Free Speech: Splenda Manufacturer Silences Critics
Apparently free speech is not a right where certain corporations and criticism of their products are concerned, comments Robin Good of masternewmedia.org. But are such heavy handed actions as requesting to block internet access to certain articles for all users in a country - in this case the UK - really effective or will they backfire in this age of free flow of information? Robin Good thinks that Tate & Lyle should take a clue...
"In an alternative health newsletter I read came some interesting and disturbing news about free speech on the Internet. Dr. Joseph Mercola, whose Mercola.com website and newsletter are among the most widely read sources of alternative health-care information, has been coerced into blocking readers in the U.K. from reading his opinions about a controversial sugar alternative called Splenda.An article in The Ecologist discusses the legal action threatened by Splenda maker Tate & Lyle. As Mercola explains, "I am forced to block all my comments regarding Splenda from the U.K. Tate & Lyle has assured me they will sue me if I do not. This is largely related to the liberal libel laws in the U.K. What is perfectly legal in the United States is not in the U.K., as freedom of speech is severely restricted over there."
Tate & Lyle, whose researchers developed sucralose (later branded as Splenda), joined forces with multinational firm Johnson & Johnson to market sucralose under the auspices of a new company, McNeil Nutritionals. So you can see why Mercola might feel compelled to respond to a legal threat from an entity with very deep pockets.
I find it sad that a corporation would try to squelch legitimate criticism of its product in this manner. Indeed, I'd suggest that it's counterproductive. These types of situations tend to get lots of publicity, and Splenda's safety as a food likely will become a larger issue. I wonder when corporations will get on the Cluetrain (http://www.cluetrain.com/) and understand that in our digitally networked world, it's better to publicly engage critics in a dialog rather than try to shut them down with brute force.
Silencing Mercola's point of view will only spawn a thousand other Internet critics who won't be cowed."
As we have already seen with Aspartame, the FDA and other countries' health authorities are largely standing by the side of manufacturers, when there are public doubts and complaints of adverse effects regarding artificial sugar substitutes, or any of their 'approved' products including pharmaceutical medicines. Once approved, these things seem to have a strange immunity to critical questions and even to voluminous information about actual adverse effects associated with them. We have seen this with Vioxx, the painkiller withdrawn only after tens of thousands of deaths were linked to it. We are seeing it again with psychiatric drugs that lead to suicide and violence and are still available.
With a public system of health protection that does not seem to function, we might just have to arm ourselves with information and make some conscious choices.
Certainly the suppression of public criticism by large corporations and by the very health agencies that should be policing them is not a reassuring sign.
But as Robin Good has pointed out, in this day and age, suppressing criticism by brute force may not be the way to go. Information wants to be free. Suppress it and it might just come back to haunt you in other areas...
- - -
Life After Aspartame
By Pat Thomas
This article first appeared in the September 2005 issue of The Ecologist, Volume 35, No.7.Aspartame should never have reached the marketplace. But even if the authorities were to remove it from sale tomorrow, how much faith should consumers place in the other artificial sweeteners on the market?
There is not a single artificial sweetener on the market that can claim, beyond all reasonable doubt, to be safe for humans to consume. Saccharin, cyclamate and acesulfame-K have all been show to cause cancer in animals. Even the family of relatively benign sweeteners known as polyols, such as sorbitol and mannitol, can cause gastric upset if eaten in quantity. NutraSweet believes that its new aspartame-based sweetener, Neotame, is 'revolutionary'; but, seemingly, it is only a more stable version of aspartame. This leaves the market wide open for sucralose.
Sucralose, sold commercially as Splenda, was discovered in 1976 by researchers working for British sugar refiner Tate & Lyle. Four years later, Tate & Lyle joined forces with Johnson & Johnson to develop and commercialize sucralose under the auspices of a new company, McNeil Specialty Products (now called McNeil Nutritionals).
Sucralose has been approved by more than 60 regulatory bodies throughout the world, and is now in more than 3,000 products worldwide. In the United States, Coca-Cola has developed a new diet drink sweetened with Splenda, and other major soft drink manufacturers are expected to follow suit. Splenda is advertised as being 'made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar' -- a claim that is currently the subject of a heated legal challenge in the United States. While it is true that sugar, or sucrose, is one of the starting materials for sucralose, its chemical structure is significantly different from that of sucrose. In a complex chemical process, the sucrose is processed with, among other things, phosgene (a chemical-warfare agent used during WWI, now a common intermediary in the production of plastics, pesticides and dyes), and three atoms of chlorine are selectively substituted for three hydroxyl (hydrogen and oxygen) groups naturally attached to the sugar molecule. This process produces 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside (also known as trichlorogalactosucrose or sucralose), a new chemical substance that Tate & Lyle calls a 'water-soluble chlorocarbohydrate.' Accepting Tate & Lyle's classification of sucralose as a chlorocarbohydrate at face value raises reasonable concerns about its suitability as a food additive. Chlorinated carbohydrates belong to a class of chemicals known as chlorocarbons.
This class of chemicals includes a number of notorious human and environmental poisons, including:
• Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)• Aliphatic chlorinated carbohydrates
• Aromatic chlorinated carbohydrates such as DDT
• Organochlorine pesticides such as aldrin and dieldrin
• Aromatic chlorinated ethers such as polychlorinated dioxins (PCDD) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF)
Most of the synthetic chlorinated compounds that we ingest, such as the pesticide residues in our food and water, bio-accumulate slowly in the body; and many cause developmental problems in the womb or are carcinogenic. How do we know that sucralose is any different? Tate & Lyle insists that sucralose passes through the body virtually intact, and that the tight molecular bond between the chlorine atoms and the sugar molecule results in a very stable and versatile product that is not metabolized in the body for calories.
This doesn't mean, however, that sucralose is not metabolized in the body at all, and critics like HJ Roberts argue that, during storage and in the body, sucralose breaks down into, among other things, 1,6 dichlorofructose, a chlorinated compound that has not been adequately tested in humans. Tate & Lyle maintains that sucralose and its breakdown products have been extensively tested and proven safe for human consumption. The company notes that in seeking approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), McNeil Specialty Products submitted more than 110 studies that attested to the safety of sucralose.
But Can Consumers Trust This Research Data?
The vast majority of studies submitted to the FDA were unpublished animal and laboratory studies performed by Tate & Lyle itself, and therefore liable to charges of potentially unacceptable bias.
Only five involved human subjects, and these were short-term, often single-dose, studies that clearly could not adequately reflect the expected real-world usage of sucralose.
After questions were raised by the FDA about the safety of sucralose for diabetics, and prior to approval, a further five human studies were eventually submitted. On April 1, 1998 the FDA approved sucralose for limited uses; one year later it approved it as a general-purpose sweetener. Some questions about sucralose's safety, arising from the data submitted to the FDA, remain unanswered. These studies included unsettling findings about animals, which, when exposed to high doses of sucralose, experienced:
• Shrunken thymus and spleen• Enlarged liver and kidneys
• Reduced growth rate in adults and newborns
In the FDA's 'final-rule' report, several of the studies submitted by McNeil were found to have 'inconclusive' results or were 'insufficient' to draw firm conclusions from them. These included:
• A test that examined the clastogenic activity (ability to break chromosomes apart) of sucralose, and a test that looked for chromosomal aberrations in human lymphocytes exposed to sucralose• A series of three animal genotoxicity studies
• Laboratory studies using lymphoma tissue from mice, which showed that sucralose was 'weakly mutagenic' (capable of causing cellular mutations)
Clastogenic, genotoxic and mutagenic substances are all potential risk factors in the development of cancer.
In addition to these, three studies that looked at very specific 'anti-fertility' effects of sucralose and its breakdown products, especially with regard to sperm production, were also deemed insufficient; this is particularly worrying since other 'chlorosugars,' such as 6-chloroglucose, are currently being studied as anti-spermatogenic drugs. Furthermore, the administration observed that McNeil had failed to explain satisfactorily a reduction in body weight seen in animals fed sucralose and that 'additional study data were needed to resolve this issue.' Ironically for a product that 'tastes like sugar,' McNeil argued that weight loss was due to the 'reduced palatability of sucralose-containing diets.'
FDA reviewers also found that at mid to high doses there was a trend toward 'decreasing white blood cell and lymphocyte counts with increasing dose levels of sucralose.'
This was dismissed as having no 'statistical significance' by the FDA; in healthy animals and humans this may be so, but what happens when already immune-compromised individuals ingest sucralose? Tate & Lyle says that any lingering concerns about sucralose are unfounded and that only a small amount, 15-20 percent, of sucralose is absorbed and broken down in the human gut. The rest passes through the body unmetabolized and is excreted in urine and feces. This in itself provokes important questions.
• What happens to sucralose that is flushed down the toilet? Does it remain stable or react with other substances (for instance, the chlorine used in water-treatment plants, or microbial life) to form new compounds?• Is sucralose or any resulting chemical compound it may form safe for the environment? Is it harmful to aquatic life or wild animals?
• Will sucralose begin to appear in our water supply, in the way that certain drugs have, silently increasing our exposure to it? And would that increased exposure be safe?
Publish and Be Sued
In the face of emerging public criticism, lawyers for Tate & Lyle are already gearing up for a battle. According to attorney James Turner, a key player in the aspartame drama, 'there's going to be a huge fight about Splenda in the next few months... [Tate & Lyle's] lawyers are already on the case trying to shut everybody up.'
It's a tactic that worked well for Monsanto, which certainly used legal pressure against anyone who criticized NutraSweet.
Recently, the publisher of the local newspaper the Brighton Argus considered it prudent to publish an apology composed by Tate & Lyle (or their lawyers) or face a legal action for defamation and loss of sales after printing an article suggesting that sucralose was harmful to humans.
Tate & Lyle's first high-profile victim, however, was mercola.com -- one of the world's most visited Internet health sites. Run by Dr. Joseph Mercola, the site has been a vocal critic of sucralose for years. Instead of carrying freely available information on sucralose that might stimulate spirited public debate, it now carries the following message: 'Attorneys acting on behalf of the manufacturers of sucralose, Tate & Lyle Plc, based in London, England, have requested that the information contained on this page not be made available to internet users in England.' At this point, concerned consumers should be asking themselves several questions. Does the story of sucralose sound familiar? If sucralose is safe beyond any reasonable doubt, why is there such a fervent need to suppress any criticism of it? Finally, whom do such tactics really serve? Do they serve the consumer and the principles of choice, information, safety and redress? Or do they serve the corporate machine and its need to keep generating profits without taking responsibility for the human cost of doing so?
Ecologist Online September 8, 2005
Dr. Mercola's Comment:If you are reading this you know you are not in the UK, as I am forced to block all my comments regarding Splenda from the UK. Tate & Lyle has assured me they will sue me if I do not. This is largely related to the liberal libel laws in the UK. What is perfectly legal in the United States is not in the UK, as freedom of speech is severely restricted over there.
Many have been fooled by Splenda's deceptive advertising practices. But the truth of the matter is, saying Splenda is 'made from sugar so it tastes like sugar' is like saying gasoline is 'made from plant matter so it tastes like brocolli.'
By the time sugar has gone through the elaborate chemical processing, treatment, and alteration required to turn it into sucralose, it has become a far, far different substance.
Tate & Lyle don't want you to know this. They've been doing their best to keep me from telling you the truth. As this article mentioned, there are millions of people in England who are not allowed to read the factual information about Splenda presented here.But Tate & Lyle has not gotten away with it completely. If you're reading this, you know that they can't hide the truth everywhere. And numerous lawsuits have been started against them as a result of their dubious business and advertising practices.
Make no mistake -- Splenda is not natural. It is not healthy. It is not good for you. It is dangerous. If you have any doubts about this, I urge you to read my page of testimonials about the effects of Splenda.
Related Articles:Splenda is Not a 'Healthy' Sweetener
12 Questions You Need to Have Answered Before You Eat Splenda
posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Saturday October 22 2005
updated on Friday December 10 2010URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/10/22/free_speech_splenda_manufacturer_silences_critics.htm
Related ArticlesAspartame Gate: When Donald Rumsfeld was CEO of Searle
As calls for US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign are prompting questions from Senators, about possible breakdowns in the Pentagon chain of command leading to prisoner abuse in Iraq, Betty Martini founder of Mission Possible, an international 'Aspartame resistance' movement, writes to Senator Biden to explain that allowing torture of prisoners in Iraq may not have been the only reprehensible action Rumsfeld should answer for. Martini says that Aspartame,... [read more]
May 07, 2004 - Sepp HasslbergerAspartame: Scientific Studies Link Sweetener to Cancers
The controversial artificial sweetener Aspartame is making headline news, after a recent Italian study linked the common ingredient in diet drinks to lymphomas and leukemias. Aspartame was approved in a highly politicized maneuver involving pressure from Donald Rumsfeld, former CEO of Searle, the Aspartame manufacturer. The recommendations of the FDA's own scientific board of inquiry were disregarded by a political appointee to the FDA's top job, Arthur Hull Hayes, who... [read more]
July 18, 2005 - Sepp HasslbergerThe Dirty Little Secret between the FDA and Drug Industry
$1.2 billion to buy the FDA? What you say never - well read the following. This is yet again proof that the governments work for the industry under the pretense of looking after our interests. Most new drugs are produced with expediency at the expense of safety and efficacy. Frequently they are not as effective as the older one's that they may be replacing... Secrecy & Conflict of Interest Why... [read more]
August 26, 2004 - Chris GuptaFDA Suppressed Vital Drug Safety Information
12 June 2005 - The Independent published an article today which makes the case that vital safety information on numerous pharmaceutical products is purposely withheld by the FDA to protect the interests of pharma producers. In addition to Vioxx and the whole family of Cox-2 inhibitors, other painkillers, previously thought safe, are now found to cause similar effects on cardiac health. The data was buried and partially concealed by the... [read more]
June 12, 2005 - Sepp HasslbergerVioxx Shows: FDA Unable To Protect Public From Deadly Medical Drugs
According to recent congressional testimony, "the FDA as currently configured is incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx. We are virtually defenceless," said David Graham, associate director of the agency's Office of Drug Safety. The quote is from an article published in South Africa, titled Doctor: FDA is too cosy with drug firms. The FDA is the national food and medicines regulatory agency of the US but it has been... [read more]
November 23, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger
