Splenda "Bad for you" says sugar association

[Neecy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/23splenda.html?_r=2&ref=health&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

New Salvo in Splenda Skirmish

By LYNNLEY BROWNING
Published: September 22, 2008

New ammunition has been added to the battle that is pitting a leading artificial sweetener against sugar, leading the two sides to claim fresh grievances.

The latest salvo comes from Duke University researchers, who have published a study that says Splenda — the grainy white crystals in the little yellow packets — contributes to obesity, destroys “good” intestinal bacteria and prevents prescription drugs from being absorbed.

But the Duke study was financed by the Sugar Association, the lobbying group for the natural-sugar industry and a chief competitor to and legal adversary of Splenda.

The study, which disclosed the financing, was posted last week on the Web site of a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, The Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, and will appear in the printed version. But it is likely to fuel questions about the relationship between the private sector and academia.

Nevertheless, a consumer advocacy group, Citizens for Health of Minneapolis, is arguing that the Duke study shows that Splenda is a health threat, according to a statement made by the group on Monday.

The group is scheduled to testify next month at a hearing held by the California Assembly on potentially unhealthy food additives.

On Monday, Splenda’s maker, McNeil Nutritionals, dismissed the study’s findings as “unsupported by the data presented.” Among other things, the Web site for Splenda says the sweetener will not cause weight gain and “may be used as part of a healthy diet.”

Splenda was introduced in late 1999 and over the years has gained nearly two-thirds of the estimated $1.5 billion artificial sweetener market, taking significant market share from rival Equal, also known as aspartame — the sweetener in the little blue packets. It has also helped to push down table sugar’s market share.

The Sugar Association sued McNeil, a unit of Johnson & Johnson, in a California federal court in 2004, contending that McNeil had misled consumers with its former slogan “made like sugar, so it tastes like sugar.” Splenda’s main ingredient is sucralose, which is manufactured in laboratories. While a sugar molecule is used in the process, no sugar, technically called sucrose, remains at the end. Splenda’s slogan is now “it’s made from sugar. It tastes like sugar. But it’s not sugar.”

Also in 2004, the maker of Equal, Merisant, sued McNeil in a Philadelphia federal court over false-advertising claims. The two companies reached an undisclosed settlement last May.

Adam R. Fox, a lawyer for the Sugar Association, said the group’s complaint in part challenged Splenda’s claim to be healthy. McNeil has countersued, accusing the group of defamation.

The judge in the case, Dale S. Fisher of Federal District Court in Los Angeles, ruled in July that the Sugar Association could not use as evidence the findings of the Duke study, which was completed by last year, or testimony by its two lead researchers. The case is scheduled to go to trial next January.

The Duke study — decried on Monday by McNeil as “the Sugar Association-funded rat study” — was conducted on male rats over 12 weeks. The Food and Drug Administration also tested Splenda on rats — a standard process — before approving it for sale to the public.

Mr. Fox defended what he said was the impartiality of the study. “We engaged the services” of the Duke scientists to look into this, he said, adding that his law firm, Squire Sanders & Dempsey, sought out, met and spoke with the Duke experts before commissioning them to perform the study. He declined to disclose the study’s cost.

One of the lead researchers of the study, Dr. Mohamed B. Abou-Donia, said Monday that the Sugar Association had “no input” into the study’s findings and conclusions

[KingLeonidas]

Re: Splenda "Bad for ou" says sugar associaton

like so much dietary information, who knows what to believe, all I know is that from MY experience, SPLENDA has never caused me any health problems, and I'm able to use it while still losing weight in the rare instances I need something sweet. Atkins advocates don't claim to have a monopoly on ALL nutrional facts, the only thing we all know is what works for us, and screw "big sugar" if it hurts their bottom line.

[boonie stomper]

Re: Splenda "Bad for ou" says sugar associaton

ROFL before clicking this thread... LMAO now!!!

[Sherri]

Re: Splenda "Bad for ou" says sugar associaton

Here's a great site to check out the harmful effects of chemicle based sweetners.
Sherri
www.sweetpoison.com

[JimboK]

Re: Splenda "Bad for ou" says sugar associaton

The fact that a company or industry funds a study doesn't automatically render its findings invalid. Much valuable research would never be performed if not for corporate funding. In clinical studies the practice is commonplace from, say, drug companies or medical device manufacturers. In clinical research the investigators subject the study to a rigorous review process by an impartial board before ever beginning. In addition to assuring that human study subjects are protected, the review board also helps assure objectivity and independence from any potentially biased funding sources. Study results are subjected to a peer review process and submitted for publication to a scientific journal, regardless of results. The goal of a good academic research team is expansion of knowledge, not expansion of corporate coffers.

I would hope that university-based scientists performing a study like this, subjected to peer review and published in what I assume is a reputable journal (though I can't vouch for that), would have similar safeguards. I can't see a university as prestigious as Duke or its researchers putting their reputation on the line by publishing junk science.

Mind you, I am not commenting on the study's conclusions. I can't because they aren't even mentioned in the article! I'm sure the sugar industry would have us believe that the researchers concluded everyone who has consumed one packet of Splenda will die 30 years prematurely. It is quite conceivable that the researchers reported their results on the rats without any attempt to extrapolate results to the human population. The point is that I try never to judge a "scientific study" based on media or other second-hand reports. I go straight to the source whenever possible and read the study description, methods, results, and conclusions of the investigators (not those of a reporter or some partial entity with a financial stake in outcome) before deciding. I encourage others to do the same.

[Patrick Swayze]

Re: Splenda "Bad for you" says sugar association

I used to gourge in the zero cal Nestea bottles. But have quit after reading the forum.

[sadie147]

Re: Splenda "Bad for ou" says sugar associaton

The fact that a company or industry funds a study doesn't automatically render its findings invalid. Much valuable research would never be performed if not for corporate funding. In clinical studies the practice is commonplace from, say, drug companies or medical device manufacturers. In clinical research the investigators subject the study to a rigorous review process by an impartial board before ever beginning. In addition to assuring that human study subjects are protected, the review board also helps assure objectivity and independence from any potentially biased funding sources. Study results are subjected to a peer review process and submitted for publication to a scientific journal, regardless of results. The goal of a good academic research team is expansion of knowledge, not expansion of corporate coffers.

I would hope that university-based scientists performing a study like this, subjected to peer review and published in what I assume is a reputable journal (though I can't vouch for that), would have similar safeguards. I can't see a university as prestigious as Duke or its researchers putting their reputation on the line by publishing junk science.

Mind you, I am not commenting on the study's conclusions. I can't because they aren't even mentioned in the article! I'm sure the sugar industry would have us believe that the researchers concluded everyone who has consumed one packet of Splenda will die 30 years prematurely. It is quite conceivable that the researchers reported their results on the rats without any attempt to extrapolate results to the human population. The point is that I try never to judge a "scientific study" based on media or other second-hand reports. I go straight to the source whenever possible and read the study description, methods, results, and conclusions of the investigators (not those of a reporter or some partial entity with a financial stake in outcome) before deciding. I encourage others to do the same.

I completely agree with this, you can't disregard any study because of who funded it...keep in mind many of the low carb studies that have been in the news recently were funded by the Atkins corporation...Like Jim says without corporate funding many of these studies could not take place.

that said, i'm on the fence on the splenda/sweeteners debate...I eat it in moderation...but I also live in a smog filled city, eat non-organic pesticide laden food because it's what i can afford, drive a car regularily on a highway, work in a high stress job, use a cell phone, lived on 'diet' frozen dinners for years, was a pack a day smoker for 17 years (8 years quit). One of these things might end up being what kills me too.

My diet is almost completely whole foods with the exception of sweetners/diet sodas occaisionally. I just live my life and do the best I can as far as living 'healthy' goes, without getting too fanatical about it. Everything in moderation. I enjoy occaisional diet soda, and i bake with sweeteners (sodium cyclamate) as well as putting them in my coffee. Honestly, I'd hate to think I had to give up that one little pleasure as well ...

Just my view of how i look at these debates....