Should I fear sucralose?

[Podkayne]

I tried a beverage containing sucralose (brandname SPLENDA) as a sweetener. It was pleasantly suprised by the taste. It had a strongly sweet, clingy aftertaste, but not the nasty chemical flavor of other artificial sweeteners, like saccharin or aspartame.

I got an upset tummy after drinking said beverage, but that was probably just a coincidence.

So, why isn’t this stuff all over the place? Is the Industry getting skittish, afraid that the next big no-calorie substitue will cause tongue cancer or loose bowels?

The FDA sez it’s safe; lotsa websites say otherwise. What’s the dope?

[choosybeggar]

I don’t know why sucralose hasn’t penetrated the markey much yet. Perhaps because it must compete with an already established product (aspartame).

I looked up a bunch of the animal safety studies. I’ll link the abstracts below for your perusal. Generally, no ill effects of sucralose ingestion was observed in rats and mice. Some of the experimental groups were maintained on a diet of 3% sucralose for the entire study period of 2 years.

Some of the differences noted between the experimental and control groups were:

[ul]
[li]The experimental groups weighed less than the control groups. The abstract cites other data that the explanation for this is that a 3%sucralose diet is unpalatable to rats.[/li]
[li]Some of the experimental groups consumed more water than controls[/li]
[li]Female experimental mice had lower erythrocyte counts, a statistically but not clinically significant observation.[/li]
[li]A rat study showed:[/li]

These included: renal pelvic epithelial hyperplasia in all female treatment groups, renal pelvic mineralization in females administered the intermediate or highest dietary concentrations of sucralose, adrenal cortical haemorrhagic degeneration in high-dose group female rats, and the histopathologic incidence of cataracts at necropsy in high-dose group male rats.

but concluded

The non-neoplastic findings that occurred were of no toxicological significance since they were either spontaneous findings commonly observed in aged rats of this strain or the physiological response to high dietary levels of a poorly absorbed compound.

[/ul]

Make what you will of the last set of conclusions and the authors’ dismissal of their importance. The rats were eating buttloads of this stuff.

Based on the studies I saw, I would’t predict you’d come to much harm by consuming small amounts of the stuff.

Study 1
Study 2
Study 3
Study 4
Study 5
Study 6
Study 7
Study 8

[Blueberry_Buckle]

Go to http://www.splenda.com There you will find a listing of all foods containing splenda. It is the only sweetner (besides sugar) I can use. It has helped me lose 15 pounds in the process (since I can’t have anything w/the nutra-sweet, etc) while allowing me to still enjoy my soda cravings. DietRite and DietRC only diet drinks that contain Splenda. There are many juices and foods as well. Check out the website. Its pretty interesting!

[barbitu8]

Sucralose. Splenda is the brand name for this sugar substitute. It passes through the body undigested and hence has no nutritional value, no calories, and no side effects. It’s a chemically altered sugar. Unlike Olestra, it does not promote diarrhea or cause vitamin loss.

[Podkayne]

Hmm. Might have to try some o’ the diet soda brands they list. I’ve avoided diet soda like the plague because I can’t stand Nutrasweet, but this stuff tastes almost un-obnoxious. I have modest (1 can a day) soda habit. Maybe I can trade the calories for a slight risk of renal pelvic mineralization. Thanks for the links, guys. : )