Free Speech: Splenda Manufacturer Silences Critics - Health Supreme

Link: Free Speech: Health Supreme.

ive had a lot of 'egg' (& bubble) with my connection/email etc over the last couple of weeks so the posts have been slim. so with that in mind here is one from sepp at
health supreme regarding the issue of 'free speech'.

I would have thought that in a democracy? man (or woman) should be able to air thier views on just about anything.....especially in England.

It seems though that this is a misconception on my part as world reknowned health specialist Dr Mercola has been 'coerced into blocking readers in the U.K. from reading his opinions about a controversial sugar alternative called Splenda'

Is that the same S*****A that advertises on the box along the lines of sugar free, healthy alternative to the  deadly white stuff?

Not sure if you know the advert....its the one with the 'ethnic' woman and her
no sugar gingerbread men that fly off the plate...of course its set in a huge garden somewhere with tweeting birds, teams of happy childtren and vaseline filtered sunshine to set the tone just in case we needed convincing that somewhere nature has something to do with this sweetener.

anyway heres an extract for all us Britons that think we are 'free'

"An article in The Ecologist discusses the legal action threatened by S****** maker Tate & Lyle. As Mercola explains, "I am forced to block all my comments regarding S****** from the U.K. Tate & Lyle has assured me they will sue me if I do not.

This is largely related to the liberal libel laws in the U.K. What is perfectly legal in the United States is not in the U.K., as freedom of speech is severely restricted over there."

Tate & Lyle, whose researchers developed sucralose (later branded as S******), joined forces with multinational firm Johnson & Johnson to market sucralose under the auspices of a new company, McNeil Nutritionals.

So you can see why Mercola might feel compelled to respond to a legal threat from an entity with very deep pockets.

I find it sad that a corporation would try to squelch legitimate criticism of its product in this manner. Indeed, I'd suggest that it's counterproductive. These types of situations tend to get lots of publicity, and Splenda's safety as a food likely will become a larger issue.

I wonder when corporations will get on the Cluetrain and understand that in our digitally networked world, it's better to publicly engage critics in a dialog rather than try to shut them down with brute force"

welcome to the 'age of knowledge'