Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Splenda or sucralose

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Splenda is bad news! It's an artificial chlorinated sweetener

with toxic effects.

 

Sun, 5 Jun 2005 12:26:11

-0500

Neil Carman

<neil_carman

Splenda or sucralose

Cc:

Bcc:

X-Attachments:

 

 

Back to Health/Nutrition Page. / Back to Aspartame / NutraSweet

Toxicity Info Ctr..

 

 

 

SUCRALOSE TOXICITY INFORMATION CENTER

 

 

*** Also see the sucralose/Splenda

reviews by Dr. Joseph Mercola at: ***

 

http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm

http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_testimonials.htm

http://www.mercola.com/fcgi/pf/2004/jul/21/splenda.htm

http://www.mercola.com/2003/nov/8/splenda_dangers.htm

 

Splenda, also known as sucralose, is artificial

sweetener which is a chlorinated sucrose derivative. Facts

about this artificial chemical follows:

 

Pre-Approval Research

Pre-approval research showed

that sucralose caused shrunken thymus glands (up to 40% shrinkage) and

enlarged liver and kidneys.

The manufacturer put forth two

arguments in an attempt to claim that sucralose is not toxic:

 

1.The

dose of sucralose in the experiments was high. However, for chemicals

that do not have generations of safe

use, the dosage tested must be adjusted for

variations in potential toxicity within the human population and

between humans

and rodents. In order to this, toxicologists

estimate a variation of effects in the human population of 10 times.

In other

words, one person may not have effects until a

dose of 10 mg per kg of body weight (10 mg/kg) is reached, while

another

person may have chronic toxicity effects at 1 mg

per kg of body weight (1 mg/kg). In addition, it is well known that

many

chemicals are much more toxic in humans than in

rodents (or even monkeys). For example, the chemicals that the

sweetener

aspartame breaks down into vary from 5 to 50

times more toxic in humans than in rodents. Therefore, toxicologists

estimate

a further 10 times the dose for differences

between human and rodent toxicity for a total of 100 times (10 *

10).

 

In order to estimate a potential safe dose in

humans, one must divide the lowest dose in given to rodents that was

seen to

have any negative effects on their thymus glands,

liver or kidneys by 100. That dose is then known as the maximum

Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) for lifetime use.

Keep in mind that the TDI is just an estimate. Some chemicals are much

more

than 10 times more toxic in humans than in

rodents (or will cause cancer in humans in low-dose, long-term

exposure and do

not cause cancer in rodents at all). A person

ingesting the TDI for some chemical may find that it causes cancer or

immune

system or neurological problems after many years

or decades of use. So, if the manufacturer claims that the dose

was

equivalent to 50 diet sodas, then the TDI would

be one half (1/2) of a diet soda, and even that dose may or may not be

safe.

 

2.The

manufacturer claimed that the sucralose was unpleasant for the rodents

to eat in large doses. They said that starvation

caused the shruken thymus glands. From the New

Scientist (23 Nov 1991, pg 13):

 

[Toxicologist

Judith] Bellin reviewed studies on rats starved under experimental

conditions, and concluded that

their growth

rate could be reduced by as much as a third without the thymus losing

a significant amount of weight

(less than 7

percent). The changes were much more marked in rats fed on sucralose.

While the animals' growth rate

was reduced

by between 7 and 20 percent, their thymuses shrank by as much as 40

percent.

 

Recent Research

A possible problem with caecal

enlargement and renal mineralization has been seen in post approval

animal research.

 

Sucralose Breaks Down

Despite the manufacturer's

mis-statements, sucralose does break down into small amounts of

1,6-dichlorofructose, a chemical that

has not been

adequately tested in humans.

 

Independent, Long-Term Human

Research

None. Manufacturer's " 100's

of studies " (some of which show hazards) were clearly inadequate

and do not demonstrate safety in

long-term use.

 

Chlorinated Pesticides

The manufacturer claims that the

chlorine added to sucralose is similar to the chlorine atom in the

salt (NaCl) molecule. That is not

the case. Sucralose may be more

like ingesting tiny amounts of chlorinated pesticides, but we will

never know without long-term,

independent human research.

 

Conclusion

While it is unlikely that

sucralose is as toxic as the poisoning people are experiencing from

Monsanto's aspartame, it is clear from the

hazards seen in pre-approval

research and from its chemical structure that years or decades of use

may contribute to serious chronic

immunological or neurological

disorders.

 

Addendum (October 2, 2000)

Occasionally, persons emailing

ask questions about sucralose research. What follows is a copy of a

response one such question. The

answer starts by summarizing the

aspartame (NutraSweet) issue and then addresses the sucralose

issue.

 

Let me start by saying that, as you may know,

there is a quickly growing body of evidence demonstrating the toxicity

of

aspartame. This includes:

 

Recent

European research showing that ingesting aspartame leads to the

accumulation of formaldehyde in the brain,

other organs

and tissues (Formaldehyde has been shown to damage the nervous system,

immune system, and cause

irreversible

genetic damage in humans.)

An extremely

large number of toxicity reactions reported to the FDA and other

organizations

A recent

report showing that nearly 100% of independent research has found

problems with aspartame.

 

Why is this relevant to the sucralose question?

Similar to the aspartame situation 15 years ago:

 

1.Pre-approval test

indicated potential toxicity of sucralose.

2.There are no

*independent* controlled human studies on sucralose (similar to 15

years ago for aspartame).

3.There are no long-term

(12-24 months) human studies of sucralose's effects.

4.There is no monitoring

of health effects. It took government agencies decades to agree that

there were countless

thousands of

deaths from tobacco. Why? Simply because there had been no monitoring

or epidemiological studies.

Without such

monitoring and studies, huge effects can easily go unnoticed.

 

So, without even addressing the pre-approval

research showing potential toxicity, it is clear that sucralose has a)

no long

history (e.g., decades) of safe use, b) no

independent monitoring of health effects, c) no long-term human

studies, and d)

no independent human studies. I would hope that

the Precautionary Principle, now commonly used in Europe, would be

a

guiding force for people who are interested in

health. Otherwise, we might as well just use any poorly tested,

artificial

(lab-created) chemical that has shown potential

for long-term toxicity.

 

As far as the pre-approval research related to

sucralose.... As you probably know, pre-approval research is

rarely

published. It is only available from the FDA by

filing a Freedom of Information Act request. However, you can see a

very

short summary regarding sucralose and shrunken

thymus glands in the " New Scientist " (23 November 1991, page

13).

 

It is very important that people who have any interest in their health

stay aware from the highly toxic sweetener, aspartame and

other

dangerous sweeteners such as sucralose (Splenda), and

acesulfame-k (Sunette, Sweet & Safe, Sweet One). Instead, please

see the extensive

resources for sweeteners on the Healthier Sweetener Resource List.

 

 

Back to Health/Nutrition Page. / Back to Aspartame / NutraSweet

Toxicity Info Ctr..

 

 

 

 

Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam./domainkeys

X--Newman-Property: groups-email

X-Apparently-

Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam./domainkeys

 

X-Originating-IP: 216.155.201.69

X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:7:0:1

X--Post-IP: 65.188.173.7

" mecb52000 " <mecb52000

X--Profile: mecb52000

Sender:

Mailing-List: list ; contact

-owner

Delivered-mailing list

List-Id: <.>

List-Un:

<- >

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:13:46 -0000

Splenda

 

X-Assp-Spam-Prob: 0.00000

 

Can someone tell me the real truth about splenda..........Good /

bad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Splenda is bad news! It's an artificial chlorinated sweetener with

> toxic effects.

 

I note that the agenda sites have failed to produce hard evidence

that the 15 mg or so sweetener dose actually does anything but

sweeten. Doesn't that make their aguments an emotional tirade rather

than an analysis?

 

Duncan Crow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...