Splenda Isn’t So Splendid: The Toxic Rumsfeld-Monsanto Link
26 2014-11-10 by axolotl_peyotl
Donald Rumsfeld, the very same politician who supports GMOs, is perhaps the singular man who got Splenda onto the market after the FDA initially refused it.
If you have gotten sick from consuming this toxic substance, you can thank him, along with its makers. Splenda was created by the British company Tate & Lyle along with the pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson.
Perhaps you remember when the Coca-Cola company launched its ad campaign to fight obesity back in the early 80s?
This was all part of a ploy to begin the use of aspartame, whose patent was once owned by none other than Monsanto! Ironically, there are numerous studies that show this stuff causes obesity. It doesn’t prevent obesity.
Before they started selling you Splenda, it was called NutraSweet. In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet, as well as Splenda and many other artificial sweeteners.
Is Splenda safe? It depends who you ask.
Let’s look at a little timeline, shall we?
1901: Monsanto Chemical Works is formed.
1976: When Ford loses the 1976 election, Rumsfeld returns to private business life, and is named president and CEO of the pharmaceutical corporation G. D. Searle & Company, during which time he leads the legalization of Aspartame.
1977: Monsanto stops producing PCBs.
1997: Monsanto businesses are spun off as Solutia Inc.
1999: John Hunter is named chairman and CEO.
2000: Monsanto’s Pharmaceutical Services Division is created. Monsanto also merges with the drug-maker Pharmacia & UpJohn Inc., which took control of the Searle pharmaceutical operations, and the current Monsanto Co. was incorporated as a subsidiary in October 2000.
2002: PCB trial results in sharp drop in stock price.
Check out this video for more information.
Dr. James Bowen, a physician and biochemist, says that he developed ALS from aspartame ingestion. He has just recovered form stomach cancer also attributed to aspartame.
Bowen has been researching the product since it was given free reign on the market, and it almost cost him his life. He attests that it is a horrible chemical poison that is really just chlorinated sugar.
What’s even more suspect is that Donald Rumsfeld was on the Board of Directors at Monsanto’s Searle pharmaceuticals even before he helped get aspartame through the FDA, and he has been supporting the biotech company’s plans to take over the world seed supply as well.
The sugar substitute was approved for use in foods as a sweetener in 1998. Before approving sucralose, the FDA claimed to have reviewed 110 human and animal studies, but it turns out that only 2 out of those studies were actually on humans.
Splenda is just the trademarked brand name of sucralose, and this is still one of the best selling artificial sweeteners on grocery store shelves today.
Potential Negative Effects of Splenda
Here are just a few of the negative health impacts Splenda can have on people:
Splenda and sucralose consumption alter the healthy micro-flora of the gut, making it more difficult for your immune system to work as it should while fueling gastro-intestinal diseases. In animal studies Splenda reduced the healthy gut flora by 50%! It also affected P-glycoprotein (P-gp) levels. (pdf)
Splenda alters the efficacy of many drugs. While it would be better to treat your disease with natural remedies, if you are taking meds for cancer or heart disease, Splenda could be interfering with that.
Splenda may even alter genes. This sounds familiar when coming from a company who splices and dices the genome like some kind of freak show. The molecules are manipulated and this may also cause molecules in our bodies to be altered as well.
Splenda causes obesity. This toxic substance alters blood sugar levels and can lead to increased chances of getting diabetes as well as obesity. It tricks your body into eating more, and with more calories, you know what happens – unwanted weight gain.
Splenda shrinks the thymus gland by up to 40%. You need your thymus; it helps to regulate the heart and is responsible for many endocrine functions, including balancing metabolic rate.
James Turner, the chairman of the national consumer education group Citizens for Health, has expressed shock and outrage over new reports from scientists outlining the dangers of this substance.
So, while many studies point to its safety, many others (which as less discussed) have found that these artificial sweeteners are actually harmful. It’s up to you to decide whether to ingest this questionable substance or not.
Further reading:
16 comments
5 revoman 2014-11-10
Nobody wants to hear this. They are hooked on it, so deny that there is any issue even though it took like 5 tries to get the FDA to approve it.
2 zxczczds 2014-11-10
the same is true with sugar, fat is miles better, no one will hear it
1 revoman 2014-11-10
Wat?
1 lactose_intoleroni 2014-11-10
What do you mean "Wat?" Sugar is terrible for you...fat is not (good fats of course). It's not that hard to understand.
1 revoman 2014-11-10
Both of those things are naturally occurring. Yes, bad for you, but not made by a company Rumsfeld ran at one time.
2 lactose_intoleroni 2014-11-10
My point is...sugar is 100% terrible for you if consume any more than ~5-10% of your daily caloric intake from it. You can eat good fats (eggs, almonds, chia seeds, salmon, flax, coconut oil etc) all day long in a balanced diet and actually burn bad fat. I won't even get into the other multiple health benefits these fats provide. There is literally nothing beneficial from sugar and it causes as many if not more health problems than splenda when over-consumed, naturally occurring or not.
1 zxczczds 2014-11-10
We evolved two metabolism, one for the winter when food is scare (and fatty, essentially hunting), and one for the summer when food is plenty (and sugary, essentially gathering). The name of the game before agriculture kicks in is to stash as much energy as possible in the summer, and then use it as slowly and as efficiently as possible to survive the winter.
So when you eat sugar, your body gets busy handling turning the sugars into glucose and shoots insulin throughout the body to kidnap the glucose inside the cells (which also happens to save your life because too much glucose kills... cf diabetes).
When you don't eat sugar your organs don't just get a free pass, instead they switch to winter mode, and start breaking down fats into ketones. Ketones are molecules which can be used as for energy by most cells (some absolutely need glucose but your body will generate it from protein iirc). The thing is there is no risk to high ketone levels in the blood as opposed to glucose, it's completely non-toxic, so there is no insulin like system forcing it into the cells, it remains in the blood stream and whatever is not used goes into urine, lung vapor...
Now here is the kicker. Because sugar is quickly toxic in quantities, it has absolute priority on fat (i believe the insulin starts kicking before the sugar reaches your mouth!), meaning if you eat both, your body will grind the sugar first... now the problem is that with our current diets (including the weight losing ones haha, it's sad...), we never actually reach the fat! The next meal is in before all the sugar from the previous is consumed, so all we're doing is stashing glucose in ourselves h24. If your calorie balance is zero or negative, it's not all that bad (still is, it's literally a drug, addiction, toxicity, mood and perception changes, it has got it all... very very subtle though, and delicious yes i agree), but if your calorie balance is positive, you can ban fats all you want, if you have carbs, you're still getting fat.
Alright one last little secret. Cancer cells are cancer cells because their mitochondrias, which signal the cell death and produce its energy, are dysfunctional. When the mitochondria is dysfunctional, the cell is condemned to draw energy from elsewhere. There is a side process outside of the mitochondria that can turn glucose into cell energy (atp), but it's rather inefficient, so the cells have to draw a lot of glucose if they are going to become a mean tumor. There is no such side process for ketones, a cell absolutely requires at least one functional mitochondria to draw energy from ketones. Ergo... cancer patients with low blood sugar are unbelievably rare, easier to find a coke machine in a hospital. I know it's dark but i don't pick the lighting.
edit: oh also, there happens to be a community within reddit specialized in this, /r/keto, and plenty of threads in /r/science
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1lihmt/beyond_weight_loss_a_review_of_the_therapeutic/
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/c1wfy/more_evidence_that_refined_carbohydrates_not_fats/
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/ig8bn/a_low_carbohydrate_high_protein_diet_slows_tumor/
hell, i'll just put the search link... https://www.reddit.com/r/science/search?q=carbohydrates&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
1 zxczczds 2014-11-10
that's what i meant :)
3 errihu 2014-11-10
Splenda is sucralose, a sugar-derived chemical. Nutrasweet is aspartame. They are different chemicals. This is talking about aspartame, which is not Splenda. Splenda is still poison, but this is talking about the effects of aspartame. Splenda can be linked to a number of problems like kidney disease, etc., so it's bad, but please, people, Splenda is not and has never been Nutrasweet or aspartame.
1 dvrzero 2014-11-10
as far as i know, splenda was created when experimenting with chlorinates; it's a sugar compound with a chlorine atom bound in it. Our guts can't crack the chlorine out of the compound so the result is less (much less) absorption of calories.
It's poison in the same way salt is poison, i guess.
It does have calories, too. If, for instance you go on any diet where you reduce carbs (atkins, et al) splenda is a big no-no since each teaspoon or whatever has 1gram of carbs, which is less than a teaspoon of sugar, but still significant if that's 5% of your daily allowance.
The other studies around say that artificial sweeteners don't actually sate so you'll end up ingesting more calories to make up for the sweet sweet lie that is splenda or saccharine or aspartame.
2 redditeditard 2014-11-10
Shit gives me ovarian cramps within hours of consuming it
2 gaseouspartdeux 2014-11-10
Fuck all those artificial sweeteners and fructose poisons as well. I used to drink 4 to 6 diet sodas, energy drinks and/or juices a day. I got to the point last month where my knees were aching and hips were hurting so bad I could barely walk. I went in for some blood work and my uric acid level was 13.2 where the norm is supposed to be below 8. yeah the doc deiced to prescribe meds for gout and it cleared up in a week. However I cut those out and drank only water from that point. I walk normal now and feel so light on my feet again and I am full of energy like I never felt since I was young.
Just drink water and add real fruit if you want to get a flavor taste. Serious it's a whole better ballgame than that crap being perpetually bombarded on you and you put in your system. You will feel better like you have been cleansed.
-2 digdog303 2014-11-10
TBH people who can't figure out how to deal with and use sugars kind of deserve to be sick.
1 Sniperman 2014-11-10
I think people who can't comprehend why some people have issues with sugar and their substitutes should win a Darwin award.
0 digdog303 2014-11-10
People who think they can cheat nature are the reason this country is falling apart.