Science Review Reveals Laundry List of Health Hazards Associated
with Splenda Consumption
December 18, 2013
Story at-a-glance
-
An in-depth scientific review of sucralose (Splenda) reveals an
extensive list of safety concerns, including toxicity, DNA
damage, and heightened carcinogenic potential when used in
cooking
-
When heated, it releases chloropropanols, which belong to a
class of toxins known as dioxins. Dioxin—a component of Agent
Orange—is among the most dangerous chemicals known to man
-
Sucralose can destroy as much as 50 percent of the microbiome in
your gut. What’s worse, it appears to target beneficial
microorganisms to a greater extent than pathogenic and other
more detrimental bacteria
-
Both animal and human studies have shown that Splenda alters
glucose, insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) levels,
thereby promoting weight gain, insulin resistance, and type 2
diabetes
-
The adverse effects of sucralose are oftentimes misdiagnosed or
overlooked entirely as the side effects are so varied and mimic
common ailments
By Dr. Mercola
Sucralose, marketed under the brand name Splenda, is a
best-selling artificial sweetener around the world. (In the European
Union, sucralose is also known under the additive code E955.)
It has been nearly eight years since I published my concerns
about Splenda in my book,
Sweet
Deception. Since then, evidence continues to support the
concerns I had back then.
Splenda is found in tens of thousands of processed food products
sold in 90 different countries, many of which are specifically
marketed to those seeking to either lose weight or manage their
diabetes.
Mounting research, however, shows that not only does it tend to
worsen both of those problems, but it’s also associated
with an array of other troublesome side effects.
The web site
www.truthaboutsplenda.com lists a variety of consumer complaints
from Splenda consumption, many of which mimic other health
conditions. Some of the most commonly reported adverse effects
include:
- Gastrointestinal problems
- Seizures, dizziness, and migraines
- Blurred vision
- Allergic reactions
- Blood sugar increases and weight gain
But that’s not all. Now, an in-depth scientific review1,
2 of sucralose published in the Journal of
Toxicology and Environmental Health3
reveals an extensive list of safety concerns, including toxicity,
DNA damage, and heightened
carcinogenic potential when used in cooking.
It also blows a huge hole in the argument that Splenda is
a good choice for diabetics and/or those seeking to lose weight.
Sucralose—NOT Safe for Cooking After All
The featured report came to several important conclusions—all of
which challenge the “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) status of
sucralose. Of primary concern is that sucralose is not an
inert substance.
When heated, it releases chloropropanols, which belong to a class
of toxins known as dioxins. One of the selling points of Splenda is
that it remains stable when heated, making it well-suited for
cooking and baking, but these findings refute such claims. (Many
other artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame, are not recommended
for cooking purposes as they’re known to break down in high
temperatures.)
As reported by Sayer Ji at GreenMedInfo.com,4
research now shows that sucralose starts breaking down at 119
degrees Celsius; 180 degrees Celsius causes it to degrade
completely.
Dioxin is a waste product of incineration, smelting, chlorine
bleaching, and pesticide manufacturing, and its well-documented
health effects include cancer
and endocrine disruption. In fact, dioxin, which was a toxic
component of the Agent Orange used to defoliate jungles during the
Vietnam War, is easily one of the most dangerous chemicals known to
man.
Another study5
published in October also expressed concern over the chlorination
reactions that occur when sucralose is cooked in stainless steel
cookware, generating highly toxic compounds, including dioxins6
and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs).
Recent animal research also suggests a link between Splenda
consumption and an increased risk of leukemia.7
Based on such research, the time is more than ripe for the US Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) to reconsider the GRAS status of
sucralose...
Sucralose Also Destroys Your Gut Health
The featured review also concluded that sucralose destroys gut
bacteria. (In fact, animal research8
published in 2008 found it could kill as much as 50 percent
of your microbiome).
This is very important, as anytime you destroy healthy intestinal
bacteria, you open yourself up to unfriendly micro-organisms that
can cause health problems. Your immune system, which is imperative
for general health, is dependent on healthy gut flora, so the idea
that this artificial sweetener may destroy up to half of all your
healthy gut bacteria is disconcerting to say the least.
Worse yet, sucralose appears to target beneficial
microorganisms to a greater extent than pathogenic and other more
detrimental bacteria. And remarkably, according to one study, these
adverse effects on gut microbiota remained even after a
three-month long recovery period...
Early studies, upon which its approval was based, claimed that
sucralose would simply pass unchanged through the human
gastrointestinal tract, but more recent investigations show that it
is indeed metabolized in your gut. And, as reported in the featured
review, “the identity and safety profile of these putative sucralose
metabolites are not known at this time.”
Diabetics Beware...
The third issue is of particular importance for diabetics, who
tend to use artificial sweeteners to manage their condition.9
Alas, both animal and human studies showed sucralose alters glucose,
insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) levels. A related study
published in the journal Diabetes Care10
in September came to a virtually identical conclusion. Compared to
the control group, obese patients using sucralose experienced a
greater incremental increase in peak plasma concentrations, a
greater incremental increase in insulin and peak insulin secretion
rate, along with a decrease in insulin clearance. According to the
authors:
“These data demonstrate that sucralose affects the
glycemic and insulin responses to an oral glucose load in obese
people who do not normally consume non-nutritive sweeteners.”
Toxicological Issues Still Need to Be Addressed
According to the featured review, there are “numerous
toxicological issues regarding long-term exposure to sucralose” that
remain “unresolved.” This includes:
- Genotoxicity (DNA damage) and potentially adverse epigenetic
effects
- The generation of toxic compounds when heated
- Bioaccumulation (One
2009 study found unmistakable evidence that Splenda is
absorbed by body fat, contrary to previous claims)
- Potential drug interactions
The paper also notes that the acceptable daily intake (ADI) set
for sucralose may in fact be hundreds of times too high to
ensure safety! According to more recent research, the
no-observed-effect-level (NOEL) in rats’ gut bacteria is actually
454 times lower than earlier studies showed. If the biological
effects of sucralose are similar in both rats and humans, then you
could experience health effects even if you consume sucralose at
levels well below the ADI. Also consider this:
“Sucralose is classified by the FDA as safe for human
consumption as a food additive. The FDA stated that their
decision was based upon results from 110 animal and human
studies of the effects of sucralose. Of the 110 studies,
two were on human beings, with one being a four day trial by the
manufacturer,” The Examiner reports.
[Emphasis mine]
I might also add that these two studies consisted of a combined
total of 36 people, of which only 23 people actually ingested
sucralose, and the four-day trial looked at sucralose in relation to
tooth decay, not human tolerance! Sadly, if you’re a long-term
Splenda user, you’re actually acting as a human guinea pig, as no
one knows what happens when humans consume this substance for long
periods.
If you look through the research literature, you'll find that
only about 10 percent of the studies involving sucralose have
anything at all to do with safety. In fact, eight years ago when I
wrote the book
Sweet
Deception, in which I expose the many concerns related to
the consumption of artificial sweeteners, there were only 15 studies
relating to the safety of sucralose, and 13 of them were funded by
the company that makes Splenda, leaving enormous room for
conflict of interest.
Industry Funded Studies FAR More Prone to Miss Safety Concerns
If you believe a company can be trusted to perform independent
safety studies for their own products, consider the following
example. In 1996, Dr. Ralph G. Walton reviewed 165 studies on the
widely used artificial sweetener
aspartame, discovering a
remarkable discrepancy between study results and their source of
funding. Of the 165 studies, 74 had industry related funding and 91
were independently funded. Of those:
- 100 percent of the industry funded studies supported
aspartame's safety, while
- 92 percent of the independently funded studies identified at
least one potential health concern
Dr. Walton also pointed out that of the seven remaining
non-industry funded studies that supported aspartame's safety,
six were done by the FDA, and the seventh was a literature
review of mostly industry sponsored research.11
Considering the long-standing
revolving door between various industries and the FDA, it's
questionable as to whether an FDA study can be considered truly
"independent," even though they were counted as independent in
Walton's review. If you give that concern any merit, you'd
essentially be looking at 100 percent of industry related studies
claiming aspartame to be safe, and 100 percent of independent
studies flagging some sort of health concern!
This is truly powerful documentation of the influence of
corporately sponsored trials on safety or any other potential
complication that can occur. This type of funding bias is a fatal
flaw in the system, because in order to receive FDA approval, the
product is not required to undergo any kind of independent
study. If you’re in the US and want to take some action on this
issue, you can follow The Examiner’s suggestion12
to contact Senators Sherrod Brown13
and Rob Portman14
and ask them to fund proper, independent safety studies on the
artificial sweeteners sucralose and aspartame. They also recommend
contacting Speaker of the House, John Boehner,15
and Congressmen Pat Tiberi,16
and Steve Stivers17
to support such research.
Prevalence and Diagnosis of Sucralose Sensitivity
Unfortunately, the adverse effects of sucralose are oftentimes
misdiagnosed or overlooked entirely as the side effects are so
varied and mimic common ailments. The following are common symptoms,
usually noticed within a 24-hour period following consumption of a
Splenda product:
Skin -- Redness, itching, swelling,
blistering, weeping, crusting, rash, eruptions, or hives
(itchy bumps or welts) |
Lungs -- Wheezing, tightness, cough, or
shortness of breath |
Head -- Swelling of the face, eyelids,
lips, tongue, or throat; headaches and migraines (severe
headaches) |
Nose -- Stuffy nose, runny nose (clear,
thin discharge), sneezing |
Eyes -- Red (bloodshot), itchy, swollen, or
watery |
Stomach -- Bloating, gas, pain, nausea,
vomiting, diarrhea, or bloody diarrhea |
Heart -- Palpitations or fluttering |
Joints -- Joint pains or aches |
Neurological -- Anxiety, dizziness,
spaced-out sensation, depression |
One of the best things you can do if you suspect you may be
suffering from a sensitivity is to do an elimination challenge.
Simply remove all sources of sucralose from your diet and see if
your symptoms improve over the next several days. If the symptoms
dissipate, then you probably have your answer. To double-check,
reintroduce a small amount of sucralose and see how you react over
the next 24 hours.
Keep in mind that if you’ve been using Splenda for some time,
gastrointestinal problems and related health issues may take three
months or longer to improve, as mentioned above. I would strongly
suggest reseeding your gut with healthy bacteria to speed up the
healing process. Your best bet is to regularly consume traditionally
fermented foods such as fermented vegetables. Alternatively, use
a high-quality probiotic supplement.
If you suffer side effects from an artificial sweetener like
sucralose (Splenda), then avoidance is your only recourse. You’ll
need to be very vigilant about reading labels to ensure you’re not
accidentally buying foods that contain it. Keep in mind that diet
foods are not the only products that contain sucralose. A wide
variety of “regular” products can also contain it, and sometimes in
combination with other artificial sweeteners.
Splenda Is Not a Safe and Healthy Alternative to Sugar
Splenda is made from sugar, but chemically it’s more similar to
DDT. Mounting research shows there’s a veritable laundry list of
health concerns associated with it, from destroying your gut health
to promoting diabetes and
cancer. Truly, you’re consuming it at your own risk, as FDA approval
is NOT a guarantee of safety... As stated by Sayer Ji:18
“Chlorinated compounds like dioxins and DDT are notorious
for being both highly toxic and resistant to breaking down once
released into the environment, which is why they are classified
as 'persistent organic pollutants.’
Splenda was launched in 2000 with tagline ‘Made from
sugar, so it tastes like sugar,’ until it retired this slogan in
2007 after settling with its rival, Merisant Co., the maker of
Equal, who accused the makers of Splenda of intentionally
confusing consumers into thinking its product was more natural
and healthier than other artificial sweeteners. Long
gone are the days that this artificial sweetener can be marketed
as natural, safe and a healthy alternative to sugar.”
My strong suggestion is to avoid ALL artificial sweeteners like
the plague. While the mechanisms of harm may differ, they’re all
harmful in one way or another. This includes
aspartame (NutraSweet,
Equal),
sucralose (Splenda),
saccharin (Sweet'N Low),
acesulfame potassium,
neotame, and others. To learn more about sugar
alternatives, including the best and worst of the bunch, please
review my previous article, “Sugar
Substitutes—What’s Safe and What’s Not.”
© Copyright 1997-2013 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/12/18/sucralose-side-effects.aspx
|