• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Dieters May Face Splenda Shortage

Amused

Elite Member
Dieters May Face Splenda Shortage
By J.M. HIRSCH, AP

(Dec. 4) - Dieters hoping for a slew of new products with the sugar substitute Splenda may be disappointed next year.

That's because the maker of sucralose, the key ingredient behind the increasingly ubiquitous no-calorie sweetener, is having trouble keeping up with demand.

Tate & Lyle PLC, the world's only manufacturer of sucralose, said interest has so outpaced expectations the company won't take on new U.S. customers until it has doubled production at it's plant in McIntosh, Ala., sometime in early 2006.

The company also plans to open a second plant in Singapore, according to a written statement.

Buoyed by a surge in anti-sugar diets such as Atkins and South Beach, Splenda has enjoyed sweet success since its introduction in 2000, appearing in everything from soda and ice cream to candy and jams.

Splenda, which won fans with its sugar-like sweetness and stability in baking, now dominates the $337 million U.S. retail market for sugar substitutes, beating out aspartame sweetener Equal, made by Chicago-based Merisant Corp.

"Sucralose has one of those problems that's both good and bad to have,'' said John Sicher, editor of Beverage Digest. "The demand is tremendous. The supply is constrained.''

Splenda is sold to consumers as a table and baking sugar substitute by McNeil Nutritionals LLC, a Pennsylvania-based unit of Johnson & Johnson. Consumer sales won't be affected by the tight supply, a company spokeswoman said.

Sales of sucralose to manufacturers as an ingredient for use in other products are handled directly by Tate & Lyle, which is headquartered in London.

How many new sucralose-sweetened products will come to market is difficult to tell, says Sicher. It depends largely on how many products already have been developed and how much sucralose companies bought in advance.

He says it's too soon to tell how the tight supply might affect existing sucralose-based products at large companies, such as Coca-Cola Co.'s low-calorie "C2'' cola, but Tate & Lyle said the Alabama plant will meet the needs of existing customers.

A Coke spokeswoman wouldn't comment.

Small companies hoping to expand or introduce low-cal products likely will face the most trouble.

Atkins Nutritionals helped spur Splenda's surge by endorsing its use in the company's hugely popular low-carb diet. Matthew Wiant, chief marketing officer for Atkins, estimates sucralose is used in as many as 10,000 products. But he doesn't think companies will have a problem switching to other sweeteners if they can't get it.

Lyn Nabors of the Calorie Control Council, a nonprofit trade group, said more companies probably will switch to sugar and sweetener blends, which have fewer calories but require less of the substitute.

Companies who insist on pure sucralose may have to delay new products, she said.

Dan Conner, a co-owner of Conner Bottle Works, a small Newfields, N.H., company that makes old-fashioned glass-bottled sodas, started feeling the Splenda squeeze two months ago. That's when he got a letter from Tate & Lyle telling him he could buy only small amounts of sucralose each month.

He said that for many years his company resisted making diet sodas because the available sugar substitutes didn't taste right. But sucralose was different, and this year Conner added two diet sodas.

But with supplies tightening, Conner now hopes another company will introduce a sucralose competitor, since the cost of sucralose has jumped significantly.

"Maybe we'll get some price wars going to help people like myself,'' he said.

Merisant, which acquired the Equal business from Monsanto Co. in 2000, recently sued McNeil Nutritionals, accusing it of false advertising by claiming Splenda is made from sugar.

McNeil Nutritionals claims the lawsuit is without merit, saying sucralose starts as cane sugar.

 
Oh crap! I live on that stuff 🙁

Best sweetener ever- tastes like sugar, very little aftertaste, no calories. They should use it in everything! The country wouldn't be so damned fat then.
 
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Oh crap! I live on that stuff 🙁

Best sweetener ever- tastes like sugar, very little aftertaste, no calories. They should use it in everything! The country wouldn't be so damned fat then.

its great stuff 🙂
 
so when are the cancer studies coming 🙂

this stuff is so expensive if you use it cup for cup in baking.. it's insane. Still tastes funny though.
 
Originally posted by: lnguyen
so when are the cancer studies coming 🙂

this stuff is so expensive if you use it cup for cup in baking.. it's insane. Still tastes funny though.

I doubt it would cause cancer. It's sugar with a modified protien so the body doesn't absorb it.
 
FYI: Splenda is made by soaking sugar in vats of chlorine.

It is produced by chlorinating sugar (sucrose). This involves chemically changing the structure of the sugar molecules by substituting three chlorine atoms for three hydroxyl groups.
Despite the manufacturer's claims to the contrary, sucralose is significantly absorbed and metabolized by the body. According to the FDA's "Final Rule" report, 11% to 27% of sucralose is absorbed in humans, and the rest is excreted unchanged in feces. What's the long term effect of storing chlorine in our body fat? I don't wanna find out.

BTW It is illegal to add splenda to human food in Europe.

 
Splenda is the best. I remember diet soda as Tab... and I remember when it was only sacchrine. When NutraSweet hit the market, I thought it was great! Splenda is wonderful. But I don't drink as much diet soda as I used to.

None of this stuff is good for you. Splenda has not been around long enough to see what the long term hazards are.

I know that NutraSweet is a killer. My brother-in-law was called to make... hmmm... well, he had to weld huge steel beams to put in the floor of a NutraSweet factory cause the concrete was being erroded too quickly. When he got there... he said the workers were wearing these allover suits and wearing masks. And they worked 20 minutes and had to go outside for 20 minutes. That was their day. The concrete floor was being erroded by NutraSweet and every six months they had to re-concrete.

🙂
 
Many people say it tastes great, but I don't know, I had a Pepsi Edge a few months ago, and it was absolutely horrible.
 
Absorption of splenda does not translate into storage of "chlorine" in your body fat, does it?

Another compound utilizing chlorine is Sodium Chloride, or table. Not only is salt absorbed by our body, its essential to cells (I can't rememeber, but it aids in some cell gradient - i haven't taken bio since college).
 
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Originally posted by: lnguyen
so when are the cancer studies coming 🙂

this stuff is so expensive if you use it cup for cup in baking.. it's insane. Still tastes funny though.

I doubt it would cause cancer. It's sugar with a modified protien so the body doesn't absorb it.

it HAS to cause cancer. everything else in the world does, it's just a matter of which one is your pick. potatoes are going to be my downfall 😛
 
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
Splenda is the best. I remember diet soda as Tab... and I remember when it was only sacchrine. When NutraSweet hit the market, I thought it was great! Splenda is wonderful. But I don't drink as much diet soda as I used to.

None of this stuff is good for you. Splenda has not been around long enough to see what the long term hazards are.

I know that NutraSweet is a killer.


A myth. There are NO, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA scientific studies to back this up. None.

All this started with the long debunked hype over saccharine supposedly causing cancer. Now every sweetener that comes down the pike is automatically suspect to the point of huge urban myths and mass hypochondria. NONE of which can be backed up by peer reviewed and repeatable studies. NONE.
 
Originally posted by: cruzer
FYI: Splenda is made by soaking sugar in vats of chlorine.

It is produced by chlorinating sugar (sucrose). This involves chemically changing the structure of the sugar molecules by substituting three chlorine atoms for three hydroxyl groups.
Despite the manufacturer's claims to the contrary, sucralose is significantly absorbed and metabolized by the body. According to the FDA's "Final Rule" report, 11% to 27% of sucralose is absorbed in humans, and the rest is excreted unchanged in feces. What's the long term effect of storing chlorine in our body fat? I don't wanna find out.

BTW It is illegal to add splenda to human food in Europe.

Nice myths. I especially love the Europe one, since Europe is Splenda's second largest market. AND Spenda was in use in Europe for over a decade before it was cleared in the US.

:roll:
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
Splenda is the best. I remember diet soda as Tab... and I remember when it was only sacchrine. When NutraSweet hit the market, I thought it was great! Splenda is wonderful. But I don't drink as much diet soda as I used to.

None of this stuff is good for you. Splenda has not been around long enough to see what the long term hazards are.

I know that NutraSweet is a killer.


A myth. There are NO, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA scientific studies to back this up. None.

All this started with the long debunked hype over saccharine supposedly causing cancer. Now every sweetener that comes down the pike is automatically suspect to the point of huge urban myths and mass hypochondria. NONE of which can be backed up by peer reviewed and repeatable studies. NONE.
The Snopes to back that up.
 
The snopes article was for Aspartame, not Splenda.

I do stand corrected on EU; the European Union just approved Splenda this year. It was used for over a decade in Canada, not Europe.


Another compound utilizing chlorine is Sodium Chloride, or table salt

True, but the human body does not breakdown the salt molecule into constituent parts, it is just used to move water around AFAIK. The Splenda molecules that are metaboloized are broken down into 1,6 dichlorofructose, a molecule not seen in nature, it's effect on humans is currently unknown.
 
Originally posted by: cruzer
The snopes article was for Aspartame, not Splenda.

I do stand corrected on EU; the European Union just approved Splenda this year. It was used for over a decade in Canada, not Europe.


Another compound utilizing chlorine is Sodium Chloride, or table salt

True, but the human body does not breakdown the salt molecule into constituent parts, it is just used to move water around AFAIK. The Splenda molecules that are metaboloized are broken down into 1,6 dichlorofructose, a molecule not seen in nature, it's effect on humans is currently unknown.

The EU is irrelevant. Splenda has been used in Europe for nearly 20 years. Do a better google search.

It's been used and studied for two decades or more. If harm was caused, it would have been found.

Will this irrational fear mongering over sweeteners ever stop?
 
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Many people say it tastes great, but I don't know, I had a Pepsi Edge a few months ago, and it was absolutely horrible.

I don't care for it in soft drinks. However, I think it tastes pretty good when stirred into coffee, though.

 
Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Many people say it tastes great, but I don't know, I had a Pepsi Edge a few months ago, and it was absolutely horrible.

I don't care for it in soft drinks. However, I think it tastes pretty good when stirred into coffee, though.

I don't have an irrational fear of artificial sweetners, but sugar just tastes better to me, so I'll continue to use sugar. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: KarenMarie
Splenda is the best. I remember diet soda as Tab... and I remember when it was only sacchrine. When NutraSweet hit the market, I thought it was great! Splenda is wonderful. But I don't drink as much diet soda as I used to.

None of this stuff is good for you. Splenda has not been around long enough to see what the long term hazards are.

I know that NutraSweet is a killer.


A myth. There are NO, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA scientific studies to back this up. None.

All this started with the long debunked hype over saccharine supposedly causing cancer. Now every sweetener that comes down the pike is automatically suspect to the point of huge urban myths and mass hypochondria. NONE of which can be backed up by peer reviewed and repeatable studies. NONE.


They called him in to weld beams to reinforce the floor. They said it was because the concrete erroded every six months or so.

<shrug>
🙂
 
kinda sucks for diabetics. My mom makes stuff with splenda because my dad is a diabetic. It is good that the shortage won't affect the consumer market though for Splenda itself...only products made using splenda.
 
Originally posted by: lnguyen
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Originally posted by: lnguyen
so when are the cancer studies coming 🙂

this stuff is so expensive if you use it cup for cup in baking.. it's insane. Still tastes funny though.

I doubt it would cause cancer. It's sugar with a modified protien so the body doesn't absorb it.

it HAS to cause cancer. everything else in the world does, it's just a matter of which one is your pick. potatoes are going to be my downfall 😛

Yeah, some of those studies really mangle the scientific method:

a) People get cancer
b) People eat carrots
c) People that have eaten carrots have had cancer
d) Carrots must cause cancer

😕

As for Nutrasweet, wasn't there something about it caused brain tumors in large quantities?
EDIT: NM- didn't read above posts
 
I have the opinion that eating the natural version of some food, while possibly more fattening, is generally healthier in the long run. I might be wrong once in a while, but I know for a fact that sugar isn't dangerous. Splenda may or may not be.

Remember when everyone was buying margarine because it was healthier? Now they're finding it's worse for you than butter.

I'll eat my butter and sugar and continue to not be a couch potato complaining about how fat I'm getting while watching reality TV.
 
Originally posted by: notfred
I have the opinion that eating the natural version of some food, while possibly more fattening, is generally healthier in the long run. I might be wrong once in a while, but I know for a fact that sugar isn't dangerous. Splenda may or may not be.

Remember when everyone was buying margarine because it was healthier? Now they're finding it's worse for you than butter.

I'll eat my butter and sugar and continue to not be a couch potato complaining about how fat I'm getting while watching reality TV.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

Although, I must say that Splenda is a lifesaver for Diabetics. Thankfully, I am not one.
 
Back
Top