Is Splenda Safe? Examining the Dangers of this ‘Sugar Alternative’

Is Splenda safe? Unfortunately, the Splenda (Sucralose) craze has taken a toll on the American people. Wrongfully marketed as a healthful alternative to regular sugar, ‘made from sugar so it tastes like sugar,’ Splenda may not be quite as innocent as the industry says.

Sucralose, the chemical name for Splenda, has been implemented as an alternative to sugar, used widely in chewing gum, bakery sweets, diet sodas, fruit juices, and other oddities contrived as food. 

It’s a synthetic product—a chlorinated sugar molecule—of McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. Splenda continues to be avidly used by consumers watching their weight and blood sugar.

The sweetener is actually more chlorinated than aspartame – and consequently not much different than aspartame in terms of it’s effects on the body.

Through the extensive testing processes of the FDA, the sugar substitute was considered safe for human consumption in 1998 after the effects were studied on over 100 animals and humans (2 of which were humans).

What comes as the greatest surprise, however, is the fact that all of the testing done with Sucralose was only completed on around 40 people total – much of the studies’ goals were only to test its effects on the teeth of the subjects, and virtually nothing about the toxicity of the sweetener whatsoever.

I’m not one to trash non-human studies, but as far as market approvals go involving health organizations, it’s a bit surprising to say the least.

Fortunately, other non-governmental studies have been completed and the results have shown that Sucralose may be connected to at least a few ailments – with a negatively altered gut microbiome being at the forefront of health issues.

There are numerous studies showcasing this link. In one of those studies, published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, researchers found that sucralose alters the microbial makeup of your digestive system while generating toxic compounds within your body.

The researchers indicate:

• “Sucralose alters metabolic parameters and its chronic effects on body weight are unknown.“
• “Sucralose alters P-gp and CYP expression.” This means it could work to interfere with drugs and activate detoxification enzymes in the body.
• “Sucralose alters indigenous bacterial balance in the GUT.” Splenda could be sending your digestion off balance by eradicating healthy bacteria and increasing dangerous bacteria. One study found after consuming sucralose, intestinal bacteria did not normalize for 3 months.
• “The metabolic fate and health profile of sucralose metabolites are currently unknown.” After your body breaks the Splenda down, it’s anyone’s guess what happens with those separate compounds in your body.

The researchers warn that many toxicological issues regarding sucralose and long-term exposure are “unresolved.” In other words, despite knowing all of the risks we do, there are likely many more we don’t know about.

“Although early studies asserted that sucralose passes through the GIT unchanged, subsequent analysis suggested that some of the ingested sweetener is metabolized in the GIT, as indicated by multiple peaks found in thin-layer radiochromatographic profiles of methanolic fecal extracts after oral sucralose administration. The identity and safety profile of these putative sucralose metabolites are not known at this time.

Sucralose and one of its hydrolysis products were found to be mutagenic at elevated concentrations in several testing methods. Cooking with sucralose at high temperatures was reported to generate chloropropanols, a potentially toxic class of compounds. Both human and rodent studies demonstrated that sucralose may alter glucose, insulin, and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) levels. Taken together, these findings indicate that sucralose is not a biologically inert compound.”

Consumer Group Warns Against Consuming Splenda

Findings of another study on the link between sucralose and cancer that caused uproar when they were presented at a cancer conference in 2013 have finally been published.

The food industry dismissed the results of the study when they were presented in London, but they are now available for the world to see in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health.

In response to the study, the consumer group The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is recommended that people avoid consuming sucralose, more popularly known as Splenda.

The study found that:

“sucralose administered in feed to Swiss mice at dose levels of 0, 500, 2,000, 8,000, and 16,000 parts-per notation (ppm) from prenatal life until natural death induces a significant dose-related increased incidence of malignant tumors in male mice.”

The researchers write:

“These findings do not support previous data that sucralose is biologically inert. More studies are necessary to show the safety of sucralose, including new and more adequate carcinogenic bioassay on rats. Considering that millions of people are likely exposed, follow-up studies are urgent.” [1]

In the study, 457 male mice and 396 female Swiss mice were given feed containing varying concentrations of sucralose from the 12^th day of gestation until death. When just 6.7% of the mice remained alive, after the rest had reached their natural lifespan, the remaining mice were euthanized and the organs were collected for analysis.

The researchers found a significant dose-related incidence of malignant tumors and hematopoietic neoplasias in male mice, particularly at 2,000 and 16,000 ppm.

Additionally, the scientists found:

“In females, [the data show] an increased incidence benign tumors and total tumors per 100 animals treated at various doses of sucralose, in particular harderian adenoma, polyp of the glandular stomach, adenoma, and cystodenoma of the ovaries and polyp of the uterus.”

The team acknowledges that the reason for the increase in malignant tumors cold be attributable to the 20% decrease in mean body weight in both sexes of the mice that were given the highest levels of sucralose.

Furthermore, they acknowledged that sucralose is able to alter gut microbes.

Not everyone is convinced of the study’s accuracy, however. Forbes magazine criticized the study’s lead author and the institute, claiming that whenever it tests for cancer, it “always seems to be positive, whereas other laboratories testing the same substances repeatedly fail to come up with the same findings.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) claims it reviewed 10 studies before it classified Splenda “generally recognized as safe.”

The overall consensus, of course, is that small amounts of sucralose won’t give you cancer. Great. But it’s not that simple.

Harvard University points out that artificial sweeteners change the way people taste food. Since these additives are many times sweeter than regular table sugar, and over time this can make people crave naturally sweet foods like fruit less desirable, which can obviously make people use and increasing amount of artificial sweeteners.

This can lead to more health problems than “just” cancer.

“Overstimulation of sugar receptors from frequent use of these hyper-intense sweeteners may limit tolerance for more complex tastes,” explains Dr. David Ludwig, an obesity and weight-loss specialist at Harvard-affiliated Boston’s Children’s Hospital.

When the body senses that it is eating something sweet, the pancreas anticipates energy and releases insulin, which is an important hormone for accumulating body fat.

When this happens, chemicals are sent to the brain, causing it to become confused as to whether or not the body is actually receiving calories for fuel. The process makes us feel hungrier and less full, which can lead to weight gain.

Harvard also notes that while the FDA has ruled out the artificial sweetener-cancer link, the studies the agency reviewed were done using considerably smaller amounts of diet soda than the 24 ounces a day consumed by many people who drink diet soda.

Also, the Ivy League school says, the Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis found that daily consumption of diet drinks was associated with a 36% increased risk of metabolic syndrome and a 67% increased risk of Type 2 diabetes.

There is also evidence that artificial sweeteners are addictive, so maybe having a diet soda sweetened with Splenda every once in a while won’t give you cancer…but it’s just too easy to consume too much of it. After all, it’s not just in soda, but also in prepared meals, salad dressings, yogurts, and cereals.

“We recommend that consumers avoid sucralose, or Splenda, and we recommend consumers also avoid saccharin, aspartame, and acesulfame potassium,” said Center for Science in the Public Interest’s Michael F. Jacobson.

“That said, the risk posed by over-consumption of sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, particularly from soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages, of diabetes, heart disease, and obesity, far outweighs the cancer risk posed by sucralose and most other artificial sweeteners. Consumers are better off drinking water, seltzer, or flavored waters…”

Studies Finding Splenda Dangers Criticized

Organizations accuse many of the studies of having faults, such as a lack of proper control groups. But one may say the same of the “100 studies” used in defense of Splenda.

One cited often was published in the November 2010 issue of Food and Chemical Toxicology, in which sucralose was found to have no genotoxicity.

It’s worth noting, however, that the makers of Splenda co-authored the study. Keep in mind, too, that Johnson & Johnson (affiliated with Splenda) was recently hit with a $1 billion fine for marketing Risperdal for unapproved uses and regularly puts toxins like formaldehyde, parabens, and phthalates in many of its products.

It was only in 2011 that they promised to take known and possible carcinogens out of its infant care products, and it will take them until 2015 (allegedly) to do the same for adult toiletries.

Here is some information regarding the 110 studies proving Splenda’s safety:

• The 110 “animal and human studies” consisted of 2 studies involving humans, with a total of 36 people involved.
• The longest human study lasted 4 days, and focused on Splenda’s impact on tooth decay.
• Some of the remainder “safety studies” showed Splenda to cause decreased red blood cells, male infertility, brain lesions (at high doses), spontaneous abortions in a rabbit population.

Downgraded from “Safe” to “Caution” then from “Caution” to “Avoid”

The Center for Science in the Public Interest downgraded its designation of the sweetener earlier this year from “safe” to “caution” following the indications from Italian researchers that it could be implicated in causing leukemia in mice. Then, it went from “caution” to “avoid.”

So, is Splenda safe enough for you? Ultimately, you decide.

Featured image source: Flickr / Sonny Abesa