Jump to content

The safety of Sucralose


Frankly Rich
This topic is 3835 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Recently I have been quite happy to have discovered low sugar Detour protein bars. They are so tasty, one just isn't enough. But hey, only 2g of sugar! Yet they are so sweet.

 

Finally I studied the label, and learned that they contain an artificial sweetener called sucralose, known as Splenda. It's listed as the last ingredient in the protein bar, which should indicate it is the smallest ingredient. And why not? Splenda is 600 times sweeter than sugar. So I was happy to have a tasty protein bar that wasn't loaded with sugar.

 

Of course, that didn't last. I found articles suggesting that the safety of sucralose is not as widely founded as when it first came out. And the website greenmedinfo.com says this:

 

"Despite the fact that preapproval research on sucralose found a wide range of adverse health effects in exposed animals [see The Bitter Truth about Splenda], national and international food safety regulatory bodies, including the FDA, now consider it completely safe for daily human consumption.*

 

The same applies for synthetic sweeteners like aspartame, which despite its well-known link with brain damage and over 40 documented adverse health effects, is safety approved in 90 nations.

 

Industry influence largely accounts for the fact that synthetic chemicals like asparatame, neotame, saccharin and sucralose are being foisted onto the public as 'safe' non-calorie sweeteners, despite obvious research to the contrary, and the fact that stevia, the non-calorie natural alternative, has over 1500 years of documented safe use.

 

The American Diabetes Association (ADA), for instance, does nothing to hide its explicit partnership with McNeil Nutritionals, maker of Splenda, despite the obvious conflict of interest. On its website, the ADA describes McNeil Nutritionals as a "national strategic partner " and lauds them as "committed to helping people and their families with diabetes by focusing on the overall nutritional needs of the diabetes community." McNeil Nutritionals sponsors the ADA's "Recipe of the Day," along with a variety of educational tools and information for consumers and healthcare professionals."

 

Sucralose is approved by the FDA. Wikipedia quotes the Canadian Diabetes Foundation: "In determining the safety of sucralose, the 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 the finding that sucralose is safe for human consumption." For example, McNeil Nutritional LLC studies submitted as part of its U.S. FDA Food Additive Petition 7A3987 indicated that "in the 2-year rodent bioassays ... there was no evidence of carcinogenic activity for either sucralose or its hydrolysis products ..."[25]

 

Yet Wikipedia goes on to say: "The consumer advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest, downgraded sucralose from "Safe" to "Caution" in June 2013, citing a new study linking sucralose consumption with leukemia risk in rats.[26][27]"

 

The Sugar Association doesn't like sucralose: "A Duke University study[36] funded by the Sugar Association found evidence that doses of Splenda of between 100 and 1000 mg/kg, containing sucralose at 1.1 to 11 mg/kg (compare to the FDA Acceptable Daily Intake of 5 mg/kg), reduced the amount of fecal microflora in rats by up to 50%, increased the pH level in the intestines, contributed to increases in body weight, and increased levels of P-glycoprotein (P-gp).[37] These effects have not been reported in humans.[5] An expert panel, including scientists from Rutgers University, New York Medical College, Harvard School of Public Health, Columbia University, and Duke University reported in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology that the Duke study was "not scientifically rigorous and is deficient in several critical areas that preclude reliable interpretation of the study results".[38] Another study linked large doses of sucralose, equivalent to 11,450 packets (136 g) per day in a person, to DNA damage in mice.[39] In a small scale study of 17 obese test subjects, sucralose was found to affect glycemic and insulin responses, leading to an increase in peak plasma glucose concentration and insulin secretion rate.[40]"

 

Bottom line: I guess it's okay, but like everything, moderation is probably best. But those Detour Bars taste so good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing I will write in response is that medical/health claims made on the internet always need to be viewed with even more skepticism than the FDA's review process. Not that there isn't helpful information available, but there are a lot of people who naively believe that if something comes from a plant it must be good and that anything developed in the lab must be bad.

 

At any rate, maybe Stevia would have taken over the alternative sweetener market by storm if it tasted better. I tried it once and eventually discarded most of what I bought because of the horrible aftertaste -- worse than any artificial sweetener I've tried other than saccharin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Franklyrich, I wouldn't worry too much about reports on the news, doctors, or the FDA so long as whatever you do it's in moderation. Americans tend to do things in an extreme manner; all or nothing. I've lost track of how many times something such as heart stents, testosterone supplements or other medications or devices were hailed as a miracle cure to seeing furious backtracking a few years latter when it turned out that it wasn't helping or was actually harmful. The only constant is that during the intervening years some group made a fortune peddling the new device or medication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Along these lines I have been avoiding High Fructose Corn Syrup like the plague. So now I find these Nature Valley Trail Mix fruit and nut bars that are yummy, but have High Maltose Corn Syrup as the second ingredient in addition to sugar for a total 12 grams of sugar. Normally I avoid sugary things and also avoid sugar substitutes or non-natural forms of sugar for a variety of reasons. However, if I had to have something sweet I always preferred a natural sugar... and that includes the fact that other sweeteners just don't taste right to me... not to mention other possible health risks. Something tells me that this high maltose corn syrup variety was used to avoid listing the high fructose variety that has received a lot of bad press. Somehow my gut tells me that it is not much better. So " in moderation"... Though I probably won't buy any more... so Nature Valley ain't a guarantee of something being totally natural... Surprise surprise...

 

Still, any time sugar is involved I make sure to savor the taste for a few moments and then I run to brush and in and ideal situation floss the grunge away... and if that's not possible at least quick rinse with water to try and neutralize things. It won't wash away those bad calories, but might prevent a dreaded trip to the dentist...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Stevia leaf extract is delicious. It is far sweeter than either Splenda or sugar so you only need a tiny bit of it. At first it might taste a little different, but overtime I think you'll learn to love it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Stevia leaf extract is delicious. It is far sweeter than either Splenda or sugar so you only need a tiny bit of it. At first it might taste a little different, but overtime I think you'll learn to love it!

 

The problem with Stevia is that it hasn't been tested by the FDA at all, though it's been used for some time in Japan. There's no inherent reason that something that comes from a leaf should be safer than a synthetic substance like Splenda.

 

The safest substance is probably Saccharin (Sweet and Low), because it's been around for a long time and has been tested extensively. There was talk about Saccharin causing cancer almost from the time it was invented in the late 1890s. A warning label was slapped on in the 1950s (with no real evidence behind it), but it was removed in 2000 after studies failed to show an association.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, saccharin has been proven to cause cancer. Sucralose is an artificial chemical created in the laboratory. Stevia is a natural herb that's been around forever. I'd be much more likely to put something natural versus something artificial in my diet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, saccrin has been proven to cause cancer. Sucralose is an artificial chemical created in the laboratory. Stevia is a natural herb that's been around forever. I'd be much more likely to put something natural versus something artificial in my diet.

I totally agree. Sugar is not a good thing to OD on. However, cravings are normal. I always go with the real thing if given a choice. Even something like agave nectar... which is high in fructose and thus condemned in some circles... and lauded in others as a safe natural substitute... has got to be better than man-made derivatives and alternatives. Incidentally, a little agave goes a long way and especially the dark variety which has a nutty almost maple-like flavor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Sugar Substitutes Are Not Created Equal

 

http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/08/22/jane-says-all-sugar-substitutes-are-not-created-equal

 

 

Stevia

 

Source: Made from the leaves of Stevia rebaudiana, a South American shrub.

 

Pros: Zero calories and 25 to 30 times sweeter than sugar. It’s long been used in South America, Japan, and Europe, so if there were any safety concerns, many health professionals feel that they would have surfaced by now. Does that mean you should be pounding down three or four cans of Zevia a day? What do you think?

 

Cons: Whole-leaf stevia or crude extracts are only FDA-approved for herb supplement use, not food use because of concerns about possible side effects, including those of the nervous system. In other forms, stevia isn’t as “natural” as marketing claims would have you believe. It is highly processed to remove its slightly bitter licorice-like aftertaste, and it’s often blended with maltodextrin or other fillers to cut the intensity and make it pour like table sugar.

 

 

Truvia

 

Source: This trademarked “natural” sweetener (pronounced tru-VEE-ah) was created by Cargill and Coca-Cola. It’s made from rebiana, a compound found in stevia leaves.

 

Pros: Zero calories. If you’re a fan of VitaminWater Zero or Sprite Green, then go for it.

 

Cons: If you like the taste of stevia, you’ll be disappointed. It’s primarily sweetened with erythritol.

 

 

Agave nectar (a.k.a. agave syrup)

 

Source: Made from several species of the agave plant (including the blue agave, from which tequila is made), a succulent common to Mexico.

 

Pros: It has a delicate, nuanced flavor and can be up to three times as sweet as sugar, so you use less of it. Because it dissolves quickly in water, it’s great in drinks. Suitable for vegans as no animal products are used in processing. Suitable for raw-foodists if processed with enzymes instead of heat.

 

Cons: It has the same amount of calories as table sugar, 16 calories per teaspoon. Here (again), the “natural” claim is pretty iffy. In her FoodPolitics blog, nutritionist Marion Nestle pointed out that it “contains inulin, a polymer of fructose, which must be hydrolyzed (broken down by heat or enzymes) to fructose to make the sweetener. It’s a processed sweetener requiring one hydrolysis step, requiring more processing than honey and less than high-fructose corn syrup.”

 

 

Splenda:

 

Source: This trademarked no-calorie sweetener from McNeil Nutritionals (a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary) is made by chemically combining sucrose (table sugar) with chlorine to form sucralose, a molecule that is 600 times sweeter than sugar.

 

Pros: No bitter aftertaste and heat stable up to 450°. You can bake with it, and although you won’t get the browning and texture effects you’ll get with sugar, the tasters at Cook’s Illustrated were “pleasantly surprised.”

 

Cons: Like other ultrasweet sugar substitutes, it’s cut with a filler like maltodextrin, which adds a few calories (4 per packet) to this no-cal sweetener. The “Splenda Essentials” line, which is fortified with B vitamins, antioxidants, or fiber is the target of a recent lawsuit that alleges the product provides no health benefits and short-changes customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, saccharin has been proven to cause cancer. Sucralose is an artificial chemical created in the laboratory. Stevia is a natural herb that's been around forever. I'd be much more likely to put something natural versus something artificial in my diet.

 

But there's nothing to show that herbs are better for you than synthetic substances. Some are, some aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it's just my preference then. I try to avoid eating artificial foods.

Same here. I agree!! Consequently, within reason I read every ingredient on the label if it is something I will habitually be using. Still, even if a food is natural the way it is processed can lead to problems as in the above mentioned agave nectar... (Incidentally I buy an organic agave nectar in the hope that it is processed in a healthy fashion.)

 

Not related to sweeteners, concerns how some olive oil is processed. Years ago virtually all olive oil was cold pressed and it said so on the container. Today, unless one is buying a quality product from a reputable source the words "cold pressed" don't appear. That's because they use a process whereby the olives and specifically the pits, seeds, and skin are heated and treated with chemical solvents so as to extract every last drop of oil from the "fruit". It is seldom mentioned that known carcinogens are by-products of such a process. Often this is marketed as pomace olive oil. However, I would bet the farm that many such oils are sold under popular brand names without the pomace designation... or at the very least some pomace oil is mixed in with cold pressed. Accordingly, I only buy EVOO (extra virgin olive oil) from a local shop who personally knows the grower in Italy. So... So much for the Mediterranean diet bring always healthy...

 

I know this was a detour from sugars, but it does illustrate a point. So while natural is usually better... one most be aware of how that natural product is manipulated by the time it gets on the grocer's shelf.

 

Perhaps we all should have become chemists... and it has been years since my last organic chem class... but baring that I guess one needs to be aware and when in doubt use in moderation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with Stevia is that it hasn't been tested by the FDA at all, though it's been used for some time in Japan. There's no inherent reason that something that comes from a leaf should be safer than a synthetic substance like Splenda.

 

FDA Approves Stevia, Ends the Era of Oppression of this Herbal Sweetener (updated)

By Mike Adams

 

Update note: This breaking news article has been updated from its original version to clarify the nature of the FDA's GRAS "approval" for stevia. In the original breaking news, we reported that the FDA had granted GRAS approval to stevia. Technically, the FDA has only issued letters of "no objection" regarding companies' self-affirmation of GRAS approval for stevia. In other words, the FDA hasn't technically granted approval to stevia but has affirmed it will not object to companies using it in foods and beverages. This puts stevia in a "grey zone" where the FDA could potentially target selected companies (small stevia producers) while ignoring other companies (Coca-Cola and Cargill, for example), even while they use essentially the same sweeteners.

 

The rest of the original breaking news article, shown below, has been corrected to account for this clarification.

 

 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued letters of non-objection for the use of a natural, zero-calorie sweetener it once sought to wipe out from the U.S. marketplace. Following political pressure from powerful consumer product corporations (Coca-Cola and Pepsi, primarily), the FDA has once again fallen in step with the interests of Big Business and legalized a food and beverage ingredient that it once aggressively oppressed.

 

In this case, however, the approval of this ingredient happens to be in the best interests of consumers. Why? Because it will largely replace aspartame, an artificial sweetener chemical linked to numerous neurological disorders, including headaches, eye disorders and other problems.

 

It will also unleash a wave of stevia-sweetened products for consumers, and that's good news for diabetics or anyone seeking healthier products sweetened with an herbal extract rather than a synthetic chemical.

 

The circumstances surrounding this FDA approval of stevia reveal yet again the true loyalties of the agency. When stevia threatened the profits of aspartame, it was routinely suppressed by the agency. FDA thugs seized imports of stevia at the border, destroyed millions of dollars in stevia products, threatened companies with fines for daring to sell stevia, and even ordered one company to destroy its recipe books that mentioned stevia in dessert recipes. But now, when Coca-Cola and Pepsi want stevia approved, the FDA suddenly reverses its oppression and decides to legalize the herb.

 

Again, this is a rare case where the FDA's decision benefits consumers, but the circumstances behind the decision were in no way motivated by consumer interest. They were motivated by corporate profits.

 

Betty Martini's victory

 

What's so profitable about stevia? Well, thanks to the efforts of Betty Martini and others who have been warning about the dangers of aspartame, word has spread across the 'net to the point where informed consumers no longer want to consume aspartame at all. In other words, the aspartame opponents succeeded in destroying the consumer acceptability of aspartame! And that led the big players (Coke, Pepsi, etc.) to look for something that would be more acceptable to consumers.

 

That search led them to stevia. And once Big Business got behind the herb, it was only a matter of time before the FDA caved in to commercial interests and legalized the herb.

 

Realize this crucial point: The FDA's decisions these days are based entirely on corporate profits and have absolutely nothing to do with science, safety or consumer interests. Remember, it was just a few days ago that the FDA declared infants, children and even pregnant women could now eat essentially unlimited quantities of mercury in fish, without any negative health consequences whatsoever! This is the same agency that says children can "safely" eat melamine, bisphenol-A, MSG, sodium nitrite and all sorts of other dangerous, toxic substances that harm human health.

 

So don't be fooled for a minute into thinking that the FDA's approval of stevia has anything to do with serving the People.

 

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000626_stevia_Truvia_FDA.html#ixzz31jEEiCvP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I switched over to Monk Fruit In The Raw. I know it sounds like I'm leading into a joke. Using it for about 6 mths, and really enjoy it. It's about as close to natural as I found. i think I have mentioned this before, aspartame is the most studied food additive ever. When I start to pile over research, I always spend time looking for verification of the study from all aspects. Long ago, I learned not to take just the "FDA" as gospel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FDA Approves Stevia, Ends the Era of Oppression of this Herbal Sweetener (updated)

By Mike Adams

 

Update note: This breaking news article has been updated from its original version to clarify the nature of the FDA's GRAS "approval" for stevia. In the original breaking news, we reported that the FDA had granted GRAS approval to stevia. Technically, the FDA has only issued letters of "no objection" regarding companies' self-affirmation of GRAS approval for stevia. In other words, the FDA hasn't technically granted approval to stevia but has affirmed it will not object to companies using it in foods and beverages. This puts stevia in a "grey zone" where the FDA could potentially target selected companies (small stevia producers) while ignoring other companies (Coca-Cola and Cargill, for example), even while they use essentially the same sweeteners.

 

The rest of the original breaking news article, shown below, has been corrected to account for this clarification.

 

 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued letters of non-objection for the use of a natural, zero-calorie sweetener it once sought to wipe out from the U.S. marketplace. Following political pressure from powerful consumer product corporations (Coca-Cola and Pepsi, primarily), the FDA has once again fallen in step with the interests of Big Business and legalized a food and beverage ingredient that it once aggressively oppressed.

 

In this case, however, the approval of this ingredient happens to be in the best interests of consumers. Why? Because it will largely replace aspartame, an artificial sweetener chemical linked to numerous neurological disorders, including headaches, eye disorders and other problems.

 

It will also unleash a wave of stevia-sweetened products for consumers, and that's good news for diabetics or anyone seeking healthier products sweetened with an herbal extract rather than a synthetic chemical.

 

The circumstances surrounding this FDA approval of stevia reveal yet again the true loyalties of the agency. When stevia threatened the profits of aspartame, it was routinely suppressed by the agency. FDA thugs seized imports of stevia at the border, destroyed millions of dollars in stevia products, threatened companies with fines for daring to sell stevia, and even ordered one company to destroy its recipe books that mentioned stevia in dessert recipes. But now, when Coca-Cola and Pepsi want stevia approved, the FDA suddenly reverses its oppression and decides to legalize the herb.

 

Again, this is a rare case where the FDA's decision benefits consumers, but the circumstances behind the decision were in no way motivated by consumer interest. They were motivated by corporate profits.

 

Betty Martini's victory

 

What's so profitable about stevia? Well, thanks to the efforts of Betty Martini and others who have been warning about the dangers of aspartame, word has spread across the 'net to the point where informed consumers no longer want to consume aspartame at all. In other words, the aspartame opponents succeeded in destroying the consumer acceptability of aspartame! And that led the big players (Coke, Pepsi, etc.) to look for something that would be more acceptable to consumers.

 

That search led them to stevia. And once Big Business got behind the herb, it was only a matter of time before the FDA caved in to commercial interests and legalized the herb.

 

Realize this crucial point: The FDA's decisions these days are based entirely on corporate profits and have absolutely nothing to do with science, safety or consumer interests. Remember, it was just a few days ago that the FDA declared infants, children and even pregnant women could now eat essentially unlimited quantities of mercury in fish, without any negative health consequences whatsoever! This is the same agency that says children can "safely" eat melamine, bisphenol-A, MSG, sodium nitrite and all sorts of other dangerous, toxic substances that harm human health.

 

So don't be fooled for a minute into thinking that the FDA's approval of stevia has anything to do with serving the People.

 

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000626_stevia_Truvia_FDA.html#ixzz31jEEiCvP

 

This is exactly the kind of nonsense I was referring to earlier when I said one needs to remain skeptical when reading things on the internet. Isn't the bias of this writer obvious? Even if one accepts the notion that the FDA was initially submitting to the whim of CocaCola and Pepsico in denying stevia's approval and only reversing course when it was demanded by those same corporations, it's quite a stretch to claim that a successful campaign was waged against Aspartame and that consumers are demanding the use of Stevia in diet sodas. While it's true that sales of diet sodas has been declining, it isn't clear that that is solely due to concerns about Aspartame. If anything, there's evidence that many consumers actually don't want Stevia sweetened sodas since sales of Diet Sprite declined at a faster rate after CocaCola changed the recipe to use Stevia instead of Aspartame. If I were to point to one thing that is responsible for the decline in diet soda sales it's the media coverage to studies that suggest that consuming artificial sweeteners may actually cause people to gain weight, either by affecting people's metabolism or simply by causing people to crave something sweet that actually contains calories.

 

Really, I'm not trying to be a cheerleader for any multinational corporation, and I'm not suggesting that the FDA always has clean hands. It's just that the "natural" food industry isn't to be believed, either. And anyone suggesting that plants generally must be safer than chemicals is ignoring the fact that there are lots of plants that are not fit for human consumption. Just because something grows from the earth doesn't mean it's any better for you than something someone developed in a lab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the last time I checked this thread had only 3 responses, so I am glad to see some discussion going on. I will add that I lost 25 pounds by switching from Coke to Coke Zero. It took me a while to adjust to the taste, but now I like it. It's sweetened with aspartame.

 

(All those pounds didn't fall off from stopping Coke alone you know. I did work at it!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My spouse drastically cut his sugar intake last year, because his doctor said he was "pre-diabetic," but he didn't substitute an artificial sweetener. His numbers stabilized nicely, and he also lost 15-20 lbs as a side effect. A few days ago, he made one of his favorite pies, using half the amount of sugar in the recipe and substituting Splenda for the other half. Neither of us can tell any difference in the taste or quality of the pie. However, I have tried using Splenda or Stevia in coffee, and I don't find either of them as satisfying as my usual spoon of sugar. My ancestors were involved in the sugar trade, so I am a traditionalist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...