Sucralose is Poison

Nutrition
61

I qualified my statements quite clearly. At no point did I say never, simply pointed out the unlikeliness particularly at common dosages.

No, dose and exposure are also major factors.

And the point of this discussion is the toxicity of sucralose and its potential carcinogenity. Or perhaps I misread your first post.

No it does not, looking at the 3d structures for both show that the chlorines are pointed in quite opposite directions being almost mirror image (the comparison of the two chlorines of interest and their conformations), not to mention the significant intrusion of the hydroxyl group into the area which would interact with the DNA. I’m going to give you a pass on the distance since they are quite different relatively speaking and this is important in such interactions.

There are many chloroalkyl drugs that have the stringency tests you claim should be had for sucralose and yet side effects are not from DNA damage, rather by fucking up things at a hormone or signaling level well below that of DNA.

62

[quote]MODOK wrote:
A couple of points for “Massiveguns”, and then I’m out.

  1. There is no way in fucking hell you are a chemist in real life. You’ve fooled no one, so stop spewing fabrications.

  2. If you think sucralose is toxic, don’t fucking ingest it. Its about that simple. If you want to try and convince others of your hypothesis, come back when you have actual evidence.[/quote]

/thread

63

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Not to mention, you’re really pushing it with the “statins are carcinogenic” statement. You must be very concerned about the health of rats.[/quote]

Maybe not carcinogenic in the sense of causing cancer, but if low levels of cholestoerl (below 160) have been shown to increase risk of cancer, then perhaps they are not totally safe in that regard?

64

[quote]Peter Orban wrote:
I qualified my statements quite clearly. At no point did I say never, simply pointed out the unlikeliness particularly at common dosages.

No, dose and exposure are also major factors.

And the point of this discussion is the toxicity of sucralose and its potential carcinogenity. Or perhaps I misread your first post.

No it does not, looking at the 3d structures for both show that the chlorines are pointed in quite opposite directions being almost mirror image (the comparison of the two chlorines of interest and their conformations), not to mention the significant intrusion of the hydroxyl group into the area which would interact with the DNA. I’m going to give you a pass on the distance since they are quite different relatively speaking and this is important in such interactions.

There are many chloroalkyl drugs that have the stringency tests you claim should be had for sucralose and yet side effects are not from DNA damage, rather by fucking up things at a hormone or signaling level well below that of DNA.[/quote]

Codeine and DXM are isomers of each other (very structurally close), but they have drastically different effects on the body. Just one example of chemicals structurally related, but having drastically different effects.

65

@Fletch

That is an excellent point, however, in this case there is not even a similarity beyond the 2 chlorines, sucralose has the chlorines separated by two carbons, an oxygen, then two more carbons. Carmustine has two carbons, a nitrogen, another carbon, another nitrogen, and two more carbons between. A significant distance difference on top of the conformational differences and the intruding hydroxyl group. Not to mention the fact that the sucralose is a ring structure while the carmustine is a simple backbone.

66

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
I was under the impression that the difference between something being a poison or not was largely the dose. For a single example - The medication Coumadin is therapeutic for lowering the incidence of blood clots and is safe when it keeps your INR at 2.2-3.2, but if you take enough of it and jack your INR up to 15, it’ll be your last nose bleed.

This idea applies to essentially every substance known to man including water, which can dilute your blood and kill you if you drink too much.

Given that, I do not think it is acceptable to make the jump and say that since a single, VERY large bolus dose lead to adverse events, that it is safe to extrapolate that and say that a longer duration of MUCH smaller doses would have the same effect. Proving the former does nothing in the way of proving, or even adding weight, to the latter.[/quote]

That is largely the case, except in the case of potent carcinogens. Cumulative dosing is just as harmful as one single large dose.[/quote]

You are just out-right fucking stupid. Accumulated side effects from a modified sugar molecule? You need to go back to school.
[/quote]

Down right stupid? Have you even bothered to read what I wrote? Here’s your modified sugar molecule with toxic effects? I’m tempted to insult you back, but since I was the first to be less than polite, I’ll decline in the interests of keeping the discussion going.

67

[quote]Peter Orban wrote:
I qualified my statements quite clearly. At no point did I say never, simply pointed out the unlikeliness particularly at common dosages.

No, dose and exposure are also major factors.

And the point of this discussion is the toxicity of sucralose and its potential carcinogenity. Or perhaps I misread your first post.

No it does not, looking at the 3d structures for both show that the chlorines are pointed in quite opposite directions being almost mirror image (the comparison of the two chlorines of interest and their conformations), not to mention the significant intrusion of the hydroxyl group into the area which would interact with the DNA. I’m going to give you a pass on the distance since they are quite different relatively speaking and this is important in such interactions.

There are many chloroalkyl drugs that have the stringency tests you claim should be had for sucralose and yet side effects are not from DNA damage, rather by fucking up things at a hormone or signaling level well below that of DNA.[/quote]

Of course dose and exposure are major factors. But molecular structure determines whether a compound is potentially toxic at all agreed? Please provide the references or names of those drugs so we can discuss them. Are any of them primary alkyl halides?

68

[quote]MODOK wrote:
A couple of points for “Massiveguns”, and then I’m out.

  1. There is no way in fucking hell you are a chemist in real life. You’ve fooled no one, so stop spewing fabrications.

  2. If you think sucralose is toxic, don’t fucking ingest it. Its about that simple. If you want to try and convince others of your hypothesis, come back when you have actual evidence.[/quote]

Read my CV? I’ll quite happily discuss chemistry all day long. I’d even derive the quantum wavefunction for hydrogen in front of you if we ever met and we had plenty of paper.

69

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Peter Orban wrote:
I qualified my statements quite clearly. At no point did I say never, simply pointed out the unlikeliness particularly at common dosages.

No, dose and exposure are also major factors.

And the point of this discussion is the toxicity of sucralose and its potential carcinogenity. Or perhaps I misread your first post.

No it does not, looking at the 3d structures for both show that the chlorines are pointed in quite opposite directions being almost mirror image (the comparison of the two chlorines of interest and their conformations), not to mention the significant intrusion of the hydroxyl group into the area which would interact with the DNA. I’m going to give you a pass on the distance since they are quite different relatively speaking and this is important in such interactions.

There are many chloroalkyl drugs that have the stringency tests you claim should be had for sucralose and yet side effects are not from DNA damage, rather by fucking up things at a hormone or signaling level well below that of DNA.[/quote]

Codeine and DXM are isomers of each other (very structurally close), but they have drastically different effects on the body. Just one example of chemicals structurally related, but having drastically different effects.[/quote]

I agree. But the carcinogenic activity of primary alkyl halides is a well known property and largely consistent regardless of molecular structure.

70

Your wrong.

Primary alkyl chlorides with the second carbon from chlorine bonded to nitrogen are irreversible inhibitors or mustard based alkylating agents, this does not extend such properties too all constituents of the organochloride or organohalide groups. As stated previously, there are many structural and and atomic effects in sucralose that stabilize the compound.

Didn’t even have to widen the net to organohalides, was able to stay within the organochloride category. Gave up after the D’s:

Beclamide (anticonvulsant):

N(4)-Chloroacetylcytosine arabinoside (GABA agonist):

Clobetasol propionate (corticosteroid):

Clomethiazole (sedative/hypnotic):

71

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]relentless2120 wrote:
I hate to just throw out random articles into a conversation but this one could not be any more relevant

Brusick, D. (2010). The absence of genotoxicity of sucralose. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 48(11), 3067-3072.

And can we leave out the random useless posts about having read textbooks? Too few interesting scientific discussions take place on this website as it is[/quote]

As far as studies go for this discussion, I think its best to use some of the relevant facts, At no point in the chain of splenda’s develeopment has anybody really said “hey is this really safe or not?” that doesnt have some huge financial interest in getting on and keeping it on the market.

[/quote]

“In determining the safety of sucralose, FDA reviewed data from more than 110 studies in humans and animals. Many of the studies were designed to identify possible toxic effects including carcinogenic, reproductive and neurological effects. No such effects were found, and FDA’s approval is based on the finding that sucralose is safe for human consumption.”
FDA Talk Paper T98-16.

“There is adequate evidence, [for sucralose], that there are no concerns about mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, development or reproductive toxicity.”
Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Food of the European Commission on Sucralose, September 7, 2000

“The low-calorie sweeteners in the United States all underwent extensive testing before they were approved. Results showed that low-calorie sweeteners are safe for everyone, including children and pregnant women. Sucralose is the newest low-calorie sweetener on the market. Sucralose is not affected by heat and retains its sweetness in hot beverages, baked goods, and processed foods.”
American Diabetes Association

“Sucralose (SplendaÃ?®) was approved by the FDA as a tabletop sweetener in 1998, followed by approval as a general purpose sweetener in 1999. Before approving sucralose, the FDA viewed more than 100 safety studies that were conducted, including studies to assess cancer risk. The results of these studies showed no evidence that these sweeteners cause cancer or pose any other threat to human health.”
National Cancer Institute

I guess the FDA qualifies as the “anyone” in your question.

I don’t know what more you want. There is nothing to debate. Sucralose cannot reach intracellular concentrations high enough to cause “DNA damage”. It is what it is.[/quote]

And you really believe the FDA? Feeding deaths to Americans? i meen just look at the whole aspartame bullshit and its FDA approval process… aspartame is proven to be kill brain cells a long the lines of MSG and be cancer causing. BTW the FDA lies about EVERYTHING cmon the whole low fat high carb bullshit? why would they be honest about this then…

72

isnt it just sugar minus the carbs???so they say

73

aspertame…you would need to dringk 100 cans a day of diet coke/cola.

74

[quote]Bigdick1000 wrote:
And you really believe the FDA? Feeding deaths to Americans? i meen just look at the whole aspartame bullshit and its FDA approval process… aspartame is proven to be kill brain cells a long the lines of MSG and be cancer causing. BTW the FDA lies about EVERYTHING cmon the whole low fat high carb bullshit? why would they be honest about this then…
[/quote]

Without getting into a big debate about the FDA, you honestly think they LIE about EVERYTHING they put out? It couldn’t possibly be that they are making recommendations based on the current available evidence, however flawed and out of date it may be? You honestly think they saw concrete evidence proving the efficacy and safety of low carb diets and then purposefully mislead the American public in order to impact their health negatively? Please show me evidence of this if that is your claim.

The FDA is NOT full of body builders looking to get to 5% body fat who will eat the same 4 foods every day to get there. The FDA is full of people who have to make BROAD GENERALIZATIONS to massive populations (300+ million) - And if the evidence is LEANING towards the idea that dietary fat leads to high cholesterol (that WAS the prevailing scientific consensus back in the 70’s-80’s I believe) then it is their job to make that recommendation.

If the EVIDENCE changes, then the FDA/Government will change its recommendations, which it is already starting to do ( http://www.choosemyplate.gov ) - Notice 50% of the plate is PROTEIN AND VEGGIES, and grains now only make up 25% of the recommended intake. This alone should be evidence that they are at least willing to consider new ideas and new evidence, and make recommendations based on them.

Here are some recommendations they are LYING about:

â?? Enjoy your food, but eat less.
â?? Avoid oversized portions.
â?? Make half your plate fruits and vegetables.
â?? Make at least half your grains whole grains.
â?? Switch to fat-free or low-fat (1%) milk.
â?? Drink water instead of sugary drinks.

Damn those lying bastards.

The FDA does NOT care about getting shredded, it really only cares about SAFETY. Thats it. Is X safe to take at such-and-such a dose? That’s what they are there to do. If the PREVAILING EVIDENCE shows that, at certain doses, sucralose is SAFE to take, then the FDA will clear it to be used in CERTAIN doses in CERTAIN populations. Thats why drinks that have aspartame have WARNINGS on them in case you have phenylketonuria - I wonder who makes those drink makers put that warning on their can… Those damn lying bastards at the FDA.

Of course there is going to be bureaucracy, foul play, and money-issues involved… Its a human endeavor after all, but by and large to say that the FDA/USDA is acting with malice and actually LYING about every single thing they put out (I dont actually think you are claiming this, but this is what you wrote) is quite a stretch in my personal opinion, especially to make such claims without providing a single piece of evidence.

75

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
The FDA is NOT full of body builders looking to get to 5% body fat who will eat the same 4 foods every day to get there. The FDA is full of people who have to make BROAD GENERALIZATIONS to massive populations (300+ million) - And if the evidence is LEANING towards the idea that dietary fat leads to high cholesterol (that WAS the prevailing scientific consensus back in the 70’s-80’s I believe) then it is their job to make that recommendation.

[/quote]

Excellent post Lonnie. : )

76

[quote]Peter Orban wrote:
Your wrong.

Primary alkyl chlorides with the second carbon from chlorine bonded to nitrogen are irreversible inhibitors or mustard based alkylating agents, this does not extend such properties too all constituents of the organochloride or organohalide groups. As stated previously, there are many structural and and atomic effects in sucralose that stabilize the compound.

Didn’t even have to widen the net to organohalides, was able to stay within the organochloride category. Gave up after the D’s:

Beclamide (anticonvulsant):

N(4)-Chloroacetylcytosine arabinoside (GABA agonist):

Clobetasol propionate (corticosteroid):

Clomethiazole (sedative/hypnotic):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clomethiazole[/quote]

I’ve been busy but I have time to reply now. These are bad examples and if anything help the argument against splenda.

Both clobetasol and clomethizine have a carbonyl group adjacent to the chlorine alpha carbon atom. This makes both of these compounds POOR nucleophiles since these destabilise the carbocation intermediate and are therefore much less likely to be alkylating agents. Comparing these to splenda is like chalk and cheese.

Any electron withdrawing groups (oxygen) in the sucralose molecule are nowhere near as destabilising since a hydroxyl group two carbon atoms away does not have anywhere near the same effect.

All primary alkyl halides with stable carbocation intermediates are good nucleophiles and can irreversibly react with nitrogen in DNA.

Clomethaziole is also likely a carcinogen.

77

MassiveGuns- You’re a fucking tool. That last post is hilarious, I’m not even going to correct it. Everything you wrote is wrong. You obviously don’t know chemistry. I’d bet my money that you’ve never taken organic chem either. It’s like you googled for an hour, and took random key words like, nucleophile, carbocation, carbonyl, and constructed them to make some kind of shit sense your pea-sized brain.

Why aren’t you listening? You don’t fool anyone here. You are not a chemist, STOP trying to have a debate involving chemistry.

78

[quote]Cartman8675 wrote:
MassiveGuns- You’re a fucking tool. That last post is hilarious, I’m not even going to correct it. Everything you wrote is wrong. You obviously don’t know chemistry. I’d bet my money that you’ve never taken organic chem either. It’s like you googled for an hour, and took random key words like, nucleophile, carbocation, carbonyl, and constructed them to make some kind of shit sense your pea-sized brain.

Why aren’t you listening? You don’t fool anyone here. You are not a chemist, STOP trying to have a debate involving chemistry.

[/quote]

I know the first part is complete rubbish. I deliberately put it in there to see if there are any chemists reading this and to get them involved.

Since you know the real answer to the above, you’ll probably also realise my thoughts on those two drugs, particularly since long term carcinogenity studies are never done in humans.

Now I’d like to hear your opinion on sucralose and whether or not you think its safe and why.

79

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

I know the first part is complete rubbish. I deliberately put it in there to see if there are any chemists reading this and to get them involved.

[/quote]

Really dude? “I was only testing you”? Really?

80

MassiveGuns, your trolling attempt has been quite successful. Just thought I’d put it out there. But, alas, OBVIOUS TROLL IS OBVIOUS.