25 Days of SHUT THE F@#K UP – Day 4

Day 4: That stuff is BAD for you.

I carry around a small container of liquid sucralose and I put that shit in everything – coffee, tea, recipes. But people can’t help telling me how that these artificial sweeteners are “no good for you” and that they are more harmful than sugar.

And as you all know, I am so good at working and playing with others that I cannot help engaging them in gentle corrective dialogue.

“And you are basing this on what study specifically?” No constructive, conclusive response, as per usual. “Have you done some independent research consisting of an experiment using different but homogeneous groups obtained by random sampling intended to isolate the impact of sucralose on peoples’ health?” Of course you didn’t. “And what, pray tell, are the deleterious effects of sucralose? Are they carcinogenic? Do they increase insulin response? Will it make my balls bigger?” Again, nothing I hear in response carries any scientific weight.

Have there been studies done? Sure.

The following article,

http://www.prevention.com/food/healthy-eating-tips/health-risks-sucralose

published in the December 2013 issue of Prevention magazine, makes reference to a 2008 study done in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B: Critical Reviews. It is interesting that the author, Jessica Girdwain, refers to the conclusions as “scary new findings” as the publication was over 5 years old. She also fails to take into account that¬†these findings were largely debunked in a Ferbruary 2009 journal article published in the Journal of Regulatory Toxicology.¬†According to this article, an Expert Panel had found that the previous study was “deficient in several critical areas” and that its conclusions “are not consistent with published literature and not supported by the data presented.” In other words, a contributor to a magazine article (magazines: not trustworthy sources of information) wrote a new article based on old information that was shown to be inaccurate 4 years before she even wrote the article. THIS IS WHY YOU NEED CRITICAL LITERACY, PEOPLE! Anyway, I digress. Where was I? Oh yeah, studies on sucralose. In a more recent study published in a journal called Diabetes Care article featured in the huffington post,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/03/splenda-blood-sugar-sucralose-insulin_n_3362122.html

shows that consuming sucralose may increase the insulin response by 20%. (I really don’t care to get into how this affects the body, look it up.) Curious about this, I went to the actual article, trying to find the type of sucralose consumed – was it pure sucralose or Splenda packets? I did not see an indication either way. Why is this important?

It is important because if you’ve ever looked at the ingredients in a packet of Splenda, there are three ingredients: Detrose, Maltodextrin, and Sucralose. You know what those first two ingredients are? They are fancy terms for SUGAR and SUGAR. Yes there is actual sugar in a packet of Splenda. Curious about why they would add sugar to a Splenda packet, I went to the splenda website and they said it is done to add “bulk.” Apparently, since Splenda is 200 times sweeter than an equivalent amount of sugar, putting an amount into one packet that would not oversweeten a drink would feel like there is actually nothing inside! So there is actually .9 gram (rounded from like .86 or something) of SUGAR-BASED CARBOHYDRATE in a packet of Splenda. There are 4 grams of carbohydrate in a teaspoon of sugar. .8 is 20% of 4, that is prety damn close. Is it not possible that the sugar contained in a Splenda packet may have been responsible for the 20% increase in the insulin response? This of course hinges on whether this was pure sucralose (like the liquid sucralose I use) or Splenda packets.

So what is my conclusion? Splenda has been shown not to be unsafe thus far. Does that mean it is 100% safe? Maybe. Just because they haven’t come up with evidence that it’s bad for you, doesn’t mean it is good for you. Case in point: they didn’t have enough information to prove that smoking was bad for you until… the 60s? But I’m fairly sure it was bad for you in the 1930s. Splenda may someday prove to be bad for you. My point is simply this: It has not shown to be so thus far, so why don’t you shut the fuck up, you ignorant know-nothing. Stop saying things are bad for you when facts that prove they are simply do not exist as yet. You don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. Stop embarrassing yourself and shut your hole.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *