for saccharin. Around the same time, the Canadian Government unlisted saccharin as a carcinogen too. The revisionist history now states that the original studies which proved saccharin's dangers were flawed, because the biological mechanism that caused cancers in rats may not necessarily appear in humans. Even if this were true (and it is not), it ignores the fact that numerous studies since have proven the human cancer risk. The link between saccharin and kidney failure in humans has also been repeatedly established, as well as the tendency of saccharin to cause bladder cancers. Infants who are fed saccharin develop muscular disorders, alongside irritability, and brain cancers.

Incredibly, the chemical industry is now attempting to get saccharin (Sweet'N Low) classified as a drug for the treatment of cancerous brain tumors, which it is known to cause. The evaluation of saccharin as an anti-cancer drug means that the chemical industry has implicitly admitted that saccharin is not just a benign sweetener, for only poisons are used as standard cancer treatments. To make their case, they are now even admitting that it deactivates proteins within the body during this type of cancer "therapy". This comes after a century of denials about its effects upon the human body and the claims of its benign nature.

Acesulfame Potassium (Acesulfame-K)

As with most chemical sweeteners, acesulfame potassium was approved based solely upon safety data that was provided by its manufacturer (Hoechst). The manufacturer's own studies showed the tendency of acesulfame potassium to induce cancers. The N.I.H.'s National Institute on Aging published a study in August 2013, which showed that the routine use of acesulfame potassium causes neurological disorders, such as reduced memory. The Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned the F.D.A. in 1996 to not approve acesulfame potassium for use in soft drinks until independent research had been done. The request was ignored. Acetoacetamide, a breakdown product of metabolized acesulfame potassium, causes thyroid disease in mammals.

Acesulfame potassium is rarely used alone. It is most often combined with sucralose (Splenda). It is reported to have an unpleasant chemical aftertaste when it is used alone, so its aftertaste is masked by sucralose.

Comments   

Rich Murray
# methanol from aspartame etc. becomes formaldehyde Rich Murray 2015-09-27 23:19
Aspartame releases 11% of its weight as methanol into the human blood flow from the human GI tract.

Methanol has a human blood half-life of 3 hours, while its potent antidote, ethanol, has a half-life of only 1/3 hour. Ethanol in the blood preoccupies ADH1 enzyme, preventing it from making up to 16 times higher molar concentrations of methanol into formaldehyde inside human cells.

Humans are ten to a hundred times more vulnerable to acute and chronic methanol toxicity than any other creature, as human cells lack protective biochemical defenses against high levels of ADH1 enzyme in 20 tissues making methanol into highly reactive uncontrolled formaldehyde hydrate within the cytosol.

The gradual chronic results for each of the 20 tissues include cumulative random inflamed spots of harm, autoimmune diseases, many cancers, birth defects, and impaired aerobic cellular ATP energy metabolism in the mitocrondria, leading to acidosis from build up of lactic acid from anerobic energy metabolism.

Thus, evidence that this happens for any tissue adds to the evidence that all 20 tissues are harmed.

Methanol comes from wood, peat, and cigarette smoke; aspartame; dark wines, liquors, and fruit brandies; fresh tomatoes and black currants, and unfresh fruits, juices, and vegetables, cut up, heated, and preserved wet in sealed cans, jars, and plastics (due to the degradation of pectins), as well as methanol added to gasoline fuels in Iran and China.

Prof. WC Monte, Food Science and Nutrition, Arizona State University, retired 2004, gives a free online archive of 782 full text medical science references at his site WhileScienceSleeps, and in August 2015 published his peer-reviewed research study on methanol and autism (as a human birth defect):

142 mg methanol weekly is provided by 6.5 cans aspartame diet drink, about 1 can daily, the amount used by 161 moms, whose kids became autistic, over twice the methanol taken by 550 moms who had no autistic kids.

dietary methanol and autism, Ralph G. Walton, Woodrow C. Monte, in press, Medical Hypotheses (now peer reviewed), free full rich text, 38 references: Rich Murray 2015.07.06
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2015/07/dietary-methanol-and-autism-ralph-g.html


within the fellowship of service, Rich Murray MA
Kenneth Quinn
# Erythritol Kenneth Quinn 2015-09-27 23:22
I have read a few of these articles on the different sugars and they always leave out Erythritol. I buy it on Amazon.com and it states on the bag: 0 calories, registers zero on the glycemic index, and non-GMO. It tastes just like sugar with no aftertaste. Since it seems to good to be true, what are the negative qualities?
Sarah C. Corriher (H.W. Researcher)
# Sarah C. Corriher (H.W. Researcher) 2015-09-28 18:48
Erythritol is a sugar alcohol, so you should reference that section under Processed Sweeteners.
Kathleen Scott
# Great Article Kathleen Scott 2015-09-28 20:58
Thank your for writing such a great article. I will be sharing this for sure. I buy raw local honey and grow my own stevia. I use honey for baking and making jams and jellies instead of sugar. Glad to know I am doing somethings right.
David Tutwiler
# on table sugar David Tutwiler 2015-09-29 18:28
I worked in a lab where we used a product called Biocide which means "kills any living thing." It is chlorine dioxide. We wore Tyvek suits, surgical gloves, and respirators in a six percent humidity environment to use it. I remember the manager who refused to wear the gloves had the skin eaten away around the nail of all of his fingers from the Biocide.

If this is what is used to process table sugar, it's no wonder sugar abuse bothers the heart, and every other part of the body. Making this connection is such a new outlook on the matter.

Or "cattle bone char"? Prions will survive that.

Say grace before feeding your face.

Read "Sugar Blues" by William Dufty (one penny on Amazon.)Very interesting history of the global sugar industry from the beginning. Brave the political bias, and it's an eye-opening read- worth every penny (shipping was $3.99.)

I'm wondering if these substitutes are practical and accessible. very interesting article, none-the-less. Type this title in a search:
Sweet proteins – Potential replacement for artificial low calorie sweeteners, or use:
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/4/1/5
Sarah C. Corriher (H.W. Researcher)
# Sarah C. Corriher (H.W. Researcher) 2015-09-30 19:30
You seem smart, yet you haven't learnt the most important lesson. Trying to out-engineer God is why we are having the problems that we are having.
David Tutwiler
# David Tutwiler 2016-02-04 15:55
How do you interpret my words as "trying to out-engineer God"? I made three points with an anecdote, a book, and an article. All in agreement with your article. I would never do such.

My outlook on that is "To walk on water, don the full armor."
Thomas Corriher (Managing Editor)
# Thomas Corriher (Managing Editor) 2016-02-08 11:50
Sarah said that trying to outsmart God was the problem, but not necessarily that you were doing it personally. In other words, you missed the biggest problem, but that does not make you the problem. The point was that for the last 10,000 years, people have been trying to improve nature through sorcery, pharmakeia, and now its being called "chemistry". It's an old story. Throughout that expansive period, not a single man-made formulation has ever had a reasonable help-to-harm ratio for health. Take for example Tylenol as one of the "safe" potions. It damages the liver, kidneys, and the intestinal flora to stress them for years and thereby cause a myriad of seemingly unrelated health problems, including a debilitated immune system. So, was that headache really worth it? Oh, but it gets better. Something that is blacked-out of the U.S. media is that Tylenol, when mixed with alcohol, can kill a human being within hours. It's why there are so many college-age "binge" drinkers who died, because they tried to treat their hangovers with Tylenol.

Anyway, we didn't accuse you of being the problem, David. However, it is precisely the weight of that armor which may pull you under.
Alexandra Schenker
# Organic coconut sugar? Alexandra Schenker 2016-03-13 20:45
I like your article and agree with it, I just wanted to ask you if organic coconut sugar a good sugar is, cause where I live it's impossible to get non processed sugar, but you can get coconut sugar. Any insight would highly appreciated (I suffer from hashimoto thyroiditis) thanks!

You must log in or register to post comments.

The Claimer: The information provided herein is intended to be a truthful and corrective alternative to the advice that is provided by physicians and other medical professionals. It is intended to diagnose, treat, cure, and prevent disease.