Why is sugar industry bitter over Splenda?

The Daily Breeze

Saturday, February 05, 2005

Why is sugar industry bitter over Splenda?
By Michael Fumento


The American sugar industry isn't acting very sweetly. Witness its attack on the non-caloric sweetener called sucralose, brand-named Splenda. While Big Sugar has yet to roll out its advertising campaign, you can go to a Web site dedicated to attacking the sweetener that opens with the image of a little girl eyeing a plate of chocolate chip cookies not with delight but abject terror.

All of which is rather ironic coming from the makers of a product that rots teeth, contributes to the obesity epidemic and makes life tough on diabetics.

(snip)


Ultimately, the real reason BS is so bitter about Splenda is exactly what you'd guess. In the past, non-caloric sweeteners merely stole market share from each other. Because so many people think Splenda tastes better than other non-caloric sweeteners and can be used for baking, it's by far the industry leader. But those attributes have also made Splenda the first low-calorie sweetener to eat into the profits of BS. About half of Splenda's volume growth is coming at the expense of sugar, less of which is sold each year.

'Most costly cartel'

Still, it's actually high fructose corn syrup that has been clobbering sugar sales over the last few decades. But BS won't go after corn syrup so long as that industry doesn't contest sugar's import protections. These programs, according to former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, made the sugar program "the most costly cartel to American consumers since OPEC."

So instead of picking on somebody its own size, BS goes after the little guy. But it won't work. We've tasted the future and we like it.

Michael Fumento, author of The Fat of the Land: The Obesity Epidemic and How Overweight Americans Can Help Themselves, wrote this column for Scripps Howard News Service. His e-mail address is fumento@pobox.com.


Find this article at:
http://www.dailybreeze.com/opinion/articles/1233217.html

Has caused me problems including depression and a weird rash that made a red irritated ring around my neck,It hurt my insides,and I have since stopped using it.It also played havoc with my bodies internal yeast balance.I looked up on the web googling my symptoms and I got this:http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm

I use Stevia almost exclusively now and stay away from aspartame and splenda..
Stevia is an herb and the surgar market and chemical sweetner companies both supress the crap out of stevia.
Wand a no calorie sweetner that is not a chemical,not a "heart medicine(aspartame) or this mutant non-sugar with a molicule "taken out" (splenda). I suggest be really radical,use stevia.
http://www.stevia.net/

Thanks for the info.

We have been using aspartame (Equal) mostly in our morning coffee, and some sprinkle on half a grapefruit, but wondered whether we should switch to Splendra.

Even in your morning coffee it becomes less sweet as it partially breaks down.

You have to apply a lot of heat to get it to break down completely into wood alcohol and other components, so it's only minimally dangerous.

It just doesn't work.

be on this board. :)

:thumbsup:

Simple solutions for sugar sensitivity.
Website Content Copyright © 1998 Radiant Recovery® All Rights Reserved.

www.radiantrecovery.com

My friend just told me about "Potatoes Not Prozac" yesterday, and I was skeptical. I was thinking-if carbs and sugar are the problem, why eat more of them right before bed? This site explains it well. I think I might try it.

substitute and never will.

I use it, because I'm trying to cut down on the sugar.

This isn't the first article that I have seen that talks about "Big Sugar." When I first read about it, I laughed. It just seemed so funny-the sugar industry as evil as "Big Tobacco." But the more I hear, the more it seems like they engage in the kind of bullying and deception that we see in other industries peddling less tasty treats.

this country, not sugar.
I read an article that said the obesity started exactly when all the candies and sodas started using the HFCS instead of sugar. They started using it because it was cheaper than sugar, and it made use of all the surplus corn that was being produced due to the Federal Farm subsidies being given to corn farmers at the time. Someone came up with the great idea of the High Fructose corn syrup as a way to make money out of nothing...and, as they say, the rest is history. ALL of the artificial sweeteners have negative side effects, and our good friend Dick Cheney was involved in getting Aspartame approved by the FDA when testing actually showed it was dangerous.
To see ads on TV using Splenda for use in cooking for kids is horrifying!
Stevia is used all over Europe, where the artificial sweeteners we use are banned. Stevia was at one time approved here for sweetening, but after pressure from sugar and artificial sweetener companies(read Chemical Companies) it was relegated to the "Health Food" Market and is no longer allowed to be marketed as a sweetener, even though it has been used as one for hundreds of years in South America.

changes to my diet. I can eat Splenda like it's candy now. It tastes awesome. I researched it and could not find ONE thing bad about it. It's too good to be true! Their has to be some downfall but I have not seen it yet.