Splenda Buys Hundreds of Anti-Splenda Domains
The makers of Splenda have been busy. Busy enough to purchase over 211 domain names - such as SplendaKills.com, SplendaPoison.com, SplendaVictims.com.
It is an elaborate and insidious ploy to prevent any negative information being written on-line.
Splenda is the brand name for Sucralose - an artificial sweetener created by UK food processing company Tate & Lyle. The product was co-developed in the US by Johnson & Johnson - and is now sold under the umbrella company McNeil Nutritionals.
According the Sustainable is Good blog, Johnson & Johnson, and Tate & Lyle embarked on a two-pronged campaign to stifle any negative press.
- Find any negative websites about Splenda, and buy up all similar names. (I checked one site I know of - SplendaSucks.com. This is owned by blogger Joey Goldman. I then checked the site SpendaSucks.net -- and found it was owned by Johnson & Johnson).
- Register any domain name they can think of that might be used to write negative information. (see the Sustainable blog for a bigger list).
I'm not one that likes to fall prey to conspiracy theories about big corporations. However such heavy-handed and controlling tactics make me extremely wary.
While on the subject of Splenda - did you know that it is not zero calorie? Splenda actually contains 2 Calories per teaspoon. Due to FDA labeling madness idiosyncrasies - it is allowed to be called "zero calories" (reference).
(Thanks Patricia)
58 Comments
Add Your Comment
ADVERTISING
New
- FROM DIET BLOG
- On-Off Fasting: Does It Work?
- 400 Calorie Fix
- 5 Factor World Diet
- Quick Giveaway: Powerhouse Weight Loss Game
- FORUM
- Low Carb Atkins Diet- Tips to Cut the Carbs.
- How Can I Gain a Healthy Weight and Keep it?
- How Do I Eat Healthy at University?
- Starving Myself and Exercising, But Not Losing an Ounce?
Categories
| Body Image Celebrities Diet Pills Diets Exercise |
Fast Food Funny Stuff Success Stories Teens and Kids Tips and Tools |
RSS Feed
Follow @DietBlog on Twitter
Just to add to this -- there is an older discussion of splenda health issues over here.
ReplyAnd when you are trying to type "www.microsoft.com", you always accidentally type "www.billgatesisthedevil.com" because of your keyboard? Cause the letters are right next to one another?
Certainly that must mean that Bill Gates is indeed the devil incarnate, or he'd never own that domain name, right? If J&J buys "Splendakills.com" and that means they have inside info that Splenda does indeed kill, then Bill Gates is sure to be the devil. That is the logic you are using there. It is the same "plain common sense" you are using.
ReplyI just stumbled upon this site while reading an article about splenda and have got to say just about everybody that replied to this story must have some splenda packets stuck up their asses. LOL! The makers of this crap have got all you morons believing in low cal sweetners hook line and sinker! LOL! Keep on sucking those little packets down and convince yourselves they are safe. There really is a fool born every minute. A lot of them seems to hang out here! He He He.
ReplyRemember kids, the best way to convince someone is to insult and attempt to humiliate them. And never ever cite evidence, that just makes you look like a nerd, instead of the really cool and super enlightened person you are.
ReplyNat - Are you Whining because someone said something bad about the Company who pays you? Tate & Lyle is a GREEDY LIAR like the rest of the Corporate World. Japan has banned Splenda/sucralose because it is chlorine/DDT in substance. Anyone just can Google Splenda and find out how toxic this chemical is. FDA is bought and paid for by the Corporations who fund it! Reality Bites!
Reply
ReplyBest post of the week.
It's not safe as long as it's human made/refined.
ReplyI too found this site when reading from Mercola's website. Clearly no one is going to win this battle here in this discussion, so I thought I'd add another take on the matter. I like to sweeten my tea, and I know a lot of you will use Splenda to sweeten your beverages. I know it's hard to believe that a big company that stands to make huge profits does not necessarily have your long term health in mind, so consider instead your savings if you grew some stevia in your garden (or plantar box on your patio/balcony) used it as a natural sweetner in hot beverages. You'd still have to buy something refined if you were baking (hopefully you choose natural stevia over splenda), but if you just began to choose one healthier option at a time while replacing unhealthy/questionable options then you'd be well on your way to optimal health. For a healthy tea that costs nothing to make try growing some spearmint or peppermint and some stevia at home in a small pots. A few sprigs of each in hot water will make a delicious and refreshing herbal tea that costs nothing, is calorie free, all natural and does not put money in the pockets of corporations that put their profits before your health. Think about it!
ReplyHm. I think I should make a negative information site up about Splenda and make some money..... Anyways that corporation is horrible. Too bad more people don't know that they are poisoning themselves and making it harder to lose weight every time they drink a diet soda
Replywow...this kinda got outa hand.
ReplyThey didn't get my website: www.splendasux.com
ReplyYou can post there and share your frustration with the brand as well as score how likely you are to speak negatively about it to others
I don't agree to either side of the debate, but I must say that when people make such rabid defaming comments (Patricia) it is important to provide proof
ReplyJust came across this site - it's awesome!
I have to chime in here and agree 100% with Nate. You are wise my friend - you seem to have a discerning and skeptical eye. I too am still waiting for somebody...anybody on this site to post proof of deleterious effects of moderate Splenda consumption.
Not that I believe all studies are devoid of bias, but I believe in scientific method. If you want to avoid splenda because it is "unnatural" please do so - but stop telling everybody that anything invented in the last 1000 years is dangerous. The whole tennet that natural=good and synthetic=bad is myopic. The fact that almost 80 countries have approved Splenda and that numerous studies have been conducted holds much more water to me than "J. Smith from Mobile" who complained of headaches. It is hilarious that people would tell us to ignore an entire body of sound research and get "reliable" information on the internet.
Also humourous is when people attempt to flame those not in the "spleda is dangerous" camp by calling us narrow-minded.
Anyway, feel free to agree or disagree - but please back it up.
ReplyTo Dr. Foster and the gal from Spain:
Are you guys going to provide evidence at some point to support your anti-splenda contentions? For one thing - PLEASE stop quoting the web-footed Dr. Mercola, and telling everybody to "do the research". Guess what, guys - alarmist, anectdotal and un-substantiated websites are not "research", they are whack-jobs who have nothing better to do than discredit a perfectly safe product. Heck, I don't even like the taste of Splenda but I don't believe in categorically smearing something without the requisite proof.
I think many have failed to realize that the smear campaign against splenda is largely the result of big sugar who are in a tizzy trying to recoup losses as a result of increased splenda consumption.
In terms of the whole natural vs. artificial argument - try ingesting some cyanide or botulism or arsenic sometime - all natural!
On the asinine assertion that splenda is "chlorine" and therefore should be avoided - try not having any salt for a day or two - let me know how that goes. Also, most tap water in the US has chlorine in it.
In terms of the over 120 animal and human studies confirming the safety of splenda - why are we believing anti-anything-completely-natural-buy-my-splenda-detox-kits websites?
"Yes but those studies are paid for by splenda interests"
Some are true - but that is absolutely normal procedure for scientific studies, lest we be saddled with those bills! Falsifying studies carries with it major implications. I'm not saying bias never happends when it comes to conducting studies, but 120+ studies are not ALL going to be biased. In fact, many of the favorable splenda studies are not funded by splenda or anybody else tied to them.
I am all for opinion, but please do not state something without fact or proof. Anybody can write an article, a book or have a website - it does not make them authorities or even credible. Do your homework!
ReplyWhen Splenda is manufactured they replace three natural molecules with three CHLORINE molecules to increase the sweetness so you are effectiveLY drinking CHLORINE BLEACH. If you go to your search engine and enter "Splenda, kills" you will get a wealth of information on it. Chlorine of any kind is a NEUROTOXIN when it is ingested and it crosses the Blood Brain Barrier into your brain where it causes inflamation and eventually brain disease. Twenty years down the road you will not suspect that Splenda caused your Alzheimer's, ALS, or Parkinson's because (afterall) you have been drinking it so long without one single problem (this is human nature). Do your research because your life and health depend on it and do not trust the FDA because they approved Splenda and Aspartame (another neurotoxin) as artificial sweeteners that won't hurt anyone.
ReplySucralose is not chlorine bleach, just FYI. Chlorine bleach is sodium hypochlorite. The way the sucralose molecule is engineered, the sucralose molecules don't actually get digested at all...the whole molecule goes through undigested because the enzymes in your body don't recognize the shape of the molecule. Chloride ions are actually necessary for electron transportation in cells and it's pretty ubiquitous in nature. Salt is a pretty good source of it, so I'm guessing that you think that salt is a neurotoxin as well?
Reply