Neonicotinoids Destroy 600 Hives, 37 Million Bees in Canada

A bee here or a hive there may be chalked up to chance of a landscaping company with heavy-handed pesticide applications, like the case where an estimated 25,000 bees were killed in a small Oregon town. But when millions of bees are dying at once, in locales across Canada, there may be something more serious afoot. One thing these casualties have in common—recent corn plantings and the related insecticides.

According to The Ontario Post, one local Elmwood beekeeper lost 600 hives, a total of 37 million bees following nearby corn planting. He and others believe the culprit may be a class of insecticides, neonicotinoids, made by Bayer CropScience Inc. A smaller operation in nearby Hanover was similarly wiped out this spring when neighboring farmers began planting corn.

“Once the corn started to get planted our bees died by the millions,” Dave Schuit said, the beekeeper who experienced the loss of 600 hives and 37 million bees. “I feel like we all have something at stake with this issue.”

Neonicotinoids were recently banned by the European Union for two years (a period starting Dec. 1, 2013) so that they can study how they are related to the dying bees in Europe. They are completely legal in both the U.S. and Canada, however.

The pesticides coat the corn seed. New air-seeders launch the seeds for planting while the pesticide dust is blown into the air. These tiny particles make their way to nearby honey operations and the bee population at large.

Purdue University looked closely at the mass casualties of U.S. bees and found, “Bees exhibited neurotoxic symptoms, analysis of dead bees revealed traces of thiamethoxam/clothianidin in each case. Seed treatments of field crops (primarily corn) are the only major source of these compounds.”

Sort of like injecting beef cattle with antibiotics “just in case”, farmers are using seeds covered with insecticides. This so-called preventative use does more harm than good in both cases.

“Large scale prophylaxic use in agriculture, their high persistence in soil and water, and their uptake by plants and translocation to flowers, neonicotinoids put pollinator services at risk,” said an investigative team of international scientists in the research that spurred the EU ban.

While beekeepers used to replace their queens every few years, they are doing it every few months in an effort to keep up with the decimated population. Meanwhile, officials in the U.S. and Canada alike seem content to watch these all-important pollinators die.

Originally posted on: http://naturalsociety.com/neonicotinoids-destroy-600-hives-37-million-bees-in-canada/#ixzz2Xc6DVLqO 

_____

http://www.thepost.on.ca/2013/06/19/bees-dying-by-the-millions

"ELMWOOD - Local beekeepers are finding millions of their bees dead just after corn was planted here in the last few weeks. Dave Schuit, who has a honey operation in Elmwood, lost 600 hives, a total of 37 million bees.

“Once the corn started to get planted our bees died by the millions,” Schuit said. He and many others, including the European Union, are pointing the finger at a class of insecticides known as neonicotinoids, manufactured by Bayer CropScience Inc. used in planting corn and some other crops. The European Union just recently voted to ban these insecticides for two years, beginning December 1, 2013, to be able to study how it relates to the large bee kill they are experiencing there also."

FDA Approves Use of Viruses as a Food Additive

The FDA has approved a mix of six bacteria-killing viruses designed to be sprayed on ready-to-eat meat and poultry products. The viruses, called bacteriophages, kill the Listeria monocytogenes bacterium. This is the first-ever approval of viruses as a food additive.

Listeria monocytogenes can cause a serious infection called listeriosis. About 2,500 people in the United States become seriously ill with listeriosis each year, and 500 die.

Lunch meats are particularly vulnerable to Listeria because they are generally not cooked or reheated after purchase.

Consumers will not be informed as to whether their meat and poultry products have been treated with the spray. Intralytix, the company that produces the virus spray, also plans to seek FDA approval for another bacteriophage product, this one designed to kill E. coli bacteria.

Originally Posted On: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2006/09/07/fda-approves-a-spray-on-virus-to-keep-processed-meats-safe.aspx

Food Poisoning on a Global Scale

Food is supposed to provide us nourishment and health but because of the toxins it contains, what we consume has become a major threat to our health. Some toxic substances are added to our food physically, through adulteration, while some enter our food system chemically, through pesticide residues. And some toxins enter the food chain genetically, through genetic engineering of seeds and crops. Even food packaging can be a source of toxins in food.

While physical adulteration, like stones in pulses, can be removed, the chemicals can’t be. The pollutants will stop entering our food system only when poisonous chemicals are banned. Genetic pollution and contamination of food is the new, big threat to food safety and it cannot be undone. Once toxic genes are put into a plant, they are in the genetic code. There is no rollback. Which is why the debate on biosafety of GMOs is so intense.

With growing consumerism and greed, food safety is being bypassed. The distance between growers and eaters is getting larger and being ignorant about what comprises our food is getting deeper. Traders adulterate food to make more money, and consumers, manipulated to focus on the cosmetic appearance, buy adulterated food not knowing what they are eating. Government agencies, which are supposed to inspect and stop adulteration, fail because of corruption and inadequate support.

We are eating hazardous substances every day. Copper salts are used to colour pickles and canned vegetables green. The craze for the cosmetic appearance of food has created a market for dyes injected in watermelon, peas, capsicum and brinjal. Brick dust in chilli powder, coloured chalk powder in turmeric, and papaya seeds in black pepper are old tricks.

With new chemicals available in the market, adulteration has reached new levels. Apples are sprayed with lead arsenate; turmeric and mixed spices are adulterated with lead chromate. These substances can cause anaemia, abortion and paralysis.

One of the worst tragedies of food adulteration was the 2008 Chinese milk scandal, which was a food safety issue involving milk and infant formula adulterated with melamine. Melamine is an industrial chemical used to manufacture melamine-formaldehyde resin, a type of plastic known for its flame retardant properties. When added to milk, it caused it to appear to have higher protein content. But melamine causes renal and urinary problems and its use in food production is universally banned. The milk scandal broke in July 2008. By November there were 300,000 victims, with six infants dying from kidney stones and other kidney complications.

If the Chinese were using melamine in milk, the Indians are using urea to make synthetic milk. Synthetic milk is produced by mixing urea, caustic soda, cheap cooking oil, detergents, water and a tiny bit of natural milk. It has the colour, the structure and even the fat levels of natural milk and thus clears the basic tests. Synthetic milk can cause loss of sight and hearing and is even said to cause cancer.

Oxytocin is a hormone secreted and stored by the posterior pituitary gland that contributes to the second stage of labour. It has uterine-contracting and milk-ejecting actions. Oxytocin is now available as an artificial drug for use in emergencies. The drug can lead to the rupture of the uterus and, in rare cases, rupture of the womb. While the oxytocin for humans is priced at `15 per ampule, veterinary oxytocin is priced at 50 paise per ampule.

The dairy industry uses it on animals in the mistaken belief that it increases milk production when all it does is make the milk come faster, while destroying the cow’s reproductive system. The cow goes dry in three years and is abandoned.

Not only is the cow harmed, but those who drink milk from oxytocin-injected cows are also at risk, especially children. Oxytocin causes imbalanced hearing and weak eyesight. For expecting mothers, oxytocin increases the risk of post-partum haemorrhage and can inhibit breastfeeding. Because of hormones in food, minor girls are attaining early puberty. Oxytocin is also used for growing vegetables. Injected into a pumpkin or squash, it doubles the size overnight.

Pesticides are becoming a major threat to our health. India has gone through three major tragedies — the Bhopal gas tragedy, the endosulfan tragedy in Kerala and the tragedy of Punjab’s cancer train — related to pesticides that should have woken us to the fact that pesticides kill and cripple.

We are using 750 times more pesticides than Europe, foolishly equating poisons with progress. A study carried out by the All-India Coordinated Research Project on pesticide residues in food under the India Council of Agricultural Research concluded that 51 per cent of all food items have pesticide residues, and 20 per cent had pesticide residues above permissible levels. Globally the figures are 21 per cent and two per cent respectively. Indians are being poisoned at much higher levels than the rest of the world. And these poisons have consequences for our health.

Dr Rashmi Sanghi, a research scientist at the LNM Institute of Information Technology, Jaipur, found organochlorine and organophosphorous pesticide residues in human breast milk. When other researchers analysed the blood samples of women with breast cancer in Jaipur and compared it to blood samples of women without breast cancer, they found significantly higher levels of pesticide residues in the samples from women suffering from cancer.

Even as we have an increasing disease burden due to chemicals and pollutants, there is an attempt to push GMOs despite the serious health risks they pose. We need to assess these risks on the basis of the Precautionary Principle. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm when scientific investigation has thrown data and evidence of health risks. Suppressing research on risk assessment of GMOs does not make the risks go away. A “don’t look, don’t see” policy does not make for safety.

The last Indian deserves healthy, nutritious and safe food. That is why we at Navdanya have started the campaign “Know your food, Know your farmer”. Join us, for the sake of earth and for the sake of your health.

Originally Posted On: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/01/02-9

Obesity Can Be Caused By Chemicals in Foods

There’s a category of foods that can lead to weight gain and obesity – the chemicals in your food, even if those chemicals don`t contain a single calorie.

To understand this, you’ll need to realize that the liver is your primary detoxification organ. Your liver is also your primary fat-burning organ. Therefore, the more unnatural chemicals you consume on a regular basis, the more time and energy your liver needs to spend detoxifying you. But, the more your liver is consumed with the role of detoxification, the less time and energy it will have for burning fat.

For instance, it’s safe to say that pesticides are poisons: their primary purpose is to kill living organisms, and most non-organic foods are laden with pesticides.

Now, these pesticides don’t transform into non-toxic, safe entities once inside the body.  As the pesticides enter the body, the body’s defense mechanisms send signals that poisons have entered.

How does your body deal with a poison?  By attempting to neutralize it. This means your body attempts to render the poison harmless, and then remove it , generally through normal elimination channels, such as through your colon. Your colon is the primary organ used to eliminate toxins from the body, and the liver is the organ most often responsible for rendering poisons harmless.

But what happens when people eat unnatural chemicals on a regular basis?

Then the liver becomes overwhelmed with the need to detoxify all of those chemicals and poisons, and the poisons start backing up into the blood.

Your liver is also the great warehouse of the body, and so it also stores toxins and poisons that it was unable to neutralize. It does this to keep those poisons out of your bloodstream and from circulating in your body.

This can be taxing on the liver – it can be overwhelming trying to detoxify all of the chemicals being consumed on a daily basis; in addition it is trying to store all the poisons that it wasn’t able to neutralize.

Some estimates are that three fourths of the average person’s liver is used to store toxins that the liver was unable to render harmless.

No wonder that for so many people losing weight is virtually impossible: Their primary fat burning organ is overwhelmed with another task, and it’s become only half functional.

Not only will this lead to weight gain and an inability to lose weight, it can also lead to diabetes, because the liver plays a vital role in the uptake of blood glucose, and if the liver is not fully functioning, its ability to do the work it needs to do with blood glucose can be severely impaired.

And guess what? Like obesity, diabetes has reached epidemic proportions.

So what to do about it? A couple of things.

The first is to try and stop consuming chemicals in your diet on a regular basis. This generally means giving up processed foods as best as possible, and eating organic foods as much as possible. Plant-based foods, particularly vegetables, are very liver friendly.

This will prevent many new chemicals from entering your body, and is a tremendous step in the right direction. But what about those poisons already stored in your liver and circulating in your blood?  Sometimes it takes more than changing your diet to clear out the accrued chemicals residing in the liver.

That is why over the years there have been a number of natural/herbal approaches that have been developed to cleanse the liver.

Milk thistle, vitamin C, selenium, beta carotene, vitamin E, and N-acetyl-cysteine (NAC) are all powerful antioxidants which are helpful in liver detoxification.

The amino acid SAM-E plays an important role in liver health, in addition to helping with depression. Cruciferous vegetables, such as broccoli, cauliflower, brussel sprouts and cabbage in the diet have been shown to enhance liver detoxification. Besides using them as foods, you can also juice with them.

The B vitamins, including riboflavin and niacin, also are helpful in liver detoxification.

Coffee enemas, used in Gerson Cancer Therapy, is also something that can detox the liver.

Originally Posted On: http://www.lowdensitylifestyle.com/obesity-can-be-caused-by-chemicals-in-foods/

___________

Another source from mainstream media: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500165_162-6197493.html

He Grew Over 1 Million Pounds Of Food On 3 Acres

To Learn More About Will Allen's Adventure, Click Here: 

http://www.growingpower.org/PressKit-JULY-2012.pdf

Water Fluoridation Blamed In 3 Deaths

Fluoride poisoning was blamed Friday in the July 16 deaths of three dialysis patients at the University of Chicago Hospitals.

Hospital spokeswoman Susan Phillips said symptoms suffered by the victims — and by six other dialysis patients who developed symptoms similar to allergic reactions — “were consistent with fluoride exposure.”

Traces of the chemical were found in patients’ blood serum and in water samples taken at the treatment center at 1164 E. 55th, Phillips said.

Small amounts of fluoride are added to help prevent tooth decay. A series of devices used to purify the water used for dialysis somehow failed to do so, Phillips said.

Hospital president Ralph Muller said, “We will continue our investigation.”

The finding was confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, which is assisting in the investigation along with the Illinois Public Health Department. In addition, samples were tested by laboratories from around the country, Phillips said.

The victims were Beulah Wynn, 86, of the 1400 block of East 68th Street; Ardelle Bell, 78, of the 6200 block of South King Drive, and Mattie Lee, 80, of the 7200 block of South Euclid Avenue.

All suffered from advanced heart disease in addition to the kidney disease that necessitated the blood-cleaning dialysis process.

Exposure to high fluoride levels is rare. But because large volumes of water are used in dialyzing kidney patients, they can accumulate harmful amounts of fluoride if the water is untreated.

Water cleanliness standards are based on exposure by healthy people to 14 liters a week. Dialysis patients use more than 300 liters a week.

The U. of C. Hospitals’ water purification system uses deionized, reverse osmosis, water softeners and three filtration methods. “We’re looking at the entire system,” Phillips said.

The 55th Street facility will be closed until the investigation is completed. Until then, its patients will be treated at the hospital, which has a separate filtration system, or a second off-site dialysis center.

Phillips said none of the hospit’s 250 dialysis patients, who undergo the process three times a week, have canceled appointments since the deaths occurred.

The death rate for dialysis patients is 26 percent a year in Illinois. The rate at the U. of C. Hospitals fell from 17 percent in 1989 to 11 percent last year, officials said.

Originally posted on: http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/chicago-accident/

Dental Journal Article Admits That Dentists Know Little About The Science Of Fluoridation But Urges Them To Promote The Practice Anyway

In an article in the January issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA) authors Armfield and Melbye indicate that “Studies of dentists’ attitudes about water fluoridation suggest that a lack of knowledge and preparedness are barriers to discussing the topic … more than one-half of the respondents believed they needed more information and training on the issue,” reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

Fluoridation, touted as a decay-preventive, is the addition of fluoride compounds (mainly hydrofluosilicic acid derived from the phosphate fertilizer industry) to public water supplies.

Despite dentists’ lack of knowledge, these authors urge them to promote fluoridation, anyway.

According to Paul Connett , PhD, FAN director and lead author of the book The Case Against Fluoride ( Chelsea Green , 2010), “It is reckless to urge dentists to tell the public that fluoridation is safe when they are not on top of the literature. Their qualifications pertain to teeth. They are not qualified to assess what damage ingesting fluoride may cause to the rest of the body.”

Armfield and Melbye encourage dentists to promote the safety of fluoridation based upon this misleading assurance:

“There are no known harmful effects from ingestion of water that has had fluoride added to it at or about 0.7-1.2 milligrams/liter. No systematic reviews of the literature have shown any negative health effects from ingestion of water fluoridated in or near this therapeutic range.”

Connett says, This assertion is dangerously misleading because it:

a) Confuses the difference between concentration and dose. Harm has been found at doses that are commonly experienced in populations drinking artificially fluoridated water. For example, a child drinking 2 liters of water at 1 ppm (the average level used in fluoridation) will get a higher dose than a child drinking one liter of water at 1.9 ppm, the threshold for lowering of IQ in one published study.

b) Ignores that most basic health studies have not been conducted in countries practicing fluoridation. The absence of study is not the same as absence of harm.

c) Overlooks the serious findings reported by the US National Research Council in 2006 that subsets of the population – including bottle-fed infants – are exceeding the EPA’s safe reference dose (0.06 mg/kg bodyweight/day) drinking fluoridated water.

To compensate for dentists’ inadequate understanding of fluoride science, the JADA article encourages dentists to use “political campaigns” and their “reputation with the public” to promote fluoridation.  They write: “Advocacy through dental societies, such as participation in lobbying efforts, also may be an effective way for dentists to promote water fluoridation.”

Little seems to have changed since the ADA’s Council on Dental Health and Health Planning issued this unprofessional advice in a 1979 White paper:

“Individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be familiar with scientific reports and field investigations on fluoridation to be effective participants and that non- participation is overt neglect of professional responsibility.”

Being unfamiliar with the scientific literature is far more serious today than it was in 1979.

Connett says, “Many dentists may be shocked to find that there have been 36 studiespublished since 1991 that found an association between fairly modest exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ. In one of the studies (Ding et al., 2011), the researchers found IQ lowered in children drinking water ranging from 0.3 to 3 ppm and that the higher the level of fluoride in the urine (a measure of fluoride exposure) the lower the IQ. In addition, Harvard researchers in a systematic review of 27 of these IQ studies concluded that effect on children’s developing brains should be a ‘high research priority‘ especially in the US which has never investigated brain/fluoride effects.”

Armfield and Melbye postulate that: “Dentists’ lack of self-efficacy with respect to critically evaluating scientific literature may help to explain their reluctance to promote water fluoridation in their clinical practices.”

Connett says, “this reluctance in the face of lack of knowledge is to the credit of dentists. However, the efforts by Armfield and Melbye to override this reluctance on the basis of what amounts to little more than PR spin is reprehensible. It is a shabby attempt to get dentists to unwittingly betray the public’s trust. The same applies to the ADA that sanctioned the publication of this article.”

Originally Posted On: www.fluoridealert.org

Syngenta corporation faces criminal charges for covering up livestock deaths from GM corn

Corporation faces criminal charges for concealing own study in which cows died after eating its genetically modified corn.

Biotech giant Syngenta has been criminally charged with denying knowledge that its genetically modified (GM) Bt corn kills livestock during a civil court case that ended in 2007 [1].

Syngenta’s Bt 176 corn variety expresses an insecticidal Bt toxin (Cry1Ab) derived from the bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and a gene conferring resistance to glufosinate herbicides. EU cultivation of Bt 176 was discontinued in 2007. Similar varieties however, including Bt 11 sweet corn are currently cultivated for human and animal consumption in the EU.

The charges follow a long struggle for justice by a German farmer whose dairy cattle suffered mysterious illnesses and deaths after eating Bt 176. They were grown on his farm as part of authorised field tests during 1997 to 2002. By 2000, his cows were fed exclusively on Bt 176, and soon illnesses started to emerge. He was paid 40 000 euros by Syngenta as partial compensation for 5 dead cows, decreased milk yields, and vet costs (see [2] Cows ate GM Maize and Died, SiS 21). During a civil lawsuit brought against the company by the farmer however, Syngenta refused to admit that its GM corn was the cause, claiming no knowledge of harm. The case was dismissed and Gloeckner remained thousands of euros in debt.

Gloeckner continued to lose cows and many more had to be put down due to serious illnesses, compelling him to stop using GM feed from 2002. He approached the Robert Koch Institute and Syngenta to conduct a full investigation. However, only one cow was ever analysed and the data are still unavailable to the public. Unsurprisingly, no causal relationship between the GM feed and deaths was determined; and there is still no explanation for the deaths.

But in 2009, the farmer learned of a feeding study allegedly commissioned by Syngenta in 1996 that resulted in four cows dying in two days. The trial was abruptly terminated. Now Gloeckner, along with a German group called Bündnis Aktion Gen-Klage and another farmer turned activist Urs Hans, have brought Syngenta to the criminal court to face charges of withholding knowledge of the US trial, which makes the company liable for the destruction of the farmer’s 65 cows. Syngenta is also charged with the deaths of cattle in the US trial and on Gloeckner’s farm, which should have been registered as “unexpected occurrences”. Most seriously, the German head of Syngenta Hans-Theo Jahmann, is charged for withholding knowledge of the US study from the judge and from Gloecker in the original civil court case.

Gloecker’s cows not alone

This is by no means the only account of mysterious deaths associated with Bt GM feed. In India where livestock are left to graze on post-harvest cotton, thousands of livestock deaths have been recorded in different villages across central India where Bt cotton is grown (see [3] Mass Deaths of Sheep Grazing on Bt Cotton, SiS 30).  Shepherds’ own observations and post-mortem analysis carried out in the laboratory revealed abnormal liver, enlarged bile ducts and black patches in the intestine. The shepherds said that the sheep became “dull/depressed” after 2-3 days of grazing, started coughing with nasal discharge and developed red lesions in the mouth, became bloated and suffered blackish diarrhoea, and sometimes passed red urine. Death occurred within 5-7 days of grazing. Sheep from young lambs to adults of 1.5-2 years were affected. One shepherd reported getting diarrhoea from eating the meat of an affected sheep. The vets declared that the toxicity could be due to the Bt toxin but this could not be proven as results were confounded by additional pesticides used on the fields. The shepherds were however, advised against letting the sheep graze on any more Bt cotton plants.

Philippine villagers living around Bt Maize fields have also suffered deaths and similar illnesses of fever, respiratory, intestinal and skin problem (see [4] GM ban long overdue, five deaths and dozens ill in the Philippines, SiS 29).  Five mortalities were reported in 2003 and subsequently, 38 individuals had their blood analysed and all were positive for antibodies specific to Cry1Ab, suggesting an immune reaction to the toxin. As is often the case, intimidation and denial by government officials meant that there were no further investigations into the matter.

Cause of deaths unknown

There is still no explanation provided by the authorities as to the cause of death of Gloeckner’s cows. The biotech industry claims that Bt toxins are quickly digested in the stomach and are only effective in insect target species. However, a recent study has found the toxin in the blood of over 80 % of women and their unborn children tested in Canada [5]. Because naturally existing Bt toxins from the soil bacterium have been used for a long time, long-term toxicology and health risk assessments on Bt proteins in GM crops were not done. However, there are important differences between the naturally produced toxins that can be washed off the crops, as opposed to genetically modified toxins that are part and parcel of the GM crop. Independent studies have shown that basing health assessments on flawed scientific assumptions is not only arrogant, but foolish.

Scientific studies dating from the 1990s have identified Bt toxins as potent immunogens, with Cry1Ac inducing immune responses in mice similar to the cholera toxin [6]. Farm workers dealing with Bt cotton have consistently reported allergic responses requiring hospitalisation in some cases (see [7] More Illnesses Linked to Bt Crops, SiS30). Binding of Cry1Ac to the intestine of mice has been shown, with concomitant diarrhoea symptoms [8]. A meta-analysis of 3 month feeding studies in laboratory animals found that Bt maize led to changes in blood protein levels indicative of abnormal liver metabolism (see [9] GM Feed Toxic, Meta-Analysis Confirms, SiS 52).  A recent study finds Cry1Ab toxic to human kidney cells, causing cell death at low doses (see [10] Bt Toxin Kills Human Kidney Cells, SiS 52).

To conclude

Safety assessments of new GM products surely need to be tested independently, not controlled by the very industry pushing it onto the market place. Conflicts of interests are obscuring data that are crucial to our farming industry and animal welfare, as well as human health.

- See more at: http://www.qwmagazine.com/2012/06/14/brazilian-farmers-win-2-billion-judgment-against-monsanto/#sthash.N4OdSjvi.dpuf

Originally Posted On: http://www.qwmagazine.com/2012/06/14/brazilian-farmers-win-2-billion-judgment-against-monsanto/

Shocking Splenda Side Effects

We are all familiar with the little yellow packages of Splenda that promise to satisfy our sweet tooth without the extra calories and the carbohydrates. You may have used Splenda in place of aspartame and saccharine and the -now banned by the FDA- cyclamate because you know they are composed of dangerous chemicals. And Splenda is natural, right? Well, not quite.

“Splenda” is the commercial name used for sucralose. The manufacturers advertise Splenda as being more “natural” than other sweeteners, as the main substance, sucralose, comes from sugar. This is very misleading though, as it leads consumers to believe that sucralose comes from sugar the same way that cheese comes from milk.

The way that sucralose is produced is much more complicated, but to put it simply splenda is chlorinated sugar (chlorocarbon).  Other common chlorocarbons include carbon tetrachloride, and methylene chloride which are all poisonous!  Chlorine in numerous studies has been proven as toxic to our bodies and can accumulate in our systems over time.

The reason that a chemically altered molecule, like sucralose, can be threatening for our health if ingested, is the fact that our bodies are not made to recognize these substances and do not know how to properly deal with them. This is not the case with sugar (sucrose, lactose, fructose) that we have been ingesting for thousands of years.

So, What Are the Splenda Side Effects?

Sucralose accumulates very slowly and with habitual use. To make it more clear, if we eat something containing sucralose once, our body will manage to eventually get rid of sucralose. But if we ingest it every day, our body does not have enough time to deal with it.  A study showed that with a moderate consumption 96.7% of sucralose leaves our bodies, while high consumption the percentage falls to 92.8%.  This means chlorine is being stored in other areas of your body causing your cells to become toxic!

You may say, if it’s so dangerous, then why is it FDA approved?  (FYI, the FDA approves a lot of things that later are pulled off the market once enough people die like cyclamate and Vioxx).  The FDA points to over one hundred studies that claim sucralose is safe. The problem is these studies are typical, and usually conducted by companies who are financially invested in Splenda, and all were short term studies. One of the studies tests if Splenda causes teeth decay, for example, which is of course a serious issue, but not life threatening. The vast majority of the studies used rats, not humans and in very, very limited amounts.

What about the other studies though? The ones that show that in amounts of 500 mg/kg sucralose is hepatoxic and nephrotoxic, meaning that it causes damage to the liver and kidneys. Those studies are not taken seriously by the FDA, as the test subjects were -guess what- rats. And their defense mechanism are not considered adequate to simulate the human body’s response. The controversy of the FDA’s behavior here is of course obvious. It is a fact that the amount of sucralose used in these studies is very high, but it is chosen as they want to test the effects of accumulated sucralose in the human body after years of everyday use.

Apart from the liver and kidneys, a 2008 Duke University study found that Splenda alters the intestine flora as it destroys beneficial bacteria. This is a major problem because we need good bacteria also known as probiotics for a healthy immune system.

Many people report the side effects as resembling allergic reactions. The most commonly reported Splenda side effects are:

• migraines
• dizziness
• intestinal cramping
• rashes
• acne
• headaches
• bloating
• chest pain
• tinnitus
• gum bleeding

And the list goes on! Of course, it’s hard to pin point that Spenda was exclusively responsible for these side effects, but in the reports people claim that they felt better once they stopped using Splenda.

James Turner of “Citizens for Health” is fighting for the labeling of products containing Splenda, to give consumers a choice to avoid sucralose. There is a good reason for that, as even if someone chooses not to use Splenda in their beverages, it is used as an additive in so many low calorie and/or sugar free foods and prepackaged goods, that it is quite hard to avoid it.

What Sweetener to Use Instead of Splenda?

Concluding, Splenda does not have any long term research and we know by its chemical makeup that it is not good for you.  Too much chlorine in your system is toxic and there are healthier, natural sweeteners available today like Whole Leaf Stevia. I suggest you make the switch to Stevia or raw local honey to satisfy your sweet tooth in a healthy way! I recommend a brand called NuNaturals Stevia ($10 Amazon).

Originally posted on: http://www.draxe.com/splenda-side-effects/

Stevia: http://www.naturalnews.com/023728_stevia_sweetener_FDA.html

New Study of Splenda (Sucralose) Reveals Shocking Information About Potential Harmful Effects

It’s very important to realize that Splenda (sucralose) is actually NOT sugar, despite its marketing slogan “Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar”. Rather it’s a chlorinated artificial sweetener in line with aspartame and saccharin, and with detrimental health effects to match.

Sucralose (Splenda) was approved by the FDA in 1998 as a tabletop sweetener and for use in products such as baked goods, nonalcoholic beverages, chewing gum, frozen dairy desserts, fruit juices, and gelatins. Sucralose is also permitted as a general-purpose sweetener for all processed foods.

The approval was given after the FDA supposedly reviewed more than 110 animal and human safety studies, but as you’ll soon find out, out of these 110 studies, only two were human studies, and the longest one was conducted for four days!

There’s overwhelming evidence that consuming artificial sweeteners will likely wreak havoc on your body. Previous news has centered mainly around artificial sweeteners’ ability to impair your appetite regulation and leading to weight gain.

For example, it’s been discovered that diet soda increases your risk of metabolic syndrome and, ultimately, heart disease.

However, the study mentioned above, published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, found even further disturbing news besides weight gain. Sucralose (Splenda):

• reduces the amount of good bacteria in your intestines by 50 percent
• increases the pH level in your intestines, and
• affects a glycoprotein in your body that can have crucial health effects, particularly if you’re on certain medications

They also found unmistakable evidence that Sucralose (Splenda) is absorbed by fat, contrary to previous claims.

It’s truly disturbing that Sucralose (Splenda) can destroy up to 50 percent of your healthy intestinal bacteria, as these bacteria help maintain your body's overall balance of friendly versus unfriendly micro-organisms, and support your general health. Many people are already deficient in healthy bacteria due to choosing highly processed foods. This is why a high quality probiotic is one of the very few supplements I highly recommend for nearly everyone.

The Diet Fallacy

The belief that consuming artificially sweetened foods and drinks will help you to lose or maintain weight is a carefully orchestrated deception. So if you are still opting for diet choices for this reason, please understand that you have been sorely misled.

In reality, these diet foods and drinks can cause serious distortions in your biochemistry and ruin your body's ability to control calories. As a matter of fact, it’s been shown that diet soft drinks can double your risk of obesity!

Nearly a decade ago, studies were already revealing that artificial sweeteners can:

• Stimulate your appetite
• Increase carbohydrate cravings
• Stimulate fat storage and weight gain

Unfortunately, most public health agencies and nutritionists in the United States still recommend these toxic artificial sweeteners as an acceptable alternative to sugar.  

Now, I am definitely not a fan of sugar, but if I had to choose between sugar and any artificial sweetener, I would choose sugar, hands down, without question. I strongly believe artificial sweeteners are even more dangerous to your health than an excess of sugar. 

The Health Dangers of Sucralose (Splenda)

According to James Turner, the chairman of the national consumer education group Citizens for Health:

"This report followed accepted policies and procedures and the results make clear the potential for disturbing side effects from the ingestion of Splenda.

It is like putting a pesticide in your body. And this is at levels of intake erroneously approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

A person eating two slices of cake and drinking two cups of coffee containing Splenda would ingest enough sucralose to affect the P-glycoprotein, while consuming just seven little Splenda packages reduces good bacteria."

The web site www.truthaboutsplenda.com lists a variety of consumer complaints from Sucralose (Splenda) consumption, such as:

• Gastrointestinal problems
• Migraines
• Seizures
• Dizziness
• Blurred vision
• Allergic reactions
• Blood sugar increases
• Weight gain

My site also contains a long list of personal testimonials from readers who have suffered side effects from Sucralose (Splenda). In fact, we have more people on our site that have reported adverse reactions to Sucralose (Splenda) than were formally studied in the research submitted for FDA approval!

The symptoms are so numerous I can’t include them all here, but the following are common symptoms, usually noticed within a 24-hour period following consumption of Sucralose (Splenda) products:

• Skin -- Redness, itching, swelling, blistering, weeping, crusting, rash, eruptions, or hives (itchy bumps or welts). These are the most common allergic symptoms 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.

Beware – You Could be Consuming Sucralose (Splenda) Without Your Knowledge

You also need to be aware of the fact that although the bulk of Splenda is sold to processed food manufacturers and soft drink bottlers, it could turn up in your medicine as well, as nearly 10 percent of all sucralose is sold to drug companies. 

Many times sucralose (Splenda) will not be listed in the drug information, so there simply is no way you would know you are consuming a potentially dangerous artificial sweetener. However, if you experience any of the symptoms above even though you’re avoiding Splenda and other artificial sweeteners, then it may be worth investigating the ingredients of any medications you’re taking as well.

Sucralose (Splenda) Has NEVER Been Proven Safe for Human Consumption

As of 2006, only six human trials have been published on Splenda. Of these six trials, only two of the trials were completed and published before the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption, and the two published trials had a grand total of 36 total human subjects.

36 people sure doesn't sound like many, but wait, it gets worse: only 23 total were actually given sucralose for testing, and here is the real kicker -- The longest trial at this time had lasted only four days, and looked at sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance.

Even more shocking, the absorption of Splenda into the human body was studied on a grand total of six men! Based on that one human study, the FDA allowed the findings to be generalized as being representative of the entire human population. Including women, children, the elderly, and those with any chronic illness -- none of whom were ever examined.

The FDA claims they reviewed over 100 studies conducted on Splenda. What they don't tell you is that most of the studies were on animals. And, those animal studies reveal plenty of problems, such as: 

• Decreased red blood cells -- sign of anemia -- at levels above 1,500 mg/kg/day
• Increased male infertility by interfering with sperm production and vitality, as well as brain lesions at higher doses
• Enlarged and calcified kidneys (McNeil stated this is often seen with poorly absorbed substances and was of no toxicological significance. The FDA Final Rule agreed that these are findings that are common in aged female rats and are not significant.)
• Spontaneous abortions in nearly half the rabbit population given sucralose, compared to zero aborted pregnancies in the control group 
• A 23 percent death rate in rabbits, compared to a 6 percent death rate in the control group 

Chemically, Sucralose (Splenda) is More Similar to DDT Than Sugar 

Yes. Sucralose (Splenda) bears more chemical similarity to DDT than it does to sugar.

Sucralose is in fact a synthetic chemical that was originally cooked up in a laboratory. It does start off as a sugar molecule. Then, in a five-step patented process of making sucralose, three chlorine molecules are added to a sucrose (sugar) molecule. The chemical process to make sucralose alters the chemical composition of the sugar so much that it is somehow converted to a fructo-galactose molecule.

This type of sugar molecule does not occur in nature, and therefore your body does not possess the ability to properly metabolize it. As a result of this "unique" biochemical make-up, McNeil Nutritionals makes its claim that Splenda is not digested or metabolized by the body, hence it has zero calories.

But, if you look at the research (which is primarily extrapolated form animal studies) you will see that in fact an average of 15 percent of sucralose IS absorbed into your digestive system, and according to this latest study, it is also absorbed into your fat cells.

Unfortunately, if you are healthy and your digestive system works well, you may be at HIGHER risk for breaking down this product in your stomach and intestines!

James Turner, the chairman of the national consumer education group Citizens for Health, has expressed shock and outrage after reading a new report from scientists outlining the dangers of the artificial sweetener Splenda (sucralose).

In animals examined for the study, Sucralose (Splenda) reduced the amount of good bacteria in the intestines by 50 percent, increased the pH level in the intestines, contributed to increases in body weight and affected P-glycoprotein (P-gp) levels in such a way that crucial health-related drugs could be rejected.

The P-gp effect could result in medications used in chemotherapy, AIDS treatment and treatments for heart conditions being shunted back into the intestines, rather than being absorbed by the body.

According to Turner, "The report makes it clear that the artificial sweetener Splenda and its key component sucralose pose a threat to the people who consume the product. Hundreds of consumers have complained to us about side effects from using Splenda and this study ... confirms that the chemicals in the little yellow package should carry a big red warning label."

Your Healthiest Alternatives 

If you have a craving for sweets, rather than trying to find "healthier" ways to continue indulging in them, it is in your best interest to learn ways to relieve your cravings.  

The obvious one would be to stop eating any of the products to begin with. But sweets are powerfully addictive – sugar has even been shown to be more addictive than cocaine. Stevia is a preferable natural substitute, which can be used in making most dishes and drinks. 

However, complete avoidance of sweets is often necessary to break your addictive cycle, as your hormones insulin and leptin likely play an important role in your cravings.

If you are unable to achieve abstinence from sweets, your emotional connection to cravings might be an important factor for you. One of the most profound methods I know of for diminishing the effects of food cravings is the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT). EFT is the psychological acupressure technique routinely used in my practice to help people reduce their cravings.

There is enough evidence showing the dangers of consuming artificial sweeteners to fill an entire book -- which is exactly why I wrote Sweet Deception. If you or your loved ones drink diet beverages or eat diet foods, this book will explain how you've been deceived about the truth behind artificial sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose -- for greed, for profits ... and at the expense of your own health.

Originally Posted on: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/02/10/new-study-of-splenda-reveals-shocking-information-about-potential-harmful-effects.aspx