andrea Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 hello, i've got two questions about it: 1. i'm looking for splenda/sucralose in italy, but it is not distributed... do you know websites that sell it at a acceptable prize? (i mean a prize similar to other sweetners) 2. i've searched in this forum the words "sucralose" and "splenda" and i've got a few results... it seems you don't use it and it's strange imo... i think is a good sweetner... don't you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fallen_Horse Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 From what I can tell there is quite a distrust of sweeteners on most vegan boards. I think Splenda is a fine substitute for sugar, but of course, everything in moderation. I don't personally buy it because the cost is so high, but perhaps someday that will change... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjs Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Choosing between sugar and an artificial sweetener is like choosing between holes in your teeth and holes in your brain. Well, maybe not, but a lot of us don't trust the safety of these artificial sweeteners. Splenda in particular is a recent addition to the market, and there was a good bit on animal experimentation done in getting it approved. So that's probably why you don't hear much about it. I use it occasionally. It depends on where you draw the line, but those are the some of the reasons against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrea Posted June 5, 2009 Author Share Posted June 5, 2009 Well, maybe not, but a lot of us don't trust the safety of these artificial sweeteners. Splenda in particular is a recent addition to the market, and there was a good bit on animal experimentation done in getting it approved. So that's probably why you don't hear much about it.so you don't use it because of ethic reasons?! is this what you mean? instead, apropos of safety... what are your fears based on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjs Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 so you don't use it because of ethic reasons?! is this what you mean? instead, apropos of safety... what are your fears based on?I specifically said that I do use it occasionally, but those are some reasons why it's not heavily endorsed around here. Fears are based solely on suspicion that any new substance can have harmful side effects, and it really hasn't been studied enough to be completely confident of its safety. I do not have any specific evidence that it is not safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrea Posted June 5, 2009 Author Share Posted June 5, 2009 relying on new products is a personal question and everyone makes an own choice and i don't discuss it. non using splenda for ethic reason i admit is something i've never tought about before, but medicines are always tested on animals before and i use them when i need. really, i've not understood if your weak use of sucralose is based on this too (because of the language perhaps), but i'm asking me now if you (in case you agree this way of thinking), or the ones which don't use splenda for this reason, use medicines when needed. i'm not attacking you (noteven before) and no one else, i just wanna understand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjs Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 I don't limit my use of sucralose because it was tested on animals. I don't agree with that happening, but it's hardly the only thing that's been animal tested. I have to choose my battles, and that's not one I concern myself with. But I am sensitive to it and greatly respect those who won't use it for the ethical reason. I personally limit my exposure because I'm not sure it's safe. I do not think small exposures will cause any problems, and very large exposure of almost any substance is detrimental in some way. So, I'll use it occasionally but not excessively. With better stevia based sweeteners on the market, I find myself using sucralose less and less. I'll also use various medications if necessary, but will try less invasive treatments first. Regarding ethical problems in general, for me it's about the relative harm and if it's practically possible to avoid it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrea Posted June 5, 2009 Author Share Posted June 5, 2009 With better stevia based sweeteners on the market, I find myself using sucralose less and less.is stevia legal by you??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjs Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 It has been available in the US as a "dietary supplement" for about 15 years now and two derivatives are "generally regarded as safe" as of Dec 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xjohanx Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 With better stevia based sweeteners on the market, I find myself using sucralose less and less.is stevia legal by you??? Stevia is legal in EU too. Just not to be sold as human food but some health stores here carry it and sell it as "dog food". Some stores don't give a fuck and just sell it and products containing it. Regarding splenda (I'm sorry for reffering to animal studies down below. If you don't want to hear about it stop reading this post here)A lot of studies have been done on different rodents and dogs. Almost all of the studies were ordered by Tate & Lyle (the company that has a patent on sucralose) and never published. The studies were however reviewed by "people in charge" and the stuff was considered safe for human consumption, they used a 100 fold safety factor and set the accepted daily intake.(Funny thing about the european reccomendations is that they are based on faulty conclusions, however the ADI would be higher if the right conclusions had been made so no worries there). Most of the studies were done with HUGE amounts of splenda or sucralose, way more than you could ever consume and they never found any toxicity as far as I know. Most rats acctually lost weight on these diets because they didn't want to eat the food. The only study I found interesting was one done on rats and the dose of sucralose was well in the parameters of the ADI. They collected feces samples from rats and found a negative impact on the microflora (our good bacteria), the feces had lower pH, which isn't bad in itself as far as I know but it's associated with some diseases.The biggest problem I have with sucralose is that it's an organochloride that is extremely stable (they brag about this "you can heat it" etc). Our body basically doesn't absorb sucralose and our sewage treatment works can't break it down either. Granted that sucralose isn't nearly as fat soluble as DDT and PCB but it is as stable. The substance was legalized in the EU in 2005 an last year researchers found high levels of sucralose in european surface waters. What happens with sucralose isn't fully understood but in unaerobic places it can break down to dichloride fructose which is toxic at lower levels than sucralose. It's also a theory (not very well proven but not very well researched either) that the fish can taste the sweetness of sucralose and thinks that the water isn't salty and therefor they do not want to reproduce. Sorry for ranting but the main point about sucralose is that you should be more worried about it's enviromental impact than the health effects on your own body. The whole splenda-story just proves that enviromental councils should have their say when it comes to legalizing new food additives and drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrea Posted June 17, 2009 Author Share Posted June 17, 2009 hello xjohanx and thank you for your answer (...and sorry for late!) reading what you've written, i keep my idea about its safety and it seems you agree with me. you've added the environmental problem that i couldn't considerate until now, so i will considerate it, but the quantity of sucralose i need is really low, i wuold like to use it in exceptional cases because i daily use other sweetners that should not give environmental problem (aspartame, saccharine, ace-K, cyclamate, fructose) unless you would correct me!don't you know any (european or not) websites that sell sucralose? regarding stevia... i really have not idea of where i can find it, should i look for it in animal shops? or in apothecary? thank you and the other guys for help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrea Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share Posted July 17, 2009 I up the discussion because I've recently read that stevia is carcinogenic, but I've not deepened it too much. have you got information about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CollegeB Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Carcinogenic? No way! It is disturbingly sweet though. Order some online from some UK shop or is that shoppe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veganmama Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I don't use splenda because I am not a fan of drinking BLEACH. Ok, that is an exaggeration. But splenda (sucralose) is basically just sugar w/ 3 CHLORINE (yes, CHLORINE) atoms bound to each molecule in place of 3 hydrogen-oxygen groups. So basically, your body can't digest it because it is unrecognizable as a food. IMHO that can't be good. Ditch the artificial crap and use something natural... just tiny amounts of real unrefined sugar (evaporated cane juice) or stevia if you are diabetic(I can't stand the stuff myself though) or maybe some agave nectar?? That's just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xjohanx Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Is regular salt (NaCl) also bleach? Do you not drink water that's been chlorinated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrea Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share Posted July 17, 2009 Carcinogenic? No way! It is disturbingly sweet though. Order some online from some UK shop or is that shoppe?"steviolo" (italian word, I can't translate) is a component of stevia and it is a known carginogenic substance. there is no statistical evidency of cancer due to steviolo (from a japanese and american studies). this is what I've read, I've no sure sources... probably stevia is safe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veganmama Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Is regular salt (NaCl) also bleach? Do you not drink water that's been chlorinated? I don't know about salt... I don't eat table salt EVER... only sea salt if needed, but hardly ever. And I don't drink water from the tap, only spring water... I don't know if that is chlorinated though, to be perfectly honest. I am just not a fan of putting non food items into my body, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xjohanx Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Both contain chloride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veganmama Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 Johan, I guess the difference in my mind is that chloride is something that mother nature thought up and chlorine is something someone synthesized in a lab. To me there is a difference... and I generally try to avoid "food" with additives that that were synthesized in a lab. Call me crazy I am not trying to sound uppity but I just think that if given the choice between Splenda and a tiny bit of real evaporated cane juice or other natural sweetener, I'd go for what nature gave us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beforewisdom Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 (edited) Artificial sweeteners started coming out when I was a kid. It seems to me like I've read articles in the news about every single one proving to be unhealthy if used regularly. The only benefit they have over natural sweeteners is that they are lower in calories. You can compensate for that by using natural sweeteners less, eating less overall and exercising more. You can also learn to enjoy many foods unsweetened. If you give it a couple of weeks your tastebuds adjust. Edited July 20, 2009 by beforewisdom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blabbate Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Johan, I guess the difference in my mind is that chloride is something that mother nature thought up and chlorine is something someone synthesized in a lab. Wha? Chlorine is a fundamental element. Chloride is anionic chlorine. Mother nature thought up both of them, just like she thought up arsenic and mercury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veganmama Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Johan, I guess the difference in my mind is that chloride is something that mother nature thought up and chlorine is something someone synthesized in a lab. Wha? Chlorine is a fundamental element. Chloride is anionic chlorine. Mother nature thought up both of them, just like she thought up arsenic and mercury. ok, I guess this is the point where I fess up and admit that I went to an art school and didn't take much chemistry. The point that I was *trying* to make is that I would rather avoid POTENTIALLY dangerous artificial sweeteners vs. less processed natural alternatives. This is my personal feeling about food. Sorry for sounding uneducated dumbass. I think that BW said it best: Artificial sweeteners started coming out when I was a kid. It seems to me like I've read articles in the news about every single one proving to be unhealthy if used regularly. The only benefit they have over natural sweeteners is that they are lower in calories. You can compensate for that by using natural sweeteners less, eating less overall and exercising more. You can also learn to enjoy many foods unsweetened. If you give it a couple of weeks your tastebuds adjust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blabbate Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Wha? Chlorine is a fundamental element. Chloride is anionic chlorine. Mother nature thought up both of them, just like she thought up arsenic and mercury.ok, I guess this is the point where I fess up and admit that I went to an art school and didn't take much chemistry. The point that I was *trying* to make is that I would rather avoid POTENTIALLY dangerous artificial sweeteners vs. less processed natural alternatives. This is my personal feeling about food. Sorry for sounding uneducated dumbass.That's fine, and I know from your posts in general that you're not an "uneducated dumbass" at all. I just hate when people incorrectly use science to support an argument. Sorry if I was harsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veganmama Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 you didn't sound too harsh I knew I was getting in over my head w/ the science when I started it.... I am actually kind of relieved that you called me on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now