First, let me make myself clear that I'm not a fan of splenda or artificial sweeteners in general. I get joint pains and cramps from a lot of things and they appear to be on the list.

My post concerns the representation of case histories on Dr. Hull's website. The title text for the pages says "Splenda (Sucralose) Toxicity."

This makes me wonder: do any of you, and especially Dr. Hull, actually think these case histories are adequate evidence that people are experiencing sucralose toxicity? By using the word "toxicity" in the "user-friendly" way in which the website is written, the designer or webmaster implies that chemical toxicity is happening.

Many substances have a chemical toxicity above a certain threshold, and sucralose surely has one. Even sugars like glucose do, but most people without metabolic problems probably will never see an organotoxic dose.

You can argue that there is toxicity on a cellular level, and I have no concept of what sucralose does on a cellular level - but the usage of the word on your site implies you can get up to a lethal dose. Which I'm sure you can, as you can with - again - glucose.

I don't think any of us have any evidence that "toxicity" proper is happening in any way that is applicable to the public at large, and it doesn't help the "cause" of demonstrating that people having very bad reactions to artificial sweeteners.

Representing it that way, even by subtle implication in the page title text, weakens your argument, Dr. Hull, and I'd like to ask you to stop doing it just that way - and to solicit opinions to see if my other ex-splenda-ers here agree with me.

Sincerely,
Paul
[on this forum, now 'toxic']

Last edited by Toxic (05-02-2010 3:37 am)