Media Makes Major Blunder re Splenda Coverage

I love AOL, but I am so, so, so disappointed at the horribly incomplete and misleading reporting from an AOL unamed reporter in its pro-Splenda piece, "Top Chefs Sweeten on Substitutes," which was part of its News & Trends: Weight-Loss Facts, Fads and Findings section.

This article — which really is more like a go-buy-Splenda advertorial — will probably send people right into grocery stores to buy the artificial sweetener — one that could be harmful to them.

To be fair, the AOL article does make a concession to the fact that critics have claimed that the motto, "made from sugar so it tastes like sugar," is misleading. It even links to an informative Feb. 14 press release from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, "Splenda Should Stop Confusing Consumers, Says CSPI."

But then the AOL writer — why is this person’s name not mentioned in a byline? — comes out some preposterous statements:

It says that "technically [the motto] is correct."

Give me a break! The manufacturer takes sugar and combines it with chlorine and phosgene (a proven carcinogen), and that’s "technically sugar"? Hogwash.

Even worse, the mysterious AOL writer makes the outrageously UNTRUE statement: "No one questions the product’s safety, and advocates point out that it can be used successfully as a sugar substitute in cooking where other synthetic sweeteners (such as saccharine and aspartame) can’t."

Excuse me? "No one questions the product’s safety"?

Wrong!

I can send this reporter and you, my dear readers, to all kinds of people and organizations, who do, in fact, question the product’s safety!

In fact, they claim that ingesting the substance can be dangerious to your health.

Wait, there’s more! Then the article says, "Splenda has not been found to be detrimental to health in any study…"

Another untrue remark.

Of course, bear in mind the reason for this article was a Splenda-sponsored event in New York City "to show how the new white and brown sugar blends of sweetener could be used for the holiday baking season."

So, I hereby officially reply to this unnamed reporter — why didn’t you have a byline? — that lots of people do question Splenda’s safety.

See the following:

• Splenda is Not a Healthy Sweetener
• The Dangers of Chlorine and Issues With Sucralose
• New Book Suggests Splenda Can Be Harmful
• The Secret Dangers of Splenda (Sucralose), an Artificial Sweetener
• Another Consumer Group Calls for Investigation Into Splenda Advertising
• Two More Consumer Groups Decry Splenda’s Misleading Advertising
• The Potential Dangers of Sucralose: Reader Testimonials
• The Dangers of Chlorine and Issues With Sucralose

Let’s take a look at chlorine, which, as revealed previously, is an important ingredient in the artificial sweetener. I’ll let toxicologist Janet Starr Hull enlighten you:

"Any animal that eats chlorine (especially on a regular basis) is at risk of cancer. The Merk Manuel and OSHA 40 SARA 120 Hazardous Waste Handbook states that chlorine is a carcinogen and emergency procedures should be taken when exposed via swallowing, inhaling,
or through the skin."

Now read Generation Green’s letter, which describes the process to make the artificial sweetener:

"The facts are these:

"Splenda is a chemically created product in which sugar molecules are manipulated through chlorination and other processes so as to be completely unrecognizable as sugar.

  "Following chlorination, a further chemical process is applied using phosgene, a poisonous gas described by the Centers for Disease Control is a major industrial chemical used to make plastics and pesticides.

  "The Splenda label does not and cannot list sugar as an ingredient, as sugar is not   recognizable in the final product."

So, you mystery reporter, do you still stand by your previous statement, "No one questions the product’s safety…"?