Pick and Choose Your Government Intervention
I'm not on board the anti-Splenda train. Here's an article that tweaked my tweakables in regards to those who have a love-hate relationship with statism (mine is all hate).
Splenda is bad, according to Dr. Mercola, a guy whose work I find very interesting, and often, I agree with his assessments on health and nutrition. So yes, Splenda is made up of artificial ingredients, but so? Why are "artificial, synthetic" products always considered evil, all the time? What's the gist of such nonsense? Remember the anti-Frankenfoods arguments?
I tread carefully on the incessant health nazi'ing because, quite often, it stems from anti-progress mindsets, and surely, Dr. Mercola is no exception at times. I find Splenda to be a great substitute for baking healthy, power foods. I'm just not sold on the fact that chemically changing the structure of sugar molecules is disastrous to the human body.
Everything everywhere can be linked to some danger, as we often hear. Supposedly, soy kills, but oops, it helps to prevent cancer too! After reading all the literature, one wonders if we should just eat nuts and leaves, though pesticide would surely be an issue there. The health food arguments often go into the ridiculous. Moderation and control — not health-scare fanaticism — is the key to a good, healthy life.
Dr. Mercola often touts government intervention as far as the Nanny HealthState. But here, since he's anti-Splenda, he likes the fact that McNeil Nutritionals, the maker of Splenda, might be losing its Splenda patent soon, and what a glory it will be to have competition! Of course, consumers lose in the patent deal from the beginning, because Splenda could of had stiff — and better — competition right from the get-go, but patent laws have ruled out generic substitutes. If definitive, scientific research shows that Splenda does turn out to be bad for us, then blame your government for not allowing the market to bring us something better and healthier.