Did you know SPLENDA is POISION ??

Did you know SPLENDA is POISION ??

Created by truthaboutsplenda com on Sep 22, 2008

430 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes!

Not sure

No

“Jersey Girl ”

Since: Sep 08

Jersey Baby!!!

#123 Oct 1, 2008
BloodyViking wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't also go to fake butter did you? Many of those actually have more calories, and worse health effects (trans fats and palm oils) than real butter does.
And remember, once your daughter hits full mobility, she will help you burn those calories chasing after her. ;-)
no i use real butter i dont like the taste of fake butter my mom used it its gross shes already starting to move so ive lost weight chasing her around lol

“Jersey Girl ”

Since: Sep 08

Jersey Baby!!!

#124 Oct 1, 2008
Jennifer wrote:
<quoted text>
That's great I'm sure you're a great mom! I'm so glad to hear you are looking out for your health and the health of your beautiful baby.
thanks im trying its just hard cuz there are so many bad products out there and im not going to buy organic food to me thats a waste of money i can get more healthy food for the same price as a little bit of organic but i try to keep things healthy lol on a tight food budget its hard lol

“Hi Haters!”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#126 Oct 2, 2008
No, I bought 100% pure Stevia over at Trader Joes for about $5.99 for a box of 100 packets. I put one packet in my 20oz. coffee and I have to say that it was pretty good. Not as sweet as the artificial sweeteners but a little sweeter than pure sugar. It has a slight after taste similiar to artificial sweeteners, IMO. All in all, not a bad alternative.
JimmMotyka wrote:
<quoted text>
A quick note: stevia is stronger than sugar. You may only need 1/4 to 1/3 of what you typically use.
Do not get Truvia. It's a GMO version of Stevia. They had to alter it so they could patent it.

“Hi Haters!”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#127 Oct 2, 2008
Has anyone here cooked or baked with Stevia? If you have, did you find that it altered the flavor of your recipe much?

“Hi Haters!”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#128 Oct 2, 2008
I know, you're telling me; food prices are out of control. I'm not sure where in Jersey you live but I've found some really good deals buying my produce at local farmer's markets and fruit stands. In some cases, I've gotten produce for half of what I'd have to pay in a supermarket for the same exact thing.
loveblkmen wrote:
<quoted text> thanks im trying its just hard cuz there are so many bad products out there and im not going to buy organic food to me thats a waste of money i can get more healthy food for the same price as a little bit of organic but i try to keep things healthy lol on a tight food budget its hard lol
resident

Jamestown, KY

#129 Oct 2, 2008
Jennifer wrote:
<quoted text>
No Idiot!
Obviously, you have not read anything on this web site. It says to use unprocessed natural organic REAL Sugar.
So what exactly is your solution for those of us where "natural organic REAL Sugar" will kill us? Just dont eat anything?
BloodyViking

United States

#130 Oct 2, 2008
Jennifer wrote:
<quoted text>
There now, you are coming around. Surely we don't need to injest chlorocarbons.
Had you actually read my posts carefully, you would have noticed that I have never said anything in support of Splenda use. All I have done is attack the invalid and incorrect arguments being used against it, which is only a subset of the arguments presented.

I have not argued with all of claims, only the ones that were blatantly false. Your last set of posts were much better, and though there are a few dubious assumptions scattered in there I haven't seen anything that screams for a rebuttal, for example (though you really should properly reference your source(s)). It is only the blatantly absurd statements (like that it is poison just because it contains chlorine) and the straight out lies (like that Splenda is illegal in Japan) that I have been responding to.

As long as you stick to facts, I won't be arguing with you.
Trisha Adams

United States

#132 Oct 2, 2008
BloodyViking wrote:
<quoted text>
Had you actually read my posts carefully, you would have noticed that I have never said anything in support of Splenda use. All I have done is attack the invalid and incorrect arguments being used against it, which is only a subset of the arguments presented.
I have not argued with all of claims, only the ones that were blatantly false. Your last set of posts were much better, and though there are a few dubious assumptions scattered in there I haven't seen anything that screams for a rebuttal, for example (though you really should properly reference your source(s)). It is only the blatantly absurd statements (like that it is poison just because it contains chlorine) and the straight out lies (like that Splenda is illegal in Japan) that I have been responding to.
As long as you stick to facts, I won't be arguing with you.
MORE BS from the GREEDY Corporate USA!
Trisha Adams

United States

#133 Oct 2, 2008
SPLENDA OR SPLEN-DUD

By
Michael A Corey, Ph.D.

Unfortunately, Splenda is far from being an ideal artificial sweetener, as its proponents
have repeatedly proclaimed it to be. To the contrary, Splenda belongs to a larger class of
3 chemical substances called “chlorinated hydrocarbons,” or more specifically
“chlorocarbons,” which are well known for their widespread toxicity in humans.

The insecticides DDT and chlordane (both of which have been banned in the United
States) also belong to this very same class of chemical substances, as does the
carcinogenic dry cleaning fluid known as “perchloroethylene.” This fact alone gives us a
very good reason for questioning the overall safety of Splenda in the human diet—
because chemicals that belong to a larger class of chemical substances all tend to share
the very same chemical properties.
Trisha Adams

United States

#134 Oct 2, 2008
The proper chemical nomenclature for sucralose is “trichlorogalactosucrose.”
Structurally speaking, the closest substance to Splenda is an insecticide of the chlorinated
hydrocarbon family. But who in their right mind would want to eat a “sweet” substance
whose closest chemical relative is an insecticide of the chlorohydrocarbon family?.
Perhaps this is even why insecticides are attracted to this poison so readily—because it is
sweet to the taste!

The proper chemical nomenclature for sucralose is “trichlorogalactosucrose.” Structurally speaking, the closest substance to Splenda is an insecticide of the chlorinated hydrocarbon family. But who in their right mind would want to eat a “sweet” substancewhose closest chemical relative is an insecticide of the chlorohydrocarbon family? Perhaps this is even why insecticides are attracted to this poison so readily—because it is sweet to the taste!

One of the central issues of contention with the manufacturer is their claim that sucralose is not fat soluble and thus poses little long-term risks. Sucralose is a new molecule, hoever, and as such there has yet to be widespread research on its solubility.

However, we do know that sucralose is a chlorinated hydrocarbon, and, virtually all chlorinated hydrocarbons have some fat-soluble properties to them1 In an article entitled “Spotlight on Chlorinated Hydrocarbons,” the distighished independent researcher Nicholas P. Cheremisinoff, Ph.D. wrote that “all chlorinated hydrocarbons, being fat soluble, can reside in body fat for a long time and get biomagnified through the food chain in the course of time.2 This is one of the reasons why we are concerned about the potential toxicity of sucralose.
Trisha Adams

United States

#135 Oct 2, 2008
Scientific Basis for Splenda Toxicity

Google Video

http://video.google.com/videoplay...

---

Biological Warfare Agent - DDT/ POSION

“Jersey Girl ”

Since: Sep 08

Jersey Baby!!!

#136 Oct 2, 2008
NJGirl72 wrote:
I know, you're telling me; food prices are out of control. I'm not sure where in Jersey you live but I've found some really good deals buying my produce at local farmer's markets and fruit stands. In some cases, I've gotten produce for half of what I'd have to pay in a supermarket for the same exact thing.
<quoted text>
o yeah its out of controll

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#137 Oct 2, 2008
Trisha Adams wrote:
<quoted text>
IT CONTAINS CHLORINE!!! MAKING IT A POSION!!!
Your rant is nothing but IGNORANT! And you are not credible one bit.
You must work for one of those Greedy Chemical Companies, who don't care if they POSION people!!!
Of course they're all out to get us. The sky is falling. The world is run by an elite group of evil bankers who want us to worship satan. Sorry, but it doesn't make ANY sense. Why would a company want to poison their customers? No company is THAT dumb.

Look at what happened to the tobacco companies when the general public became more aware ofthe dangers of smoking... They took a HUGE hit.

Oh, and by the way you'd have to eat 5,000 packets of splenda a day in order to have any adverse effects on your immune system.

Oh, and there IS no chorline. There are organochlorides, which are ALSO present in peas and beans. Should we also stop eating peas and beans because THEY have organochlorides?

Of course, since I don't agree with you, you'll say that I'm with the big chemical companies, out to get everyone.

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#138 Oct 2, 2008
Trisha Adams wrote:
The proper chemical nomenclature for sucralose is “trichlorogalactosucrose.”
Structurally speaking, the closest substance to Splenda is an insecticide of the chlorinated
hydrocarbon family. But who in their right mind would want to eat a “sweet” substance
whose closest chemical relative is an insecticide of the chlorohydrocarbon family?.
Perhaps this is even why insecticides are attracted to this poison so readily—because it is
sweet to the taste!
The proper chemical nomenclature for sucralose is “trichlorogalactosucrose.” Structurally speaking, the closest substance to Splenda is an insecticide of the chlorinated hydrocarbon family. But who in their right mind would want to eat a “sweet” substancewhose closest chemical relative is an insecticide of the chlorohydrocarbon family? Perhaps this is even why insecticides are attracted to this poison so readily—because it is sweet to the taste!
One of the central issues of contention with the manufacturer is their claim that sucralose is not fat soluble and thus poses little long-term risks. Sucralose is a new molecule, hoever, and as such there has yet to be widespread research on its solubility.
However, we do know that sucralose is a chlorinated hydrocarbon, and, virtually all chlorinated hydrocarbons have some fat-soluble properties to them1 In an article entitled “Spotlight on Chlorinated Hydrocarbons,” the distighished independent researcher Nicholas P. Cheremisinoff, Ph.D. wrote that “all chlorinated hydrocarbons, being fat soluble, can reside in body fat for a long time and get biomagnified through the food chain in the course of time.2 This is one of the reasons why we are concerned about the potential toxicity of sucralose.
Splenda does not contain chlorinated hydrocarbons. It contains organochlorides. Some organochlorides can break down into hydrocarbons, but studies have confirmed that it won't with splenda, or beans, or peas.

So should we stop eating peas and beans then since they also contain organochlorides? I'd like an answer on that.
NP4HIM

Hudson, OH

#139 Oct 2, 2008
hammatime wrote:
Aspartame was never meant to be a sweetener.
It was accidentally discovered by a chemist working on a veterenarian compound that it was sweet.
The active chemicals in aspartame actually are a habit forming drug that should be controlled by the FDA but for some reason(money),the Soda companies are getting away with murder with this stuff.
I'm not a fan of ANY artificial sweetener.
Aspartame compounds can interfere with brain function to the point that they can cause memory loss,depression, seizures and many other ailments that unfortunately are getting diagnosed as other things.
Nutrasweet and Aspartame are very definitely two compounds I will never let get into my body again.
News flash...the FDA is not concerned with our safety

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#140 Oct 2, 2008
NP4HIM wrote:
<quoted text>
News flash...the FDA is not concerned with our safety
What are they concerned with then?
BloodyViking

United States

#141 Oct 2, 2008
Trisha Adams wrote:
SPLENDA OR SPLEN-DUD
By
Michael A Corey, Ph.D.
Unfortunately, Splenda is far from being an ideal artificial sweetener, as its proponents
have repeatedly proclaimed it to be. To the contrary, Splenda belongs to a larger class of
3 chemical substances
"3 chemical substances"? That must be a typo, as it makes no sense"
Trisha Adams wrote:
called “chlorinated hydrocarbons,”
Incorrect
Trisha Adams wrote:
or more specifically
“chlorocarbons,” which are well known for their widespread toxicity in humans.
Exept that the presence of chlorine in an organic compound does not ensure toxicity. Many organochlorides are safe enough for consumption in foods and medicines. For example, peas and broad beans contain the natural chlorinated plant hormone 4-chloroindole-3-acetic acid (4-Cl-IAA. As of 2004, there were at least 165 organochlorides approved worldwide for use as pharmaceutical drugs, including the antihistamine loratadine (Claritin), the antidepressant sertraline (Zoloft), the anti-epileptic lamotrigine (Lamictal), and the inhalation anesthetic isoflurane.[
Trisha Adams wrote:
The insecticides DDT and chlordane (both of which have been banned in the United
States) also belong to this very same class of chemical substances, as does the
carcinogenic dry cleaning fluid known as “perchloroethylene.” This fact alone gives us a
very good reason for questioning the overall safety of Splenda in the human diet—
because chemicals that belong to a larger class of chemical substances all tend to share
the very same chemical properties.
Untrue. The class of chemicals called chlorocarbons is so broad and diverse, that very little may be assumed based just on that classification.

And, by the way Michael A Corey, Ph.D. has his degree in Philosophy, not actual science or biology. He did take 1 year of med school, but based on the flawed conclusions above, I have to assume that it was Not a year which included organic chemistry.
BloodyViking

United States

#142 Oct 2, 2008
What the "Center for Science in the Public Interest" has to say on the subject:
http://www.cspinet.org/new/200804291.html

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#143 Oct 2, 2008
BloodyViking wrote:
<quoted text>
"3 chemical substances"? That must be a typo, as it makes no sense"
<quoted text>
Incorrect
<quoted text>
Exept that the presence of chlorine in an organic compound does not ensure toxicity. Many organochlorides are safe enough for consumption in foods and medicines. For example, peas and broad beans contain the natural chlorinated plant hormone 4-chloroindole-3-acetic acid (4-Cl-IAA. As of 2004, there were at least 165 organochlorides approved worldwide for use as pharmaceutical drugs, including the antihistamine loratadine (Claritin), the antidepressant sertraline (Zoloft), the anti-epileptic lamotrigine (Lamictal), and the inhalation anesthetic isoflurane.[
<quoted text>
Untrue. The class of chemicals called chlorocarbons is so broad and diverse, that very little may be assumed based just on that classification.
And, by the way Michael A Corey, Ph.D. has his degree in Philosophy, not actual science or biology. He did take 1 year of med school, but based on the flawed conclusions above, I have to assume that it was Not a year which included organic chemistry.
Thank you. These people are nuts. I fully expect to see an advertisement about a quack detoxification product posted soon.
NP4HIM

Hudson, OH

#144 Oct 2, 2008
Making the big bucks from every product that is approved by them. BTW, they make millions doing it too.
Their goal is to control the entire world food, pharmacology and wound care market.

They also want full control of the herbal product market.

Their concern for our safety is an illusion. For example, I believe if they were even remotely concerned for our health and safety, as they boast, they would never have approved Vioxx.

Millions died as a result of taking it, and the FDA knew of the apparent and well researched and documented dangerous risks of taking it, and approved it anyway because big Pharma threw serious cash at them, and as a result, got it approved. This is well documented.

Secondly, if the FDA cared about our safety, they would throw out every vaccine loaded with mercury, instead of recommending them to babies, who cannot metabolize even minute levels of mercury.

Oh boy- I probably started a serious rant on this one.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 min UMORONRACEMAKEWOR... 26,355
David Duke: "We're going to take our country ba... 3 min Johnny 60
Dog was hit by a car. Who is responsible for what? 9 min juliakk 8
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 12 min Rider on the Storm 985,709
Why do we live life when we have to die anyway? (Jul '13) 14 min juliakk 302
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 33 min Anthony MN 685,770
News Gov. Abbott suggests 'bathroom bill' is likely ... 3 hr nanoanomaly 5
More from around the web