Hidden - or Not So Hidden - Dangers of Splenda

Are You or Your Family Being Used as a Long-Term Test Subject?

Jul 9, 2009

Splenda is being hailed as the newest and best answer for sugar replacement... but do we really know what effects it might have in the long term?

There are many artificial sweeteners on the market, and even more that have been on the market and have been largely or entirely removed, due to side-effects only discovered many years later. The latest in the artificial sweetener craze, sucralose, marketed as Splenda, is often referred to as "natural", "safe", and "made from sugar". But like most marketing angles, this is only half true at best.

Is Splenda Natural? Is Splenda Made From Sugar?

The FDA does not have a proper definition of what qualifies as "natural", which leaves companies to claim it freely if they wish. Splenda does, indeed, start out with sucrose (sugar), but it then undergoes a patented multi-step process of chlorination. That is, three hydroxyl groups of the sugar are replaced with three chlorine atoms, a substance shown to be unsafe and carcinogenic in large quantities, despite being frequently used in ingestible items, including tapwater. This changes the molecular structure enough that the body no longer recognizes it as sugar, and does not metabolize it as such. So, while it is technically "made from sugar", it is no longer a sugar, and certainly not natural anymore.

It is also worth noting, that sucralose was originally discovered in 1976 by British scientists researching possible new pesticides.

So, is Splenda Safe?

That is a question under heated debate right now. Like most artificial sweeteners, Splenda was released into the market with miserably little testing done at all, and no independent studies (unaffiliated with the company marketing the product), nor any long-term studies, even in rats. In other words, we, the public, are the long-term test subjects.

What little testing was performed, came back with some rather disturbing results, which makes one wonder how the FDA allowed it to be released at all.

Research in laboratory animals, including rats, who metabolize very similarly to humans, included the following effects on the animals, even in the short-term:

With a laundry list of possible symptoms like this, how can the product possible be called "safe"? Many of these effects, especially the shrinking of the thymus glands, were dismissed due to the animals not liking the taste, and preferring to starve themselves than eat it. This is hardly a good recommendation for a marketable sweetener, however, that aside, a toxicologist by the name of Judith Bellin, reviewed studies on the effects of starvation in rats, noting that even prolonged starvation resulted in no more than 7 percent shrinkage, which is significantly lower than that found in the sucralose-fed rats.

As earlier noted, the reason Splenda is not metabolized like sugar is because it has been chlorinated. This is dismissed on the basis that very little of it is absorbed by the body, as little as 15 percent. However, some studies imply that as much as 40 percent may be absorbed, and is more likely to be absorbed the healthier your body is. This absorption seems to concentrate in the liver, kidneys, and digestive tract. The remainder is expelled from the body as waste; the potential environmental effects of this have been completely ignored.

Benefits and Risks of Splenda for Diabetic Patients

One of the main "benefits" associated with Splenda is its use for diabetic patients, because, in theory, it does not metabolize into glucose. However, at least one study showed an increase in glycosylated hemoglobin (Hba1C), which is one of the main markers used to indicate glycemic control; in other words, as stated by the FDA, "increases in glycosolation in hemoglobin imply lessening of control of diabetes." Most simply put, substituting Splenda for sugar in diabetic patients can actually make their diabetes worse.

What are Others Saying About Splenda?

The U.S. Sugar Association, on a website posted about the dangers of Splenda, cite these three key points:

A leading natural foods seller in North America and Europe has similarly spoken out about Splenda, refusing to carry any items made with it, based on the following reasons:

These are mostly due to a form of allergic response, but it is still worthy of note.

So Why are People Still Using Splenda?

If sucralose has so many potential dangers, why do people continue to use it so frequently, and why does it grow more popular with every passing day? Mostly, it is due to effective advertising, disinformation, and a lack of interest in the normal consumer to research what he is ingesting. People tend to assume, if a substance has been approved by the FDA, and is thus in their food, that it is obviously safe. Even when people do investigate a little further, it is all too easy to dismiss 'one or two studies'; but when the entire pool of studies performed is only nineteen, that handful of studies suddenly become much more statistically significant.

A little interest and research, taking responsibility for yourself and what you allow into your body, can make a world of difference to health and well-being. Making sure you are well-informed can allow you to make much wiser and safer choices.

The copyright of the article Hidden - or Not So Hidden - Dangers of Splenda in Nutrition is owned by Genevieve Kiger. Permission to republish Hidden - or Not So Hidden - Dangers of Splenda in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Jul 14, 2009 5:50 PM

Judith Bakley :

I use this stuff all the time. I thought it might be better than Nutra Sweet. Dang, I guess I should just stick with regular soda. LOL

Jul 18, 2009 5:26 PM

Kenneth Burchfiel :

Anyone serious about kicking the sugar habit should consider adding stevia to their diet. It's a bit bitter, but has (in my opinion) far fewer complications than either aspartame or sucralose. You can already find it in some Coke and Pepsi products.

Oct 30, 2009 6:54 AM

Guest :

While I would like to see the scientific studies on this and further discussion, I don't see the point in mentioning the US Sugar Association's website. Whether sucralose is good or bad, and even though sugar producers are providing the raw product, the Association is not unbiased as sucralose cuts into their market share and they don't own the patent.

RM