The Secret Dangers of Splenda (Sucralose), an Artificial Sweetener

[Guest guest]

The Secret Dangers of Splenda (Sucralose), an Artificial Sweetener

_http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm_

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

 

Is Splenda Really As Safe As They Claim It to Be?

As of 2006, only six human trials have been published on Splenda

(sucralose). Of these six trials, only two of the trials were completed and

published

before the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption. The two published

trials had a grand total of 36 total human subjects.

36 people sure doesn't sound like many, but wait, it gets worse, only 23

total were actually given sucralose for testing and here is the real killer:

The longest trial at this time had lasted only four days and looked at

sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance.

Why Do You Need to Know About Splenda?

Splenda, best known for its marketing logo, " made from sugar so it tastes

like sugar,' has taken the sweetener industry by storm. Splenda has become the

nations number one selling artificial sweetener in a very short period of

time.

Between 2000 and 2004, the percentage of US households using Splenda

products jumped from 3 to 20 percent. In a one year period, Splenda sales

topped

$177 million compared with $62 million spent on aspartame-based Equal and $52

million on saccharin-based Sweet 'N Low.

McNeil Nutritionals, in their marketing pitch for Splenda emphasizes that

Splenda has endured some of the most rigorous testing to date for any food

additive. Enough so to convince the average consumer that it is in fact safe.

They claim that over 100 studies have been conducted on Splenda. What they

don't

tell you is that most of the studies are on animals.

Additional Concerns About Splenda Studies

There have been no long-term human toxicity studies published until after

the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption. Following FDA approval a

human toxicity trial was conducted, but lasted only three months, hardly the

length of time most Splenda users plan to consume sucralose. No studies have

ever

been done on children or pregnant women.

Much of the controversy surrounding Splenda does not focus just on its

safety, but rather on its false advertising claims. The competition among

sweeteners is anything but sweet. The sugar industry is currently suing McNeil

Nutritionals for implying that Splenda is a natural form of sugar with no

calories.

Is It REALLY Sugar?

There is no question that sucralose starts off as a sugar molecule, it is

what goes on in the factory that is concerning. Sucralose is a synthetic

chemical that was originally cooked up in a laboratory. In the five step

patented

process of making sucralose, three chlorine molecules are added to a sucrose

or sugar molecule. A sucrose molecule is a disaccharide that contains two

single sugars bound together; glucose and fructose.

The chemical process to make sucralose alters the chemical composition of

the sugar so much that it is somehow converted to a fructo-galactose molecule.

This type of sugar molecule does not occur in nature and therefore your body

does not possess the ability to properly metabolize it. As a result of this

" unique " biochemical make-up, McNeil Nutritionals makes it's claim that

Splenda is not digested or metabolized by the body, making it have zero

calories.

It is not that Splenda is naturally zero calories. If your body had the

capacity to metabolize it then it would no longer has zero calories.

How Much Splenda is Left In Your Body After You Eat It?

If you look at the research (which is primarily extrapolated form animal

studies) you will see that in fact 15% of sucralose is absorbed into your

digestive system and ultimately is stored in your body. To reach a number such

as

15% means some people absorb more and some people absorb less. In one human

study, one of the eight participants did not excrete any sucralose even after 3

days. Clearly his body was absorbing and metabolizing this chemical. That is

what our bodies are supposed to do.

The bottom line is that we all have our own unique biochemical make-up. Some

of you will absorb and metabolize more than others. If you are healthy and

your digestive system works well, you may be at higher risk for breaking down

this product in your stomach and intestines. Please understand that it is

impossible for the manufacturers of Splenda to make any guarantees based on

their limited animal data.

If you feel that Splenda affects you adversely, it is valid. Don't let

someone convince you that it is all in your head. You know your body better

than

anyone else.

How to Determine if Splenda is Harming You

The best way to determine if Splenda or sucralose is affecting you is to

perform an elimination/challenge with it. First eliminate it and other

artificial sweeteners from your diet completely for a period of one to two

weeks.

After this period reintroduce it in sufficient quantity.

For example, use it in your beverage in the morning, and eat at least two

sucralose containing products the remainder of the day. On this day, avoid

other artificial sweeteners so that you are able to differentiate which one may

be causing a problem for you. Do this for a period of one to three days. Take

notice of how your body is feeling, particularly if it feels different than

when you were artificial sweetener free.

Splenda May Still Be Harming You

If you complete the elimination/challenge trial described above and do not

notice any changes then it appears you are able to tolerate Splenda acutely.

However, please understand that you are not out of the woods yet.

The entire issue of long-term safety has never been established. Let's look

at the facts again:

* There have only been six human trials to date

* The longest trial lasted three months

* At LEAST 15% of Splenda is not excreted from your body in a timely

manner

 

Considering that Splenda bears more chemical similarity to DDT than it does

to sugar, are you willing to bet your health on this data? Remember that fat

soluble substances, such as DDT, can remain in your fat for decades and

devastate your health.

If the above facts don't concern because you believe the FDA would not ever

allow a toxic substance into the market then read on.

Do You Really Believe These People Are Going to Protect You?

Please consider that the only organizations between you and potentially

toxic side effects are the FDA and the manufacturers of sucralose (Tate & Lyle)

and of Splenda (McNeil Nutritionals).

The FDA has a long standing _history of ineffective screening and rampant

conflict of interests_ (http://www.mercola.com/2005/mar/2/vioxx_fda.htm) as

demonstrated in their inability to identify Vioxx as too dangerous to be on the

market. _This mistake costs 55,000 people their lives_

(http://www.mercola.com/blog/2004/nov/19/_fda_is__virtually_incapable_of_protect\

ing_america_from_unsa

fe_drugs) .

Now the point I want you to understand here, because it is really important,

is that Splenda is not a drug and is only a food additive. As such the

number of studies required to receive FDA approval is substantially less than

drug. Vioxx had an order of magnitude of more comprehensive clinical trials

than

Splenda ever did, and despite this rigorous approval process it still killed

55,000 people.

So, now you have the primary concerns I have about Splenda and the choices

is yours.

Read Splenda Horror Stories

We have more people on our site that have reported adverse reaction to

Splenda than were formally studied in the research submitted for FDA approval.

It

would seem this collection of data is in some ways superior to the data

submitted to the FDA for Splenda approval.

You can help us continue our Splenda research by supplying us with your own

experience. If you or anyone you know have had an adverse reaction to Splenda

or sucralose containing products _please tell us your story_

(http://www.mercola.com/forms/contact.htm) .

 

---------------------------

 

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

Don't let these large companies fool you. There is no magic alternative to

sugar when it comes to sweeteners. You simply can not have your cake and eat

it too when it comes to this area. It is far too early to tell, as not enough

people have consumed this product to observe large numbers of adverse

effects. AVOID Sucralose.

I am fond of telling people that if something tastes sweet you probably

should spit it out as it is not likely to be to good for you. This of course,

is

a humorous exaggeration, but for most people who struggle with chronic

illness, it is likely to be a helpful guide.

PLEASE note this article is being written in 2000. This is one of the first

comprehensive clear investigative reports and warnings on sucralose on the

Internet.

Related Articles:

 

_Sucralose (Splenda®) U.S. Product List_

(http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_products.htm)

_http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_products.htm_

(http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_products.htm)

_The Potential Dangers of Sucralose: Reader Testimonials_

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

_http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_testimonials.htm_ (http://www.merc

ola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_testimonials.htm)

_The Dangers of Chlorine and Issues With Sucralose_

(http://www.mercola.com/2001/jun/23/chlorine.htm)

_http://www.mercola.com/2001/jun/23/chlorine.htm_

(http://www.mercola.com/2001/jun/23/chlorine.htm)

_12 Questions You Need to Have Answered Before You Eat Splenda_

(http://www.mercola.com/2004/jan/10/splenda_questions.htm)

_http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm_

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

Sources:

Food and Drug Administration " Final Rule " for Sucralose, 21 CFR Part 172,

Docket No. 87F-0086.

Lord GH, Newberne PM. Renal mineralization -- a ubiquitous lesion in chronic

rat studies. Food Chem Toxicol 1990 Jun;28:449-55.

Labare MP, Alexander M. Microbial cometabolism of sucralose, a chlorinated

disaccharide, in environmental samples. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 1994

Oct;42:173-8.

Hunter BT. Sucralose. Consumers' Research Magazine, Oct90, Vol. 73 Issue 10,

p8, 2p.

Maudlin RK. FDA approves sucralose for expanded use. Modern Medicine, Oct99,

Vol. 67 Issue 10, p57, 1/9p

Sucralose -- a new artificial sweetener. Medical Letter on Drugs &

Therapeutics, 07/03/98, Vol. 40, Issue 1030, p67, 2p.

Q & A: Is newly FDA approved sweetener sucralose good for you? Executive

Health's Good Health Report, Nov98, Vol. 35 Issue 2, p6, 1p, 1c.

Gain B. FDA approves J & J Sweetener. Chemical Week, 04/15/98, Vol. 160 Issue

14, p27, 1/4p.

_Sucralose Toxicity Information Center_

(http://www.holisticmed.com/splenda/)

_http://www.holisticmed.com/splenda/_

(http://www.holisticmed.com/splenda/)

_Splenda Product Web Site_ (http://www.splenda.com/)

_Official Tate & Lyle Sucralose Web Site_

(http://www.officialsucralosesite.com/)

_Endurance News, Issue 26._ (http://www.e-caps.com/oncall/enews26.html)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I hear so much against artificial sweeteners...which I agree with.

One thing that I am curious about is STEVIA. It is made from a plant.

 

It seems like it has no toxic profile that I can find. Is this true?

Is it a safe alternative to sugar? I would like to know the answer

to this question once and for all. Thanks, tby

 

 

 

 

 

In , surpriseshan2

wrote:

>

> The Secret Dangers of Splenda (Sucralose), an Artificial Sweetener

> _http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm_

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