Hi!!
Thank you for asking to Google Answers.
There is some kind of controversy regarding how safe Splenda
(Sucralose) is despite of the FDA opinion. Taking into account the bad
experience with Aspartame (which resulted very risky to health) you
must consider to pay attention to the "non official" voices.
Since I am not an specialist in this field I cannot tell you what is
the actual true, only show you the different opinions regarding this,
hoping to give you enough sources to you in order to make your final
personal conclusion as unbiased as possible.
Let me start with whyat FDA says:
"FDA APPROVES NEW HIGH-INTENSITY SWEETENER SUCRALOSE:
... Sucralose is a non-nutritive, high-intensity sweetener made from a
process that begins with sucrose. It is a free-flowing, water soluble,
white crystalline powder that on average is about 600 times sweeter
than sugar...
... In determining the safety of sucralose, FDA reviewed data from
more than 110 studies in humans and animals. Many of the studies were
designed to identify possible toxic effects including carcinogenic,
reproductive and neurological effects. No such effects were found, and
FDA's approval is based on its finding that sucralose is safe for
human consumption..."
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/tpsucral.html
Here is where the controversy start, many sources claim that from the
110 studies in humans and animals only one was on humans, and the
studies on animals resulted in several bad side effects, see for
example:
"...Renal pelvic mineralization and epithelial hyperplasia were noted
at higher incidences among treated rats in both the chronic toxicity
and the carcinogenicity phases of study E057. These changes were
observed primarily in the high-dose females. The degree of severity of
these lesions was reported as minimal or slight. McNeil concluded that
these changes are of no toxicological significance.
FDA evaluated these changes and noted that: (1) It is not unusual
to observe such lesions in aged rats, especially in females (Ref. 21).
In this study (E057), the rats were at or near the end of their
expected lifetime at the time of sacrifice; and (2) mineralization of
the renal pelvis represents a physiological adaptation secondary to
cecal enlargement. Cecal enlargement is often seen with other
substances that are poorly absorbed in the upper intestine and can be
expected in a study like this with a poorly absorbed substance like
sucralose..."
From "Food Additives Permitted for Direct Addition to Food for Human
Consumption; Sucralose -- FDA/CFSAN Federal Register 63 FR 16417 April
3, 1998 -- Final Rule: Sucralose":
Note that this page does not load completely some times.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fr980403.html
You can see more related to the pre-approval researches at the
Australian NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS NOTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT
SCHEME (NICNAS), the Australian Government regulator of industrial
chemicals:
"FULL PUBLIC REPORT -- SPLENDA/SUCRALOSE":
http://www.nicnas.gov.au/publications/car/new/NA/NAFULLR/NA0900FR/NA944FR.pdf
Here I want to add a personal note: remember that the differences
between humans and animals can be very extreme related to the toxicity
of a determined substance, for example take into account the toxicity
of the chocolate in animals:
"Theobromine poisoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theobromine_poisoning
Here is an additional favorable article about Splenda:
"ific.org : Everything You Need to Know About Sucralose":
http://www.ific.org/publications/brochures/sucralosebroch.cfm
CRITICISM:
You can find some information about Splenda at an Dr. Joseph Mercola's
article. He is a licensed osteopathic physician who is very active in
promoting good health through nutrition. And yes, you will not find
good news here:
"Splenda - not really safe -- The Potential Dangers of Sucralose":
"...Few human studies of safety have been published on sucralose. One
small study of diabetic patients using the sweetener showed a
statistically significant increase in glycosylated hemoglobin (Hba1C),
which is a marker of long-term blood glucose levels and is used to
assess glycemic control in diabetic patients. According to the FDA,
"increases in glycosolation in hemoglobin imply lessening of control
of diabetes.
Research in animals has shown that sucralose can cause many problems
in rats, mice, and rabbits,...
In terms of safety, it is not just the original substance (sucralose)
that one needs to worry about. As the FDA notes, "Because sucralose
may hydrolyze in some food products...the resulting hydrolysis
products may also be ingested by the consumer."
Is There Any Long-Term Human Research?
None. According to the Medical Letter on Drugs & Therapeutics, "Its
long-term safety is unknown." According to the Sucralose Toxicity
Information Center, the "Manufacturer's '100's of studies' (some of
which show hazards) were clearly inadequate and do not demonstrate
safety in long-term use."
...
Despite the manufacturer's claims to the contrary, sucralose is
significantly absorbed and metabolized by the body...
According to The Sucralose Toxicity Information Center, sucralose is
broken down "into small amounts of 1,6-dichlorofructose, a chemical
which has not been adequtely tested in humans."
...etc."
http://suewidemark.com/splenda.htm
As you can read at the above article the problem resides in the
absorbtion and metabolization of the sucralose and the risk involved
with the fact that sucralose is a chlorinated molecule.
The WORLD NATURAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION, an organization that promotes
natural health care modalities, is very critical regarding the
Splenda:
"THE LETHAL SCIENCE OF SPLENDA, A POISONOUS CHLOROCARBON":
http://www.wnho.net/splenda_chlorocarbon.htm
"SPLENDA IS NOT SPLENDID!":
http://www.wnho.net/splenda.htm
There is also a public debate, with lawsuits included, between the
Sugar Association and the Splenda industry:
"The Truth About Splenda":
http://www.truthaboutsplenda.com/factvsfiction/index.html
"STATS -- A Spoonful of Bile - The Sugar Association pays for a
?consumer? website to scare the public with pseudo-science about
Splenda":
http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=news&ID=492
"Low Carb Diet Support Forums - Splenda Lawsuit":
http://www.lowcarbeating.com/bb/archive/index.php/t-12586
"Timeline Of Events Shows A Link Between Sugar Industry And Splenda Attacks":
http://www.commonvoice.com/article.asp?colid=2391
The following articles could be on your interest:
"Is Splenda Safe For Diabetics? .: Ask Dr. Hull":
http://www.janethull.com/askdrhull/article.php?id=055
"Splenda (Sucralose) Toxicity Exposed":
http://www.splendaexposed.com/
"Sugar substitutes and the potential danger of Splenda":
http://www.womentowomen.com/nutritionandweightloss/splenda.asp
"ASPARTAME AND OTHER SO-CALLED "ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS" NEWS AND ARTICLES":
http://www.wnho.net/aspartamenews.htm
It is difficult to get a final conclusion because, in my opinion, the
sources are, in more or less degree, biased. I think that it is
demonstrated that Splenda is safer than Aspartame, but it is not
perfect. Keeping updated about this product's case and further
researches is a good way to avoid bad surprises in the future, the
Aspartame bad experience must be keeped in mind reminding us the real
risks of the claimed safe products.
Search strategy:
I used the following keywords at Google.com
splenda safe
splenda site:http://www.wnho.net/
splenda aspartame
I hope this helps you. If you find something unclear or missed, please
feel free to use the clarification feature, I will gladly respond your
requests for further assistance on this question if you need it.
Best regards,
livioflores-ga |
,
0 Comments
)