Splenda

Adding Splenda to your drink may prevent Type 1 diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis

Posted by

0


Artificial sweetener Splenda may hold the key to curing Type 1 diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis, a new study explains. High doses of sucralose, the basis for the popular sweetener, prevents cells from attacking healthy body tissue in mice — the same thing that happens to humans who have an autoimmune disease.

There are over 100 autoimmune diseases where a person’s built-in defense system accidentally attacks instead of protects the body. These include lupus, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and multiple sclerosis.

“We’re hoping to piece together a bigger picture of the effects of diet on health and disease, so that one day we can advise on diets that are best suited to individual patients, or find elements of our diet that doctors can exploit for treatment,” says Karen Vousden, a senior study author and principal group leader at the Francis Crick Institute, in a media release.

“More research and studies are needed to see whether these effects of sucralose in mice can be reproduced in humans. If these initial findings hold up in people, they could one day offer a way to limit some of the harmful effects of autoimmune conditions.”

Artificial Sweetener Splenda
Artificial Sweetener – Splenda by Bukowsky18 is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

Are there safety concerns surrounding Splenda?

Sucralose, is an ingredient in many processed foods and drinks. It’s calorie-free, but 600 times sweeter than sugar. While the popular opinion is that Splenda is safe, there are some concerns about long-term consumption disrupting gut bacteria and even increasing the risk of certain cancers.

Now, experiments on lab rodents showed that consuming large amounts lowered activation of T-cells that fight disease and infections. The findings open the door to treating patients in whom immune responses become uncontrolled — sometimes triggering life-threatening conditions.

“We do not want people to take away the message that sucralose is harmful if consumed in the course of a normal balanced diet, as the doses we used in mice would be very hard to achieve without medical intervention,” says Fabio Zani, the study’s co-first author and a postdoctoral training fellow at the Crick.

“The impact on the immune system we observed seems reversible and we believe it may be worth studying if sucralose could be used to ameliorate conditions such as autoimmunity, especially in combinational therapies.”

Researchers fed animals levels of the sweetener equivalent to the acceptable daily intake recommended by food safety authorities in Europe and the United States. Relatively similar doses would not typically be unreachable by people adding it to food or drinks as part of a normal diet.

The mice were less able to activate T-cells in response to cancer or infection. The team did not see an effect on other types of immune cells either. Further analysis revealed sucralose dampened cell function by reducing the release of calcium due to stimulation.

Health officials say sucralose is ‘not harmful to the immune system’

Prof. Vousden says the results demonstrate how high doses of sucralose can alter immune responses in mammals. However, it should not sound alarm bells for those wanting to ensure they have a healthy immune system or properly recover from disease, as the quantities mice consumed were higher than what humans normally ingest.

The researchers hope the findings could lead to a new way to control the harm caused by overactive immune cells.

“We’ve shown that a commonly used sweetener, sucralose, is not a completely inert molecule and we have uncovered an unexpected effect on the immune system. We are keen to explore whether there are other cell types or processes that are similarly affected by this sweetener,” explains Julianna Blagih, co-first author and former postdoctoral training fellow at the Crick, now an assistant professor at the Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital Research Center at the University of Montreal.

U.S. manufacturers Heartland Food Products Group promotes Splenda as a healthier alternative to sugar, which studies have linked to obesity and the onset of Type 2 diabetes. It was approved for use in 2000 after the EU’s Scientific Committee on Food declared it is “not harmful to the immune system, does not cause cancer, infertility, pose a risk to pregnancy or affect blood sugar levels.”

“This study begins to explore how high doses of sucralose could potentially be used in new treatment options for patients, but it’s still early days,” concludes Karis Betts, a senior health information manager at Cancer Research UK.

“The results of this study don’t show harmful effects of sucralose for humans so you don’t need to think about changing your diet to avoid it.”

New Splenda Studies Confirm Its Dangers

Posted by

0


Story at-a-glance

  • The artificial sweetener industry has defended the safety of sucralose (Splenda), stating that it rapidly passes unmetabolized through your body and therefore has no biological effects
  • Recent research reveals sucralose is in fact metabolized and that it accumulates in your fat cells. The study found two new metabolites that have not previously been identified
  • As these findings were not part of the original regulatory decision process for sucralose, the researchers are calling for a review of its safety and regulatory status
  • Other recent research found sucralose causes definite changes in the liver of treated rats, suggesting toxic effects. According to the researchers, sucralose should be used with caution to avoid liver damage
  • Previous research found sucralose reduces gut bacteria by 50 percent, preferentially targeting bacteria known to have important human health benefits

By Dr. Mercola

Sucralose (sold under the brand name Splenda) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1998 as a tabletop sweetener and for use in products such as baked goods, nonalcoholic beverages, chewing gum, frozen dairy desserts, fruit juices and gelatins.

It’s also permitted as a general-purpose sweetener for processed foods. (In the European Union, sucralose is known under the additive code E955.) The approval was given after the FDA supposedly reviewed more than 110 animal and human safety studies, but of these 110 studies, only two were done on humans, and the longest one lasted just four days.

I knew the approval of sucralose was a nearly identical mistake that the FDA made with aspartame, which is why I wrote my book, “Sweet Deception,” in 2006, despite the fact Johnson & Johnson threatened to sue me if I published it. It is certainly vindicating to see the studies confirm what I wrote about in my book over 12 years ago. And the video I made above was shot over seven years ago.

Artificial sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose may have zero calories, but your body isn’t fooled. When hit with a “sweet” taste, your body expects calories to follow, and when this doesn’t happen, it causes biochemical distortions that can result in weight gain, metabolic dysfunction and other health problems.

Sucralose Decimates Your Gut Microbiome

Different artificial sweeteners have been found to wreak havoc in a number of different ways. Aspartame, for example, has a long list of studies detailing harmful effects ranging from brain damage to preterm delivery. Sucralose, meanwhile, has been found to be particularly damaging to your gut. Research1 published in 2008 found sucralose:

  • Reduces gut bacteria by 50 percent, preferentially targeting bacteria known to have important human health benefits (consuming as few as seven little Splenda packages is enough to have a detrimental effect on your microbiome)
  • Increases the pH level in your intestines
  • Is absorbed into and accumulates in fat tissue

In response to this study, James Turner, chairman of the national consumer education group Citizens for Health issued the following statement:2

“The report makes it clear that the artificial sweetener Splenda and its key component sucralose pose a threat to the people who consume the product. Hundreds of consumers have complained to us about side effects from using Splenda and this study … confirms that the chemicals in the little yellow package should carry a big red warning label.”

New Study Finds Sucralose Is Metabolized and Stored in Your Body

Needless to say, the industry has vehemently defended sucralose (and all other chemical sweeteners), stating that it rapidly passes unmetabolized through your body and therefore has no biological effects. Alas, recent research has punched yet another giant hole in the argument that sucralose is a biologically inert chemical, showing it is in fact metabolized and that it accumulates in fat cells.

The study3,4 in question was published in the online version of the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health August 21, 2018. An interview with the authors can be found on Inverse.5

Ten rats were given an average dose of 80.4 milligrams (mg) of sucralose per kilo per day (k/day) for 40 days. According to the researchers, this dosage is “within the range utilized in historical toxicology studies submitted for regulatory approval in North America, Europe and Asia.”

Urine and feces were collected daily from each rat, and were analyzed using ultrahigh performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC–MS/MS), which “revealed two new biotransformation products that have not previously been reported.”

Research Calls for New Safety Review of Sucralose

The two metabolites are acetylated forms of sucralose that are lipophilic, meaning they dissolve in and combine with fats. Sucralose itself is far less lipophilic, which has been part of the safety argument. According to the authors:

“These metabolites were present in urine and feces throughout the sucralose dosing period and still detected at low levels in the urine 11 days after discontinuation of sucralose administration and six days after sucralose was no longer detected in the urine or feces.

The finding of acetylated sucralose metabolites in urine and feces do not support early metabolism studies, on which regulatory approval was based, that claimed ingested sucralose is excreted unchanged (i.e., not metabolized).

The historical metabolic studies apparently failed to detect these metabolites in part because investigators used a methanol fraction from feces for analysis along with thin layer chromatography and a low-resolution linear radioactivity analyzer.

Further, sucralose was found in adipose tissue in rats two weeks after cessation of the 40-day feeding period even though this compound had disappeared from the urine and feces.”

So, not only is sucralose metabolized, these metabolites accumulate in your fat tissues, where they remain for “an extended period of time” after you stop consuming sucralose. In all, these findings led the authors to conclude:

“These new findings of metabolism of sucralose in the gastrointestinal tract and its accumulation in adipose tissue were not part of the original regulatory decision process for this agent and indicate that it now may be time to revisit the safety and regulatory status of this organochlorine artificial sweetener.”

Sucralose Is Not an Inert Compound

Previous research has also noted that sucralose is not a biologically inert compound, as claimed. In the 2013 paper,6 “Sucralose, a Synthetic Organochloride Sweetener: Overview of Biological Issues,” the authors state, in part:

“Sucralose and one of its hydrolysis products were found to be mutagenic at elevated concentrations in several testing methods … Both human and rodent studies demonstrated that sucralose may alter glucose, insulin and glucagon-like peptide 1 levels. Taken together, these findings indicate that sucralose is not a biologically inert compound.”

Importantly, the study also notes that “Cooking with sucralose at high temperatures … generates chloropropanols, a potentially toxic class of compounds.” Yet, Splenda is frequently recommended for cooking and baking,7 and is often used in processed foods in which high heat was involved.

Chloropropanols, which are still poorly understood, are thought to have adverse effects on your kidneys and may have carcinogenic effects.8 However, it’s worth noting that chloropropanols are part of a class of toxins known as dioxins, and dioxins are known to cause cancer and endocrine disruption.

Sucralose May Cause Liver Damage With Regular Use, and More

Another study9 published online August 2, 2018, in the journal Morphologie, found sucralose caused “definite changes” in the liver of treated rats, “indicating toxic effects on regular ingestion.” According to these researchers, their findings suggest “sucralose would be taken with caution to avoid hepatic damage.”

In other words, regularly using Splenda could damage your liver. Here, adult rats were given a much higher (yet nonlethal) oral dose of sucralose — 3 grams (3,000 milligrams) per kilo body mass per day for 30 days, after which the animals’ livers were dissected and compared to the livers of unexposed controls. According to the authors:

“Experimental rats showed features of patchy degeneration of hepatocytes along with Kupffer cells hyperplasia, lymphocytic infiltration, sinusoidal dilatation and fibrosis indicating a definite hepatic damage on regular ingestion of sucralose. Sinusoidal width was also found to be increased in experimental animals as compared to controls.”

Studies have also linked sucralose consumption to:

Genotoxicity (DNA damage) and potentially adverse epigenetic effects.10 According to this paper, the acceptable daily intake set for sucralose may in fact be hundreds of times too high to ensure safety
Shrinkage of the thymus, up to 40 percent11,12
Enlargement of the liver and kidneys13,14
Calcification of the kidneys15,16
Increased leukocyte populations (immune system cells) in the thymus and lymph nodes17
Migraines18
Altered glucose, insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 levels and responses,19 which raises your risk for Type 2 diabetes.

A study20 published in the journal Diabetes Care confirmed that, compared to controls, obese patients using sucralose experienced a greater incremental increase in peak plasma concentrations of glucose, 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”
Alterations in P-glycoprotein (P-gp) levels, which could result in medications used in chemotherapy, AIDS treatment and treatments for heart conditions being shunted back into the intestines, rather than being absorbed by your body21

Commonly Reported Side Effects of Splenda

If you start searching for adverse events reports, you’ll find scores of people reporting a variety of side effects from using Splenda. 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

Are You Having a Reaction to Splenda?

To determine if you’re having a reaction to artificial sweeteners — be it Splenda, aspartame or any of the others — take the following steps:

  1. Eliminate all artificial sweeteners from your diet for two weeks
  2. After two weeks, reintroduce your artificial sweetener of choice in a significant quantity (about three servings daily)
  3. Avoid other artificial sweeteners during this period
  4. Do this for one to three days and take notice of how you feel, especially as compared to when you were abstaining from artificial sweeteners
  5. If you don’t notice a difference in how you feel after reintroducing your primary artificial sweetener for a few days, it’s a safe bet you’re able to tolerate it acutely, meaning your body doesn’t have an immediate, adverse response. Just know that this doesn’t mean your health won’t be damaged in the long run
  6. If you’ve been consuming more than one type of artificial sweetener, repeat steps 2 through 4 with the next sweetener on your list

If you do experience side effects from an artificial sweetener (or any other food additive for that matter), please report it to the FDA (if you live in the U.S.). It’s easy to make a report — just go to the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator page, find the phone number for your state, and make a call to report your reaction.

Keep in mind that some medications may contain sucralose as well, even if it’s not listed on the label. If you continue to experience any of the symptoms above even though you’re avoiding Splenda and other artificial sweeteners, then it may be worth investigating whether any of the medications you’re taking contain artificial sweeteners.

Splenda Has Never Been Proven Safe for Human Consumption

The FDA claims they reviewed over 100 studies conducted on Splenda. What they don’t tell you is that a) only six of these studies were human trials — and only two of them were published before the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption — and b) the remaining animal studies actually revealed potential health problems, including:22

  • Decreased red blood cells (a sign of anemia) at levels above 1,500 mg/kg/day
  • Increased male infertility by interfering with sperm production and vitality, as well as brain lesions at higher doses
  • Spontaneous abortions in nearly half the rabbit population given sucralose, compared to zero aborted pregnancies in the control group
  • A 23 percent death rate in rabbits, compared to a 6 percent death rate in the control group

What’s more, the two human trials had a grand total of 36 subjects, only 23 of whom were actually given sucralose, and the longest of these trials lasted just four days and looked at sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance.23

Even more shocking, the absorption of Splenda into the human body was studied on a grand total of six men. Based on that study,24 the FDA allowed the findings to be generalized as being representative of the entire human population, including women, children, the elderly and those with any chronic illness — none of whom were ever examined.

Healthier Sugar Substitutes

Two of the best sugar substitutes are from the plant kingdom: Stevia and Lo Han Kuo (also spelled Luo Han Guo). Stevia, a highly sweet herb derived from the leaf of the South American stevia plant, is sold as a supplement. It’s completely safe in its natural form and can be used to sweeten most dishes and drinks.

Lo Han Kuo is similar to Stevia, but it’s a bit more expensive and harder to find. In China, the Lo Han fruit has been used as a sweetener for centuries, and it’s about 200 times sweeter than sugar. A third alternative is to use pure glucose, also known as dextrose.

Dextrose is only 70 percent as sweet as sucrose, so you’ll end up using a bit more of it for the same amount of sweetness, making it slightly more expensive than regular sugar. Still, it’s well worth it for your health as it does not contain any fructose whatsoever. Contrary to fructose, glucose can be used directly by every cell in your body and as such is a far safer sugar alternative.

Splenda (Artificial Sweetner) intensifies symptoms in Bowel Disease

Posted by

0


https://speciality.medicaldialogues.in/splenda-artificial-sweetner-intensifies-symptoms-in-bowel-disease/

Splenda Suppresses Thyroid Function, Promotes Weight Gain

Posted by

0


Is sucralose (a.k.a. Splenda) really as safe an alternative to sugar as its manufacturers and advertisers claim? Or is it really a toxic chemical causing a wide range of health problems including thyroid suppression and weight gain? New research sheds light on this question.

A concerning new study published in the European Journal of Nutrition, entitled “Type of sweet flavour carrier affects thyroid axis activity in male rats”, is the first study of its kind to evaluate the effects of Splenda (Sucralose) on mammalian thyroid function and metabolism. Their findings reveal that sucralose has endocrine disruptive properties on the hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroid axis (HPA axis), resulting in thyroid hormone suppression, increased appetite, and weight gain.

The Many Documented Harms of Sucralose (a.k.a. Splenda)

 thyroid_splenda_sucralose_weight_gain

Before we delve into the details of the new paper, it is important for our readers to understand that this study is not unique in finding harm. There is, in fact, an accumulating body of research on sucralose — a form of sucrose with three added chlorine atoms — showing this chemical marketed as an artificial sweetener is causing a wide range of adverse health effects. For instance, GreenMedInfo’s sucralose research portal reveals 15 different signals of harm linked to this artificial sweetener, such as neurotoxicity. When you add to this well-established body of research the recent discovery that sucralose produces carcinogenic dioxins when heated, the bitter truth about this artificial sweetener — namely, that it is a chemical in the same class as highly toxic pesticides like DDT — comes to light.

This is all the more disturbing when you consider that Splenda is regularly advertised to consumers as a safe sugar alternative specifically for baking applications. For instance, have you seen the TV ads where parents are encouraged to use it presumably to keep their kids healthier than if they used natural sweeteners? If not, you can visit the Splenda Baking and Cooking page which features a picture of a woman holding her son while baking. Also consider that a recent government-funded study found sucralose contaminated 65% of all breast milk samples assayed. In other words, the use of this toxicant is so prevalent that even our most vulnerable populations are incapable of opting out of being exposed to it.

Sucralose has already been demonstrated to promote weight gain and diabetes which undermines its primary marketed ‘benefit.’ Indeed, the new study also found that it promotes weight gain in comparison to an equally sweet, isocaloric diet that only differed in that the sweet sensation was produced by sugar. So, let’s get to the study details now…

Splenda’s Endocrine Disruptive Properties Revealed

The straightforward purpose of the study was described as follows:

Non-nutritive sweeteners are the most widely used food additives worldwide. However, their metabolic outcomes are still a matter of controversy and their effect on the thyroid activity, a key regulator of metabolism, has not been previously studied. Therefore, we aim to determine the influence of the sweet type flavour carrier on selected parameters of thyroid axis activity.

In order to accomplish this, they studied 105  Sprague-Dawley rats, divided into 3 groups, who were fed at their will (ad libitum) for 3 weeks one of the three different diets. The diets had identical caloric content (isocaloric), comprised of starch (wheat starch)differing in the following ways: Diet #1 contained no sugar.  Diet #2 contained 10% sucrose (10 grams). Diet #3 contained enough Sucralose (.0167 grams)  to create the same sweet flavor intensity as Diet #2 (10% sucrose).

The results obtained indicate that both the presence and the type of sweet taste flavour carrier affect thyroid axis activity both at fasting and postprandial state. Compared to diet with sucrose which stimulates thyroid axis activity, sucralose addition diminishes thyroid hormone synthesis as thyroid peroxidase (TPO) activity, plasma thyroxine (T4), and triiodothyronine (T3) concentration was lower than in SC [sucrose containing] and NS [not sweet] while in non-sweet diet the lowest level of hepatic deiodinase type 1 (DIO1) and the highest reverse T3 (rT3) level indicate on altered thyroid hormone peripheral metabolism.

In other words, sucralose significantly altered the thyroid and metabolic functions of the animals in a manner that could overlap with the symptoms of hypothyroidism.

The researchers concluded:

One principal finding of this study concerns the close relationship between the sweet flavour carrier and the pituitary-thyroid axis activity, which is involved in the meta]bolic adaptation to meal composition. This effect may be observed at various levels. Sucralose intake seems to diminish thyroid axis activity by decreasing TPO activity, TSH, and plasma total TH concentrations, but at the same time, it increases both free T3 and T4 indexes. Those findings confirmed that sucralose is physiologically active and may provoke disturbances in thyroid axis activity.

It is important to understand that this study proves sucralose is not ‘metabolically inert’ as often claimed when questions of its toxicity are raised. Sucralose also increased appetite and weight gain — two things that run diametrically opposed to consumer perception and the irresponsible marketing of its “benefits.”

The study provides more details:

Both food intake and body mass gain were significantly affected by the type of diet (for both p < 0.001). In total, the highest food intake was recorded in the SU [sucralose] group. The average daily intake of sucralose with the diet (14.2 ± 0.4 mg/kg body weight/day) did not exceed the acceptable daily intake (ADI, 15 mg/kg body weight/day).

The food intake recorded during the meal before euthanasia did not differ between NS [not sweet], SC [sucrose], and SU [sucralose], and was 3.98 ± 0.5, 4.22 ± 0.41, and 4.71 ± 0.5, respectively.

The total daily body weight gain in the SU group was significantly higher than in SC and NS, which represented the lowest value (for both p < 0.001). Therefore, the highest diet growth efficiency was also recorded in SU, and there were no differences between NS and SC (Table 2).

Because previous research has established that dietary carbohydrates directly affect thyroid axis activity, the study was designed to keep the carbohydrate content identical in order to isolate only the difference between the artificial and natural sweetener.  The results provide compelling evidence that the difference in thyroid and metabolic effects observed between the study groups were due entirely to sucralose’s significant and complex toxicological properties.

Of Mice and Men

The question often emerges following animal studies, as to whether the findings can be extrapolated to humans. The study addresses this point directly as follows:

Despite the known species derived differences in thyroid economy between humans and rodents [65, 66], it was demonstrated that total T4 levels in rodents are a valid indicator of thyroid function in relation to effects in humans [67]. Moreover, humans and rats might be equally sensi-tive to TH synthesis disruptors, and even though in rats the response occurs after a shorter exposure time, the final effect could be the same.

 So why are studies like this not regularly performed on humans to remove nagging doubt about their relevance? One reason is the prohibitive cost. Another, perhaps more significant hurdle, is that it is unethical to test chemical safety on human subjects. This obviously makes for great regulatory challenges in unequivocally proving human safety.  So, how are the majority of chemicals released onto the market tested for safety? Animals. And so, the argument that animal studies are not sufficient to demonstrate plausible toxicity in humans is absurd, given that the toxicological risk assessments used to justify releasing chemicas like sucralose into the human food supply are invariably based on animal studies. In fact, these animal studies are used to determine an “acceptable level of harm” by extrapolating from them to find the dose that would not cause overt morbidity in a human.  The notion, however, that the dose makes the poison, has been completely undermined, given research on petrochemicals, low-dose radiation, nanoparticles, and other non-linear dose responses observed following exposure to extremely low concentrations of toxicants, whose effects are amplifed because they mimic hormones (endocrine disruptors) or cause DNA damage and subsequent cellular transformation into cancer instead of inducing cell death (apoptosis). The most recent classical example of this is the finding that glyphosate, the main in the herbicide Roundup, exhibits estrogenic / carcinogenic / endocrine disruptive properties in the parts-per-trillion range.

Sucralose: A Sweetener or Pesticide?

Another highly concerning observation was that sucralose’s effects are similar to those observed with other organochlorine chemicals in its class, which include dangerous pesticides.

[T]he pattern of HPT axis components—decreased TPO activity, TSH, T4, and T3 plasma concentrations together with increased free-to-total TH ratios in the group on the diet with sucralose—resembles some effects evoked by organochlorine compounds documented in human and animal studies. The inverse relationships between plasma levels of chloroorganic compounds and TSH or the thyroid hormone have been observed [31–35]. The association between high levels of fT4 and the consumption of fish exposed to organochlorinated xenobiotics was found in adults from a certain area in East Slovakia [36]. This could be explained by the binding of chloroorganic compounds residues to transthyretin [37]. In the light of these parallels, our results could raise questions about the physiological inertness of sucralose.

In a previous article, The Bitter Sweet Truth About Splenda, we reported on sucralose’s relationship to organochlorine compounds like DDT, and how both compounds have the potential of accumulating in the body and causing adverse health effects:

The makers of sucralose/Splenda argue that this “remarkably stable” chemical passes unchanged into the urine and feces, when in fact, up to 11% to 27% is absorbed into the body (FDA, 1999). In fact, the varying degrees to which sucralose is absorbed is used as a marker for gut and intestinal permeability to determine certain disease states. Once absorbed, some portion of this chlorocarbon accumulates in the body (between 1.6% to 12.2%). What effects will these accumulated chemicals have? According to James Bowen, M.D:

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 Body Perceives Splenda To Be Toxic

The study also noted that previous researchers have doubted the safety of sucralose based on observations that sucralose intake alters expression of both  “rat intestinal P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and cytochrome P-450 isozymes, which are key components of the detoxification system in first-pass drug metabolism [38].” In other words, sucralose induced responses in the body consistent with the perception that it was doing physical harm, and needed to be removed from the body in the way other toxicants are handled.

Changes also observed consistent with sucralose as a toxicant are: “Alterations in beneficial intestinal microflora and epithelial border function after long-term sucralose ingestion were also recorded [38, 39].”

The researchers conjecture that sucralose’s adverse effects on the thyorid axis would be reflected in “thyroid hisopathology,” i.e. thyroid lesions/tumnors. Could this be one of the causes behind the mysterious global uptick in thyroid cancer diagnoses?

Ditch The Chemicals

This study leaves far more questions than answers. First, why are regulators turning a blind eye to the accumulating body of research indicating that sucralose is a highly toxic chemical whose safety has not be established?  Second, why would anyone risk exposing themselves to a chemical when the evidence indicates that artificial sweeteners of all kinds promote weight gain, and increase appetitde — the last two things those who wish to lose weight, or “cut down on sugar” want?

Thankfully we live in an age where research like this is now directly available online, the moment it is published. With greater access to information, we can all better exercise informed consent and take control of our health. We are also to better assess the health benefits of natural substances that render the use of synthetic ones unnecessary, such as honey, stevia, and xylitol. Use the GreenMedInfo.com Research Dashboard to learn more about these alternatives.

Splenda (Sucralose) Found To Have Diabetes-Promoting Effects

Posted by

0


Splenda (Sucralose) Found To Have Diabetes-Promoting Effects

Promoted for decades as a “safe” sugar alternative, presumably to prevent or reduce symptoms of diabetes, Splenda (sucralose) has been found to have diabetes-promoting effects in human subjects.

The artificial sweetener sucralose, which is approximately 600 times sweeter than sucrose (table sugar), and marketed under a variety of brand names, such as Splenda, Cukren, Nevella and SucraPlus, has recently been found to have diabetes-promoting effects in human test subjects, despite containing no calories and being classified as a ‘nonutritive sweetener.’

A new study published in the journal Diabetes Care, lead by researchers at the Center for Human Nutrition, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, set out to test the metabolic effects of sucralose in obese subjects who did not use nonnutritive sweeteners.

Seventeen subjects underwent a 5-hour oral glucose tolerance test on two separate occasions preceded by consuming either sucralose (experimental condition) or water (control condition) 10 min before the glucose load in a randomized crossover design.

The results were reported as follows:

Compared with the control condition, sucralose ingestion caused 1) a greater incremental increase in peak plasma glucose concentrations (4.2 ± 0.2 vs. 4.8 ± 0.3 mmol/L; P = 0.03), 2) a 20 ± 8% greater incremental increase in insulin area under the curve (AUC) (P < 0.03), 3) a 22 ± 7% greater peak insulin secretion rate (P < 0.02), 4) a 7 ± 4% decrease in insulin clearance (P = 0.04), and 5) a 23 ± 20% decrease in SI (P = 0.01).

In other words, a single dose of sucralose lead to a .6 mmol/L increase in plasma glucose concentrations, a 20% increase in insulin levels, a 22% greater peak insulin secretion rate, and a 7% decrease in insulin clearance, an indication of decreased insulin sensitivity.

They concluded

These data demonstrate that sucralose affects the glycemic and insulin responses to an oral glucose load in obese people who do not normally consume NNS.

Discussion

Despite the fact that preapproval research on sucralose found a wide range of adverse health effects in exposed animals [see The Bitter Truth about Splenda], national and international food safety regulatory bodies, including the FDA, now consider it completely safe for daily human consumption.*

The same applies for synthetic sweeteners like aspartame, which despite its well-known link with brain damage and over 40 documented adverse health effects, is safety approved in 90 nations.

Industry influence largely accounts for the fact that synthetic chemicals like asparatame, neotame, saccharin and sucralose are being foisted onto the public as ‘safe’ non-calorie sweeteners, despite obvious research to the contrary, and the fact that stevia, the non-calorie natural alternative, has over 1500 years of documented safe use.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA), for instance, does nothing to hide its explicit partnership with McNeil Nutritionals, maker of Splenda, despite the obvious conflict of interest. On its website, the ADA describes McNeil Nutritionals as a “national strategic partner ” and lauds them as “committed to helping people and their families with diabetes by focusing on the overall nutritional needs of the diabetes community.”  McNeil Nutritionals sponsors the ADA’s “Recipe of the Day,” along with a variety of educational tools and information for consumers and healthcare professionals.

Despite these cozy relationships, the research on sucralose’s adverse health effects continues to accumulate.  Some of the more recent research on the chemical indicate that it may contribute to the following health and environmental problems:

  • Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A researcher from UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, Newark NJ, proposes that sucralose may be causing a global increase in cases of IBS, including both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. [i] In an article titled “What made Canada become a country with the highest incidence of inflammatory bowel disease: could sucralose be the culprit?”, author Xiaofa Qin describes how Canada, which once had one of the lowest rates of IBS in the world, attained the highest levels after being the first country in the world to approve the use of sucralose in thousands of consumer products in 1991.[ii]
  • Harms Gut Flora and Gastrointestinal Health: A 2008 study found that the administration of sucralose to rats at a dose far below the US FDA Acceptable Daily intake level resulted in: 1) a decrease in the numbers of a wide range of beneficial gut bacteria. 2) “increase in fecal pH.”  3) “enhanced expression levels of P-gp, CYP3A4, and CYP2D1, which are known to limit the bioavailability of orally administered drugs.”[iii]
  • Migraines: A report was published in the journal Headache in 2006 indicating that physicians should be mindful of the possibility that sucralose can trigger migraines.[iv]
  • Environmental Persistence: Like many persistent organic pollutants in the pesticide category, sucralose is exceptionally resistant to degradation, both through environmental processes (microbial degradation, hydrolysis, soil sorption) and advanced treatment processes (chlorination, ozonation, sorption to activated carbon, and UV radiation). Sucralose, after all, was discovered accidentally by pesticide researchers, and is chemically related to DDT, a chlorinated hydrocarbon.  Some researchers now consider it an ideal “tracer of anthropogenic activity,” which is true also of lethal radioisotopes such as uranium 238 and plutonium 239, due to their resistance to degradation. [v]  Indeed, recent research found that sucralose has a low rate of removal (11%) in drinking water tested that presently serves 28 million people.[vi]
  • Environmental Toxicity: Sucralose was recently found to alter the physiological and behavioral status of crustaceans, leading researchers to warn that the chemical will likely have wider ecological consequences.[vii]

Resources

*The FDA approves 1.1 mg/kg bodyweight, or the equivalent of 75 mg a day (about 6 packets) for a 150 lb adult.

Splenda Found To Have Possible Neurotoxic Properties In Animal Study

Posted by

0


Splenda Found To Have Possible Neurotoxic Properties In Animal Study

It seems like every six months a new study is published on the bitter truth about Splenda’s lack of safety, which is still marketed to the world as a safe alternative to relatively calorie-rich sweeteners like sugar and honey.

Now a new study published in the open access journal PLoS titled, “Sucralose Induces Biochemical Responses in Daphnia magna [water flea],” indicates that the artificial sweetener sucralose – sold under the trade name Splenda and approved for consumption in at least 70 countries – may have sublethal adverse effects on animal behavior and physiology due to its oxidative and possibly neurotoxic properties.

The researchers described the nature and intention of their study:

“To our knowledge, this is the first study examining biomarker responses in aquatic organisms exposed to sucralose. Based on the observed swimming abnormalities inDaphnia exposed to sucralose [7] and recent findings that correlate AChE (acetylcholinesterase) activity with oxidative stress in humans [29], [31], we hypothesized that these behavioural effects are related to alterations in AChE and oxidative status.”

Sucralose — a sucrose containing three chlorine atoms — despite being marketed initially by the manufacturer as somewhat natural (i.e. “it tastes like sugar because it is made from sugar”), is an extremely synthetic chemical compound highly resistant to biodegradation, and like other compounds within the organochloride class of chemicals, which include pesticides like DDT, it persists for a long time in the environment. [i] For instance, a recent study found it detectable in offshore waters, such as the Atlantic Gulf Stream.[ii] Indeed, it is because of its exceptional non-biodegradability that it has been proposed to be an ideal tracer for human (anthropogenic) activities.[iii]–[iv]

This extremely popular sweetener has already been identified to have potential diabetes-promoting and carcinogenic properties. For instance, preliminary research in animals indicates it may be a cause of leukemia,[v] which motivated the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), last year, to downgrade its safety rating from “Safe” to “Caution.”

One of the possible mechanisms behind its purported leukemogenic activity may be due to it producing one of the world’s most highly toxic manmade compounds – dioxin — when heated.[vi] Sucralose has also been proposed to be behind a global uptick in inflammatory bowel disease, most particularly evident in Canada. Considering the intimate relationship between the ‘enteric brain,’ or gut microbiome, and the central nervous system, this connection may reveal hitherto unrecognized neurological and behavior altering consequences of the use of thisartificial sweetener.

What the Sucralose Study Found

The new study looked at the effects that sucralose had on the following measurable parameters in Daphnia magna, or water flea:

  • Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) – an enzyme which hydrolyzes acetylcholine, the neurotransmitter essential for terminating synaptic transmission, a primary target of nerve agents and pesticides.
  • Oxidative biomarkers (oxygen radical absorbing capacity, ORAC, and lipid peroxidation, TBARS)

After exposing the animals to sucralose (0.0001-5 mg L-1), they found that,

“The sucralose concentration was a significant positive predictor for ORAC, TBARS and AChE in the daphnids. Moreover, the AChE response was linked to both oxidative biomarkers, with positive and negative relationships for TBARS and ORAC, respectively.”

They concluded from these observed effect that,

“These joint responses support our hypothesis and suggest that exposure to sucralose may induce neurological and oxidative mechanisms with potentially important consequences for animal behaviour and physiology.”

Discussion

Like so many novel patented chemicals released onto the market without adequate pre-approval safety studies, we do not know if this preliminary toxicological research will be applicable to human exposures.  In fact, there are only 318 study citations (as of 5/10/14) on this chemical in existence since it first began to be researched in the 70’s. This most recent study is the first in existence to look at its effect on the enzyme acetylcholinesterase, which is found in all animals. This information deficit is all the more remarkable when you consider there are over 7,000 published studies in existence on either turmeric or its primary polyphenol curcumin, which is still not readily administered by the conventional medical establishment mostly due to ‘safety concerns,’ despite what the voluminous positive data on its relevance to over 600 health conditions indicates.

When it comes to the accumulating research on sucralose’s potential adverse health effects, the precautionary principle dictates that when an avoidable chemical exposure has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on the manufactures, regulators and/or marketers who are claiming it to be safe.  Given the significant body of research on sucralose’s possible non-safety, the choice is clear. The use of time-tested, natural non-caloric or low-caloric sweeteners is best, especially considering that one can derive profound health benefits from natural sweeteners like honey and stevia.

Sucralose’s (Splenda) Harms Vastly Underestimated: Baking Releases Dioxin

Posted by

0


Sucralose's (Splenda) Harms Vastly Underestimated: Baking Releases Dioxin

A new, in-depth review on the synthetic sweetener sucralose (marketed as Splenda), published in the journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, is destined to overturn widely held misconceptions about the purported safety of this ubiquitous artificial sweetener.

Found in tens of thousands of products and used by millions of consumers around the world, sucralose’s unique ability to dissolve in alcohol and methanol as well as water, makes it the most versatile and therefore most widely used artificial sweetener in production today. And yet, its popularity is no indication nor guarantee of its safety, as is evidenced by the widespread use of other artificial sweeteners like aspartame, which while being safety approved in 90 nations around the world, has been linked to a wide range of serious health conditions including brain damage.

But the tide may be turning…

Already this year, the Center for the Public Interest in Science downgraded Splenda from “safe” to “caution,” citing their need to evaluate a forthcoming Italian study linking the artificial sweetener to leukemia in mice as a basis for their decision.

Another recent human study linked Splenda to diabetes-associated changes, calling into question its value as a non-calorie sweetener for those suffering with, or wishing to prevent, blood sugar disorders.

The new study, however, may be the most concerning yet to surface in the peer-reviewed literature. Titled, “Sucralose, a synthetic organochlorine sweetener: overview of biological issues,” it reveals an extensive array of hitherto underreported safety concerns, not the least of which is the formation of highly toxic chlorinated compounds, including dioxins, when Splenda is used in baking, an application which its manufacturer, McNeil Nutritionals (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), actively encourages it to be used for. [see: Cooking and Baking: SPLENDA®]

A Dizzying Array of Splenda (Sucralose) Safety Concerns That Have Never Been Adequately Tested

The study argues that, despite its widespread approval and use, further scientific safety research is warranted due the following significant findings:

  • “Sucralose alters metabolic parameters and its chronic effects on body weight are unknown”: both animal and human research indicates sucralose may raise blood sugar and insulin levels, indicating it may have diabetogenic properties.
  • “Sucralose alters P-gp and CYP expression”: While classified as a food additive, sucralose’s organochlorine structure indicates it interferes with a wide range of organochlorine class drugs, and activates detoxification pathways and enzymes, in a manner similar to these xenobiotic chemicals.
  • “The metabolic fate and health profile of sucralose metabolites are currently unknown”: Contrary to statements in the research literature that sucralose passes through the body in the feces ‘unchanged,’ metabolites have been detected in the urine and feces of both animals and humans, the nature and health consequence of which have never been studied
  • “Sucralose alters indigenous bacterial balancein the GIT”: Sucralose (delivered as Splenda) has been found to reduce the number of beneficial bacteria in the gastrointesintal tract (e.g., lactobacilli, bifidobacteria), while  increasing the more detrimental bacteria (e.g., enterobacteria). One study found the adverse effects on flora did not return to normal (baseline) after a 3-month recovery period. Sucralose also altered the pH of the gastrointestinal tract.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly:

  • “Numerous toxicological issues regarding long-term exposure to sucralose are unresolved”: 1) DNA damage (genotoxicity), and possible adverse epigenetic alterations. 2) The generation of toxic compounds during baking, including chloropropanols, 1,6-DCF and dioxins. 3) The bioaccumulation of sucralose and/or its metabolites 4) The interaction between sucralose and/or its metabolites with drugs have not yet been studied or evaluated

Cancer-Causing Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds Formed When Splenda (Sucralose) Is Cooked

As the reader can plainly see, the picture is a complex one, and there are more unresolved questions than answers. But perhaps the most concerning issue addressed in the report is the ‘Safety of Sucralose That Has Been Heated.’ According to the paper, historically, sucralose was reported to be heat stable at temperatures used in cooking. But they cite a number of reports from independent laboratories showing that sucralose undergoes thermal degradation when heated. One study showed that the stability of sucralose decreased as the temperature and pH increased, with the breakdown process commencing at 119 degrees Celsius and temperatures of 180 degrees Celsius causing its complete degradation at all pH levels with the release of chloride ions.  Additionally, they refer to research showing that sucralose can break down into the following concerning compounds when heated:

  • Chloropopanols are generated when sucralose was heated in the presence of glycerol. Chloropopanols are a group of contaminants that include known genotoxic, carcinogenic and tumorigenic compounds.
  • Other chlorinated compounds formed when sucralose is heated in the presence of food include dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans, dioxin-like polychlorinated bisphenyls and polychlorinated naphthalenes.

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. To the contrary, today’s research clearly indicates that sucralose is a toxic chemical that we should go to great lengths to avoid exposure to rather than something we should intentionally add to our food. You will also find a growing body of research that indicates that sucralose not only does not break down in the environment, but survives water treatment plant purification techniques, with the inevitable consequence that it is accumulating in concentrations in our drinking water and the environment that may adversely impact humans and wildlife alike.

The discovery that thermal breakdown through cooking can lead to the formation of highly toxic and equally persistent chlorinated compounds, including dioxins, should raise a series of red flags for consumers, manufacturers and regulators as the information becomes more widespread. A cursory perusal of the World Health Organization’s description of ‘Dioxins and their effects on human health,’ which lists it as belonging to the “dirty dozen” of the world’s most dangerous pollutants, will see what is at stake here. For more information on the formation of toxic chlorinated byproducts following the heating of sucralose read a 2013 study published in Scientific Reports titled, “Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans formed from sucralose at high temperatures,” which goes into the topic in greater depth.

The Acceptable Daily Intake of Splenda (Sucralose) May Have Been Set 100’s of Times Too High To Ensure Safety

Lastly, an equally concerning issue addressed by the paper is the problem of the acceptable daily intake (ADI). The FDA approved an ADI for humans of 5 mg/kg/day in 1998 based on toxicity studies in rats by determining a no-observed-effect level (NOEL) of 500 mg/kg/day, and then applying a 100-fold safety factor. Since then, research has emerged showing that the NOEL in the microbiome (‘gut bacteria’) of rats for Splenda is actually as low as 1.1 mg/kg/day – 454 times lower than first determined – and 3.3 mg/kg/day for changes in intestinal P-gp and CYP – 151 times lower than first determined. Therefore, if the biological effects of sucralose in rats and humans are the same, or similar, then significant effects would be expected in humans far below the ADI.

For additional research on sucralose’s adverse health effects, visit our research page that collates peer-reviewed research on its toxicological properties. Also, for research on natural sweeteners not associated with these adverse effects, take a look at the following alternatives:

Sucralose’s Splenda Harms Vastly Underestimated.

Posted by

1


A new, in-depth review on the synthetic sweetener sucralose (marketed as Splenda), published in the journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, is destined to overturn widely held misconceptions about the purported safety of this ubiquitous artificial sweetener.

Found in tens of thousands of products and used by millions of consumers around the world, sucralose’s unique ability to dissolve in alcohol and methanol as well as water, makes it the most versatile and therefore most widely used artificial sweetener in production today. And yet, its popularity is no indication nor guarantee of its safety, as is evidenced by the widespread use of other artificial sweeteners like aspartame, which while being safety approved in 90 nations around the world, has been linked to a wide range of serious health conditions including brain damage.

But the tide may be turning…

Already this year, the Center for the Public Interest in Science downgraded Splenda from “safe” to “caution,” citing their need to evaluate a forthcoming Italian study linking the artificial sweetener to leukemia in mice as a basis for their decision.

Another recent human study linked Splenda to diabetes-associated changes, calling into question its value as a non-calorie sweetener for those suffering with, or wishing to prevent, blood sugar disorders.

The new study, however, may be the most concerning yet to surface in the peer-reviewed literature. Titled, “Sucralose, a synthetic organochlorine sweetener: overview of biological issues,” it reveals an extensive array of hitherto underreported safety concerns, not the least of which is the formation of highly toxic chlorinated compounds, including dioxins, when Splenda is used in baking, an application which its manufacturer, McNeil Nutritionals (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), actively encourages it to be used for. [see: Cooking and Baking: SPLENDA®]

A Dizzying Array of Splenda (Sucralose) Safety Concerns That Have Never Been Adequately Tested

The study argues that, despite its widespread approval and use, further scientific safety research is warranted due the following significant findings:

  • “Sucralose alters metabolic parameters and its chronic effects on body weight are unknown”: both animal and human research indicates sucralose may raise blood sugar and insulin levels, indicating it may have diabetogenic properties.
  • “Sucralose alters P-gp and CYP expression”: While classified as a food additive, sucralose’s organochlorine structure indicates it interferes with a wide range of organochlorine class drugs, and activates detoxification pathways and enzymes, in a manner similar to these xenobiotic chemicals.
  • “The metabolic fate and health profile of sucralose metabolites are currently unknown”: Contrary to statements in the research literature that sucralose passes through the body in the feces ‘unchanged,’ metabolites have been detected in the urine and feces of both animals and humans, the nature and health consequence of which have never been studied
  • “Sucralose alters indigenous bacterial balancein the GIT”: Sucralose (delivered as Splenda) has been found to reduce the number of beneficial bacteria in the gastrointesintal tract (e.g., lactobacilli, bifidobacteria), while  increasing the more detrimental bacteria (e.g., enterobacteria). One study found the adverse effects on flora did not return to normal (baseline) after a 3-month recovery period. Sucralose also altered the pH of the gastrointestinal tract.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly:

  • “Numerous toxicological issues regarding long-term exposure to sucralose are unresolved”: 1) DNA damage (genotoxicity), and possible adverse epigenetic alterations. 2) The generation of toxic compounds during baking, including chloropropanols, 1,6-DCF and dioxins. 3) The bioaccumulation of sucralose and/or its metabolites 4) The interaction between sucralose and/or its metabolites with drugs have not yet been studied or evaluated

Cancer-Causing Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds Formed When Splenda (Sucralose) Is Cooked.

Sucralose's (Splenda) Harms Vastly Underestimated: Baking Releases Dioxin

As the reader can plainly see, the picture is a complex one, and there are more unresolved questions than answers. But perhaps the most concerning issue addressed in the report is the ‘Safety of Sucralose That Has Been Heated.’ According to the paper, historically, sucralose was reported to be heat stable at temperatures used in cooking. But they cite a number of reports from independent laboratories showing that sucralose undergoes thermal degradation when heated. One study showed that the stability of sucralose decreased as the temperature and pH increased, with the breakdown process commencing at 119 degrees Celsius and temperatures of 180 degrees Celsius causing its complete degradation at all pH levels with the release of chloride ions.  Additionally, they refer to research showing that sucralose can break down into the following concerning compounds when heated:

  • Chloropopanols are generated when sucralose was heated in the presence of glycerol. Chloropopanols are a group of contaminants that include known genotoxic, carcinogenic and tumorigenic compounds.
  • Other chlorinated compounds formed when sucralose is heated in the presence of food include dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans, dioxin-like polychlorinated bisphenyls and polychlorinated naphthalenes.

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. To the contrary, today’s research clearly indicates that sucralose is a toxic chemical that we should go to great lengths to avoid exposure to rather than something we should intentionally add to our food. You will also find a growing body of research that indicates that sucralose not only does not break down in the environment, but survives water treatment plant purification techniques, with the inevitable consequence that it is accumulating in concentrations in our drinking water and the environment that may adversely impact humans and wildlife alike.

The discovery that thermal breakdown through cooking can lead to the formation of highly toxic and equally persistent chlorinated compounds, including dioxins, should raise a series of red flags for consumers, manufacturers and regulators as the information becomes more widespread. A cursory perusal of the World Health Organization’s description of ‘Dioxins and their effects on human health,’ which lists it as belonging to the “dirty dozen” of the world’s most dangerous pollutants, will see what is at stake here.

The Acceptable Daily Intake of Splenda (Sucralose) May Have Been Set 100’s of Times Too High To Ensure Safety

Lastly, an equally concerning issue addressed by the paper is the problem of the acceptable daily intake (ADI). The FDA approved an ADI for humans of 5 mg/kg/day in 1998 based on toxicity studies in rats by determining a no-observed-effect level (NOEL) of 500 mg/kg/day, and then applying a 100-fold safety factor. Since then, research has emerged showing that the NOEL in the microbiome (‘gut bacteria’) of rats for Splenda is actually as low as 1.1 mg/kg/day – 454 times lower than first determined – and 3.3 mg/kg/day for changes in intestinal P-gp and CYP – 151 times lower than first determined. Therefore, if the biological effects of sucralose in rats and humans are the same, or similar, then significant effects would be expected in humans far below the ADI.

For additional research on sucralose’s adverse health effects, visit our research page that collates peer-reviewed research on its toxicological properties. Also, for research on natural sweeteners not associated with these adverse effects, take a look at the following alternatives:

Splenda Causing Leukemia in Mice.

Posted by

0


 The Center for Science in the Public Interest is urging caution in the use of the artificial sweetener Splenda.

A food safety advocacy group has downgraded its rating for sucralose, the artificial sweetener better known as Splenda, from “safe” to “caution” in its chemical guide to food additives.

The Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest announced Wednesday that it had long rated sucralose as “safe” but is now categorizing it with a ”caution,” pending peer review of an unpublished study by an independent Italian lab that found the sweetener caused leukemia in mice.
Previously, the only long-term animal-feeding studies were done by sucralose’s manufacturers, the CSPI said.

Other artificial sweeteners such as saccharin, aspartame andacesulfame potassium have received the center’s lowest rating, “avoid.”

Rebiana, a natural high-potency sweetener obtained from the plant stevia, is considered “safe” by the CSPI, though it says the sweetener needs better testing.

“Sucralose may prove to be safer than saccharin, aspartame, and acesulfame potassium, but the forthcoming Italian study warrants careful scrutiny before we can be confident that the sweetener is safe for use in food,” said CSPI Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson.

Despite concerns about artificial sweeteners, the CSPI says that drinking diet soda is better than sugar-carbonated soda, which it says “poses greater risks such as obesity, diabetes heart disease, gout and tooth decay.”

In order to avoid the risks of both sugars and non-caloric sweeteners, the CSPI is encouraging people to switch to water, seltzer water, flavored unsweetened waters, seltzer mixed with some fruit juice or unsweetened iced tea.

Sources: Raw For Beauty

Case report links artificial sweeteners, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis.

Posted by

0


Recent literature suggest sugar-sweetened beverages increase the likelihood of incident obesity and diabetes. However, data from a case report presented here suggest that patients who consume a large amount of artificial sweeteners, such as Splenda, are also more likely to develop Hashimoto’s thyroiditis.

“We know that in the 20th and 21st century there is an increasing consumption of sugar substitutes. If you look at the literature in animal studies, it suggests it may cause obesity and some tumors. I found that this sugar substitute increases insulin levels in consumers and high insulin levels may be associated with obesity,” Issac Sachmechi, MD, FACE, FACP, clinical associate professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; and chief of endocrinology at Queens Hospital Center, said during a press conference.

According to abstract data, Sachmechi treated a woman aged 52 years with a history of high intake of artificial sweeteners and a diagnosis of Hashimoto’s hypothyroidism in 2008. The patient’s TSH measured 12.2 mIU/L, free T4was 0.5 ng/dL and antithyroid peroxidase antibodies (TPOAb) were 196 IU/mL.

Sachmechi treated the patient with levothyroxine 0.75 mg per day and normalized her TSH (between 1.23 mIU/L and 2.16 mIU/L) over 3 years of treatment. Subsequently, the patient stopped ingesting the sweeteners in February 2012 due to weight gain.

This resulted in a TSH level of 0.005 mIU/L, where it remained low despite a decrease of levothyroxine dose to 0.05 mg per day. Furthermore, a complete discontinuation of the drug was followed with normal TSH and anti-TPOAb <20 IU/mL, TSI of 113% and TBII <6%.

Sachmechi reported that the patient continued to be clinically euthyroid without further treatment during subsequent follow-up visits.

“We know there is an increased prevalence of Hashimoto’s hypothyroidism and differentiated thyroid cancer without currently known etiologies. “It is possible that the artificial sweetness may have a roll in this,” Sachmechi said.

“We plan to do a study looking at the use of artificial sweetness in large number patients with diagnosis of Hashimoto’s hypothyroidism and patients with well differentiated thyroid cancer to see if we find any coloration consumption of artificial sweetness and those thyroid diseases.”

These data indicate eliminating artificial sweeteners from the diet can benefit patients with thyroid disease. Sachmechi told Endocrine Today that a study is underway to confirm these findings in a larger cohort. – by Samantha Costa

Source: Endocrine Today