Americans just love the idea of getting something for nothing. We all want to “have our cake and eat it too”…especially if it has less calories and is sugar-free. For many of us this translates to guilt-free. Well there’s a new sweetener in town called sucralose, being marketed under the name Splenda. It is being touted as the new artificial sweetener that tastes better, can be used in cooking and baking (unlike aspartame), and is safer than all of it’s predecessors because it’s “made from sugar”.

Those of us who have lived long enough know two principles that should be applied here. First, you don’t get anything for nothing, and second, history repeats itself. Remember the first generation of sugar-free sweeteners called cyclamates? They’re banned now because, although they were touted as wonderful sugar substitutes, they were found unsafe for human consumption (after they were approved by the FDA and in use for years). Then came saccharin. It tasted better than cyclamates, and was safer (until it was found to cause cancer in lab animals).

Next came aspartame, sold as Nutrasweet. It was touted as better tasting than saccharin, and safer. Now, after years of human consumption, studies are demonstrating that ingesting aspartame leads to accumulation of formaldehyde in the brain and nervous tissue. (Formaldehyde has been found be very carcinogenic and to result in damage to the nervous system.) As a matter of fact, a recent report found that nearly 100% of independent research that was not funded by the manufacturers of aspartame found problems with it.

So, now we have sucralose. Sucralose is produced by adding chlorine to sugar, combining three chlorine atoms with the sugar molecule. This new generation of chemical sweetener is white and crystalline, and up to 600 times sweeter than sugar. It was approved in April of 1998 by the US Food and Drug Administration, and is made by a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson.

The biggest concern for many critics is the fact that very few long term studies have been done to determine the safety to humans. According to The Endurance News, a Medline search (the website which lists valid medical studies) turned up 2,374 studies on Saccharin, 598 studies on aspartame (Nutrasweet), 459 studies on cyclamates, but only 19 studies on sucralose.

One small study of diabetic patients, one of the largest groups using artificial sweeteners, found a potentially dangerous outcome. Patients who used the sucralose had a significant increase in their hemoglobin a1C (Hba1C). This is a blood marker of long-term blood sugar levels, and elevated levels indicate poorly controlled diabetes leading to potential tissue damage.

Animal studies have shown problems such as shrunken thymus glands. According to the manufacturer, the animals with shrunken thymus glands were merely starving because they didn’t like to eat the sucralose. Toxicologist Judith Bellin, in an article published in the journal, New Scientist, disputes this point. She states that starving animals can lose 33% of their body weight with less than a 7% reduction in thymus size. In this study the animals’ growth rate was reduced by 7-20% while their thymus glands shrunk by as much as 40%. (The thymus gland is one of the major controllers of the immune system.)

Although the FDA has approved sucralose, additional animal studies have shown enlarged liver and kidneys, decreased red blood cell count, aborted pregnancy, and diarrhea. As a matter of fact, the FDA’s own “Final Rule” report says, “Sucralose was weakly mutagenic in a mouse lymphoma mutation” test. This means that sucralose could be mildly carcinogenic. The FDA also listed many other tests as inconclusive.

The Sucralose Toxicity Information Center makes a pretty harsh statement regarding the sweeteners safety. It concluded that: “While it is unlikely that sucralose is as toxic as …aspartame, it is clear from the hazards seen in pre-approval research and from its chemical structure that years or decades of use may contribute to serious chronic immunological or neurological disorders.”

The bottom line is that the safety of sucralose is at the very least questionable. Given the historical pattern of new high tech sweeteners, it may be wise to wait a bit until those questions are cleared up. Until that time, I tend to recommend natural alternatives, like stevia, if you need to avoid sugar, or honey.

Many of you may remember an article published here in the past regarding the use of stevia. Stevia is an all-natural sweetener derived from the leaf of the stevia plant. It is 400 times sweeter than sugar, with no carbohydrates, and is safe for diabetics. You can use it in cooking or baking just like sugar and its safety is well established. Stevia is produced in both a liquid and granular form. (Most people prefer the granular form because the liquid can have a mild licorice taste.) Stevia is available in health food stores and now in supermarkets under the name Truvia.