We have a full article by @Cy_Willson coming out about this recent study soon. For now, here are some highlights from Cy:
The headlines are, of course, meant to scare the bejesus out of you by implying that the sweetener can cause DNA damage and subsequently lead to cancer, but that’s not actually what the study found.
A “genotoxic effect” is another way of saying that it may cause damage to DNA. However, simply because something is genotoxic (damages DNA) doesn’t mean it will also be mutagenic (damages DNA and causes an irreversible mutation that could potentially lead to a cancerous cell).
Sucralose 6-acetate (S6A) is NOT mutagenic. It may be genotoxic in vitro. However, the data are based on results in cultured cells, not actual living organisms. Perhaps, more importantly, were the outrageously high concentrations required to reach a potentially genotoxic effect.
The authors indicate that they had to use at least 353 micrograms per milliliter or higher to begin generating evidence of a genotoxic effect.
Now, compare this to the peak plasma concentration of 108 nanograms (a microgram is 1,000 times bigger than a nanogram) per milliliter an adult human is exposed to after a 68 mg dose of sucralose (4). That’s over a 3,000-fold difference! Now consider that S6A would only be present at a fraction (< 1%) of sucralose levels, and the difference would be even larger.
In terms of fitness speak, it’s as absurd as going around telling people you bench “200” when you mean grams instead of pounds!
Specifically, the authors note that the EFSA has a suggested threshold of concern for genotoxic agents at 0.15 micrograms per person per day and that a single serving of a drink flavored with sucralose would exceed this threshold by several fold. The problem, as we’ve discussed, is that S6A is not genotoxic, except at concentrations that no human could ever reach without first dying from water intoxication from drinking hundreds if not thousands of liters of flavored beverages.
You’ll likely continue to see ripples from this study as its preposterous findings percolate through the masses. Unfortunately, in vitro studies are prone to exploitation by utilizing high concentrations to achieve a given outcome.
This isn’t unique to this study. In general, be skeptical of in vitro studies and always evaluate the concentrations being used. In short, there’s no good evidence that sucralose or S6A is genotoxic at any concentrations that are conceivably relevant to human exposure.
You’ve got enough to worry about, but sucralose causing cancer isn’t one of them. – Cy Willson
(Those are just a few paragraphs, somewhat out of context and order. Complete article coming soon.)
