Yet another ding to Sucralose!


#1

So apparently now it may be “genotoxic”, I only speed read this as Im at the gym right now, but it’s my main (very used) sweetener, so keeping my eye on it.

I’ve tried proving it’s causing an issue for years, up to gut / biome / stool testing, can’t find anything that shows it’s a problem. At one point had serious gut problems, all fixed, never pulled the Splenda out, but always keeping on open mind.

Done by the University of NC


(Central Florida Bob ) #2

I find the article to be too low in details to make a decision with. The only thing it seems to say is that sucralose-6-acetate is dangerous and it’s associated with sucralose. It says

  • “trace amounts of sucralose-6-acetate can be found in off-the-shelf sucralose, even before it is consumed and metabolized”
  • trace amounts of sucralose-6-acetate in a single, daily sucralose-sweetened drink exceed (the safety threshold from the European Food Safety Authority)
  • "When we exposed sucralose and sucralose-6-acetate to gut epithelial tissues – the tissue that lines your gut wall – we found that both chemicals cause ‘leaky gut.’ "

This is clearly an in vitro experiment, that is, in a petri dish or test tube, not in a living critter, an in vivo experiment.

I’m a staunch believer in the “First Law of Toxicology” (hold your hand over your heart) The Dose Makes the Poison. The overused example is that both oxygen and water are toxic if you get too much.

So exactly how much sucralose are they talking about? I don’t know of any sucralose-sweetened drinks so I have no idea how much they’re talking about.

If I had to guess, I’d say my daily consumption of sucralose - in the Splenda mixture - is two tablespoons. One spread across two cups of coffee and a cup of hot tea and the other is in some ice cream I make (and seriously, I think I make the ice cream for my cat - he’s the master, after all) Is that more or less than in their “one sucralose-sweetened drink”?

The other thing, and this comes back to it being an in vitro experiment, they don’t mention is if there’s any supporting evidence for impact in people. Our bodies are full of systems that correct damage and reduce harm. Does this do anything in real people? That requires the real hard (and really expensive) kind of experiments, Randomized Controlled Trials, or RCTs.

Personally, I’ll keep that in the “keep an eye out for more info” folder.


(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #3

It is worth remembering that the cancer scare, decades ago, involving sodium saccharine and sodium clyclamate was paid for by the sugar industry. The amounts fed to the rats to produce cancer were truly prodigious, and the research was retracted. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration eventually allowed cyclamate to return to the market, but saccharine is still banned, last time I checked. I believe the Canadians didn’t get so worked up, and there used to be a brisk smuggling trade in saccharine across the border into Buffalo.

I tried looking into who funded this research, but the paper says nothing about where the money came from.


(Central Florida Bob ) #4

To me, something suspicious (a “tell”?) in the original is the way it ends.

“This work raises a host of concerns about the potential health effects associated with sucralose and its metabolites. It’s time to revisit the safety and regulatory status of sucralose, because the evidence is mounting that it carries significant risks. If nothing else, I encourage people to avoid products containing sucralose. It’s something you should not be eating.”

Putting that where people expect a conclusion seems to say the purpose of the article is to get people to stop buying sucralose. I fully admit I could be wrong and they can be veritable Angels of Truth out to save lives. Except I’ve been down that road a bunch of times over the years and the motivation usually ends up being they want us to buy their product instead.