A different viewpoint
And a sort of differing view on Splenda than the previous post I made:
Splenda is Safe Despite Hype, Expert Says
First there was saccharine, then aspartame.
Now, Splenda is the latest flashpoint in a fiercely contentious debate that has raged for decades over whether artificial sweeteners are safe.
In the view of many scientists, they are --- safe, that is. Among them is Dr. Jean Weese, an Alabama Cooperative Extension System food scientist and Auburn University professor of nutrition and food science, who, like so many foods safety experts, believes Splenda is but the latest red herring in a largely pointless debate over sweeteners.
She points to the ultimate exoneration of saccharine and aspartame as proof that Splenda, too, will ultimately pass muster. Indeed, as far as Weese is concerned, it already has.
The concept behind Splenda is not new, she says. In fact, scientists have been experimenting with it for more than 20 years.
One of the biggest sticking points among critics is how Splenda is made --- using three chlorine molecules to replace a group of molecules in sugar.
"Consumers, in essence, get the benefit of taste without the calories associated with sugar," explains Weese. A similar technique, she says, also has been used successfully in the production of olestra, a sucrose polyester made through a similar process.
It's the presence of these chlorine molecules in Splenda that worries some critics --- all the more worrisome considering that Splenda increasingly is being used with a lot more products than coffee and tea. Plans are under way to incorporate the Splenda in a variety of products, including diet soft drinks, baked goods and processed foods --- a trend that concerns some critics.
Weese says the concerns are misplaced.
"Splenda is designed so that the chlorine molecules remain tightly bound," she explains. "Along with the rest of the product, they pass through the body without being digested."
You're going to get more chlorine out of the tap water in coffee or iced tea than you are from the Splenda used to sweeten them," she says.
It's precisely the versatility afforded by these chlorine molecules that accounts for why the product is so successful, she says.
"We always been searching for an alternative Sweetener with all of the properties of sugar without the calories," Weese says. Splenda is that product."
"You can cook it and jump up and down on it and it still tastes sweet."
Other sweeteners, such as aspartame, lack this versatility. While aspartame may taste sweet, it's a protein, and can't be cooked like sugar --- or, for that matter, Splenda, a sugar-derived product, she says.
The recent controversy surrounding Splenda, she believes, reflects a pattern than is repeated virtually every time a new sweetening substitute is released --- one associated with saccharine and, more recently, with aspartame, until subsequent investigations confirmed the safety of both products.
In the 1970s, the Food and Drug Administration seriously considered banning saccharine after a Canadian study revealed that it caused bladder cancer in laboratory rats. Loud outcries from consumers prevented an outright ban of the product, though for a time, the FDA required a warning label that read, "Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. The product contains saccharin which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals."
Subsequent research, however, revealed that male rats possess a particular pH factor that predisposes them to bladder cancer --- one lacking in humans.
Moreover, despite repeated assertions by critics that aspartame contributes to a higher risk of developing brain cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome, the FDA concluded long ago that aspartame is safe for the general population.
[Source: Dr. Jean Weese, Alabama Cooperative Extension System Food Scientist and Auburn University Professor of Nutrition and Food Science, (334) 844-3269.]
When it comes to sweetening our foods, boy do we have problems. We have to make the best choice. Refined sugar is not one of them, Splenda is in the same category (but yet not actually tested foundationally to be UNSAFE) so we have to make the best choices out of a bad choice set.
And a sort of differing view on Splenda than the previous post I made:
Splenda is Safe Despite Hype, Expert Says
First there was saccharine, then aspartame.
Now, Splenda is the latest flashpoint in a fiercely contentious debate that has raged for decades over whether artificial sweeteners are safe.
In the view of many scientists, they are --- safe, that is. Among them is Dr. Jean Weese, an Alabama Cooperative Extension System food scientist and Auburn University professor of nutrition and food science, who, like so many foods safety experts, believes Splenda is but the latest red herring in a largely pointless debate over sweeteners.
She points to the ultimate exoneration of saccharine and aspartame as proof that Splenda, too, will ultimately pass muster. Indeed, as far as Weese is concerned, it already has.
The concept behind Splenda is not new, she says. In fact, scientists have been experimenting with it for more than 20 years.
One of the biggest sticking points among critics is how Splenda is made --- using three chlorine molecules to replace a group of molecules in sugar.
"Consumers, in essence, get the benefit of taste without the calories associated with sugar," explains Weese. A similar technique, she says, also has been used successfully in the production of olestra, a sucrose polyester made through a similar process.
It's the presence of these chlorine molecules in Splenda that worries some critics --- all the more worrisome considering that Splenda increasingly is being used with a lot more products than coffee and tea. Plans are under way to incorporate the Splenda in a variety of products, including diet soft drinks, baked goods and processed foods --- a trend that concerns some critics.
Weese says the concerns are misplaced.
"Splenda is designed so that the chlorine molecules remain tightly bound," she explains. "Along with the rest of the product, they pass through the body without being digested."
You're going to get more chlorine out of the tap water in coffee or iced tea than you are from the Splenda used to sweeten them," she says.
It's precisely the versatility afforded by these chlorine molecules that accounts for why the product is so successful, she says.
"We always been searching for an alternative Sweetener with all of the properties of sugar without the calories," Weese says. Splenda is that product."
"You can cook it and jump up and down on it and it still tastes sweet."
Other sweeteners, such as aspartame, lack this versatility. While aspartame may taste sweet, it's a protein, and can't be cooked like sugar --- or, for that matter, Splenda, a sugar-derived product, she says.
The recent controversy surrounding Splenda, she believes, reflects a pattern than is repeated virtually every time a new sweetening substitute is released --- one associated with saccharine and, more recently, with aspartame, until subsequent investigations confirmed the safety of both products.
In the 1970s, the Food and Drug Administration seriously considered banning saccharine after a Canadian study revealed that it caused bladder cancer in laboratory rats. Loud outcries from consumers prevented an outright ban of the product, though for a time, the FDA required a warning label that read, "Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. The product contains saccharin which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals."
Subsequent research, however, revealed that male rats possess a particular pH factor that predisposes them to bladder cancer --- one lacking in humans.
Moreover, despite repeated assertions by critics that aspartame contributes to a higher risk of developing brain cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome, the FDA concluded long ago that aspartame is safe for the general population.
[Source: Dr. Jean Weese, Alabama Cooperative Extension System Food Scientist and Auburn University Professor of Nutrition and Food Science, (334) 844-3269.]
When it comes to sweetening our foods, boy do we have problems. We have to make the best choice. Refined sugar is not one of them, Splenda is in the same category (but yet not actually tested foundationally to be UNSAFE) so we have to make the best choices out of a bad choice set.
Last edited:
