Thread: Splenda, Should I Be Concerned ?

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

That website sites one study from 1991. If it were a serious health issue and the study was considered sound, there would be hundreds of studies by now. There are not.

If a study is not published, there is a reason for it. If this were actually the case, most of the diet journals would be flooded with this information.

On a side note, did you know that if you feed rats enough water, they will die? So now water is toxic.

yea to rats. will people die if they drink to much water ? no ? then animals arent a good test for us are they ? splenda is a CHEMICAL sweetener.

Originally Posted by Super Hulk

what brand do you use ? the kind i tried tastes like crap

I don't think he meant brand..

Originally Posted by Super Hulk

yea to rats. will people die if they drink to much water ? no ? then animals arent a good test for us are they ? splenda is a CHEMICAL sweetener.

Yes humans will die if you give them too much water. It results in hyponatraemia (low blood sodium).

And while animal models are not always a good test for human toxicity (eg: they tested thalidamide on pregnant rats with no problem - and look what it did to human babies) companies always test for toxicity levels on rodents initially when it comes to these types of things. This is where they actually get the LD50 for substances (which is the level of a drug/substance you need to give to a test population of rats to kill 50% of them)... Ethically speaking, I don't think people would be too happy if you went around doing LD50 tests...

If you want to read about the toxicity studies they have done for splenda (and this is dated 2001, so I am sure they have done some since then) you can read this:

Overall Assessment of Toxicological Data
Sucralose was poorly absorbed after oral administration in humans.

The notified chemical was of very low acute oral toxicity in rats (LD50 > 16 000 mg/kg bw) and mice (LD50 > 10 000 mg/kg bw). The sucralose hydrolysis products, 4-CG and 1,6-DCF, when tested as an equimolar mixture were of low and very low acute oral toxicity in rats (LD50 = 1629 mg/kg bw) and mice (LD50 = 3499 mg/kg bw) respectively.

Sucralose was non mutagenic in three Ames tests and non clastogenic in human lymphocytes and rat bone marrow cells. Sucralose was weakly mutagenic in a mouse lymphoma mutation assay. 4-CG was non mutagenic in an Ames test and a mouse lymphoma assay. 4-CG was non clastogenic as determined by a human lymphocyte assay and a rat bone marrow test.
Although 1,6-DCF was found to be weakly mutagenic in 3/9 Ames tests and 2/5 mouse lymphoma assays, it was non clastogenic as determined by two rat bone marrow chromosomal aberration assay and a human lymphocyte test. 1,6-DCF did not induce sister chromatid exchanges or micronuclei in mouse bone marrow cells. A sex linked recessive lethal assay in Drosophilia melanogaster and a covalent DNA binding potential study in rats were negative. The sucralose hydrolysis products 4-CG and 1,6-DCF were not genotoxic as determined by a dominant lethal test in the mouse when tested as an equimolar mixture.

There was no evidence of treatment related neoplasm in rats fed a diet containing up to 3% sucralose (equivalent to 3000 mg/kg bw/day) during the carcinogenicity phase of a combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study and during a 104 week carcinogenicity study. No evidence of treatment related neoplasia was detected in rats dosed with an equimolar mixture
of the sucralose hydrolysis products, 4-CG and 1,6-DCF, at up to 2000 ppm in the diet for 104 weeks.

Decreased bodyweight gain was observed in rats and mice fed diets containing 3% sucralose for 104 weeks. This effect was not observed in beagle dogs dosed with 3% sucralose (equivalent to 750 mg/kg bw/day) in the diet for 52 weeks. A minimal increase in the incidence of renal pelvic mineralisation and epithelial hyperplasia lesions were detected in rats, primarily females treated with 3% sucralose. A significant decrease in erythrocyte count was detected in female mice dosed with 3% sucralose. Decreased bodyweight gain and a small increase in the incidence of hepatocellular clear cell foci was observed in female rats treated dose with an equimolar mixture of 4-CG and 1,6-DCF at 2000 ppm in the diet for 104
weeks. A number of studies have been conducted examining the acceptability and palatability of sucralose as a cause of reduced bodyweight gain when administered in drinking water or diet. It was determined that reduced bodyweight resulted from reduced palatability of diets containing sucralose. The dietary NOEL for mice and rats was determined to be 30 000 ppm
(equivalent to 1500 mg/kg bw/day). The dietary NOEL for the sucralose hydrolysis products was determined to be 600 ppm (equivalent to 30 mg/kg bw/day).

The notified chemical was not teratogenic in rats and rabbits, was not neurotoxic in mice and monkeys, and had no effect on male and female reproduction in rats, or insulin secretion and carbohydrate metabolism in normal and diabetic human volunteers. Sucralose was found to induce a reduction in thymus weight in rats dosed orally with 3000 mg/kg bw/day. The NOEL for immunological endpoints was 750 mg/kg bw/day.

The sucralose hydrolysis products, 4-CG and 1,6-DCF, when test as an equimolar mixture was not teratogenic, not neurotoxic, and had no effect on male and female reproduction.

The notified chemical is not determined to be a hazardous substance according to the NOHSC Approved Criteria for Classifying Hazardous Substances (NOHSC, 1999).

Or the whole report is here

There is also a really good overview of artificial sweeteners Here at BB.com if you want to read it.

ps: The usual concentration of sucralose in foods is 0.025-0.15 %.

that stuff is a lie.
within minutes of drinking soda with aspartame or sucralose i get a headache.
Every time.

show me someone who consumes aspartame over a few years who has no health problems.i will bet money you cant do it.

Originally Posted by Super Hulk

that stuff is a lie.

yes, we should all take your word for it.