Friday, March 16, 2007

FUD about Splenda

I saw a blog post on the Sustainable is Good blog, which talks about the makers of Splenda buying hundreds of negative domain names with their brand.

And you know what? It's kinda hard not to wonder why Splenda's manufacturer would buy a domain called -- it can only mean they think there's a good chance someone else would buy it and use it.

It does make you stop and think, doesn't it?

* * *

I also found a site called Is Splenda Safe last night, and I must say I was a bit peeved by all the inuendo and FUD-sowing (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) on the home page:

Within my book, I reveal the scientific evidence strongly suggesting the chemical sweetener sucralose (Splenda) may harm your body. - Dr. Janet Starr Hull
Note the use of the words "scientific evidence" -- which helps add credibility to the statement. It's just too bad that the weight of the words gets watered down later: apparently, the evidence merely suggests that it may harm your body (emphasis mine).

What gets to me is the fact that the site doesn't really answer the question that its name asks. There's no outright statement that Splenda is unsafe, or in what quantities it becomes unsafe. It is strongly implied it, though, and visitors are urged to buy a $24.95 book to learn the whole truth.

And therein lies my problem with the site. If Splenda is such a hazardous substance and there's scientific proof of it, then that information should be distributed for free, pushed across the blogosphere, hyped in the news, and the product itself should be pulled from the supermarket shelves.

The way it's being handled now just leaves a bad taste in the mouth (no pun intended).