Sugar Cartels plot to Destroy Humanity --- A.K.A Humanities Sweet Demise

Ok this may sound a bit alarmist but lets look at what I've been reading. It all started with this article I read
Chemical found in widely used sweetener breaks up DNA'

"A new study finds a chemical formed when we digest a widely used sweetener is "genotoxic," meaning it breaks up DNA."

The chemical in question, Sucralose, or "splenda" is a chemical compound used to artificially sweeten our food and drinks. It was discovered in 1976, while researching novel sucralose and its synthetic derivatives.

"To put this in context, the European Food Safety Authority has a threshold of toxicological concern for all genotoxic substances of 0.15 micrograms per person per day," Schiffman says. "Our work suggests that the trace amounts of sucralose-6-acetate in a single, daily sucralose-sweetened drink exceed that threshold. And that's not even accounting for the amount of sucralose-6-acetate produced as metabolites after people consume sucralose."

AND, that's not even accounting for the other 6000+ foods that the chemical is found in.
**(i read that in an article i cant find now so please fact check me!)**

So basically, according to "The Study", these sweeteners are causing damage to our DNA

"The purpose of this study was to determine the toxicological and pharmacokinetic properties of sucralose-6-acetate, a structural analog of the artificial sweetener sucralose...
a high-throughput genotoxicity screening tool, and a micronucleus (MN) test that detects cytogenetic damage both indicated that sucralose-6-acetate is genotoxic. The mechanism of action was classified as clastogenic (produces DNA strand breaks)...
and an RNA-seq analysis was performed to determine gene expression induced by these exposures. Sucralose-6-acetate significantly increased the expression of genes associated with inflammation, oxidative stress, and cancer"

Which led me to ask, what happens to the body when DNA is damaged, which led me to this report on "The DNA damage response - from cell biology to human disease"

"Cells in our body are exposed daily to endogenous and exogenous sources that damage their DNA...
Exogenous sources include ultraviolet (UV) light from the sun, ionizing radiation (IR), genotoxic chemicals, and carcinogens that are inhaled or ingested[5].
Unrepaired DNA damage can induce cancer-causing mutations, cell death or senescence, and aging."

From the report we can ascertain that certain disease like Cancers, immunodeficiency, Neurological diseases, and premature aging can all be caused by damage to and improper repair of DNA.

These are what I would consider scientifically reproducible truths. This product, which has been on the market for 47 years, has been "approved" by the FDA since 1998 and deemed safe, is slowly killing us.
But you may be asking what does this all have to do with sugar barons plotting to destroy humanity.
Well that takes a leap in a different direction...Cont.

Jump with me down this rabbit hole:
As we have learned, sucralose, and artificial sweeteners in general, are not as healthy as they have been leading us to believe. Is this by accident or by design. I think there is enough "plausible deniability" to protect some of these industries (as usual), but I also feel I there is enough circumstantial evidence to at least begin to uncover the truth.

Ill begin with the addictive nature of the substance. well know and documented and in some circles, sugar is considered more addictive than coc aine or nicotine. Some of us may already understand this.
"Evidence for sugar addiction: Behavioral and neurochemical effects of intermittent, excessive sugar intake"
In section 7. Conclusion

"What this review demonstrates is that rats with intermittent access to food and a sugar solution can show both a constellation of behaviors and parallel brain changes that are characteristic of rats that voluntarily self-administer addictive drugs. In the aggregate, this is evidence that sugar can be addictive."

"supporting evidence"

"Again, both artificial sweeteners and regular sugar are addictive. But the research shows that long-term use of artificial sweeteners may be particularly detrimental to your body."

so yeah, its addictive, they know it we know it. but who are "they" in this scenario...
Would you be surprised to learn...
"Here Comes World Sugar Cartel"

"By Robert J. Samuelson; Samuelson regularly writes about economic affairs for the National Journal and from which tis article is reprinted.; Copyright (c November 1, 1977"

"As a result, the federal government is, in essence, the leader of a nationwide sugar cartel."
www.cato.org...
U.S. sugar policy also justifiably furthers suspicions among the citizenry that the federal government is more concerned with advancing the narrow interests of well‐​connected groups such as sugar producers than promoting the country’s general welfare."

"The Sugar Cartel versus the American People"

Now some may debate the anecdotal circumstances of trade regulations but I would argue that, like the oil companies which knew they were adversely effecting our environment. Like the tobacco companies, which knew the were killing smokers. Like pharmaceutical companies knew they were/are experimenting on the population. These sugar cartels know what is happening.
Combined with Government programs of the past which show they don't care about us much.

You would be negligent not to ask, are the Sugar barons plotting to destroy humanity?

a reply to: datguy
Excellent topic!!
I can tell you first hand that sugar is definitely addictive - my mom is so addicted to her sweets, that she literally gets 'rounder' every year! And if anyone makes the slightest comment about 'cutting down' her sugar intake, she says, "I'm 77 years old, I'm going to die from something, so I'm going to eat what I want, when I want, and if it kills me - I'll die happy!"

One thing your OP didn't mention, is the research that shows "high fructose corn syrup" to not only be the worst 'form' of sugar - causing the U.S.'s current 'epidemic' of type 2 diabetes, but almost any processed food you can name (whether a literal "sweet" or not) contains hidden corn syrup solids...
...You see it in the ingredients listed as things like "maltodextrin" or "dextrose". These additives actually raise blood sugar more effectively than pure sugar alone!

To answer your final question - I don't think this particular 'conspiracy' is intended to "destroy humanity"...I just think it is highly nefarious business people being totally willing to sacrifice their customers health for as much profit as possible.

originally posted by: datguy'''
...
You would be negligent not to ask, are the Sugar barons plotting to destroy humanity?

I perceive it as more unbridled greed than an agenda to intentionally destroy humanity.

But, then, the one always leads to the other. "Love of money is the root of all kinds of evil."

So, when it's all said.and done, the end results are the same.

a reply to: lostgirl

you make great points.
I found out the hard way how difficult it is to cut high fructose corn syrup out of my diet completely.
Now I only drink ocean spray juices, black coffee and lots of water.

its very hard to cut sugar out of the diet, I am very aware of the things I eat and now ill be on the look out for even more ingredients.

The part that scares me is that sites like NIH/FDA and other health resources all say artificial sweeteners are healthy compared to natural sugar. I get that this is due to other health issues with natural sugar but I hope this changes ...soon

a reply to: incoserv

I always prefer "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

It is hard to because it's in so many things. High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is really bad for your system.

health.clevelandclinic.org...

HFCS tricks your body and it feels hungry. There are plenty of studies linking HFCS to childhood obesity. I remember when New Coke came out. I wonder if the New was the intro of HFCS. If I have a Coke, I buy one of the ones bottled in Mexico because it has real sugar.

Sucralose is bad and has been shown to be deleterious to owns health. It is about money.

www.webmd.com...

My wife and I take our coffee with a little raw sugar or honey.

originally posted by: datguy
a reply to: incoserv

I always prefer "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

Some of them. Others are paved with blood and/or filthy lucre.

a reply to: incoserv

Every silver lining has a cloud.

-Confucius

The info about the unsafe properties has been around for a while, but only recently have they found out how those sweetners are causing problems.

Three years ago they knew it was happening but they did not know the method of action and the extent and kind of damage...they did some research and identified through testing how it is causing DNA damage. I read about this about three years ago but the article concluded that they need more research to identify what is happening, more funding and more research which takes years to do properly to form a proper conclusion. Meanwhile not much was said about this for a couple of years now. That is how things work.

A lot of artificial sweetners had this property that hurts DNA but I think there were three that had a lot more risk. It is important to note that some of this kind of sweetner chemistry is in plants, covering up bitter properties of the food, being artificial or natural does not make a difference, just that you would have to eat a lot of veggies or some fruits to get enough to cause problems, like eight servings of fruits and veggies a day. Think about that for a minute.

Our bodies have adapted so we can eat some of this chemistry just not too much and it applies to the body being able to metabolize small amounts...we have limited protection. These artificial sweeteners being concentrated and not tied to natural food chemistries is a problem more than eating a couple servings of veggies a day. Metabolism uses triggers to jump start detox of these things, eating lettuce chemistry can trigger our body to detox it's chemistry to a certain extent...too much salads could result in complications in people if their ancestors did not eat much of it.

The wife and I try to avoid artificial sweeteners in things, but they are in lots of foods these days. They also use the chemical names and not just things like sucrolose or nutrasweet. When I read the science article about this about three years ago we lowered our consumption quite a bit....but I never mentioned it to anyone other than my relatives since the evidence was in it's infancy, not enough was known about how bad it is back then. Now they are saying a single soda can possibly cause some people harm.

Cane sugar in moderation is not too bad unless you have problems metabolizing it...which includes diabetes....which is a metabolic issue. As a population we tend to use way too much sugar in our foods. We have been conditioned over the years to want it by people profiting by it's addictive properties. Sugar stimulates dopamine just as some drugs do. but our bodies can detox some, the problem for many is that if the liver cannot convert fructose well because of overconsumption it tends to store it in liver fats.

a reply to: rickymouse

yeah, the idea that a single serving can be shown to cause damage is concerning. Most people I know that drink these types of drinks, are like chain smokers, one right after the other. this is why included the information about addiction.
But its not just sugars and has been an issue for a really long time

I used to work for a company up north that made medical foods for people with PKU and other metabolism issues.
Basically the owners children suffered from this and the rest is history. He told me that in their research they were learning that these metabolism issues were causing some forms of what were considered autism, by creating a back up of the unmetabolized proteins in certain regions of the brain.

Cambrooke Foods

Its crazy to think that the one of the things we as humans require for survival is such a threat
ahh the miracle of modern science....

Sugar is without a doubt, our 1st addiction..a gateway drug..lol

I have no doubt that sugar is bad for us, and all the alternatives even worse.

originally posted by: datguy

Now some may debate the anecdotal circumstances of trade regulations but I would argue that, like the oil companies which knew they were adversely effecting our environment. Like the tobacco companies, which knew the were killing smokers. Like pharmaceutical companies knew they were/are experimenting on the population. These sugar cartels know what is happening.
Combined with Government programs of the past which show they don't care about us much.

You would be negligent not to ask, are the Sugar barons plotting to destroy humanity?

So what is "bad"? I would say almost everything... When we looked at tobacco companies it wasn't because they were evil it was because no one cared one way or the other. We also really didn't know that cigarettes were that bad until after the 60s or so. Look at alcohol today, is sucralose worst than alcohol? How about all the drugs people are using?

I guess my point is unless you live a very strick lifestyle everyone is killing themselves in a dozen of ways and don't really care, including myself.

originally posted by: vonclod
Sugar is without a doubt, our 1st addiction..a gateway drug..lol

I have no doubt that sugar is bad for us, and all the alternatives even worse.

I think non-sugar carbs are worst if we think of addiction...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: vonclod
Sugar is without a doubt, our 1st addiction..a gateway drug..lol

I have no doubt that sugar is bad for us, and all the alternatives even worse.

I think non-sugar carbs are worst if we think of addiction...

I think it's all bad, but as kids in the late 60s and into the 70s, it was just sugar, and we definitely craved it.

It’s interesting cigarettes require a minimum age to purchase and are required to have warning labels. Your insurance wants you to tell your doctor if you smoke and insist on asking. But sugar? Why is one OK? a reply to: datguy

a reply to: Xtrozero

All carbs are metabolized into sugars before they enter the bloodstream.
granted they are not artificial sugars, I just understand it as; carbs are addictive because so much of them are metabolized into sugar

Carbohydrates and bloodsugar

originally posted by: ITSALIVE
It’s interesting cigarettes require a minimum age to purchase and are required to have warning labels. Your insurance wants you to tell your doctor if you smoke and insist on asking. But sugar? Why is one OK? a reply to: datguy

Now your asking me to think...sheesh
lol I jest but I don't have a good answer.
I could say something like...they want our youth to be as damaged as possible in old age so they can reap the cash the individual would spend on insurance, medicine, food, housing, taxes, ect...
they cant get paid if they are dead. but then...that would only lend credence to the idea that these profiteers ARE all conspiring against us

originally posted by: vonclod

I think it's all bad, but as kids in the late 60s and into the 70s, it was just sugar, and we definitely craved it.

I agree back then it was more sugar-based..Capt Crunch anyone...lol thing that has changed over the decades is there was a lot less sugar things back then and in much smaller amounts, so for me it wasn't a daily thing as it was more of a treat every once in a while.

What has changed is the whole carb thing where back in the day fast food was more of a luxury thing and you ate solid meals with maybe a potato and a slice of bread. Today, people eat 85%+ of their diet as carbs and highly processed foods. My two boys 23 and 20 are healthy as hell with zero meds needed and well-balanced brains etc. and their mom is an immigrant that cooked 3+ meals from scratch a day their whole lives. Today they will cook at home more than eat out though they do eat a lot more crap foods now in college, they are well past the sensitive years of growing up. I see other young adults today and I'm thinking they will not make it to 50...lol

originally posted by: datguy

All carbs are metabolized into sugars before they enter the bloodstream.
granted they are not artificial sugars, I just understand it as; carbs are addictive because so much of them are metabolized into sugar

I think pretty much everyone today understands that, but I was talking about what people today are additive to more as in sweets or grain. The carbs from a pizza are much more satisfying to my carb addiction than things like candy, cookies, etc. In fact, after I eat a little of true sugar foods I don't feel really good and just stop eating it, but I could eat pizza for 12 hours non-stop until I can't move if I let it go with an endless urge that seems to never get filled. When I eat zero carbs I feel much better as my insulin levels stabilize.