After reading some of the information in the Nutrition Action Newsletter, published once a month by the Center For Science In The Public Interest, I just can’t get over how many mixed messages are being delivered to mainstream American Consumers. I will definately have an entire chapter in my book about the conflicting information that exists. I feel like every time I see a well published, well written and well reasearched article on a specific topic, I often can find the exact opposite from an equally credible source. For instance, the Nutrition Action Healthletter Decmber 08, clearly states that sucralose is a safe and effective sugar substitute on cereals, to reduce the total number of grams of sugar in a typical bowl of cereal. The article leads people to believe that Sucralose is a good sweetener choice. In additon, the American Dietetic Association also recommends non nutritive sweeteners including sucralose, under the name Splenda,to help people control calorie consumption and overall body weight. The American Dietetic Association and Nutrition Action seem to be very credible sources right??? This is a great example of conflicting information because I can show you dozens of articles written in very prestigous journals such as the the New Engalnd Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, etc. that implicate sucralose in a plethora of health problems including diarrhea, immune system disorders, reproductive damage, swelling of the liver and kidneys, etc. The list goes on an on. In addition, both my nutrition school in Boulder and in NYC highly discourage the use of sucralose, once again sending the exact opposite message. What they don’t mention in the Nutrition Action Newsletter is that Sucralose, or Splenda, was originally discovered as in insecticide by an Indian Researcher in London and later sold to Tate and Lyle. It has only been approved for 12 years now.. All this conflicting information just infuriates me and it goes back to a huge topic once again; TRUST NO ONE and use common Sense. I don’t care how many health experts say sucralose is safe. The fact that it has only been consumed by humans for a measly 12 years throughout human existence and that it is an “artificial” sweetener should tell you a lot. The very definition of artificial in the Webster’s Dictionary is that something is made by human work, that it is not natural in any way. So again, it goes back to the question, who the hell do you listen to??? It is common sense to conclude that maple syrup would be a better choice than Sucralose. It is completely natural, it comes from a tree and has been used by Indians and American settlers dating back as early as the late 1600’s…. Proabably a better choice right???? But yet many respected people still recommend Sucralose. This small topic is just one of thousands of nutrition topics where the information given to the public is conflicting and misleading. In fact, virtually every single god forsaken topic on nutrition can and has been argued. If you learn anything from me, it is to TRUST NO ONE, READ LABELS and USE COMMON SENSE. Most people would be better off if they simply followed these 3 things…………….