Sweetened with Sucralose

Nutrition
21

[quote]storey420 wrote:
What about other covalently bonded chlorines like the ones used for insecticides, pesticides, etc. Surely you don’t think that those are still OK for long term ingesting? One thing we know for sure is there are NO long term studies on sucralose either way.[/quote]

You’re thinking about this all wrong. Molecules are more than the sum of their parts. An insecticide that contains chlorine (like DDT) is not dangerous because it’s got chlorine in it - it’s dangerous because it’s DDT. You can’t just pick one atom in a molecule and claim all it’s effects derive from that one atom alone. That’s the same problem with the bleach argument given earlier.

I guess since DDT also has a carbon ring in it we should avoid anything that contains that too, right?

And bleach contains oxygen so that must be bad also.

22

[quote]storey420 wrote:
I hear what you are putting down but isn’t the big argument with sucralose that there is a huge discrepancy between what the manufacturers are saying stays in the body and what other scientists are finding?
[/quote]

What are the scientists finding? And what are the manufacturers saying? Can you back up your words there?

[quote]storey420 wrote:
What about other covalently bonded chlorines like the ones used for insecticides, pesticides, etc. Surely you don’t think that those are still OK for long term ingesting? One thing we know for sure is there are NO long term studies on sucralose either way.[/quote]

No long term studies on the daily consumption of Orange Juice with Toast either, it’s too costly in regards to money and time to have such a study unless there is unique reason to (Such as some of the compound was found to be stored in the body’s tissue rather than excreted)

23

[quote]Brant_Drake wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:
What about other covalently bonded chlorines like the ones used for insecticides, pesticides, etc. Surely you don’t think that those are still OK for long term ingesting? One thing we know for sure is there are NO long term studies on sucralose either way.[/quote]

You’re thinking about this all wrong. Molecules are more than the sum of their parts. An insecticide that contains chlorine (like DDT) is not dangerous because it’s got chlorine in it - it’s dangerous because it’s DDT. You can’t just pick one atom in a molecule and claim all it’s effects derive from that one atom alone. That’s the same problem with the bleach argument given earlier.

I guess since DDT also has a carbon ring in it we should avoid anything that contains that too, right?

And bleach contains oxygen so that must be bad also.

[/quote]

It’s not just that simple of it containing substance X or not. It is the combination of compounds and the half-lives of these compounds and what their ultimate effect on the body is. I’m not even sitting here saying that I know sucralose is bad, I’m saying that it is not well studied as to it’s long term effects and the adverse event reporting system for it has been very weak. The bonds holding the carbon and chlorine atoms together are more characteristic of a chlorocarbon than a salt â?? and most pesticides are chlorocarbons. See same molecules different bonding creates different compounds which can have profoundly different effects in the human body.

Bottom line if you eat it you are part of a grand experiment whether you like it or not.

24

[quote]silverhydra wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:
I hear what you are putting down but isn’t the big argument with sucralose that there is a huge discrepancy between what the manufacturers are saying stays in the body and what other scientists are finding?
[/quote]

What are the scientists finding? And what are the manufacturers saying? Can you back up your words there?

[quote]storey420 wrote:
What about other covalently bonded chlorines like the ones used for insecticides, pesticides, etc. Surely you don’t think that those are still OK for long term ingesting? One thing we know for sure is there are NO long term studies on sucralose either way.[/quote]

No long term studies on the daily consumption of Orange Juice with Toast either, it’s too costly in regards to money and time to have such a study unless there is unique reason to (Such as some of the compound was found to be stored in the body’s tissue rather than excreted)
[/quote]

“Extensive research shows sucralose to be safe for use by everyone. Additionally, sucralose does not accumulate in the body and is not broken down in the body to release free chlorine or smaller chlorinated molecules”

This is straight from splendatruth.com a pro-splenda propoganda site.

"According to the FDA’s “Final Rule” report, 11% to 27% of sucralose is absorbed in humans, and the rest is excreted unchanged in feces. According to the Japanese Food Sanitation Council, as much as 40% of ingested sucralose is absorbed.

Plasma sucralose has been reported to have a half-life of anywhere from 2 to 5 hours in most studies, although the half-life in rabbits was found to be much longer at about 36 hours.

About 20% to 30% of absorbed sucralose is metabolized. Both the metabolites and unchanged absorbed sucralose are excreted in urine. The absorbed sucralose has been found to concentrate in the liver, kidney, and gastrointestinal tract. According to The Sucralose Toxicity Information Center, sucralose is broken down “into small amounts of 1,6-dichlorofructose, a chemical which has not been adequtely tested in humans”.

This would suggest that the Splenda manufacturers are not telling us the whole story. They say none accumulates, other scientists say it does. They say it doesn’t break down into smaller chlorinated molecules. Research may suggest that it does. My point is that is needs much better follow up research but right now it just isn’t being studied well.

I will ignore your “study OJ and toast” nonsense and address the second part. According to your criteria “Such as some of the compound was found to be stored in the body’s tissue rather than excreted” we now have your approval to do a long term study. How much of a donation can we count on you for?

25

Mr. Roberts…

A different question about sucralose, even though it isn’t sugar, it does make my teeth hurt after consumption, just as too much sugar would. How do I combat this?

26

To those saying splenda studies are biased.

Do you honestly not think that the sugar lobby doesn’t have a hand in information that bad mouths artificial sweeteners?
The sugar industry makes hundreds of millions off the sale of sugar. And what threatens their sales? Splenda and the like, so you have to closely look at where the negative press comes from as well.

We know the effects of high sugar consumption, so I have no problem with someone getting some artificial sweeteners.

27

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Thank you for your reply Bill and I hope you don’t take the previous answer as me calling you a dumbass. Not my intention. I hear what you are putting down but isn’t the big argument with sucralose that there is a huge discrepancy between what the manufacturers are saying stays in the body and what other scientists are finding? What about other covalently bonded chlorines like the ones used for insecticides, pesticides, etc. Surely you don’t think that those are still OK for long term ingesting? One thing we know for sure is there are NO long term studies on sucralose either way.[/quote]

I don’t know what it is that could be found in peer-reviewed scientific literature that shows something dangerous about sucralose. The fact that dichlorofructose is a metabolite doesn’t show something dangerous. I know of no evidence of “build-up” to any high concentrations.

With regard to it containing chlorine atoms, as Brant_Drake said, molecules can’t be looked at as the sum of their atoms. There is no rule that everything with chlorines in it has pesticide-like or other toxic properties. It just isn’t a correct principle.

28

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]silverhydra wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:
I hear what you are putting down but isn’t the big argument with sucralose that there is a huge discrepancy between what the manufacturers are saying stays in the body and what other scientists are finding?
[/quote]

What are the scientists finding? And what are the manufacturers saying? Can you back up your words there?

[quote]storey420 wrote:
What about other covalently bonded chlorines like the ones used for insecticides, pesticides, etc. Surely you don’t think that those are still OK for long term ingesting? One thing we know for sure is there are NO long term studies on sucralose either way.[/quote]

No long term studies on the daily consumption of Orange Juice with Toast either, it’s too costly in regards to money and time to have such a study unless there is unique reason to (Such as some of the compound was found to be stored in the body’s tissue rather than excreted)
[/quote]

“Extensive research shows sucralose to be safe for use by everyone. Additionally, sucralose does not accumulate in the body and is not broken down in the body to release free chlorine or smaller chlorinated molecules”

This is straight from splendatruth.com a pro-splenda propoganda site.

"According to the FDA’s “Final Rule” report, 11% to 27% of sucralose is absorbed in humans, and the rest is excreted unchanged in feces. According to the Japanese Food Sanitation Council, as much as 40% of ingested sucralose is absorbed.

Plasma sucralose has been reported to have a half-life of anywhere from 2 to 5 hours in most studies, although the half-life in rabbits was found to be much longer at about 36 hours.

About 20% to 30% of absorbed sucralose is metabolized. Both the metabolites and unchanged absorbed sucralose are excreted in urine. The absorbed sucralose has been found to concentrate in the liver, kidney, and gastrointestinal tract. According to The Sucralose Toxicity Information Center, sucralose is broken down “into small amounts of 1,6-dichlorofructose, a chemical which has not been adequtely tested in humans”.

This would suggest that the Splenda manufacturers are not telling us the whole story. They say none accumulates, other scientists say it does. They say it doesn’t break down into smaller chlorinated molecules. Research may suggest that it does. My point is that is needs much better follow up research but right now it just isn’t being studied well.

I will ignore your “study OJ and toast” nonsense and address the second part. According to your criteria “Such as some of the compound was found to be stored in the body’s tissue rather than excreted” we now have your approval to do a long term study. How much of a donation can we count on you for?[/quote]

Poor university students aren’t the best for grants :slight_smile:

Very interesting info there, I will look it up after my exam today. And although everything you have said has been correct, I still feel that your suspicion in the potential harm of sucralose is over-emphasized.

And I wish you didn’t pass over my OJ and toast example, as it addressed the uncertainty aspect. Suppose a harmless substance in OJ binds with a harmless substance in toast to form a potent carcinogen, we have no evidence of this occurring, but there possibility is still there. Would one be smart to avoid this combination until a variable-controlled study is released either validating or refuting this claim?

And regardless of the compound, you can make it sound harmful (1,6-dichlorofructose does sound evil, and sucralose having bonds that resemble the bonds in pesticides more-so than the ones found in salt also sounds pretty bad) but in the end, suspicion is suspicion, and your demonization of sucralose based on lack of evidence, IMHO, seems pretty hypocritical once you analyze your routine and see how many substances and substance combinations have safety concerns that are not yet addressed by science. We don’t even know all the compounds in whole foods yet!

Edit: Doesn’t fructose have a 5 carbon ring? How can there even be 1,6-dichlorofructose? Even if it does exist, that nomenclature seems incorrect for a ring… (1,2 maybe for a 6-C ring?)

29

There is a methyl group extending from the ring, this is the sixth carbon.

30

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Thank you for your reply Bill and I hope you don’t take the previous answer as me calling you a dumbass. Not my intention. I hear what you are putting down but isn’t the big argument with sucralose that there is a huge discrepancy between what the manufacturers are saying stays in the body and what other scientists are finding? What about other covalently bonded chlorines like the ones used for insecticides, pesticides, etc. Surely you don’t think that those are still OK for long term ingesting? One thing we know for sure is there are NO long term studies on sucralose either way.[/quote]

I don’t know what it is that could be found in peer-reviewed scientific literature that shows something dangerous about sucralose. The fact that dichlorofructose is a metabolite doesn’t show something dangerous. I know of no evidence of “build-up” to any high concentrations.

With regard to it containing chlorine atoms, as Brant_Drake said, molecules can’t be looked at as the sum of their atoms. There is no rule that everything with chlorines in it has pesticide-like or other toxic properties. It just isn’t a correct principle.

[/quote]

I agree with Bill on your second poitn and I guess what I am saying is that while everything can’t be looked at this way PERHAPS, as is the opinion of some scientists and researchers I have met, this particular compound acts more like an inseticide in the body than a harmless bound ion. The japanese study is the highest “build-up” study that I am aware of.

31

[quote]silverhydra wrote:
]

Poor university students aren’t the best for grants :slight_smile:

Very interesting info there, I will look it up after my exam today. And although everything you have said has been correct, I still feel that your suspicion in the potential harm of sucralose is over-emphasized.

And I wish you didn’t pass over my OJ and toast example, as it addressed the uncertainty aspect. Suppose a harmless substance in OJ binds with a harmless substance in toast to form a potent carcinogen, we have no evidence of this occurring, but there possibility is still there. Would one be smart to avoid this combination until a variable-controlled study is released either validating or refuting this claim?

And regardless of the compound, you can make it sound harmful (1,6-dichlorofructose does sound evil, and sucralose having bonds that resemble the bonds in pesticides more-so than the ones found in salt also sounds pretty bad) but in the end, suspicion is suspicion, and your demonization of sucralose based on lack of evidence, IMHO, seems pretty hypocritical once you analyze your routine and see how many substances and substance combinations have safety concerns that are not yet addressed by science. We don’t even know all the compounds in whole foods yet!

Edit: Doesn’t fructose have a 5 carbon ring? How can there even be 1,6-dichlorofructose? Even if it does exist, that nomenclature seems incorrect for a ring… (1,2 maybe for a 6-C ring?)[/quote]

Actually you are right in your saying I shouldn’t have passed the OJ analogy. Very valid and a good example actually. This event is happening day in and day out with thousands of new chemicals being released for human consumption on a yearly basis that are relatively poorly studied as far as their net impact on humans. Again we are all a part of a grand experiment. You can’t stop all consumerism until everything is validated and much of what gets approved is done so because of behind the scenes pay-offs and brilliant marketing so we are ledt at a crossroads.

As I stated bfore I don’t know if sucralose is the devil but then again no one knows it’s not. My point is that it isn’t well studied and even though many on these boards are very smart people it annoys me when someone brings things like this up and the main responses are conspiracy-derailing and arrogant posturing or belittling. It’s like if I told you that bottle you’re putting in your babies’ mouth 5 years ago had a chemical leaking from it into the formula that was an endocrine disrupter and your baby boy may be emo from it down the road. (OK the emo part is a joke) but most chicken little types would say “whatever dude, I drank from a bottle and I’m still alive so therefore…”