Künstliche Süßstoffe sind sehr schädlich!

für diesen Beitrag, wirklich sehr informativ.

Ein wenig Angst bekomme ich ja schon, wenn ich so etwas lese.

Nun, ich trinke keine Cola Light oder so, aber alleine die Tatsache das Firmen finanziell geschützt werden, die solche Zusatzstoffe in Lebensmitteln verwenden ist der Hammer.

Auch ohne diesen Beitrag steht für mich persönlich fest. Die Öko und Gesundheitswelle nimmt größere Ausmaße an, als wir jetzt noch annehmen.  Nach den jüngsten Vorkommnissen ist unseren (nicht nur unseren) AKW´s steigen ganze Gemeinden um und wollen nur noch Biostrom. Und genauso wird es mit den Produkten sein, die Stevia statt Zucker oder Zuckerersatzstoffe enthalten.

Wenn die Lizenzen erst vergeben sind, wird es schwer werden noch günstig einzusteigen. Darum sammel ich jetzt meine Sunwin Aktien. 

Das gleiche hatte ich übrigens 2003 zu Solon und Solarworld gesagt, wurde aber nur belächelt, und hatte nicht die Power groß zu investieren. Diesen Fehler mache ich kein zweites mal.

Viele Grüße

Para 

 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/...ctive-than-cocaine.aspx

Is Sugar More Addictive Than Cocaine?

According to a new research study, refined sugar is far more addictive than cocaine -- one of the most addictive and harmful substances currently known.

An astonishing 94 percent of rats who were allowed to choose mutually-exclusively between sugar water and cocaine, chose sugar. Even rats who were addicted to cocaine quickly switched their preference to sugar, once it was offered as a choice. The rats were also more willing to work for sugar than for cocaine.

The researchers speculate that the sweet receptors (two protein receptors located on the tongue), which evolved in ancestral times when the diet was very low in sugar, have not adapted to modern times’ high-sugar consumption.

Therefore, the abnormally high stimulation of these receptors by our sugar-rich diets generates excessive reward signals in the brain, which have the potential to override normal self-control mechanisms, and thus lead to addiction.

Additionally, their research found that there’s also a cross-tolerance and a cross-dependence between sugars and addictive drugs. As an example, animals with a long history of sugar consumption actually became tolerant (desensitized) to the analgesic effects of morphine.

PLoS ONE (Free Full-Text Article)


Dr. Mercola´s Comments:

Refined sugar was almost nonexistent in the diet of most people until very recently. Today, the over-consumption of sugar not only contributes to, but drives the current obesity epidemic.

Reducing your sugar intake should be on the top of your list, regardless of whether you’re currently overweight or not. Why? Because it’s been proven over and over that sugar increases your insulin levels, which can lead to:

         o High blood pressure and high cholesterol
         o Heart disease
         o Diabetes
         o Weight gain
         o Premature aging, and more

In fact, because sugar is bad for your health in so many ways, I created an entire list outlining 100-Plus Ways in Which Sugar Can Damage Your Health!

Now having pointed out the dangers of sugar, does that mean you should never eat sugar?  Certainly not. While it clearly tends to decrease your health, sugar in moderation is likely not going to cause any significant damage. What do I mean by moderation? Well, something on the order of five pounds a year.  This is considerably less than the amount the average American consumes which is closer to 175 pounds per year.

Another better use of sugar is anytime you want to use artificial sweeteners. After researching this area for many years and writing a book, Sweet Deception, on the topic, I am absolutely convinced that sugar is a healthier and much safer option than using these poisons. However, ideally you would not use either, but if you have a choice between sugar and chemical options always go with the real deal.

Controlling your insulin levels is one of the most important things you can do to optimize your overall health, and avoiding sugar is essential to doing this.  

Keep in mind that refined sugar is not the only culprit. Starch, in the form of grains and potatoes, should also be limited within your diet in order to lose weight and feel better. Following my nutrition plan is a simple way to automatically reduce your intake of grains and sugars.

Just as this study confirms, sugar is highly addictive. Fortunately, energy psychology tools like the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) can be enormously helpful in kicking the sugar habit. You can use EFT to successfully treat a wide variety of emotional stresses, including the food cravings related to sugar.  

http://www.mercola.com/article/sugar/dangers_of_sugar.htm

76 Ways Sugar Can Ruin Your Health

Contributed by Nancy Appleton, Ph.D
Author of the book Lick The Sugar Habit

In addition to throwing off the body's homeostasis, excess sugar may result in a number of other significant consequences. The following is a listing of some of sugar's metabolic consequences from a variety of medical journals and other scientific publications.

1.Sugar can suppress your immune system and impair your defenses against infectious disease.1,2
2.Sugar upsets the mineral relationships in your body: causes chromium and copper deficiencies and interferes with absorption of calcium and magnesium. 3,4,5,6
3.Sugar can cause can cause a rapid rise of adrenaline, hyperactivity, anxiety, difficulty concentrating, and crankiness in children.7,8
4.Sugar can produce a significant rise in total cholesterol, triglycerides and bad cholesterol and a decrease in good cholesterol.9,10,11,12
5.Sugar causes a loss of tissue elasticity and function.13
6.Sugar feeds cancer cells and has been connected with the development of cancer of the breast, ovaries, prostate, rectum, pancreas, biliary tract, lung, gallbladder and stomach.14,15,16,17,18,19,20
7.Sugar can increase fasting levels of glucose and can cause reactive hypoglycemia.21,22
8.Sugar can weaken eyesight.23
9.Sugar can cause many problems with the gastrointestinal tract including: an acidic digestive tract, indigestion, malabsorption in patients with functional bowel disease, increased risk of Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis.24,25,26,27,28
10.Sugar can cause premature aging.29
11.Sugar can lead to alcoholism.30
12.Sugar can cause your saliva to become acidic, tooth decay, and periodontal disease.31,32,33
13.Sugar contributes to obesity.34
14.Sugar can cause autoimmune diseases such as: arthritis, asthma, multiple sclerosis.35,36,37
15.Sugar greatly assists the uncontrolled growth of Candida Albicans (yeast infections)38
16.Sugar can cause gallstones.39
17.Sugar can cause appendicitis.40
18.Sugar can cause hemorrhoids.41
19.Sugar can cause varicose veins.42
20.Sugar can elevate glucose and insulin responses in oral contraceptive users.43
21.Sugar can contribute to osteoporosis.44
22.Sugar can cause a decrease in your insulin sensitivity thereby causing an abnormally high insulin levels and eventually diabetes.45,46,47
23.Sugar can lower your Vitamin E levels.48
24.Sugar can increase your systolic blood pressure.49
25.Sugar can cause drowsiness and decreased activity in children.50
26.High sugar intake increases advanced glycation end products (AGEs)(Sugar molecules attaching to and thereby damaging proteins in the body).51
27.Sugar can interfere with your absorption of protein.52
28.Sugar causes food allergies.53
29.Sugar can cause toxemia during pregnancy.54
30.Sugar can contribute to eczema in children.55
31.Sugar can cause atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease.56,57
32.Sugar can impair the structure of your DNA.58
33.Sugar can change the structure of protein and cause a permanent alteration of the way the proteins act in your body.59,60
34.Sugar can make your skin age by changing the structure of collagen.61
35.Sugar can cause cataracts and nearsightedness.62,63
36.Sugar can cause emphysema.64
37.High sugar intake can impair the physiological homeostasis of many systems in your body.65
38.Sugar lowers the ability of enzymes to function.66
39.Sugar intake is higher in people with Parkinson's disease.67
40.Sugar can increase the size of your liver by making your liver cells divide and it can increase the amount of liver fat.68,69
41.Sugar can increase kidney size and produce pathological changes in the kidney such as the formation of kidney stones.70,71
42.Sugar can damage your pancreas.72
43.Sugar can increase your body's fluid retention.73
44.Sugar is enemy #1 of your bowel movement.74
45.Sugar can compromise the lining of your capillaries.75
46.Sugar can make your tendons more brittle.76
47.Sugar can cause headaches, including migraines.77
48.Sugar can reduce the learning capacity, adversely affect school children's grades and cause learning disorders.78,79
49.Sugar can cause an increase in delta, alpha, and theta brain waves which can alter your mind's ability to think clearly.80
50.Sugar can cause depression.81
51.Sugar can increase your risk of gout.82
52.Sugar can increase your risk of Alzheimer's disease.83
53.Sugar can cause hormonal imbalances such as: increasing estrogen in men, exacerbating PMS, and decreasing growth hormone.84,85,86,87
54.Sugar can lead to dizziness.88
55.Diets high in sugar will increase free radicals and oxidative stress.89
56.High sucrose diets of subjects with peripheral vascular disease significantly increases platelet adhesion.90
57.High sugar consumption of pregnant adolescents can lead to substantial decrease in gestation duration and is associated with a twofold increased risk for delivering a small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infant.91,92
58.Sugar is an addictive substance.93
59.Sugar can be intoxicating, similar to alcohol.94
60.Sugar given to premature babies can affect the amount of carbon dioxide they produce.95
61.Decrease in sugar intake can increase emotional stability.96
62.Your body changes sugar into 2 to 5 times more fat in the bloodstream than it does starch.97
63.The rapid absorption of sugar promotes excessive food intake in obese subjects.98
64.Sugar can worsen the symptoms of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).99
65.Sugar adversely affects urinary electrolyte composition.100
66.Sugar can slow down the ability of your adrenal glands to function.101
67.Sugar has the potential of inducing abnormal metabolic processes in a normal healthy individual and to promote chronic degenerative diseases.102
68.I.V.s (intravenous feedings) of sugar water can cut off oxygen to your brain.103
69.Sugar increases your risk of polio.104
70.High sugar intake can cause epileptic seizures.105
71.Sugar causes high blood pressure in obese people.106
72.In intensive care units: Limiting sugar saves lives.107
73.Sugar may induce cell death.108
74.In juvenile rehabilitation camps, when children were put on a low sugar diet, there was a 44 percent drop in antisocial behavior.109
75.Sugar dehydrates newborns.110
76.Sugar can cause gum disease.111

References
1.Sanchez, A., et al. Role of Sugars in Human Neutrophilic Phagocytosis, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Nov 1973;261:1180_1184. Bernstein, J., al. Depression of Lymphocyte Transformation Following Oral Glucose Ingestion. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.1997;30:613
2.Ringsdorf, W., Cheraskin, E. and Ramsay R. Sucrose, Neutrophilic Phagocytosis and Resistance to Disease, Dental Survey. 1976;52(12):46_48.
3.Couzy, F., et al. "Nutritional Implications of the Interaction Minerals," Progressive Food and Nutrition Science 17;1933:65-87
4.Kozlovsky, A., et al. Effects of Diets High in Simple Sugars on Urinary Chromium Losses. Metabolism. June 1986;35:515_518.
5.Fields, M.., et al. Effect of Copper Deficiency on Metabolism and Mortality in Rats Fed Sucrose or Starch Diets, Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1983;113:1335_1345.
6.Lemann, J. Evidence that Glucose Ingestion Inhibits Net Renal Tubular Reabsorption of Calcium and Magnesium. Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1976 ;70:236_245.
7.Goldman, J., et al. Behavioral Effects of Sucrose on Preschool Children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.1986;14(4):565_577.
8.Jones, T. W., et al. Enhanced Adrenomedullary Response and Increased Susceptibility to Neuroglygopenia: Mechanisms Underlying the Adverse Effect of Sugar Ingestion in Children. Journal of Pediatrics. Feb 1995;126:171-7.
9.Scanto, S. and Yudkin, J. The Effect of Dietary Sucrose on Blood Lipids, Serum Insulin, Platelet Adhesiveness and Body Weight in Human Volunteers, Postgraduate Medicine Journal. 1969;45:602_607.
10.Albrink, M. and Ullrich I. H. Interaction of Dietary Sucrose and Fiber on Serum Lipids in Healthy Young Men Fed High Carbohydrate Diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1986;43:419-428. Pamplona, R., et al. Mechanisms of Glycation in Atherogenesis. Med Hypotheses. Mar 1993;40(3):174-81.
11.Reiser, S. Effects of Dietary Sugars on Metabolic Risk Factors Associated with Heart Disease. Nutritional Health. 1985;203_216.
12.Lewis, G. F. and Steiner, G. Acute Effects of Insulin in the Control of Vldl Production in Humans. Implications for The insulin-resistant State. Diabetes Care. 1996 Apr;19(4):390-3 R. Pamplona, M. .J., et al. Mechanisms of Glycation in Atherogenesis. Medical Hypotheses. 1990;40:174-181.
13.Cerami, A., Vlassara, H., and Brownlee, M. "Glucose and Aging." Scientific American. May 1987:90. Lee, A. T. and Cerami, A. The Role of Glycation in Aging. Annals of the New York Academy of Science; 663:63-67.
14.Takahashi, E., Tohoku University School of Medicine, Wholistic Health Digest. October 1982:41:00
15.Quillin, Patrick, Cancer's Sweet Tooth, Nutrition Science News. Ap 2000 Rothkopf, M.. Nutrition. July/Aug 1990;6(4).
16.Michaud, D. Dietary Sugar, Glycemic Load, and Pancreatic Cancer Risk in a Prospective Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. Sep 4, 2002 ;94(17):1293-300.
17.Moerman, C. J., et al. Dietary Sugar Intake in the Etiology of Biliary Tract Cancer. International Journal of Epidemiology. Ap 1993.2(2):207-214.
18.The Edell Health Letter. Sept 1991;7:1.
19.De Stefani, E."Dietary Sugar and Lung Cancer: a Case control Study in Uruguay." Nutrition and Cancer. 1998;31(2):132_7.
20.Cornee, J., et al. A Case-control Study of Gastric Cancer and Nutritional Factors in Marseille, France. European Journal of Epidemiology 11 (1995):55-65.
21.Kelsay, J., et al. Diets High in Glucose or Sucrose and Young Women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1974;27:926_936. Thomas, B. J., et al. Relation of Habitual Diet to Fasting Plasma Insulin Concentration and the Insulin Response to Oral Glucose, Human Nutrition Clinical Nutrition. 1983; 36C(1):49_51.
22.Dufty, William. Sugar Blues. (New York:Warner Books, 1975).
23.Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica. Mar 2002;48;25. Taub, H. Ed. Sugar Weakens Eyesight, VM NEWSLETTER;May 1986:06:00
24.Dufty.
25.Yudkin, J. Sweet and Dangerous.(New York:Bantam Books,1974) 129
26.Cornee, J., et al. A Case-control Study of Gastric Cancer and Nutritional Factors in Marseille, France, European Journal of Epidemiology. 1995;11
27.Persson P. G., Ahlbom, A., and Hellers, G. Epidemiology. 1992;3:47-52.
28.Jones, T. W., et al. Enhanced Adrenomedullary Response and Increased Susceptibility to Neuroglygopenia: Mechanisms Underlying the Adverse Effect of Sugar Ingestion in Children. Journal of Pediatrics. Feb 1995;126:171-7.
29.Lee, A. T.and Cerami A. The Role of Glycation in Aging. Annals of the New York Academy of Science.1992;663:63-70.
30.Abrahamson, E. and Peget, A. Body, Mind and Sugar. (New York: Avon, 1977.}
31.Glinsmann, W., Irausquin, H., and Youngmee, K. Evaluation of Health Aspects of Sugar Contained in Carbohydrate Sweeteners. F. D. A. Report of Sugars Task Force. 1986:39:00 Makinen K.K.,et al. A Descriptive Report of the Effects of a 16_month Xylitol Chewing_gum Programme Subsequent to a 40_month Sucrose Gum Programme. Caries Research. 1998; 32(2)107_12.
32.Glinsmann, W., Irausquin, H., and K. Youngmee. Evaluation of Health Aspects of Sugar Contained in Carbohydrate Sweeteners. F. D. A. Report of Sugars Task Force.1986;39:36_38.
33.Appleton, N. New York: Healthy Bones. Avery Penguin Putnam:1989.
34.Keen, H., et al. Nutrient Intake, Adiposity, and Diabetes. British Medical Journal. 1989; 1:00 655_658
35.Darlington, L., Ramsey, N. W. and Mansfield, J. R. Placebo Controlled, Blind Study of Dietary Manipulation Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis, Lancet. Feb 1986;8475(1):236_238.
36.Powers, L. Sensitivity: You React to What You Eat. Los Angeles Times. (Feb. 12, 1985). Cheng, J., et al. Preliminary Clinical Study on the Correlation Between Allergic Rhinitis and Food Factors. Lin Chuang Er Bi Yan Hou Ke Za Zhi Aug 2002;16(8):393-396.
37.Erlander, S. The Cause and Cure of Multiple Sclerosis, The Disease to End Disease." Mar 3, 1979;1(3):59_63.
38.Crook, W. J. The Yeast Connection. (TN:Professional Books, 1984).
39.Heaton, K. The Sweet Road to Gallstones. British Medical Journal. Apr 14, 1984; 288:00:00 1103_1104. Misciagna, G., et al. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1999;69:120-126.
40.Cleave, T. The Saccharine Disease. (New Canaan, CT: Keats Publishing, 1974).
41.Ibid.
42.Cleave, T. and Campbell, G. (Bristol, England:Diabetes, Coronary Thrombosis and the Saccharine Disease: John Wright and Sons, 1960).
43.Behall, K. Influ ence of Estrogen Content of Oral Contraceptives and Consumption of Sucrose on Blood Parameters. Disease Abstracts International. 1982;431437.
44.Tjäderhane, L. and Larmas, M. A High Sucrose Diet Decreases the Mechanical Strength of Bones in Growing Rats. Journal of Nutrition. 1998:128:1807_1810.
45.Beck, Nielsen H., Pedersen O., and Schwartz S. Effects of Diet on the Cellular Insulin Binding and the Insulin Sensitivity in Young Healthy Subjects. Diabetes. 1978;15:289_296 .
46.Sucrose Induces Diabetes in Cat. Federal Protocol. 1974;6(97). diabetes
47.Reiser, S., et al. Effects of Sugars on Indices on Glucose Tolerance in Humans. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1986;43:151-159.
48.Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. Aug 2000
49.Hodges, R., and Rebello, T. Carbohydrates and Blood Pressure. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1983:98:838_841.
50.Behar, D., et al. Sugar Challenge Testing with Children Considered Behaviorally Sugar Reactive. Nutritional Behavior. 1984;1:277_288.
51.Furth, A. and Harding, J. Why Sugar Is Bad For You. New Scientist. Sep 23, 1989;44.
52.Simmons, J. Is The Sand of Time Sugar? LONGEVITY. June 1990:00:00 49_53.
53.Appleton, N. New York: LICK THE SUGAR HABIT. Avery Penguin Putnam:1988. allergies
54.Cleave, T. The Saccharine Disease: (New Canaan Ct: Keats Publishing, Inc., 1974).131.
55.Ibid. 132
56.Pamplona, R., et al. Mechanisms of Glycation in Atherogenesis. Medical Hypotheses . 1990:00:00 174_181.
57.Vaccaro O., Ruth, K. J. and Stamler J. Relationship of Postload Plasma Glucose to Mortality with 19 yr Follow up. Diabetes Care. Oct 15,1992;10:328_334. Tominaga, M., et al, Impaired Glucose Tolerance Is a Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Disease, but Not Fasting Glucose. Diabetes Care. 1999:2(6):920-924.
58.Lee, A. T. and Cerami, A. Modifications of Proteins and Nucleic Acids by Reducing Sugars: Possible Role in Aging. Handbook of the Biology of Aging. (New York: Academic Press, 1990.).
59.Monnier, V. M. Nonenzymatic Glycosylation, the Maillard Reaction and the Aging Process. Journal of Gerontology 1990:45(4):105_110.
60.Cerami, A., Vlassara, H., and Brownlee, M. Glucose and Aging. Scientific American. May 1987:00:00 90
61.Dyer, D. G., et al. Accumulation of Maillard Reaction Products in Skin Collagen in Diabetes and Aging. Journal of Clinical Investigation. 1993:93(6):421_22.
62.Veromann, S.et al."Dietary Sugar and Salt Represent Real Risk Factors for Cataract Development." Ophthalmologica. 2003 Jul-Aug;217(4):302-307.
63.Goulart, F. S. Are You Sugar Smart? American Fitness. March_April 1991:00:00 34_38. Milwakuee, WI
64.Monnier, V. M. Nonenzymatic Glycosylation, the Maillard Reaction and the Aging Process. Journal of Gerontology. 1990:45(4):105_110.
65.Ceriello, A. Oxidative Stress and Glycemic Regulation. Metabolism. Feb 2000;49(2 Suppl 1):27-29.
66.Appleton, Nancy. New York; Lick the Sugar Habit. Avery Penguin Putnam, 1988 enzymes
67.Hellenbrand, W. Diet and Parkinson's Disease. A Possible Role for the Past Intake of Specific Nutrients. Results from a Self-administered Food-frequency Questionnaire in a Case-control Study. Neurology. Sep 1996;47(3):644-650.
68.Goulart, F. S. Are You Sugar Smart? American Fitness. March_April 1991:00:00 34_38.
69.Ibid.
70.Yudkin, J., Kang, S. and Bruckdorfer, K. Effects of High Dietary Sugar. British Journal of Medicine. Nov 22, 1980;1396.
71.Blacklock, N. J., Sucrose and Idiopathic Renal Stone. Nutrition and Health. 1987;5(1-2):9- Curhan, G., et al. Beverage Use and Risk for Kidney Stones in Women. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1998:28:534-340.
72.Goulart, F. S. Are You Sugar Smart? American Fitness. March_April 1991:00:00 34_38. Milwakuee, WI,:
73.Ibid. fluid retention
74.Ibid. bowel movement
75.Ibid. compromise the lining of the capillaries
76.Nash, J. Health Contenders. Essence. Jan 1992; 23:00 79_81.
77.Grand, E. Food Allergies and Migraine.Lancet. 1979:1:955_959.
78.Schauss, A. Diet, Crime and Delinquency. (Berkley Ca; Parker House, 1981.)
79.Molteni, R, et al. A High-fat, Refined Sugar Diet Reduces Hippocampal Brain-derived Neurotrophic Factor, Neuronal Plasticity, and Learning. NeuroScience. 2002;112(4):803-814.
80.Christensen, L. The Role of Caffeine and Sugar in Depression. Nutrition Report. Mar 1991;9(3):17-24.
81.Ibid,44
82.Yudkin, J. Sweet and Dangerous.(New York:Bantam Books,1974) 129
83.Frey, J. Is There Sugar in the Alzheimer's Disease? Annales De Biologie Clinique. 2001; 59 (3):253-257.
84.Yudkin, J. Metabolic Changes Induced by Sugar in Relation to Coronary Heart Disease and Diabetes. Nutrition and Health. 1987;5(1-2):5-8.
85.Yudkin, J and Eisa, O. Dietary Sucrose and Oestradiol Concentration in Young Men. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism. 1988:32(2):53-55.
86.The Edell Health Letter. Sept 1991;7:1.
87.Gardner, L. and Reiser, S. Effects of Dietary Carbohydrate on Fasting Levels of Human Growth Hormone and Cortisol. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine. 1982;169:36_40.
88.Journal of Advanced Medicine. 1994;7(1):51-58.
89.Ceriello, A. Oxidative Stress and Glycemic Regulation. Metabolism. Feb 2000;49(2 Suppl 1):27-29.
90.Postgraduate Medicine.Sept 1969:45:602-07.
91.Lenders, C. M. Gestational Age and Infant Size at Birth Are Associated with Dietary Intake among Pregnant Adolescents. Journal of Nutrition. Jun 1997;1113- 1117
92.Ibid.
93.Sugar, White Flour Withdrawal Produces Chemical Response. The Addiction Letter. Jul 1992:04:00 Colantuoni, C., et al. Evidence That Intermittent, Excessive Sugar Intake Causes Endogenous Opioid Dependence. Obes Res. Jun 2002 ;10(6):478-488. Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Society, Toronto, June 17, 2001 www.mercola.com/2001/jun/30/sugar.htm
94.Ibid.
95.Sunehag, A. L., et al. Gluconeogenesis in Very Low Birth Weight Infants Receiving Total Parenteral Nutrition Diabetes. 1999 ;48 7991_800.
96.Christensen L., et al. Impact of A Dietary Change on Emotional Distress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology.1985;94(4):565_79.
97.Nutrition Health Review. Fall 85 changes sugar into fat faster than fat
98.Ludwig, D. S., et al. High Glycemic Index Foods, Overeating and Obesity. Pediatrics. March 1999;103(3):26-32.
99.Pediatrics Research. 1995;38(4):539-542. Berdonces, J. L. Attention Deficit and Infantile Hyperactivity. Rev Enferm. Jan 2001;4(1)11-4
100.Blacklock, N. J. Sucrose and Idiopathic Renal Stone. Nutrition Health. 1987;5(1 & 2):9-
101.Lechin, F., et al. Effects of an Oral Glucose Load on Plasma Neurotransmitters in Humans. Neurophychobiology. 1992;26(1-2):4-11.
102.Fields, M. Journal of the American College of Nutrition. Aug 1998;17(4):317_321.
103.Arieff, A. I. Veterans Administration Medical Center in San Francisco. San Jose Mercury; June 12/86. IVs of sugar water can cut off oxygen to the brain.
104.Sandler, Benjamin P. Diet Prevents Polio. Milwakuee, WI,:The Lee Foundation for for Nutritional Research, 1951
105.Murphy, Patricia. The Role of Sugar in Epileptic Seizures. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. May, 2001 Murphy Is Editor of Epilepsy Wellness Newsletter, 1462 West 5th Ave., Eugene, Oregon 97402
106.Stern, N. & Tuck, M. Pathogenesis of Hypertension in Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Mellitus, a Fundamental and Clinical Test. 2nd Edition, (PhiladelphiA; A:Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2000)943-957.
107.Christansen, D. Critical Care: Sugar Limit Saves Lives. Science News. June 30, 2001; 159:404.
108.Donnini, D. et al. Glucose May Induce Cell Death through a Free Radical-mediated Mechanism.Biochem Biohhys Res Commun. Feb 15, 1996:219(2):412-417.
109.Schoenthaler, S. The Los Angeles Probation Department Diet-Behavior Program: Am Empirical Analysis of Six Institutional Settings. Int J Biosocial Res 5(2):88-89.
110.Gluconeogenesis in Very Low Birth Weight Infants Receiving Total Parenteral Nutrition. Diabetes. 1999 Apr;48(4):791-800.
111.Glinsmann, W., et al. Evaluation of Health Aspects of Sugar Contained in Carbohydrate Sweeteners." FDA Report of Sugars Task Force -1986 39 123 Yudkin, J. and Eisa, O. Dietary Sucrose and Oestradiol Concentration in Young Men. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism. 1988;32(2):53-5.
 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/.../28/dangers-of-msg.aspx

A silent killer that’s worse than alcohol, nicotine, and drugs is likely lurking in your kitchen cabinets and even your child’s school cafeteria. It’s monosodium glutamate (MSG), a flavor enhancer that’s known widely as an addition to Chinese food, but that’s actually added to thousands of the foods you eat.

In this telling three-part video series, you’ll find out why Dr. Russell Blaylock, a board-certified neurosurgeon, describes MSG as a dangerous excitotoxin, and learn how this toxin could be making you fat.  

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/08/corn_syrup.html

Soft Drink Sweetener Linked to Diabetes in Kids
Researchers zero in on high fructose corn syrup

Researchers have found new evidence that soda pop sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup may contribute to the development of diabetes, particularly in children.

In a laboratory study of commonly consumed carbonated beverages, the scientists found that drinks containing the syrup had high levels of reactive compounds that have been shown by others to have the potential to trigger cell and tissue damage that could cause the disease, which is at epidemic levels.

The syrup, commonly called HFCS, is a sweetener found in many foods and beverages, including non-diet soda pop, baked goods, and condiments. It is has become the sweetener of choice for many food manufacturers because it is considered more economical, sweeter and easier to blend into beverages than table sugar.

Some researchers have suggested that high-fructose corn syrup may contribute to an increased risk of diabetes as well as obesity, a claim the food industry disputes. Until now, little laboratory evidence has been available on the topic.

In the current study, Chi-Tang Ho, Ph.D., conducted chemical tests among 11 different carbonated soft drinks containing HFCS. He found "astonishingly high" levels of reactive carbonyls in those beverages.

These undesirable and highly-reactive compounds associated with “unbound” fructose and glucose molecules are believed to cause tissue damage, says Ho, a professor of food science at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. By contrast, reactive carbonyls are not present in table sugar, whose fructose and glucose components are “bound” and chemically stable, the researcher notes.

Reactive carbonyls also are elevated in the blood of individuals with diabetes and linked to the complications of that disease. Based on the study data, Ho estimates that a single can of soda contains about five times the concentration of reactive carbonyls than the concentration found in the blood of an adult person with diabetes.

Ho and his associates also found that adding tea components to drinks containing HFCS might help lower the levels of reactive carbonyls.

The scientists found that adding epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), a compound in tea, significantly reduced the levels of reactive carbonyl species in a dose-dependent manner when added to the carbonated soft drinks studied. In some cases, the levels of reactive carbonyls were reduced by half, the researchers say.

“People consume too much high-fructose corn syrup in this country,” says Ho. “It’s in way too many food and drink products and there’s growing evidence that it’s bad for you.”

The tea-derived supplement provides a promising way to counter its potentially toxic effects, especially in children who consume a lot of carbonated beverages, he says.

But eliminating or reducing consumption of HFCS is preferable, the researchers note. They are currently exploring the chemical mechanisms by which tea appears to neutralize the reactivity of the syrup.

Ho’s group is also probing the mechanisms by which carbonation increases the amount of reactive carbonyls formed in sodas containing HFCS.

They note that non-carbonated fruit juices containing HFCS have one-third the amount of reactive carbonyl species found in carbonated sodas with HFCS, while non-carbonated tea beverages containing high-fructose corn syrup, which already contain EGCG, have only about one-sixth the levels of carbonyls found in regular soda.

In the future, food and drink manufacturers could reduce concerns about HFCS by adding more EGCG, using less HFCS, or replacing the syrup with alternatives such as regular table sugar, Ho and his associates say.  

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/...y-is-deceiving-you.aspx

This terrific five-part video series by Peter Jennings explores how the food industry spends billions of dollars to sabotage your health.

Jennings also takes a critical look at our government’s agricultural subsidy programs, and their unintended consequences on your nutritional choices and health. For example, sugar and fat receive 20 times more government farming subsidies than fruits and vegetables. Does this oversupply of fats and sugars, compared to fruits and vegetables, affect your food choices?

Some statistics, implicating both the food industry and the government as co-creating factors in the obesity epidemic, include:  

   *
     In 2002, consumers spent $174 billion on processed foods.
   *
     90 percent of foods marketed each year are processed foods.
   *
     Last year, 2,800 new candies, desserts, ice-cream, and snacks were introduced      to the marketplace, compared to 230 new fruits or vegetable products.
   *
     The food industry spends $34 billion per year marketing their products.
   *
     $12 billion is spent marketing to children.

The food industry is quick to point out that the choice is always yours -- they’re not making you buy something you don’t want. They also want to blame the obesity problem on people’s unwillingness to exercise.  

http://www.newstarget.com/022032.html

Aspartame manufacturer funds junk science that declares aspartame to be safe (opinion)
by Mike Adams

Ajinomoto, a top manufacturer of aspartame, has announced that aspartame is completely safe. This conclusion was reached by a panel of industry-friendly "experts" hired by Ajinomoto, who did no new research but, instead, selectively reviewed previous studies on the safety of aspartame (many of which were funded by aspartame manufacturers in the first place).

The panel of experts was called together by the Burdock Group, a consulting firm that earns its money from food and grocery manufacturers like Ajinomoto. The Ajinomoto company was reportedly not allowed to actually choose which panel members would be part of the aspartame safety review, but industry critics like Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), responded by saying, "They say Ajinomoto paid for the study but researchers didn't know who paid. Well, they knew it was industry. And some of these people are longstanding industry consultants."

What we have here is a case of yet more pro-aspartame propaganga being paraded around as legitimate science. It's really more of a junk science fraud fest designed to prop up the aspartame industry a little longer even as new science keeps coming out showing the chemical sweetener to be potentially quite dangerous to health.

For the Ajinomoto company to fund a review by paying money to an industry-friendly consulting group that coincidentally happens to find aspartame to be perfectly safe strains credibility to such a degree that only a fool would put any weight in this announcement. It's like the R.J. Reynolds company announcing nicotine is not addictive, or Coca-Cola declaring that high fructose corn syrup does not promote obesity.

Of course aspartame is dangerous to human health. The chemicals it breaks down into (which includes small amounts of formaldehyde) are documented as nervous system toxins. In the natural health industry, aspartame is well known to be an "excitotoxin" -- a substance that harms and kills nerve cells. On top of that, there are literally hundreds of thousands of accounts of people suffering blindness, seizures, blurred vision, migraine headaches and other neurological problems associated with aspartame consumption. No other food or beverage ingredient has generated more consumer complaints to the FDA than aspartame.

People who stop drinking aspartame often experience astonishing improvements in vision, mental clarity and neurological function. It is, in fact, common knowledge among natural health practitioners that aspartame is a neurotoxic substance.

Read more NewsTarget articles on aspartame's safety problems by clicking here.

Trying to prop up a chemical that will soon be illegal
The days of aspartame's dominance as a sweetener are nearly over. Sucralose is far more popular today (even though it has its own health concerns), and recently, Coca-Cola teamed up with Cargill in an effort to legalize stevia in the United States as a GRAS sweetener (meaning they could use it in foods). Once stevia is legalized, you will see a swift and industry-wide shift away from aspartame and towards stevia-based sweeteners.

The Ajinomoto company, of course, wants to keep the aspartame business going for as long as possible, and that involves campaigns of disinformation like you're reading about here -- hiring "experts" to declare the ridiculous. Remember: No new research has been conducted at all. Instead, this group of experts simply reviewed previous studies, many of which were no doubt distorted and scientifically invalid because they were funded by aspartame in the first place. Looking at bad science a second time does not transform it into good science.

Consider some of the biggest food and medicine lies we've seen over the last few years:

• Nicotine is not addictive.
• Fat-free foods won't make you fat.
• Margarine is healthier than butter.
• Eggs cause high cholesterol.
• Vioxx is perfectly safe.
• Monosodium glutamate is safe for infants.
• Everyone should drink fluoride to have healthy teeth.
• Thalidomide harms no one.
• High fructose corn syrup doesn't cause obesity.
• Tens of millions of children need to be on Ritalin.
• Food coloring chemicals are safe for children to consume in unlimited quantities.
• Pesticides are not harmful to humans.

...And aspartame is safe.

Yeah, sure. And the emperor's clothes are invisible, too.  

Guter Zucker aus der Pflanze: Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni
Höhere Süßkraft als Zucker, geeignet für Diabetiker
Zucker gilt als einer der Krankmacher unserer Zeit. Der hohe „Brennwert“ führt schnell zu zusätzlichen Pfunden, darüber hinaus werden die Zähne geschädigt. Für Millionen von Diabetikern ist Zucker tabu, mindestens ein ebenso großer Teil der Bevölkerung sollte zuckerarm leben, um den drohenden manifesten Diabetes vielleicht noch zu verhindern.
Das Problem ist nur, dass die Menschen von frühester Kindheit an auf Süßes trainiert werden: Süßes als Belohnung, als Ansporn, als Ruhigstellung  - und es ist ja auch so lecker.
Die Lösung scheint einfach: Warum nicht auf künstliche Süßung aus dem Chemielabor ausweichen? Doch nach wie vor bestehen Bedenken zu Nebenwirkungen bei der Langzeiteinnahme und es schmeckt irgendwie doch anders.

Stevia ist die Lösung?
Die Lösung könnte vielleicht im südamerikanischen Paraguay wachsen: Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni. Schon seit Jahrhunderten süßen die Indianer den Mate-Tee mit den grünen Blättern die Pflanze; die Vorteile sind frappierend: bei nur ca. 0,2 Kilokalorien je  Gramm besteht praktisch kein Risiko der Gewichtszunahme, die Blätter sind aber 20 bis 30 mal mehr süß als Zucker, die Zähne sind nicht gefährdet. Bei nicht zuckerkranken Erwachsenen konnte in einer Studie nachgewiesen werden, dass ein Extrakt aus Blättern der  Stevia zu einer leichten Senkung des Blutzuckerspiegels und zu einer Verbesserung der Glucosetoleranz  führt. Darüber hinaus wird der Blutdruck leicht gesenkt, das Mittel schont die Verwertung der Vitamine.

Noch nicht zugelassen
Die Lebensmittel-Industrie sieht im Einsatz des Stevia-Extraktes teilweise Potenzial zum Einsatz in Getränken oder sonstigen Süßwaren. Erste Probepflanzungen in Europa haben bewiesen, dass Stevia auch hierzulande gedeihen kann.
In Asien (dort oft Steviosid genannt) und der Schweiz sind Stevia-Produkte bereits zugelassen, für die EU steht dieser Schritt noch aus. Dahinter steckt die theoretische Gefahr einer Fruchtschädigung für Embryos (Mutagenität), zur abschließenden Beurteilung stehen noch Studien aus.
(Dr. Berthold Gehrke) © 2007 medizin.de
 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/...alls-stevia-unsafe.aspx

The South American herb stevia, which is used as a natural sweetener, has been called an “unsafe food additive” by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The FDA sent a letter to Hain Celestial Group Inc, maker of Celestial Seasonings herbal teas, saying the stevia used in some of their teas may be dangerous to blood sugar and reproductive, cardiovascular, and renal systems.

Stevia is several hundred times sweeter than sugar, and has no calories. Though it’s approved as a dietary supplement in the United States, it is not approved as a food additive. A dozen other countries, including Japan, China, and Brazil, have approved the sweetener however.

Beverage giants including Coca-Cola Co. are eyeing stevia as a new low-calorie sweetener, but while the FDA has received requests to use stevia in food, they say "data and information necessary to support the safe use have been lacking."

The Center for Science in the Public Interest also believes that data is lacking to support the safety of stevia in food.

Coca-Cola and Cargill Inc. are working to prove the safety of the herb, but in the meantime, Hain plans to change their stevia-containing teas’ labels to state that they are supplements, not foods.

Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Warning Letter August 17, 2007
http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/s6500c.htm

Reuters September 18, 2007
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/...=RSS&feedName=healthNews


Dr. Mercola´s Comments:

Stevia is a non-caloric herb native to Paraguay that has been used as a sweetener for over 1,500 years in South America. If anyone is doubting its safety, I would encourage them to consider that fact; it is a MAJOR clue that stevia is safe.

Stevia has also been used in Japan since the early 1970s to sweeten pickles and other foods.

In the United States, however, the FDA has turned down at least three industry requests to use stevia in foods.

Please understand that Japan is not encumbered by the same conflicts of interest as the United States, and most of their research is not directly financed or greatly influenced by the very industry that is seeking to promote a product. So in this environment stevia has proven to be safe.

What is ironic, of course, is that while the FDA is scrutinizing this naturally sweet herb, they maintain a historically generous attitude toward synthetic chemical sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose.

To use stevia as a commercial food additive would require years of testing. Even though this sweetener has passed the test of time, it is viewed as dangerous until proven otherwise.

Not so with the big-name artificial sweeteners on the market; they are innocent until proven guilty.

In the United States, stevia has been the subject of searches and seizures, trade complaints, and embargoes on importation. Many believe that the FDA’s actions regarding stevia are nothing more than a restraint to trade designed to benefit the artificial sweetener industry.

Stevia is not the only natural sweetener that is being unfairly targeted by the FDA. A pair of entrepreneurs tried unsuccessfully to create a natural sweetener based on a West African berry called Synsepalum Dulcificum, for instance.

However, in 1974 the FDA ruled that their natural product was a food additive that needed years of testing before it could be used commercially. Now here’s the kicker: that very same year, the FDA approved the dangerous artificial sweetener aspartame.

Is Stevia Safe for Everyone?

Unlike aspartame and other artificial sweeteners that have been cited for dangerous toxicities, stevia is a safe, natural alternative that's ideal for those watching their weight and anyone interested in maintaining their health by avoiding sugar.

Some don’t like its taste, but other than that it is nearly the ideal sweetener.

It is hundreds of times sweeter than sugar and truly has virtually no calories -- unlike the lies and deceptions with regular artificial sweeteners, which are loaded with other sugars to make them flow better.

I want to emphasize, however, that if you have insulin issues, I suggest that you avoid sweeteners altogether (including stevia), as they all can decrease your sensitivity to insulin. So if you struggle with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, or extra weight then you have insulin sensitivity issues and would benefit from avoiding sweeteners.

But for everyone else, if you are going to sweeten your foods and beverages anyway, I strongly encourage you to consider using stevia.

Stevia can be used in appetizers, beverages, soups, salads, vegetables, desserts -- virtually anything! It is, hands down, the best alternative to sugar you will ever taste.

You Want to Know Something REALLY Interesting?

Re-read my recommendation on stevia in the preceding paragraph and realize that if I sold stevia on my site I would be in direct violation of the “law,” which specifically restricts anyone from making ANY claim on the use of stevia as a sweetener. Since I don’t sell it, I can tell you what I believe.

It truly is amazing how the food industry has manipulated and distorted the laws to serve THEIR purposes -- not for your protection or benefit.

If you are a protein or mixed nutritional type, be sure to check out Luci Lock’s video on how to make a “yummy scrummy” cream soda using stevia and other nutritious ingredients.

Finally, if you would like to know more about the startling truth surrounding artificial sweeteners -- and why I don’t recommend them -- I encourage you to read my book Sweet Deception.
http://www.mercola.com/sweet-deception-aspartame
 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/...story-of-big-sugar.aspx

Other than gold, no single substance has had a bigger hand in shaping the history of the western hemisphere than sugar. These videos explore the dark history and modern power of the world's reigning sugar cartels.

Using dramatic reenactments, they reveal how sugar was at the heart of slavery in the West Indies in the 18th century, and continues to be at the heart of a present-day epidemic: consumers who are slaves to a sugar-based diet.

Watch this video: 44:29
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8046348031279865399&hl=en

Watch this video: 44:28
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8139449806431868725&hl=en


Dr. Mercola´s Comments:

I thought it would be great to juxtapose the stevia article in this issue with the amazing story of big sugar. If you aren’t familiar with the story I would strongly encourage you to watch the videos. You will see the incredible human brutality that occurred as a result of the early sugar trade, and in some parts of the world similar injustices are occurring.

So if you have kids, watch this video with them and give them a great history lesson.

Halloween is without question the biggest event of the year for the sugar industry. They sell more treats during this season than nearly all others combined. So you will be barraged with sugar-filled candy advertisements, perhaps more so than at any other time of year. Even toddlers, it seems, are clamoring for their share of sweet treats, and this is not by happenstance.

The sugar industry is a shrewd, savvy, well-oiled machine that will hook your children from the youngest ages if you allow it, and has already hooked the majority of the U.S. population.

These two videos are a fascinating introduction into the incredible power of the sugar industry, and they’re filmed in a dramatic way that makes them very interesting to watch.

You all know that the tobacco industry has been pushing its addictive cigarettes on the world’s population for decades. When you watch these videos, you’ll see the striking similarities between big tobacco and the big sugar industry, which is now echoing many of big tobacco’s defense strategies.

Namely, they are denying any connection between their product and the obesity and diabetes epidemics going on in the industrialized world. They also have access to immense power and give generously to both political parties to ensure that their products are protected.

Yet, sugar is one of the biggest enemies you face in your pursuit of a healthy eating program. It appears in nearly ALL processed foods and drinks -- even things you wouldn’t think would be sweetened, like canned beans, mayonnaise, and pickles -- making it virtually impossible to avoid.

Sugar Can Destroy Your Health

It is a proven fact that sugar increases your insulin and leptin levels and decreases receptor sensitivity for both of these vital hormones. This can lead to:

   * High blood pressure and high cholesterol
   * Heart disease
   * Diabetes
   * Weight gain
   * Premature aging

If you read my newsletter regularly, you know that controlling your insulin and leptin levels is one of the most important things you can do to optimize your health and slow the negative effects of aging -- and avoiding sugar is essential to do this.

Sugar has many more negative side effects beyond increasing your insulin levels, and you can read 76 ways sugar can destroy your health now.

One way in which sugar has been linked to the obesity epidemic, for instance, is that when consumed in massive quantities, sugars cause hormonal changes that lead to overeating.

Meanwhile, sugar suppresses your immune system, contributing to allergies, and it is responsible for a host of digestive disorders. It also contributes to depression, and its excess consumption is, in fact, associated with many of the chronic diseases in the United States, including cancer.

The sugar industry, of course, wants to downplay its health risks because there is big money involved.

The average American eats well in excess of 150 pounds of sugar a year, or about 2.5 pounds each week. This is no surprise because the single largest source of calories in the United States is high-fructose corn syrup from sodas.

The sugar industry has had its share of challenges lately, such as a growing artificial sweetener industry that has been stealing more and more attention and market share.

As a result, they’re coming on stronger than ever, touting their “natural” sweet treat as a fine part of your diet. Of course, most people don’t eat just a dab of sugar a week; they eat over 2 pounds, which is not surprising when you consider that sugar is actually more addictive than cocaine.

If you need help ridding yourself of a sugar addiction, then please consider energy psychology tools. The Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) is one of the best ways I know to help kick the sugar habit. It includes a marvelous technique called Turbo Tapping that has helped tens of thousands of people kick the soda habit.

Sugar is Better Than Artificial Sweeteners

Now that I’ve expressed the dangers of sugar, I have something to say that may shock you:

If you HAVE TO have something sweet it is FAR better to choose the natural, real-deal authentic sugar than its synthetic, no-calorie, artificial sweetener counterparts.

Artificial sweeteners are, hands-down, worse for your health than sugar.

And, while it clearly tends to decrease your health, sugar in moderation is likely not going to cause any significant damage. What do I mean by moderation? Well, something on the order of five pounds a year or less.

Another option if you’re looking for a safe, natural sweetener (that also has no calories) is to give the sweet herb stevia a try.  

http://www.newstarget.com/022234.html

Stevia: The FDA's Attack On A Beneficial Supplement
by Jon Barron

(NewsTarget) Let's be honest for a moment. There's no question that over the years I've tweaked the FDA, Canadian, and European regulators for some of the outrageously absurd positions they've taken when it comes to alternative health and supplements. Then again, I've also praised them on those occasions that I believe they've done the right thing. But of all their positions and all their calls, none brings their credibility more into question than their position regarding stevia. Understand, I have no investment in stevia. I use it in a couple of formulas, but it is hardly essential to what I do. That said, I believe that an exploration of the regulators' position on stevia speaks volumes as to their overall position on alternative health. So, without further ado...

What is stevia?

Stevia is a tropical plant native to South America. Its extract has up to 300 times the sweetness of sugar. Although some people complain of its staying power in the mouth or its sometimes licorice-like aftertaste, it is a popular natural alternative sweetener. As a sweetener, it is low glycemic and has added benefits in potentially helping to control obesity, enhance glucose tolerance, and reduce blood pressure. You would think that with this kind of pedigree, it would qualify as the perfect sugar substitute and be approved for use as an alternative sweetener everywhere. You would be half right. It is widely used throughout Asia (particularly Japan) and South America -- not so in the US, most of Europe, and Canada, where it is banned as a food additive. In the United States, and Canada it's allowed as a supplement, but not in food. In Europe, it's only allowed as an additive to animal feed.

This whole separation thing between food additives and supplements as seen in the US and Canada is actually very nebulous -- and deliberately so. Although the rulings as written by the various government agencies might appear clear, government authorities choose to interpret them as the mood suits. A good example is the recent censure of Celestial Seasonings teas. Celestial Seasonings followed the letter of the law by labeling their Zingers tea an herbal supplement and including a supplements facts panel on the label, but as it turns out, that didn't matter. To quote from the FDA notice, "Notwithstanding your use of the term 'Herbal Supplement' to identify the product and your use of a supplement facts label for nutrition labeling, your Zingers Tangerine Orange Tea is subject to regulation as a conventional food and not a dietary supplement... Therefore, your stevia-containing Zingers Tangerine Orange Tea is adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(2)(C) of the Act."

To better understand the situation, let's take a more detailed look at stevia.

What are the studies that support it?

In fact, stevia has been studied extensively. In addition to the studies cited above showing its benefits in regard to obesity, glucose tolerance, and high blood pressure, there are numbers of other studies proving its safety. For example, a 1991 study in Thailand found that even at doses 1,000 times normal human dosage, hamsters demonstrated no difference in growth rate or sexual performance -- even through three generations.

In 2004, researchers at the KU Leuven (Belgium) organized an international symposium on " The Safety of Stevioside." Scientists from all over the world who attended concluded that stevioside is safe:


   * Stevioside is not carcinogenic. On the contrary, studies in Japan have proven that stevioside reduces breast cancer in rats as well as skin cancers in animals models.

   * Stevioside is not absorbed by the human gut. Only bacteria of the colon degrade stevioside to steviol. Part of this steviol is absorbed through the intestine but is quickly metabolized to steviol glucuronide and excreted in the urine. No free steviol is detected in the blood.

   * Although steviol showed a weak mutagenic activity in one very sensitive strain of bacteria, even high concentrations of oral steviol were harmless (up to 2 g/kg body weight)!


What are the problematic studies?

So is everything rosy for stevia? Not necessarily. There have been some problematic studies. For example:


   * A 1984 study found that although stevioside was not cancer causing, steviol, a metabolite of stevioside, is indeed mutagenic in the presence of a specific metabolic activation system -- although subsequent studies have either not found it so, or found the effect to be so low as to be insignificant (1, 2). And again, as discussed earlier, any steviol that passes through the intestinal tract is metabolized to steviol glucuronide and excreted in the urine. In fact, some studies have shown that stevia may actually be cancer preventive.

   * There were also studies that indicated stevia might negatively affect fertility in rats, but those studies were later refuted by more reliable studies involving higher numbers of rats and more controlled protocols. And this merely reinforces the results of numerous other studies.


The bottom line is that there is no compelling evidence that stevia in any reasonable dosage causes cancer. In fact, it is worth noting that the incidence of cancer in Japan is very low, although stevioside has been used there for over 25 years. And as for the fertility issue, there is no meaningful laboratory evidence that stevia has any effect on male or female fertility, nor on the development or state of the fetus. And again, despite a quarter of a century of use in Japan, there is no actual evidence of any negative effect on fertility or any other aspect of health for that matter.

It should also be noted that all of the problematic studies have used purified stevia at levels far, far, far higher than would ever happen in a normal human diet. Is this important (after all, testing for mutagenic effects at high doses is standard procedure)? The problem is that just because it's standard doesn't make it meaningful. Keep in mind that even things that are healthy can become deadly if taken in large amounts. For example, if you have 100 times the normal dosage of protein each day, you will destroy your liver in short order. If you have a 100 times the normal dosage of water, you will die in a single day -- in a rather messy explosion.

The bottom line here is that all of the problematic studies have been conducted on rats and hamsters with absurdly high doses. In the real world, stevia has been in use with hundreds of millions of people throughout Asia and South America for as much as a quarter of a century. We're talking billions of doses and no sign of increased cancer or lowered fertility. If only the alternative sweeteners that the regulators allow could match that kind of track record.

What are the absurdities of the regulators' positions on sweeteners?

But all that aside, it would at least be understandable if the regulators played with a fair deck and applied equal standards to all alternative sweeteners. But they do not.

Aspartame


   * According to the FDA's own audit on aspartame, the Bressler Report, aspartame triggers brain tumors, mammary tumors, pancreatic tumors, ovarian tumors, pituitary adenomas, uterine tumors, etc. A senior FDA toxicologist, the late Dr. Adrian Gross, who tried to prevent the approval of aspartame, told Congress that it violated the Delaney Amendment because it triggered brain tumors (Congressional Record SID835:131 - 8/1/85).

   * Aspartame has also been shown to trigger birth defects and miscarriages -- not just if the mother uses it, but the father also.

   * Before aspartame was approved in beverages in 1983, the National Soft Drink Association created a THIRTY PAGE PROTEST (that was later read into the Congressional Record) declaring that aspartame was NOT stable, and that it could actually make unwary users FATTER!


The bottom line on aspartame is that its safety record and evaluation record do not even come close to matching the safety of stevia. In fact, FDA's own evaluation committees rejected aspartame. But in 1983, the Commissioner of the FDA, Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, overrode his own committees and approved NutraSweet (aspartame) for soft drinks two months before leaving office. A couple of months later, after he had retired from the FDA, he accepted a position as Senior Medical Advisor to Burson Marsteller, the public relations firm that promoted NutraSweet for G.D. Searle, NutraSweet's manufacturer -- at the rate of $1,000 per day. An unfortunate coincidence, one might say.

Sucralose

If you think that sucralose, the new darling of the regulatory agencies, has better science behind it than aspartame, you would be sadly mistaken. As Dr. Mercola points out, as of 2006:





                     # "Only six human trials have been published on sucralose. Of these six trials, only two of the trials were completed and published before the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption. The two published trials had a grand total of 36 total human subjects…The longest trial at this time had lasted only four days and looked at sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance."





In addition, pre-approval research shows that sucralose causes up to 40% shrinkage of the thymus gland and enlarges the liver and kidneys.

High fructose corn syrup

And, of course, high fructose corn syrup, the number one sweetener used in the world today is a health disaster.

What lies in the future?

One has to wonder why aspartame, sucralose, and high fructose corn syrup -- all with proven major negative health effects -- are approved by regulatory agencies in the US, Canada, and Europe and are currently in widespread use; whereas stevia is not. Not to be cynical, but perhaps the companies behind aspartame, sucralose, and high fructose corn syrup (G.D. Searle, Royal DSM, Tate and Lyle, and ADM) have a political clout that small independent stevia producers cannot muster for a non-patentable natural sweetener.

If that's true, we can be fairly sure that we will never see stevia approved for commercial use in Europe, Canada, and the US until one of those large corporate entities finds a way to patent it. But wait! Forgive my cynicism! Cargill and Coca Cola are doing just that even as we speak! I think we can look forward to an approval of stevia -- in a patented form -- in the not too distant future. Will this version be safer? No, of course not. It will merely have a different name, Rebiana. Oh yes, and Coke and Cargill will back it. In the world of nutrition regulation, it appears that money talks... and real nutrition walks. It's enough to give you high blood sugar, tiny thymuses, brain tumors, and shrunken sex glands!

Conclusion

I originally titled this article the Stevia Shibboleth. A shibboleth, as described in the Bible, was a secret word used by the ancient Gileadites to identify outsiders who were unable to pronounce the word correctly. In a sense, we can see that stevia is being used as a shibboleth by regulatory agencies to separate the insiders (the large commercial entities with major political influence) from the outsiders (the purveyors of all-natural healthy products). And just as the Gileadites put outsiders who failed the test to death, so it would seem our regulators would do the same to manufacturers such as Celestial Seasonings who fail the modern Shibboleth test and pronounce their sweetener: stevia.

This article was originally written as a newsletter which is read by tens of thousands of people in over 120 countries. Of those thousands of subscribers, six have email addresses that carry the @fda.gov ID. This particular issue was written for them -- and for the other handful of subscribers who represent the European regulatory agencies.

Guys, as long as you approve aspartame, sucralose, and high fructose corn syrup as healthy and refuse to allow stevia to be used, calling it unsafe, despite all reasonable evidence to the contrary, you will have no credibility among thinking people. It is tantamount to an open admission that approval has nothing to do with safety -- only what's bought and paid for.

Since we're running a Biblical motif with our shibboleth reference, let's conclude with another for our regulator friends. To paraphrase Moses, "Let my stevia go!"

To see more articles like this, please visit our website at http://www.jonbarron.org.


About the author
About Jon Barron and The Baseline Of Health Foundation
Founder and Director of the Baseline of Health Foundation, Jon Barron has lead much of the pioneering work in the study of nutrition, disease prevention, and anti-aging for the last 40 years. He is editor and publisher of the Baseline of Health Newsletter and the Barron Report, which are both read by thousands of doctors, health experts, and nutrition consumers in over 140 countries.
Barron is also the author of one of the most acclaimed books of the last decade, "Lessons from the Miracle Doctors," which can be downloaded for free from the Baseline of Health Foundation's website. The concept behind Jon's book is that the body is a series of interrelated systems, and that you are only as strong as your weakest link. For example, you can take every vitamin and supplement in the world and even eat perfectly healthy, but you won't have a strong immune system if your colon is filled with stagnant fecal matter. Or, you can fast and take enemas every day, but you won't be healthy if your liver is filled with fat and toxic waste. Barron and his Baseline of Health Foundation recommend a time tested health program that optimizes each and every functional system in the body.
Jon Barron is recognized as one of the world's leading formulators of nutritional products sold globally; however, his high-end, personal formulas are sold exclusively at www.BaselineNutritionals.com. Combining his knowledge with the latest nutraceutical and herbal studies, Barron continues to develop cutting-edge formulas for his company and clients. He even discovered the "Barron Effect," a revolutionary manufacturing breakthrough that makes herbal tinctures 100-200% stronger than previous extraction techniques. The results of his discoveries have been verified in clinical studies. One of his products, Metal Magic, recently proved effective in safely removing 87% of lead, 91% of mercury, and 74% of aluminum naturally from the body in 42 days. In another clinical study, his Glucotor v.2 formula evidenced a 52% improvement in blood sugar utilization and optimization.
Jon Barron currently serves on the Medical Advisory Board of the prestigious Health Sciences Institute. For more information, visit www.jonbarron.org.  

http://www.newstarget.com/022241.html

Fungal Overgrowth Leads To Candida, IBS, And Crohn’s Disease
by Mike Donkers

(NewsTarget) The incidence of people with bowel troubles is on the rise in the western world. Though the afflictions bear several names, it is my belief that all of them are fungus based. Various species of candida, most notably candida albicans, are at the root of these problems. How do they enter into your system? Well, for the most part they’re already there. Like all natural fungi they serve a useful purpose and candida are therefore a natural part of your intestinal flora. Problems arise when these yeast fungi lead to overgrowth as a result of three different triggers: sugary foods, drugs and stress. Compare that to the western lifestyle and you can see why so many people have bowel problems today. It’s a wonder some people don’t have yeast overgrowth!

Yeast bacteria can also enter your system by eating molded bread or being exposed to molds at home or elsewhere. As soon as the environment is favorable to these bacteria they will immediately increase their numbers and colonize their living environment, starting with the intestines and then moving on to other parts of the body by developing spores and traveling through the bloodstream. Antibiotics and other ‘medicines’ are the worst culprits. ‘Antibiotic’ means ‘anti-life’. Antibiotics are designed to kill any bacteria in their path and that includes friendly probiotic gut bacteria who, contrary to candida, are not resistant. Other promoters of yeast overgrowth include cortisone based hormonal drugs (including skin applications) and painkillers. Stress and sugary foods are also detrimental to probiotic gut bacteria.

This clears the path for yeast colonization. They seem to favor mucus membranes particularly and will damage them wherever they decide to settle. They can damage the mucosal lining of the gastrointestinal tract by making it porous. As a result, food particles can enter the bloodstream undigested and cause toxic and allergic reactions. This is known as a "leaky gut". Candida fungi can also slip through these pores and enter the bloodstream. By dwelling in various other parts of the body they can then cause allergic symptoms in the weirdest places. Hence fungal toenails, thrush, sinusitis, etc. They are very clever and adaptable and the more they spread and grow in number, the more they will inhibit the immune system; causing anything from chronic nose-colds, flus and hay fever to psoriasis, hypoglycemia, arthritis, diabetes and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, even depression. Candida thrive on sugary foods and by eating and drinking them people will actually feed the candida. People developing various allergic symptoms will rarely trace back these symptoms to their foods and lifestyle, however.

Fatal and Vital Foods For Dealing With Candida

Sugars

Bad foods can either cause a fungal problem or help exacerbate it, or both. Good foods, on the other hand, can help cure fungal overgrowth. So what’s good and what’s bad? Candida love a sweet environment. Thus all sugars are bad. Dietitians will often say only fast sugars are bad and slow sugars are good. Thus they will advise against white sugar and white flour and will advocate the use of raw cane sugar and whole-grain products. Sorry if you’re a sweet tooth and "carboholic", but all sugars are out if you really want to starve candida.

This means you will have to wean yourself off:


   * sugar, refined or unrefined;

   * natural sweeteners, other than stevia

   * grains, refined or unrefined;

   * starchy foods;

   * sweet fruits;

   * pasteurized milk products;

   * alcohol;

   * coffee.


You will be amazed at how many products contain sugar and/or grains. In fact, you will find that many so-called "health products" are also loaded with sugars and grains. Life will become a little bit more difficult when shopping for food items and you will have to learn to read the list of ingredients instead of the nutritional information. Forget calories and, whatever you do, don’t fall into the trap of buying anything that is labeled "diet" or "light", particularly if these products contain artificial sweeteners such as the very dangerous neurotoxin and carcinogen aspartame and other related additives such as sucralose (Splenda), which are all made in a lab instead of a kitchen. These include flavor enhancers such as MSG (mono sodium glutamate) and other neurotoxins. The supermarket is not the best place to get food items, so this is a good reason to buy organic and to do it from local farms, if you care about avoiding food additives, pesticides and growth hormones.

Although honey and maple and agave syrup can and have been proven very beneficial to people’s health they are a definite no-no if you have candida. The same is true for pineapple, bananas, papaya and other sweet fruits – even caffeine and alcohol in small amounts. The point is not to feed the candida any sugars, period. The only exception is stevia, which is a plant that is 300 times sweeter than sugar, yet it is perfectly healthy for you. You can buy it as a tincture with alcohol (not recommended), diluted in water, or in its pure form as a powder. I recommend getting the latter but be very careful when using it as it is extremely sweet. You can get stevia on the web, just Google for it.

Starchy foods are not necessarily bad for you either. Jacket potatoes are better than peeled ones. That is because you are refining the potato by removing the fiber (peel), leaving only the sugar (starch). Sweet potatoes and yams are very good foods indeed, but not if you have candida. Once again, the idea is to starve candida by not giving them sugars.

Unpasteurized, raw milk can be very beneficial to your guts and liver. It naturally contains all the probiotic bacteria present in yogurt. Why raw milk is banned and yogurt isn’t is beyond me. Think about it, dairy farmers are obliged to use pasteurized milk as a basis for yoghurt and then reintroduce the same bacteria they killed when they heated the milk to make the yogurt! Although commercially available yoghurt, including organic yoghurt, is all made from pasteurized milk it is still a product I highly recommend. The reintroduction of probiotic bacteria largely undoes the damage caused by pasteurization.

A list of sellers of raw milk can be found here: http://www.realmilk.com/where.html

The reason why raw milk is better than pasteurized milk is not only because probiotic bacteria are destroyed in the heating process but also because the lactose in the milk is converted into beta-lactose as a result of pasteurization. Beta-lactose is a fast sugar and it is in fact this ingredient which gives people lactose allergies and intolerances and causes mucus buildup (a sign of candida). Pasteurization also impairs the digestion of a protein in milk called casein. In other words, give these people real milk and their allergies disappear!

Really interesting is green tea, which does contain caffeine but which is not a fast sugar the way it is in coffee. It gets even better: although even slow sugars are bad for you when not taken in moderation, there’s a substance in green tea which “eats” excess glucose in your blood. This way you get all the health benefits from caffeine without the glucose elevating properties of caffeine in coffee.

As you can see, the truth is sometimes somewhere in the middle. Simple sugars are bad, complex sugars are not. Milk lactose is one such complex sugar. The sugars in, for example, cabbage and green leafy vegetables are all complex sugars, or polysaccharides. They are complex because chemically they consist of a longer chain than simple sugars. Basically, the shorter the chain the faster the sugar and the worse they are for your health. Some natural foods contain very long-chain sugars. These foods, interestingly enough, taste bitter! A good example of this is mushrooms such as reishi, shiitake and maitake, all of which are non-destructive and healing fungi. Which brings me to the next subject.

Fungi

Just like there are good sugars, there are also good fungi. Eating ordinary mushrooms is not a good idea if you have candida because you’re feeding it its own kind. There are, however, medicinal mushrooms which are actually a great idea to consume, either raw or as a tea or stock or even as a supplement. Asian cuisine, most notably Japanese cuisine, has a long history of eating and preparing medicinal mushrooms. Examples of these are shiitake, maitake and reishi. Bear in mind that the longer you cook these mushrooms the more you are converting the complex sugars into simple sugars (carbohydrates), just the way pasteurization changes the chemical structure of milk and other foods.

Eating blue cheeses is also not a good idea if you have candida. These fungi are introduced into the cheese and, though they are tasty, are harmful to your health if you have a fungal problem. In the same vein, Brie and Camembert are also out.

Yeast

Another aspect of the anti-candida diet is avoiding products containing yeast and yeast extract. This means you will once again have to learn to read the labels. Once more, you will be amazed to see how many products contain yeast extract. In fact, yeast extract is very often a hidden source of MSG!

Not all fermented products are bad for you. Naturally fermented products are in fact good for you because they contain wild yeast which makes its way into the product from the air and consists of natural probiotic bacteria which are also present in your guts. For that reason, even whole-grain yeast bread is bad for you because it contains baker’s yeast, but sourdough bread is good for you because it is naturally fermented bread and the yeast bacteria use the sugar from the starch as food. For the same reason, bio live yoghurt is good. In fact, any naturally fermented product, as long as it doesn’t contain alcohol, is permitted because these are natural probiotics. Sauerkraut is fine, for example.

Detoxing

Try the above no-sugar-no-grains-no-yeast-no-fungi diet for four weeks. You will find yourself going through a detoxification period which can last the whole four weeks or end after one or two weeks, depending on how much detoxing you have to do. The first week is the worst. You will feel absolutely miserable, have cravings for sweets and junk foods, experience moodiness, near-depression, everything is possible. This is because the candida are demanding their nutrition. You must be strong at this stage and not give in. You will also experience windiness of a very smelly kind, a sign of detoxification of the intestines. You may have a ‘brick-in-your-stomach’ feeling for some time, diarrhea, headaches, dizziness – even vomiting is possible. Do not despair, as there will be a turning point where you will increasingly start to feel better.

After the first four weeks, you can then slowly reintroduce healthy foods which were forbidden before such as honey, maple syrup, dark, unfiltered agave syrup (the lighter variety will still give you a sugar hit), corn, (sweet) potatoes, yams, and various sweet fruits back into your diet. Because of the detoxing you have done you will now get a pure, unbiased and more or less immediate reaction from your body. If the food feels good, continue eating it but don’t overdo it. If it feels bad, stop eating it straight away. It’s that simple.

These food choices are very easy on the liver and guts, which means they not only help battle candida, but they are also powerful immune boosters. They will help you lose weight as well as help maintain your natural weight, ward off diabetes, arthritis, viruses, parasitic and bacterial infections, and promote overall good health of skin, bones, tissue, cartilage, etc.

The great news is you don’t have to sacrifice a thing taste-wise. In fact, by freeing yourself from the sweet and salty carb-rich foods our toxic food environment provides us with you are making use of all four tastes nature has provided you with. Once you discover that whole, living foods give you more energy and need not cost more both money-wise and health-wise, you won’t be able to go back to potato chips, burgers, cookies and other empty junk foods. You will find that your appetite will go down and you will need less food to keep you going for a longer time. And even if you do end up spending more money on good-quality foods, my question to you is: which would your rather pay with, your wallet or your health?


About the author
Mike Donkers is an English teacher from the Netherlands who started taking care of his own health in October 2006 because doctors couldn't help him. His interest in the connection between food and health has led to more in-depth research, particularly in the role sea minerals can have in the regeneration of cells. He is also a self-taught guitarist and singer. He is the songwriter and frontman of his own band, The Mellotones (www.nubluz.com).  

El Estevia  azúcar verde es una especie botánica de la familia de las asteráceas nativa de la región tropical de Sudamérica; se encuentra aún en estado silvestre en el Paraguay, especialmente en el Departamento de Amambay, pero desde hace varias décadas se cultiva por sus propiedades edulcorantes y su bajísimo contenido calórico.

Stevia rebaudiana es un arbusto perenne, que alcanza los 9 dm de altura. Las hojas, lanceoladas o elípticas y dentadas, son alternas, simples, de color verde oscuro brillante y superficie rugosa, a veces algo vellosas, de hasta 5 cm de largo por 2 de ancho. Los tallos son pubescentes y rectos, ramificándose sólo después del primer ciclo vegetativo, con tendencia a inclinarse. Las raíces son mayormente superficiales, aunque una sección engrosada se hunde a mayor profundidad; son fibrosas, filiformes y perennes, y son la única parte de la planta en la que no se presentan los esteviósidos.

Es dioica, presentando a comienzos de primavera flores pequeñas, tubulares y de color blanco, sin fragancia perceptible, en panículas corimboides formadas por pequeños capítulos axilares; Stevia tarda más de un mes en producir todas las flores. En estado silvestre son polinizadas por abejas, normalmente del género Meganchile los frutos son aquenios dotados de un vilano velloso que facilita su transporte por el viento.

 

die Beiträge in deutsch einzufügen.
Danke.
MfG  

...nämlich für mein Geld.

Was machen die Herren denn da?

Echt doof, bin schon fast 50% unter Pari. Aussteigen ist jetzt auch schlecht, dann müsste ich den Verlust wegstecken. 

 

http://drbenkim.com/secret-history-war-cancer.html

In "The Secret History of War on Cancer" environmental-health expert Devra Davis warns that we´re ignoring donzens of cancer-causing chemicals, like Aspartame, sdbestos, benzene, vinyl chloride, and dioxin. She writes that, like tabacco companies, the chemical industry has managed obfuscate the carcinogenic dangers of chemical and other toxic waste.

To learn more about please view:

http://drbenkim.com/secret-history-war-cancer.html

To listen to the NPR interview with Dr. Davis, set
your browser to the following page:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14986010

Here are a few of the highlights from Dr. Davis' work:

*  Aspartame can be a significant cause of cancer, and
was only approved for use when Donald Rumsfeld
performed his magic with government officials in 1981.

*  "A group of researchers at Yale now estimate that
radiation from CT scans of the head and abdomen will
kill 2,500 people a year."

*  Cellphones and ritalin DO pose dangers to human
health, despite claims to the contrary made by
spokespeople and "researchers" for these industries.

In short, this is a must-read book for anyone who
wants a good understanding of major environmental
causes of cancer, and wants to be able to share this
information with family and friends who continue to
put their faith and dollars in conventional cancer
fund-raising campaigns.    

Der macht zwar dick, aber nicht krank!

Noch besser, ganz auf Süsse verzichten! ;-)  

Das ist leider FALSCH!!!
Zucker ist ebenfalls sehr ungesund, nicht nur für die Zähne!
Das wohl alltäglichste Gift der Welt!!!

Siehe Beiträge 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 39, 53, 54, 65, 66, 68, 77, 78, 87  

Eingestellt von Forschungsnachrichten.de

Mittwoch, 20. April 2005

Süßstoff-Kraut macht Zuckerrüben Konkurrenz Lateinamerikanische Pflanze wächst auch auf deutschen Äckern / kalorienfrei und 300mal süßer als Zucker Die Substanz, die Süßstofffirmen auf die Barrikaden treibt, ist 300mal süßer als Zucker. Sie hat keine Kalorien, soll die Entstehung von Zahnbelag verhindern und bei regelmäßigem Verzehr den Blutdruck senken. Der Wunderstoff heißt Steviosid und steht auch in Deutschland kurz vor der Zulassung als Nahrungsergänzungsmittel. Steviosid kommt in hohen Konzentrationen in den Blättern der lateinamerikanischen Stevia-Pflanze vor. Wissenschaftler der Universität Bonn haben nun festgestellt, dass das Süßstoff-Kraut auch problemlos auf heimischen Böden gedeiht. Dr. Ralf Pude mit Stevia-SetzlingenPressemeldung Uni Bonn: Steviosid ist gefährlich. So sehen es zumindest die Hersteller von synthetischen Süßstoffen. In zahllosen Versuchsreihen versuchten sie zu beweisen, dass von dem süßen Hauptinhaltsstoff der Stevia-Pflanze ein Gesundheitsrisiko ausgeht. Und tatsächlich: Zumindest in einer Studie aus dem Jahr 1999 schien Steviosid die Fruchtbarkeit von Ratten zu beeinträchtigen. "Allerdings erst in absurd hohen Dosen", so der Bonner Privatdozent Dr. Ralf Pude vom Institut für Gartenbauwissenschaft; "ein Erwachsener müsste täglich mehr als die Hälfte seines Körpergewichts an frischen Stevia-Blättern zu sich nehmen, um auf vergleichbare Konzentrationen zu kommen - in dieser Menge wäre selbst Zucker gefährlich." Realistisch sind derartige Dosen nicht: Wollte man die rund 130 Gramm Zucker, die der Durchschnittsdeutsche täglich mit der Nahrung aufnimmt, komplett durch das 300mal süßere Steviosid ersetzen, käme man auf weniger als ein halbes Gramm - ein Stückchen Würfelzucker wiegt sechsmal so viel. Dass von diesen Mengen keine Gefahr ausgeht, wird im Sommer vermutlich auch die Europäische Union anerkennen: Dann soll die Substanz als Nahrungsergänzungsmittel zugelassen werden. Gut dokumentiert sind allerdings die positiven Effekte von Steviosid: So senkt es bei regelmäßiger Aufnahme den Blutdruck, verhindert die Entstehung von Zahnbelag, und, vor allem: Es macht nicht dick. Auch die Langzeit-Erfahrungen sind gut. Japans Köche verleihen ihren Gerichten schon seit 25 Jahren mit Stevia-Extrakt die rechte Süße; in Paraguay "zuckerten" Indianer damit bereits vor einem halben Jahrtausend ihren Mate-Tee - augenscheinlich ohne negative Folgen. 75 Prozent Marktanteil in Asien Stevia-Mikrokulturen im BrutschrankFür die Hersteller synthetischer Süßstoffe ist die lateinamerikanische Pflanze daher tatsächlich eine Bedrohung. Wie sehr sie den Markt aufmischen kann, zeigen Erfahrungen aus Asien, wo Steviosid schon einen Marktanteil von 75 Prozent hat. "Dort sind aber auch einige seiner Hauptkonkurrenten verboten", gibt Pude zu bedenken. In Deutschland könnte das Süßstoff-Kraut bald einen ähnlichen Siegeszug antreten - zumal der Agrarwissenschaftler zeigen konnte, dass sich Stevia rebaudiana auch auf hiesigen Äckern wohl fühlt (Zeitschrift für Arznei- und Gewürzpflanzen 2005; 10 (1), Seite 37-43). Allerdings erfriert die aus Paraguay stammende Arzneipflanze bei Minusgraden und muss daher jedes Jahr neu gepflanzt werden. "In ihrer Heimat lässt sie sich mehrere Jahre hintereinander ernten", so der Wissenschaftler, der nun kälteresistentere Arten selektieren möchte. Eine neue Mikrokulturtechnik soll zudem die Vermehrung des "Süßstoff-Krauts" vereinfachen. Das Steviosid sitzt in den Blättern der Pflanze; diese werden getrocknet und zu einem grünen Pulver zermahlen, das sich prinzipiell schon zum Süßen eignet. Damit der Kuchen nicht in einem unappetitlichen Grün schimmert, entfernt man aber in der Regel zuvor noch die Blattfarbstoffe. Dadurch verbessert sich auch der Geschmack, der dann kaum noch von dem von Zucker zu unterscheiden ist. Bei seinen Versuchen auf der Lehr- und Forschungsstation Klein-Altendorf der Universität machte Dr. Pude noch eine interessante Entdeckung. "Auf den Feldern wuchsen zwischen den normalen Stevia-Pflanzen auch welche, deren Blätter ein wenig anders gefärbt waren", erinnert er sich. "Und die waren sogar noch süßer als die Ursprungspflanzen."

Quelle: Forschungsnachrichten.de

 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/...next-big-sweetener.aspx

Brazzein, a sweet protein from the berries of a West African plant named Pentadiplandra Brazzeana, may soon hit supermarket shelves as the newest “natural” alternative to sugar.

The product, which will be marketed globally as Cweet, is said to be 1,000 times sweeter than sugar with no undesirable aftertaste. Cweet is also touted as tasting similar to sugar, is heat stable and water soluble, and has zero calories.

Brazzein was originally developed as a sugar alternative by University of Wisconsin, Madison researchers in 1994. However it wasn’t until recently that a “production breakthrough” was achieved that will allow the product to reach the market.

Natur Research Ingredients, the Californian company that has exclusive rights to manufacture and distribute Cweet, is currently preparing to submit a generally recognized as safe (GRAS) application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The company has already gathered interest from large food and beverage companies, and, pending approval, Cweet could reach the market in 12 to 18 months. It would rival popular artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose.

Sources:

   * NutraIngredients.com November 5, 2007

Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Cweet is just the latest in a slew of artificial sweetener brands hoping to cash in on people’s desire to eat sweets that are sugar-free and therefore “healthy.”

Readers of the newsletter, however, will not be swayed by all of this hype.

If you currently think that you’re making a healthy choice when you eat artificial sweeteners, please make it a priority to read my book Sweet Deception. You will discover that artificial sweeteners, including those that state they are “natural” and “safe,” are not natural, safe or in any way healthy.

In short, you need to be wary of anything created in a lab that claims to be “natural.” To me, a natural food is something that is grown from the earth that can be eaten practically as is. Natural foods require very minimal processing, if any, and certainly don’t need the help of a “production breakthrough” to be brought to market.

Of course, artificial sweeteners are a hot ticket right now -- demand for these products is expected to grow to over $1 billion by 2010, according to Freedonia Group, a market research organization.

Cweet has all the makings of another Splenda -- the artificial sweetener that claims to be “made from sugar so it tastes like sugar,” but which has drawn hundreds of testimonials from readers like you who feel they’ve suffered nasty side effects.

All of the artificial sweeteners on the market have been linked to toxicities. Consider that:

   * Nutrasweet has been shown to cause cancer and lower sperm count
   * Aspartame has been linked to multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease
   * The molecular structure of Splenda bears remarkable resemblance to pesticides

Now I am certainly no fan of sugar. But when it comes to sweeteners, regular sugar is safer than any artificial sweetener, hands down. If you are going to use sugar I am convinced that the safest and healthiest way to consume it would be to use a healthy raw organic honey like Pure Gold Raw Honey.

If you choose to sweeten your food, though, I recommend you do so in very limited amounts. Aside from raw, unprocessed honey, the South American herb stevia is also an acceptable choice.

I want to emphasize, however, that if you have insulin issues, I suggest that you avoid sweeteners altogether (including stevia and raw honey), as they all can decrease your sensitivity to insulin. So if you struggle with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, or extra weight, then you have insulin sensitivity issues and would benefit from avoiding all sweeteners.

As for Cweet, well, it’s left a bad taste in my mouth before it’s even reached the marke  

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/...ills-your-sex-life.aspx

High levels of sugar in your bloodstream can turn off the gene that controls your sex hormones.

The simple sugars, glucose and fructose, are metabolized in your liver, with the excess stored as fat lipids. Excess fat synthesis deactivates your SHBG (sex hormone binding globulin) gene, causing your levels of SHBG protein to drop dramatically, and it is this SHBG protein that controls your testosterone and estrogen levels.

Too little SHBG protein means your body will produce too much testosterone and estrogen, which increases your chances of acne, infertility, polycystic ovaries, uterine cancer, and heart disease.

Said Dr. Geoffrey Hammond, lead researcher, “We discovered that low levels of SHBG in a person’s blood means the liver’s metabolic rate is out of whack – because of inappropriate diet or something that ‘s inherently wrong with the liver – long before there are any disease symptoms.”

This new study also challenges the previous conventional thought that high levels of insulin are to blame for the drop in SHBG, and that it’s actually the liver’s metabolism of sugar that counts.
Sources:

   * Physorg.com November 10, 2007

   * Softpedia November 10, 2007

   * The Journal of Clinical Investigation November 8, 2007, Epub Ahead of Print (Free Full Text Report)


Dr. Mercola's Comments:

I’ve been advocating ridding your diet of sugar for years now as it is one of the most powerful single physical actions you can take for your health. New evidence of sugar’s devastating health effects keep rolling in at regular intervals, adding to the previous consensus.  

Table sugar is made of glucose and fructose, also known as simple sugars, and limiting sugar in your diet is a well-known key to longevity. Your blood glucose levels actually rise slightly every time you eat. This is natural. However, the average American now eats about 2.5 pounds of sugar every WEEK, which is far from natural. With this kind of diet, your blood glucose levels may very likely become excessively elevated, and stay that way.

It is a well-proven fact that sugar increases your insulin and leptin levels, and decreases receptor sensitivity for both of these vital hormones. This can lead to:

   * High blood pressure and high cholesterol
   * Heart disease
   * Diabetes
   * Weight gain
   * Premature aging

Controlling your insulin levels is one of the most important things you can do to optimize your overall health, and avoiding sugar is essential to doing this.  

However, what many people forget is that there are other sources of sugar, many of which are far more predominant in your diet than table sugar.

Don’t Forget About these “Hidden” Sources of Sugar!

High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is present in virtually all processed foods, not just soda (which is now the number one source of calories in the United States). A quick look at the labels of the foods you have in your pantry; from crackers, to jams, to fruit juices and processed meat products, will give you an idea of just how widespread the use of this dangerous sweetener really is.

Part of what makes HFCS such an unhealthy product is that it is metabolized to fat in your body far more rapidly than any other sugar, and, because most fructose is consumed in liquid form, its negative metabolic effects are significantly magnified. Despite this fact, the delusion that fructose is an acceptable form of sugar is quite prevalent in many nutritional circles.

HFCS has also been linked to:

   * Diabetes
   * Obesity
   * Metabolic Syndrome

Adding insult to injury, nearly all the corn that the high fructose corn syrup is metabolized from comes from genetically modified corn, which is fraught with its own well-documented side effects and health concerns.

And, lastly, although not as dangerous as sugar or HFCS, high-carbohydrate foods in the form of flour, grains, legumes, fruit, milk and starchy-vegetables also put a dent in your health.

In fact, most age-related diseases could best be described as "Excessive Carbohydrate Consumption Syndrome,” because the scientific evidence is clear; foods high in carbohydrates turn to glucose, which raises your metabolism and trigger the release of disease-causing hormones like insulin, cortisol and adrenaline.

Keeping your metabolism low is key for long life and optimal health. A high metabolism excites hormones in your body that eventually cause age-related diseases.

The pathogenic effects of carbohydrates are slow, but sure. The "20-year rule" was coined to describe the length of time between the start of the high-carbohydrate diet and the onset of disease. The number of diseases, severity and time to develop is directly related to the percentage of carbohydrates in your diet.

One reason for this is that carbohydrates displace essential protein and essential fats in your diet, which causes a double health reversal. The carbohydrates themselves cause disease, and the deficiency of protein and fats contribute or cause other diseases.

The consumption of carbohydrates generally begins showing the disease effects in either one of two directions.

   * Body fat accumulation leads to obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, gallbladder disease, degenerative bone diseases and many others.
   * Damage to the intestinal tract leads to leaky gut syndrome, inflammatory bowel diseases and a medical textbook listing of autoimmune diseases. These illnesses generally make the sufferer underweight and deficient in vitamins and minerals caused by poor digestion.

Avoid Getting Caught Up in Whole Grain Myth

Many people are surprised to learn that even whole grains can cause disease in both humans and animals. While whole grains are clearly superior to processed ones, they ultimately still break down relatively rapidly, and raise your insulin levels. About 15% of the population actually does well with them, but if you are one of the 85% of the population that struggles with insulin issues like being overweight, have high blood pressure, high cholesterol or diabetes, then you will want to radically limit your consumption of whole grains.

Whole grain breads and bagels are not the healthy food that people are lead to believe. All grains have high levels of omega-6 fatty acids, which are pro-inflammatory. Grains are a poor source of protein, and they are also the most allergenic of all foods.

Following my nutrition plan is a simple way to automatically reduce your intake of both grains and sugars, which can increase your longevity, help you avoid chronic diseases, maintain normal sexual health and function, and keep your mental faculties sharp.

How to Kick the Sugar Habit

As I’ve reported previously, sugar can in fact be MORE addictive than cocaine, which would help explain why it’s so hard to just quit indulging in it. The sugar industry seems well aware of this fact, running a shrewd, well-oiled machine that will hook your children on their product right out of the cradle, if you let them.  

Fortunately, energy psychology tools like the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) can be enormously helpful in ridding yourself of sugar cravings. It includes a marvelous technique called Turbo Tapping, which is one of the best solutions I know of for this particular challenge.

Also, instead of focusing on what you will be losing (negative focus); it helps to look at all the things you will be gaining, such as increased energy and a lower risk of many diseases. Meanwhile, you can enjoy healthy foods that are in-line with your nutritional type, such as meats, raw dairy products, fresh veggies, nuts and seeds, and much more.

Related Articles:

 Counting the Many Ways Sugar Harms Your Health

Killer Sugar! Suicide With A Spoon

The Sweet Tooth: Defeating the Little Rascal  

Wer seine shares unter 0,30 € abgibt, dem kann nicht mehr geholfen werden!  

Gibt mir jmd. ein paar tausend stk. um 0,2?  

so, die nächste Nachrichten (Zahlenveröffentlichung)sind nicht mehr weit weg, wenn du pech hast , musst bei 0,35 (nach)kaufen bzw. nachlaufen.....

Wenn du glück hast und der Kurs fällt unter 0,20 aber auch dann wirst du nicht kaufen weil Leute wie du sind...... na was glaubst du ÜBERLEGE MAL Vergesse dabei nicht das du kaufen wolltest  

Montag nochmal nachgekauft. So, auf geht`s. Hopp, Hopp,Hopp.....