Spenda Toxicity Report

[Guest guest]

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

 

Report From New Scientist

 

*** Also see new sucralose/Splenda review by Dr. Joseph Mercola at: ***

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

 

 

Splenda, also known as sucralose, is artificial sweetener which is a chlorinated

sucrose derivative. Facts about this artificial chemical follows:

 

 

a.. 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.

 

 

b.. Recent Research

A possible problem with caecal enlargement and renal mineralization has been

seen in post approval animal research.

 

 

c.. Sucralose Breaks Down

Despite the manufacturer's mis-statements, sucralose does break down into

small amounts of 1,6-dichlorofructose, a chemical which has not been adequtely

tested in humans.

 

 

d.. 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.

 

 

e.. 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.

 

 

f.. Conclusion

While it is unlikely that sucralose is as toxic as the poisoning people are

experiencing from Monsanato'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.

 

 

g.. Addendum (October 2, 2000)

Ocassionally, 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:

 

 

a.. 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.)

 

b.. An extremely large number of toxicity reactions reported to the FDA

and other organizations

 

c.. A recent report showing that nearly 100% of independent research has

found problems with aspartame.

 

 

Why is this relevent 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 Principal, 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..

 

 

 

*§ Paranormal_Research §* With Roots Into The Scientific Realm

Paranormal_Research

Subscribe:......... Paranormal_Research-

digest emails:..... Paranormal_Research-digest

Individual emails:. Paranormal_Research-normal

To Post:........... Paranormal_Research

To :.... Paranormal_Research-

§ You are receiving this email because you elected to §

 

**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,

any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without

profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the

included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml