RobFunk
RX Senior
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2002
- Messages
- 47,431
- Reaction score
- 2
Splenda will now be in Diet Coke and is the top selling artificial sweetner by a wide margin.
The Potential dangers of Splenda<SUP>TM</SUP>
<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->Calorie free sugar too good to be true?<!--mstheme-->
You may have seen a new sugar substitute advertised on UK TV recently. Splenda<SUP>TM</SUP>, containing sucralose is made from sugar by substituting three hydrogen-oxygen groups with three chlorine atoms. According to the manufacturers, the body does not recognise sucralose as sugar, so it passes through the body untouched, and is therefore calorie free. Unlike other artificial sweeteners such as aspartame, it is also marketed as being heat stable and therefore suitable for use in baking.
Sucralose, invented by Tate and Lyle researchers in 1976, was first approved for use in Canada in 1991, then in the US in 1998. It took the UK’s regulatory bodies until October 2002 to decide that sucralose is safe, but no such approval has been reached yet in the European Union. But how safe is it?
Fifteen years ago, the FDA approved aspartame for general use, but since then, nearly 100% of independent research has found problems with the product. These include a large number of toxicity reports, and evidence that aspartame can cause the accumulation of formaldehyde in the brain and other organs, damaging the immune system and causing irreversible genetic changes. Yet aspartame is still commonly used in soft drinks, sweets and desserts.
In 1991, The New Scientist reported that sucralose can cause shrunken thymus glands and enlarged liver and kidneys in rodents. FDA pre-approval research also showed a “lessening control of diabetes” and found small quantities of heavy metals and arsenic in the product’s makeup. The FDA also reported that sucralose does not all pass through the body untouched, but around a third of the ingested product is metabolised and stored in the liver and gastrointestinal tract. Subsequent research suggests that sucralose breaks down into small amounts of 1,6-dichlorofructose, which has not been adequately tested on humans.
According to Consumers Research Magazine "some concern was raised about sucralose being a chlorinated molecule. Some chlorinated molecules serve as the basis for pesticides such as DDT., and accumulate in body fat” and there have already been adverse reactions reported from people with chlorine sensitivity. The Consumers Research Magazine also cast doubt on artificial sweeteners’ role in weight loss, pointing out that "there is no clear-cut evidence that sugar substitutes are useful in weight reduction. On the contrary, there is some evidence that these substances may stimulate appetite."
There has been no long term monitoring of the health effects of sucralose. Without these, it will be very difficult to prove its toxicity. But it is probably safer to avoid such a product in the meantime.
http://www.splenda.co.uk
Nutrition.uk Home
The Potential dangers of Splenda<SUP>TM</SUP>
<!--mstheme-->
<!--mstheme-->Calorie free sugar too good to be true?<!--mstheme-->
You may have seen a new sugar substitute advertised on UK TV recently. Splenda<SUP>TM</SUP>, containing sucralose is made from sugar by substituting three hydrogen-oxygen groups with three chlorine atoms. According to the manufacturers, the body does not recognise sucralose as sugar, so it passes through the body untouched, and is therefore calorie free. Unlike other artificial sweeteners such as aspartame, it is also marketed as being heat stable and therefore suitable for use in baking.
Sucralose, invented by Tate and Lyle researchers in 1976, was first approved for use in Canada in 1991, then in the US in 1998. It took the UK’s regulatory bodies until October 2002 to decide that sucralose is safe, but no such approval has been reached yet in the European Union. But how safe is it?
Fifteen years ago, the FDA approved aspartame for general use, but since then, nearly 100% of independent research has found problems with the product. These include a large number of toxicity reports, and evidence that aspartame can cause the accumulation of formaldehyde in the brain and other organs, damaging the immune system and causing irreversible genetic changes. Yet aspartame is still commonly used in soft drinks, sweets and desserts.
In 1991, The New Scientist reported that sucralose can cause shrunken thymus glands and enlarged liver and kidneys in rodents. FDA pre-approval research also showed a “lessening control of diabetes” and found small quantities of heavy metals and arsenic in the product’s makeup. The FDA also reported that sucralose does not all pass through the body untouched, but around a third of the ingested product is metabolised and stored in the liver and gastrointestinal tract. Subsequent research suggests that sucralose breaks down into small amounts of 1,6-dichlorofructose, which has not been adequately tested on humans.
According to Consumers Research Magazine "some concern was raised about sucralose being a chlorinated molecule. Some chlorinated molecules serve as the basis for pesticides such as DDT., and accumulate in body fat” and there have already been adverse reactions reported from people with chlorine sensitivity. The Consumers Research Magazine also cast doubt on artificial sweeteners’ role in weight loss, pointing out that "there is no clear-cut evidence that sugar substitutes are useful in weight reduction. On the contrary, there is some evidence that these substances may stimulate appetite."
There has been no long term monitoring of the health effects of sucralose. Without these, it will be very difficult to prove its toxicity. But it is probably safer to avoid such a product in the meantime.
http://www.splenda.co.uk
Nutrition.uk Home
