Splenda Toxicity info

[Guest guest]

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

 

 

Back to Health/Nutrition Page.

/ Back to

Aspartame / NutraSweet Toxicity Info Ctr..

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

and

 

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

 

and

 

http://mercola.com/2004/mar/31/splenda_reaction.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:

 

 

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.

 

 

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 which has not

been adequtely 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 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.

 

 

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:

 

 

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 relevent to the sucralose question? Similar to the

aspartame situation 15 years ago:

 

 

Pre-approval test indicated potential toxicity of

sucralose.

There are no *independent* controlled human studies on

sucralose (similar to 15 years ago for aspartame).

There are no long-term (12-24 months) human studies of

sucralose's effects.

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..