Posted on 2009-01-28 at 1:33 a.m..
The dangers of aspartame are now widely known, but the risks of using Splenda are not documented – until now. Splenda may not penetrate the blood brain barrier as aspartame does, hence entering the brain and creating neurotoxin havoc at the brain center, but Splenda can adversely affect the body in several ways because it IS a chemical substance and not natural sugar.
What is Splenda?
The official definition: Sucralose is a no-calorie artificial sweetener which does not promote tooth decay, and is sold under the brand names Splenda and SucraPlus. In the European Union, it is also known under the E number (additive code) E955. Sucralose is approximately 600 times as sweet as sucrose (table sugar), twice as sweet as saccharin, and four times as sweet as aspartame. Unlike aspartame, it is stable under heat and over a broad range of pH conditions and can be used in baking or in products that require a longer shelf life. Since its U.S. introduction in 1999, sucralose has overtaken Equal in the $1.5 billion artificial sweetener market, holding a 62% market share. According to market research firm IRI, as reported in the Wall Street Journal, Splenda sold $212 million in 2006 in the U.S. while Equal sold $48.7 million. The commercial success of sucralose-based products stems from its favorable comparison to other low calorie sweeteners in terms of taste, stability, and safety.
Some scary notes: Aspartame is one of the worst things you can eat, so it being "four times as sweet" does not speak well for it. Secondly, it increases shelf-life. Almost always, the shorter the shelf life the more healthy it is.
Splenda is not natural; it is a chlorinated artificial sweetener. There have been no long-term human studies on the safety of Splenda; however, issues have been raised about Splenda in a new study from Duke University.
According to the study, Splenda “suppresses beneficial bacteria and directly affects the expression of the transporter P-gp and cytochrome P-450 isozymes that are known to interfere with the bioavailability of drugs and nutrients. Furthermore, these effects occur at Splenda doses that contain sucralose levels that are approved by the FDA for use in the food supply.”
But who ever said Splenda was bad?
Unlike some other unnatural creations, there is less hard evidence against Splenda than other known hazards such as high fructose corn syrup and aspartame.
The same patterns with aspartame (NutraSweet/Equal) are repeating with sucralose (Splenda). Their claims of product safety and research results are identical to those used by The NutraSweet Company. Note the comparisons and repetitions between the products, the corporations, and marketing. Maybe now, consumers can prevent damage to human health sooner than with NutraSweet, which has damaged the health and lives of millions of innocent consumers since it was placed in the public food supply in 1982.
Here are some testimonials from real people, starting with my own.
After twenty years of NutraSweet® (aspartame) dominating the sweetener market, people are realizing for themselves that aspartame really is a foul food chemical tragically harmful to their health. Now, people think Johnson & Johnson’s Splenda, made from sucralose, has come to the rescue as the newest chemical sugar replacement “made from real sugar.” People don’t want to hear that it may be just as dangerous as aspartame, and this white knight of sweeteners is no better improvement.
New chemical sweeteners (like Splenda) and the sweetener blends (aspartame, sucralose and acesulfame K blended together in one product) may be causing users to show signs of weight gain, disruption of sleep patterns, sexual dysfunction, increases in cancer, MS, Lupus, diabetes, and a list of epidemic degenerative diseases. The corporations continue to stand tough in their denial of any connection to chemical sweetener additives.
Side Effects of Splenda
The Chlorine In Splenda
Chlorine is commonly found in nature, but almost always in combination with other building block elements. Chlorine's structure makes it very reactive and because it is so reactive, it is very useful to chemists, engineers and others involved in making things humans use every day.
The inventors of Splenda admit around fifteen percent (15%) of sucralose is absorbed by the body, but they cannot guarantee us (out of this fifteen percent) what amount of chlorine stays in the body and what percent flushes out.
So, do you feel lucky today as you sprinkle that yellow packet of powder in your tea? You will be alarmed once you realize how chlorine, this common chemical we’ve trusted as a “purifier”, is actually affecting our health in more ways than you know. Hopefully, this page will make you hesitate before you let your toddler take another sip of your diet cola.
But did any physician or scientist ever say Splenda was bad?
Absolutely. Here's the technical dirt on Splenda;
James Bowen, M.D., A physician, biochemist, and survivor of aspartame poisoning warns about yet another synthetic sweetener, Splenda.
Hawaii, May 8, 2005 -- The chemical sucralose, marketed as "Splenda", has replaced aspartame as the #1 artificial sweetener in foods and beverages. Aspartame has been forced out by increasing public awareness that it is both a neurotoxin and an underlying cause of chronic illness worldwide. Dr. James Bowen, Researcher and biochemist, reports:
"Splenda/sucralose is simply chlorinated sugar; a chlorocarbon. Common chlorocarbons include carbon tetrachloride, trichlorethelene and methylene chloride, all deadly. Chlorine is nature's Doberman attack dog, a highly excitable, ferocious atomic element employed as a biocide in bleach, disinfectants, insecticide, WWI poison gas and hydrochloric acid.
"Sucralose is a molecule of sugar chemically manipulated to surrender three hydroxyl groups (hydrogen + oxygen) and replace them with three chlorine atoms. Natural sugar is a hydrocarbon built around 12 carbon atoms. When turned into Splenda it becomes a chlorocarbon, in the family of Chlorodane, Lindane and DDT.
"It is logical to ask why table salt, which also contains chlorine, is safe while Splenda/sucralose is toxic? Because salt isn't a chlorocarbon. When molecular chemistry binds sodium to chlorine to make salt carbon isn't included. Sucralose and salt are as different as oil and water.
"Unlike sodium chloride, chlorocarbons are never nutritionally compatible with our metabolic processes and are wholly incompatible with normal human metabolic functioning. When chlorine is chemically reacted into carbon- structured organic compounds to make chlorocarbons, the carbon and chlorine atoms bind to each other by mutually sharing electrons in their outer shells. This arrangement adversely affects human metabolism because our mitochondrial and cellular enzyme systems are designed to completely utilize organic molecules containing carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and other compatible nutritional elements.
"By this process chlorocarbons such as sucralose deliver chlorine directly into our cells through normal metabolization. This makes them effective insecticides and preservatives. Preservatives must kill anything alive to prevent bacterial decomposition."
Dr. Bowen believes ingested chlorocarbon damage continues with the formation of other toxins: "Any chlorocarbons not directly excreted from the body intact can cause immense damage to the processes of human metabolism and, eventually, our internal organs. The liver is a detoxification organ which deals with ingested poisons. Chlorocarbons damage the hepatocytes, the liver's metabolic cells, and destroy them.
In test animals Splenda produced swollen livers, as do all chlorocarbon poisons, and also calcified the kidneys of test animals in toxicity studies. The brain and nervous system are highly subject to metabolic toxicities and solvency damages by these chemicals. Their high solvency attacks the human nervous system and many other body systems including genetics and the immune function. Thus, chlorocarbon poisoning can cause cancer, birth defects, and immune system destruction. These are well known effects of Dioxin and PCBs which are known deadly chlorocarbons."
Dr. Bowen continues: "Just like aspartame, which achieved marketplace approval by the Food and Drug Administration when animal studies clearly demonstrated its toxicity, sucralose also failed in clinical trials with animals. Aspartame created brain tumors in rats. Sucralose has been found to shrink thymus glands (the biological seat of immunity) and produce liver inflammation in rats and mice.
"In the coming months we can expect to see a river of media hype expounding the virtues of Splenda/sucralose. We should not be fooled again into accepting the safety of a toxic chemical on the blessing of the FDA and saturation advertising. In terms of potential long-term human toxicity we should regard sucralose with its chemical cousin DDT, the insecticide now outlawed because of its horrendous long term toxicities at even minute trace levels in human, avian, and mammalian tissues.
"Synthetic chemical sweeteners are generally unsafe for human consumption. This toxin was given the chemical name "sucralose" which is a play on the technical name of natural sugar, sucrose. One is not the other. One is food, the other is toxic; don't be deceived."
Dr. Bowen also calls attention to another seldom recognized and deadly permanent effect of these chemicals: "Aspartame, sold as NutraSweet, Equal, E951, Canderel, Benevia and under other names, is a hyper-sensitization agent which causes Polychemical Sensitivity syndrome. Chlorocarbons strongly induce incurable hypersensitivity diseases which are now becoming rampant." (James Bowen, M.D.)
Doctor Bowen has spent 20 years researching artificial sweeteners after his use of aspartame resulted in being diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease. Dr Bowen's intention is to warn the world of the toxicity of tabletop poisons like aspartame, Splenda and Neotame.
Where can I find published results of the above-reference adverse effects?
Some may ask: “Where can I find published results of the above-reference adverse effects?” These adverse effects where seen in pre-approval research conducted by the manufacturer of sucralose. The number after the adverse effect listed above is the number of the pre-approval study. For obvious reasons, the manufacturer chose to publish only the research that puts sucralose in a good light and not the studies listed above. Some information related to these studies can be found in the FDA Final Rule where the FDA advocates for the manufacturer.
Don't be fooled by statements like this:
"Sucralose has an excellent safety profile. More than 100 scientific studies conducted over a 20-year period demonstrate that sucralose is safe for use as a sweetening ingredient. The data from the studies were independently evaluated by international experts in a variety of scientific disciplines, including toxicology, oncology, teratology, neurology, hematology, pediatrics and nutrition. Importantly, comprehensive toxicology studies, designed to meet the highest scientific standards, have clearly demonstrated that sucralose is not carcinogenic."
Notice how vague the above statements are. It's meant to sound official and yet easy for the average person to understand. No where does it explain what happens when you digest this poison. Remember this easy rule: the longer it lasts on the shelf, the less healthy it is. Splenda/Sucralose was made to increase shelf life. That's the only reason. It was not made to increase health.
What Are Sweetener Blends?
I’ve written about how artificial sweeteners like sucralose (found in Splenda) and aspartame (found in NutraSweet) can have a negative impact on your health. Now the sweetener industry has gone a step further in their quest to copy real sugar’s sweet flavor. They are mixing Splenda and NutraSweet and other artificial sweeteners together! Mixtures of any artificial sweeteners are called “sweetener blends.”
Instead of one harmful chemical coursing through your body, you now have two or three (or more) interacting with each other, and in ways we may not know yet. If one substance is hazardous, do you think adding toxins to it will make it better? It is just one more potent “alien” mixture with unknown interactions that your poor body will try to use, excrete, or store. Its mix n’ match chemistry at the expense of your health.
Non-nutritive, high-intensity sugar substitutes that harm the body include:
The two sweeteners that have recently undergone current and pending FDA approval are SUCRALOSE and ALITAME, respectively. Cyclamate lost its FDA approval in 1970, but is currently up for re-approval. Numerous new sweeteners are currently in various stages of development and approval. Again, long-shelf-life means bad, bad, bad stuff for your body. How can it be natural if it doesn't go bad for months/years?
Saccharin, Stevia and Other Safe Alternative Sweeteners
Sugar and the quest for weight loss represent an enormous growth opportunity for the food and beverage manufacturers worldwide. And as everyone in the industry knows, the average human prefers taste to nutrition. Let’s see how we can reverse this trend.
The two safest choices of sweeteners to date are saccharin and stevia. Yes, saccharin! Saccharin is actually similar to stevia in its origin. It originally came from a plant imported from China, and in its original form, is a complex sugar extract from the plant itself. Stevia is extracted from a plant grown in South America, and is also a complex sugar extract.
According to FDA documents, saccharin has never caused cancer. Years ago, saccharin was sold in tiny pin-sized pellets, and merely two or three were enough to add sweetness to coffee or iced tea. This is what I consider a natural sucrose (sugar) substitute!
However, it's important to remember that sugar must play a small role in your life, regaurdless of it's form. The two forms I recommend most are fruits and honey. All other forms should be looked at with a weary eye.
Splenda is comprised of the high-potency artificial sweetener sucralose (1.1%) and the fillers maltodextrin and glucose. Splenda was administered by oral gavage at 100, 300, 500, or 1000 mg/kg to male Sprague-Dawley rats for 12-wk, during which fecal samples were collected weekly for bacterial analysis and measurement of fecal pH. After 12-wk, half of the animals from each treatment group were sacrificed to determine the intestinal expression of the membrane efflux transporter P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and the cytochrome P-450 (CYP) metabolism system by Western blot. The remaining animals were allowed to recover for an additional 12-wk, and further assessments of fecal microflora, fecal pH, and expression of P-gp and CYP were determined. At the end of the 12-wk treatment period, the numbers of total anaerobes, bifidobacteria, lactobacilli, Bacteroides, clostridia, and total aerobic bacteria were significantly decreased; however, there was no significant treatment effect on enterobacteria. Splenda also increased fecal pH and enhanced the expression of P-gp by 2.43-fold, CYP3A4 by 2.51-fold, and CYP2D1 by 3.49- fold. Following the 12-wk recovery period, only the total anaerobes and bifidobacteria remained significantly depressed, whereas pH values, P-gp, and CYP3A4 and CYP2D1 remained elevated. These changes occurred at Splenda dosages that contained sucralose at 1.1-11 mg/kg (the US FDA Acceptable Daily Intake for sucralose is 5 mg/kg). Evidence indicates that a 12-wk administration of Splenda exerted numerous adverse effects, including (1) reduction in beneficial fecal microflora, (2) increased fecal pH, and (3) enhanced expression levels of P-gp, CYP3A4, and CYP2D1, which are known to limit the bioavailability of orally administered drugs.
So, how can you avoid all these bad ingredients? Read the labels of everything you buy. This is not just your health in your old age we're talking about, this is today, and tomorrow. What you eat really is what you are. The better you eat, the better your life is going to be. How do I know? Because I've been there, and because I've witnessed both the negative tole that a poor diet takes as well as the positive transformation that eliminating poisons and increasing real food makes.
Now that you've read the dirt do you want to test your knowledge or take a survey to evaluate your own health? click here.
But don't take it from me! Go to the source if you're not convinced!
Sources for this page: