Sucralose (again)

[Guest guest]

Hi a and welcome.

This has been debated at length - generally Dr. Mercola and the information

he provides is assumed to be on the fringe. One should try searching the

CR archives for the discussion. (I know it was the first site I found as

well :-))> My wife was using stevia, now if you want to look at a potential

problem child look no further. As a " natural " product, NO testing is

required, NO FDA approval is required, nor is there any requirement for

purity. While this is a " natural " product, I choose not to use it as

" natural " =! " safe " + " good " (side joke on the discussion on Boolean

equations e.g. natural is not equal to either safe or good.)

In my opinion Dr. Melcola is over dramatic (for example " The manufacturer

claims that the chlorine added to sucralose is similar to the chlorine atom

in the salt (NaCl) molecule. That is not the case. Sucralose may be more

like ingesting tiny amounts of chlorinated pesticides, but we will never

know without long-term, independent human research. " [3]) without

sufficient substantiating evidence for most of the claims made. His

discussion is overly simplistic, and lacking in rigor which prevents his

information from being considered as a creditable source.

A search in PubMed (www.pubmed.com) for " sucralose " came up with 58 hits,

two of which are:

" Based on these studies and the extensive animal safety database, there is

no indication that adverse effects on human health would occur from

frequent or long-term exposure to sucralose at the maximum anticipated

levels of intake. " [2]

" There were no toxicological significant effects observed at the 1.0% or

2.5% dietary levels. However, decreases in food consumption, body weight

gain and selected organ weights and ratios as well as splenic and thymic

histopathologic changes occurred in rats administered 5.0% for 4 or 8

weeks. " ... " Dose selection for chronic toxicity studies in rats took into

consideration the effect of high concentrations of sucralose on digestion

and food consumption and the limitations that would be imposed on

subsequent studies. In male and female dogs, no sucralose-related adverse

effects were observed following the dietary administration of 0.3, 1.0 or

3.0% for 12 months achieving doses of approximately 90, 300 and

900mg/kg/day respectively. These studies establish that sucralose is

non-toxic in rodents following acute oral administration. The rat

no-observed-adverse-effect level ranged between 2.5 and 5.0% following

subchronic dietary administration. A 3.0% dietary concentration equivalent

to a dose of 900mg/kg/day produced no adverse effects in beagle dogs when

fed for 12 months. " [3]

Splenda is a brand of sweetener which is sucralose cut so that it is at a

sugar equivalent. This makes it convenient to use, but very expensive as

the ration is 1:600.

regards,

p.s when replying with a change in subject, please try and remember to

change the subject line as well. The archives are organized by subject

line and it is handy to keep like subjects together.

p.p.s Welcome to the world of confusing and contradictory information.

Making sense of the amount of information presented in this group (as well

as the sister lists) forces one to evaluate the information presented for

consistency and veracity prior to making a commitment. For example some

folks are violently against any form of supplements, others (like myself)

started with that position then realized that there is an appropriate use

of supplements when they can be justified. I take a one-a-day style

vitamin (e.g. one which provides 100% RDA but not more) for example

because of a dietary analysis which showed I was not consistently meeting

RDA for some vitamins and minerals. I also try to assure that I get 100%

of RDA through food, however the one-a-day provides " assurance " that is

actually accomplished. Others have looked at the available information and

reached different conclusions.

Each of us needs to find our own way through life as we have no reliable

navigator to define the one and only course. I saw the discussion about

Sucalose, did a web search, came up with Dr. Mercola's site, and posted a

message to this group along the lines of " Gee he thinks this stuff is very

bad! " (sound familiar :-))> After getting put down rather abruptly, I did

some " homework " which was enough to convenience me that IF I were to use an

artificial sweetener, then sucralose and NOT stevia was the preferred

sweetener. (Actually 5 pounds of sugar will last for several years in our

house anyway. However there was a big discussion about gar-gum pudding

which does require a sweetener, so I went ahead and got into the

sucralose/Splenda camp.)

Welcome again to this group and to a new life style.

Eat less and Prosper!

[1] http://www.holisticmed.com/splenda/

[2] Repeated dose study of sucralose tolerance in human subjects. Pubmed

10882825

[3] Acute and subchronic toxicity of sucralose. Pubmed 10882818

naturalradical@... on 07/09/2002 09:38:48 PM

Please respond to

cc:

Subject: Re: [ ] chat question (AL acid/ L-carnitine)

In a message dated 7/9/02 6:07:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

bareynol@... writes:

and sucralose when Warren's Warehouse

Sucralose? As in Splenda? I understand that it is not such great stuff...

Mercola has quite a few articles on this product.

http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/3/sucralose_dangers.htm

:-) a

a newbie jumping in...:-)