How Sweet It Is

New -- 15 June 2005

The human body seems to have all of the characteristics of being uncommonly fond of sweets. There is something about creme brulee, maple syrup, lemon charlotte, ice cream, cherries jubilee, truffles, succulent fruit, and chocolate in a vast diversity of forms -- to name just a few tantalizing treats -- to capture the attention of taste buds the world over.

It has also been pointed out by various party-poopers and anal retentives that sugar in its many and varied forms can cause an individual to gain a few extra pounds, put on more weight than is healthy, and/or blow up like a balloon. Sweets are inevitably fattening, and thus are considered by some to be less than a good thing.

Bummer.

The consumption of sweets is thus a dilemma -- one ranking with the question of whether or not to wear a digital watch. The sweet issue is in fact a quandary and predicament of staggering complexity. It is in a word: a bitch!

But seriously, the problem may be of major significance to one's health. For example, Mike Adams, for example, has noted the critical importance of blood sugar levels, and the need to create a lifestyle which is actually conducive to health. The "fix" is not a short term, only-when-you-feel-bad attempt. It is instead a combining of exercise and diet on a daily, every-day-of-the week, month, year, life basis. Even the conservative rag, Forbes Magazine [6] has noted the addictive qualities of "high-fat, sugar-laden things" and likened the junk food role and narcotics such as methamphetamines.

The consensus among thinking people is that "high-fat, sugar-laden things" are not a good thing. Sugar seems particularly suspect, and the word is apparently out: Give up sugar. (Which I fully intend to do next week!) It's obviously time to replace sugar with something else -- like for example, healthy vegetables and fruit.

But won't that be hard? Well, the good news (or the bad news depending upon your viewpoint) for the consumers of the world, is that corporations the world over have rushed to fill the breech by providing less-fattening substitutes for sugar so that the paying consumer -- emphasis on paying -- will be able to meet the demands of their sweet tooth while simultaneously gaining less weight. From a profoundly philosophical viewpoint, the corporate world is relishing the opportunity to eliminate the consumer's need to pay the price of their actions. Instead of eating sweets and getting fat; they can now eat sweets and get less fat.

There's just one problem. The sugar substitutes have horrendous side effects -- the degree to which some would be better classified as poisons.

Double Bummer!

Take for example Aspartame. Please!

Okay, so most consumers concerned with their health have recognized the problem with Aspartame. No problem. Just try a few other lovelies, like Splenda, Saccarin, Equal, Nutra sweet, Sweet and Safe, Canderal, etceteras. [There seems to be no end to the variations on sweet sounding names which include toxicity at absolutely no additional cost to the consumer.]

Take, for example, Splenda. According to the Manufacturers of this product,

"SPLENDA(R) No Calorie Sweetner is made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar." it also allegedly has "No calories, Suitable for people with diabetes, Can be used in any food and beverage, and Stays sweet during cooking and baking." [1]

"Imagine chewy cookies, fluffy meringues, moist cakes -- with all the sweet, satisfying flavor and only half the sugar." It's just "Pure-Magic^TM!" [1]

That's right, the manufacturers of Splenda have trademarked the words "pure-magic". It's enough to make you pause and think.

Meanwhile, the Sucralose Toxicity Information Center [2] has a slightly different take on this particular form of trademarked "pure-magic".

"Splenda, also known as sucralose, is artificial sweetener which is a chlorinated sucrose derivative."

"The manufacturer claims that the chlorine added to sucralose is similar to the chlorine atom in the salt (NaCl) molecule. That is not the case. Sucralose may be more like ingesting tiny amounts of chlorinated pesticides, but we will never know without long-term, independent human research." [emphasis added]

Conclusion: "While it is unlikely that sucralose is as toxic as the poisoning people are experiencing from Monsanto's aspartame, it is clear from the hazards seen in pre-approval research and from its chemical structure that years or decades of use may contribute to serious chronic immunological or neurological disorders."

The sucralose question is similar to the aspartame situation 15 years ago. I.e.

1. Pre-approval test indicated potential toxicity of sucralose.
2. There are no *independent* controlled human studies on sucralose (similar to 15 years ago for aspartame).
3. There are no long-term (12-24 months) human studies of sucralose's effects.
4. There is no monitoring of health effects. It took government agencies decades to agree that there were countless thousands of deaths from tobacco. Why? Simply because there had been no monitoring or epidemiological studies. Without such monitoring and studies, huge effects can easily go unnoticed. [2]

Apparently, this stuff is just not good for you.

NNNNNMMMMMNNNNNMMMMMN  

The good news, however, is that there are alternatives. One of the better sources is the Healthier Sweetner Resources list [3], which includes a Healthy Sweetener Use Guide. This charming guide lists the bad guys as well as the good guys. My personal favorite among the good guys, incidentally, is Fructooligosaccharides (FOS) -- not because I've ever tried it, but just because of the name. It really sounds like a lot of fun.]

However, this does not necessarily mean that we're out of the foods just yet. For examples:

1. "Aspartame can be found on the ingredients list in the following products:

 

Soft drinks, over-the-counter drugs & prescription drugs (very common and listed under "inactive ingredients"), vitamin & herb supplements, yogurt, instant breakfasts, candy, breath mints, cereals, sugar-free chewing gum, cocoa mixes, coffee beverages, instant breakfasts, gelatin desserts, frozen desserts, juice beverages, laxatives, milk drinks, shake mixes, tabletop sweeteners, tea beverages, instant teas and coffees, topping mixes, wine coolers, etc." [laxatives?]

"...many people do not realize that their children may be given aspartame -- or other artificial sweetener -- containing foods or drugs at school without their knowledge. (Note: In some countries such as Australia, the word "aspartame" may not appear on the label, but the phrase "Phenylketonurics: Contains Phenylalanine" appears instead.)"

"Many health food stores have banned artificial sweeteners (especially aspartame) for obvious reasons. But it is still important to check labels as some health food stores are unknowingly selling aspartame, acesulfame-k, and sucralose! [3]

2. Manufacturers can be exceptionally sneaky. (Oh! Big Surprise!) For example, there is one of the "good sugar substitutes" called Xylitol [4]. This beauty "called 'wood sugar,' is the alcohol form of xylose. It occurs naturally in straw, corncobs, fruit, vegetables, cereals, mushrooms, and some seaweeds. For use in food manufacturing, xylitol is extracted from birch wood chips. Xylitol is used as a sweetener in chewing gums and other dietetic products."

Unfortunately, the good reputation of xylitol is now being used to deceive consumers. Trident Sugarless Gum [5], for example, includes in big letters xylitol, but also contains either aspartame or sucralose in small letters. One must wonder on what basis 4 out of 5 dentists are recommending Trident to their patients who chew gum.

Yes, Virginia, there is sucralose(*) born every minute.

(*) Pronounced "suc-ker-lose" (with, of course, the "lose" being silent).

And if all of the above doesn't just frost your eyebrows, What's Now Netscape reported on June 13, 2005 the results of a 26-year long study by researchers at the San Antonio Heart Study group at the University of Texas Health Science Center. With participants aged 25 to 64, those who drink diet sodas are more likely to be overweight. Specifically:

"Over the course of the study, 32.7 percent of all participants became overweight or obese.
"Of those who had two or more regular soft drinks a day, 47.2 percent became overweight or obese.
"Of those who had two or more diet soft drinks a day, 57.1 percent became overweight or obese."

Obviously, soft drinks have a very strong tendency to cause people to be overweight, while diet soft drinks -- with their aspartame, splenda, etceteras -- have an even stronger tendency to cause people to be overweight. Incredibly the politically correct researchers avoided the temptation to blame diet soft drinks on weight gain -- "our findings do not prove that diet soft drinks cause people to gain weight" -- which I am sure that the diet soda drink manufacturers and providers sincerely appreciate. Still, the numbers really speak for themselves.

In the end, the name of the game is consumer beware. Read the ingredients labels and reject anything with aspartame, sucralose, etceteras. In fact reject anything which has any ingredient which you don't know about. Use the Internet to become an educated consumer. Just the sheer amount of energy used in finding out the absolute necessity of eating natural will probably cause you to eat (natural) chocolate and lose weight simultaneously.

___________________________

[1] http://www.splenda.com.

[6] Daniel Fisher, "Food on the Brain", Forbes, January 10, 2005.