Guess Who's Joined in the Splenda Fight?


American sugar cane and beet farmers have developed a new Web site devoted to spreading the "Truth About Splenda."

The site will post comments from Americans who feel misled by Splenda advertisements and will provide a forum for people to share their experiences with the chlorinated artificial sweetener.

The Web site,, was launched in 2005 in response to Splenda's marketing campaign that incorrectly touted Splenda as natural.

Thousands Have Already Posted Comments

Since its launch, thousands of people have submitted comments to the site. Some have spoken of Splenda's marketing campaign as being misleading and immoral, while others commented on health consequences of eating the artificial sweetener, how it reacts in baked goods and how it tastes.

The Web site's goal is to help better educate Americans about Splenda, so that the public becomes aware that it is, in fact, a chlorinated artificial sweetener. The site welcomes all comments and hopes to become a useful educational resource for all.


U.S. Newswire December 15, 2005

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

Though I am not a fan of sugar (whether from beets, sugar cane or otherwise), if I had to choose between sugar or Splenda (or any other artificial sweetener, for that matter), sugar would win, hands down.

That's why I must applaud the American sugar cane and beet farmers who have aligned their views with my own -- at least when it comes to getting the word out about the potential dangers and misleading advertising of Splenda.

Of course, the sugar farmers surely have their own agenda for spreading this message, but I have none -- other than protecting you and your family from this artificial sweetener that bears more chemical similarity to DDT than it does to sugar.

Splenda's manufacturers have gone to great lengths to suggest that Splenda is natural and safe by using the slogan, "made from sugar so it tastes like sugar." But after the sugar has been treated with chemicals like trityl chloride, acetic anhydride, and thionyl chloride in the presence of dimethylformamide, 4-methylmorpholine, and methyl isobutyl ketone, it is anything but a sugar molecule.

By the end of the chemical processing Splenda goes through, it resembles nothing found in nature. This product is not natural, nor is it a real sugar. It isn't even close.

And, if you haven't yet heard, the long-term safety of Splenda has never been established. In fact:

  • There have only been six human trials to date
  • The longest trial lasted three months
  • At LEAST 15 percent of Splenda is not excreted from your body in a timely manner

In the meantime, since there is a complete absence of any useful long-term human studies, I've been researching effects of Splenda based upon information collected from various individual case studies. The following symptoms have been noticed within a 24-hour period following consumption of Splenda products:

  • Skin -- Redness, itching, swelling, blistering, weeping, crusting, rash, eruptions, or hives (itchy bumps or welts). This is the most common allergic symptom that people have.
  • Lungs -- Wheezing, tightness, cough, or shortness of breath.
  • Head -- Swelling of the face, eyelids, lips, tongue, or throat; headaches and migraines (severe headaches).
  • Nose -- Stuffy nose, runny nose (clear, thin discharge), sneezing.
  • Eyes -- Red (bloodshot), itchy, swollen, or watery.
  • Stomach -- Bloating, gas, pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or bloody diarrhea.
  • Heart -- Palpitations or fluttering.
  • Joints -- Joint pains or aches.
  • Neurological -- Anxiety, dizziness, spaced-out sensation, depression.

In a nutshell, Splenda is simply not as perfectly safe as the manufacturers would have you believe.

If you are still using Splenda, I urge you to take a look through the Web site above, and then check out the pages of testimonials from our own readers who feel they have been harmed by Splenda -- then decide if using this largely experimental product is really worth the risk.

Related Articles:

Print :: Close