Elizabeth Hanna says she was fired by the American Diabetes Association after refusing to approve recipes heaped with the additive made by a major donor

Elizabeth Hanna had a simple job: help people with diabetes figure out what to eat. Anyone with common sense knows this should probably not entail foods that might increase people’s risk of getting diabetes. But that’s not necessarily the thinking at the American Diabetes Association (ADA), the world’s leading diabetes research and patient advocacy group, which also receives millions of dollars from sponsors in the pharmaceutical, food and agricultural industries.

According to a lawsuit Hanna recently filed against the ADA, the organization – which endorses recipes and food plans on its website and on the websites of “partner” food brands – tried to get her to greenlight recipes that she believed flew in the face of the ADA’s mission. These included recipes like a “cucumber and onion salad” made with a third of a cup of Splenda granulated artificial sweetener, “autumnal sheet-pan veggies” with a quarter cup of Splenda monk fruit sweetener and a “cranberry almond spinach salad” with a quarter cup of Splenda monkfruit sweetener.

Guess which company gave more than $1m to the ADA in 2022? Splenda.

  • @jpreston2005
    link
    English
    -187 months ago

    Splenda does not increase risk of diabetes. It’s not unhealthy. This article is nonsense. My favorite salad dressing uses a quarter cup of splenda, it’s fine.

    Some study done a while ago said that eating things that are sweet, but with no caloric value, make you crave other caloricly dense sweet things, which can lead to an increase in diabetes risk. The key ingredient to that increase, is eating sugary things, not eating splenda.

    This is stupid.

      • @jpreston2005
        link
        English
        -47 months ago

        I actually read the study the article is based on, so… it’s linked there, right in the article

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          17 months ago

          The “study you read a while ago” evolved into the one in the article when you were gently challenged? Dude that’s crazy.

          • @jpreston2005
            link
            English
            07 months ago

            Here’s the research you didn’t read. It was published in 2022, hence “I read it a while ago”

            They showed a correlation with a change in gut microbiota that’s not as significant of a change as when eating just sugar.

            hence, this is stupid. Don’t want adult onset diabetes? don’t overeat a bunch of sugar. Using splenda to help reduce the amount of sugar you eat on a daily basis, will cause a change in your gut micrbiota associated with increased serum insulin levels in response to glucose loads. But when compared to just eating sugar instead? Well, Splenda is better.

            would you like me to keep reading things for you, or you think you can take it from here, champ?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              07 months ago

              You didn’t read the article or its’ study. You linked a related (but not closely) article you hadn’t read before and just searched. The article is not claiming that splenda causes diabetes, nor is the study, but it is pointing to conditioning the pallette for sweetness increasing the risk of diabetes. It’s cute you tried to be condescending but maybe actually take the time to read the content if you’ve got time to try and be an asshole.

              • @jpreston2005
                link
                English
                17 months ago

                d’aww, you almost made a pint. adorable.

                Yet research has suggested that Splenda may wreak havoc on gut biome health and lead to increased glucose intolerance in a way that is similar to regular sugar. In fact, just last summer, at the very same time Hanna was battling with her bosses, the ADA’s own journal Diabetes Care published a study, drawn from 13 years of data from 105,588 participants, that concluded that there were “positive associations between artificial sweetener intakes and increased [type-2 diabetes] risk” that “strengthen the evidence that these additives may not be safe sugar alternatives”.

                there’s the paragraph in the article which links to the study you misunderstood.