Life After Aspartame

[Guest guest]

http://www.mercola.com/2005/oct/20/life_after_aspartame.htm

 

 

Life After Aspartame

 

 

By Pat Thomas

 

This article first appeared in the September 2005 issue of The

Ecologist, Volume 35, No.7.

 

Aspartame should never have reached the marketplace. But even if the

authorities were to remove it from sale tomorrow, how much faith

should consumers place in the other artificial sweeteners on the market?

 

Life After Aspartame

 

There is not a single artificial sweetener on the market that can

claim, beyond all reasonable doubt, to be safe for humans to consume.

Saccharin, cyclamate and acesulfame-K have all been show to cause

cancer in animals. Even the family of relatively benign sweeteners

known as polyols, such as sorbitol and mannitol, can cause gastric

upset if eaten in quantity.

 

NutraSweet believes that its new aspartame-based sweetener, Neotame,

is 'revolutionary'; but, seemingly, it is only a more stable version

of aspartame. This leaves the market wide open for sucralose.

 

Sucralose, sold commercially as Splenda, was discovered in 1976 by

researchers working for British sugar refiner Tate & Lyle. Four years

later, Tate & Lyle joined forces with Johnson & Johnson to develop and

commercialize sucralose under the auspices of a new company, McNeil

Specialty Products (now called McNeil Nutritionals).

 

Sucralose has been approved by more than 60 regulatory bodies

throughout the world, and is now in more than 3,000 products

worldwide. In the United States, Coca-Cola has developed a new diet

drink sweetened with Splenda, and other major soft drink manufacturers

are expected to follow suit.

 

Splenda is advertised as being 'made from sugar, so it tastes like

sugar' -- a claim that is currently the subject of a heated legal

challenge in the United States. While it is true that sugar, or

sucrose, is one of the starting materials for sucralose, its chemical

structure is significantly different from that of sucrose.

 

In a complex chemical process, the sucrose is processed with, among

other things, phosgene (a chemical-warfare agent used during WWI, now

a common intermediary in the production of plastics, pesticides and

dyes), and three atoms of chlorine are selectively substituted for

three hydroxyl (hydrogen and oxygen) groups naturally attached to the

sugar molecule.

 

This process produces

1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galacto\

pyranoside

(also known as trichlorogalactosucrose or sucralose), a new chemical

substance that Tate & Lyle calls a 'water-soluble chlorocarbohydrate.'

 

Accepting Tate & Lyle's classification of sucralose as a

chlorocarbohydrate at face value raises reasonable concerns about its

suitability as a food additive. Chlorinated carbohydrates belong to a

class of chemicals known as chlorocarbons.

 

This class of chemicals includes a number of notorious human and

environmental poisons, including:

 

* Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

* Aliphatic chlorinated carbohydrates

* Aromatic chlorinated carbohydrates such as DDT

* Organochlorine pesticides such as aldrin and dieldrin

* Aromatic chlorinated ethers such as polychlorinated dioxins

(PCDD) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF)

 

Most of the synthetic chlorinated compounds that we ingest, such as

the pesticide residues in our food and water, bio-accumulate slowly in

the body; and many cause developmental problems in the womb or are

carcinogenic. How do we know that sucralose is any different?

 

Tate & Lyle insists that sucralose passes through the body virtually

intact, and that the tight molecular bond between the chlorine atoms

and the sugar molecule results in a very stable and versatile product

that is not metabolized in the body for calories.

 

This doesn't mean, however, that sucralose is not metabolized in the

body at all, and critics like HJ Roberts argue that, during storage

and in the body, sucralose breaks down into, among other things, 1,6

dichlorofructose, a chlorinated compound that has not been adequately

tested in humans.

 

Tate & Lyle maintains that sucralose and its breakdown products have

been extensively tested and proven safe for human consumption. The

company notes that in seeking approval from the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration (FDA), McNeil Specialty Products submitted more than

110 studies that attested to the safety of sucralose.

 

But Can Consumers Trust This Research Data?

 

The vast majority of studies submitted to the FDA were unpublished

animal and laboratory studies performed by Tate & Lyle itself, and

therefore liable to charges of potentially unacceptable bias.

 

Only five involved human subjects, and these were short-term, often

single-dose, studies that clearly could not adequately reflect the

expected real-world usage of sucralose.

 

After questions were raised by the FDA about the safety of sucralose

for diabetics, and prior to approval, a further five human studies

were eventually submitted. On April 1, 1998 the FDA approved sucralose

for limited uses; one year later it approved it as a general-purpose

sweetener.

 

Some questions about sucralose's safety, arising from the data

submitted to the FDA, remain unanswered. These studies included

unsettling findings about animals, which, when exposed to high doses

of sucralose, experienced:

 

* Shrunken thymus and spleen

* Enlarged liver and kidneys

* Reduced growth rate in adults and newborns

 

In the FDA's 'final-rule' report, several of the studies submitted by

McNeil were found to have 'inconclusive' results or were

'insufficient' to draw firm conclusions from them. These included:

 

* A test that examined the clastogenic activity (ability to break

chromosomes apart) of sucralose, and a test that looked for

chromosomal aberrations in human lymphocytes exposed to sucralose

* A series of three animal genotoxicity studies

* Laboratory studies using lymphoma tissue from mice, which showed

that sucralose was 'weakly mutagenic' (capable of causing cellular

mutations)

 

Clastogenic, genotoxic and mutagenic substances are all potential risk

factors in the development of cancer.

 

In addition to these, three studies that looked at very specific

'anti-fertility' effects of sucralose and its breakdown products,

especially with regard to sperm production, were also deemed

insufficient; this is particularly worrying since other

'chlorosugars,' such as 6-chloroglucose, are currently being studied

as anti-spermatogenic drugs.

 

Furthermore, the administration observed that McNeil had failed to

explain satisfactorily a reduction in body weight seen in animals fed

sucralose and that 'additional study data were needed to resolve this

issue.' Ironically for a product that 'tastes like sugar,' McNeil

argued that weight loss was due to the 'reduced palatability of

sucralose-containing diets.'

 

FDA reviewers also found that at mid to high doses there was a trend

toward 'decreasing white blood cell and lymphocyte counts with

increasing dose levels of sucralose.'

 

This was dismissed as having no 'statistical significance' by the FDA;

in healthy animals and humans this may be so, but what happens when

already immune-compromised individuals ingest sucralose?

 

Tate & Lyle says that any lingering concerns about sucralose are

unfounded and that only a small amount, 15-20 percent, of sucralose is

absorbed and broken down in the human gut. The rest passes through the

body unmetabolized and is excreted in urine and feces. This in itself

provokes important questions.

 

* What happens to sucralose that is flushed down the toilet? Does

it remain stable or react with other substances (for instance, the

chlorine used in water-treatment plants, or microbial life) to form

new compounds?

* Is sucralose or any resulting chemical compound it may form safe

for the environment? Is it harmful to aquatic life or wild animals?

* Will sucralose begin to appear in our water supply, in the way

that certain drugs have, silently increasing our exposure to it? And

would that increased exposure be safe?

 

Publish and Be Sued

 

In the face of emerging public criticism, lawyers for Tate & Lyle are

already gearing up for a battle. According to attorney James Turner, a

key player in the aspartame drama, 'there's going to be a huge fight

about Splenda in the next few months... [Tate & Lyle's] lawyers are

already on the case trying to shut everybody up.'

 

It's a tactic that worked well for Monsanto, which certainly used

legal pressure against anyone who criticized NutraSweet.

 

Recently, the publisher of the local newspaper the Brighton Argus

considered it prudent to publish an apology composed by Tate & Lyle

(or their lawyers) or face a legal action for defamation and loss of

sales after printing an article suggesting that sucralose was harmful

to humans.

 

Tate & Lyle's first high-profile victim, however, was mercola.com --

one of the world's most visited Internet health sites. Run by Dr.

Joseph Mercola, the site has been a vocal critic of sucralose for

years. Instead of carrying freely available information on sucralose

that might stimulate spirited public debate, it now carries the

following message: 'Attorneys acting on behalf of the manufacturers of

sucralose, Tate & Lyle Plc, based in London, England, have requested

that the information contained on this page not be made available to

internet users in England.'

 

At this point, concerned consumers should be asking themselves several

questions. Does the story of sucralose sound familiar? If sucralose is

safe beyond any reasonable doubt, why is there such a fervent need to

suppress any criticism of it?

 

Finally, whom do such tactics really serve? Do they serve the consumer

and the principles of choice, information, safety and redress? Or do

they serve the corporate machine and its need to keep generating

profits without taking responsibility for the human cost of doing so?

 

Ecologist Online September 8, 2005

 

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

 

If you are reading this you now you are not in the UK, as I am forced

to block all my comments regarding Splenda from the UK. Tate & Lyle

has assured me they will sue me if I do not. This is largely related

to the liberal libel laws in the UK. What is perfectly legal in the

United States is not in the UK, as freedom of speech is severely

restricted over there.

 

Many have been fooled by Splenda's deceptive advertising practices.

But the truth of the matter is, saying Splenda is 'made from sugar so

it tastes like sugar' is like saying gasoline is 'made from plant

matter so it tastes like brocolli.'

 

By the time sugar has gone through the elaborate chemical processing,

treatment, and alteration required to turn it into sucralose, it has

become a far, far different substance.

 

Tate & Lyle don't want you to know this. They've been doing their best

to keep me from telling you the truth. As this article mentioned,

there are millions of people in England who are not allowed to read

the factual information about Splenda presented here.

 

But Tate & Lyle has not gotten away with it completely. If you're

reading this, you know that they can't hide the truth everywhere. And

numerous lawsuits have been started against them as a result of their

dubious business and advertising practices.

 

Make no mistake -- Splenda is not natural. It is not healthy. It is

not good for you. It is dangerous. If you have any doubts about this,

I urge you to read my page of testimonials about the effects of Splenda.

 

Related Articles:

 

Splenda is Not a 'Healthy' Sweetener

 

12 Questions You Need to Have Answered Before You Eat Splenda

 

The Meteoric Rise of Splenda