Is Splenda, also known as sucralose, a low calorie sweetener that allows people to consume soda and sweets without worry of weight gain? Or, as some contend, is it carcinogenic chlorine that causes weight gain and other health problems? Splenda is found in over 3,000 products, such as diet sodas, or yogurts, usually as an additive or used as a sugar alternative to coffee. Splenda is manufactured by Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc., a division of Johnson & Johnson.
Embraced by FDA
The majority of experts in nutrition and chemistry, scientific literature, and Food and Drug Administration testing suggest that Splenda, as consumed by human beings under normal conditions, is safe and even advisable for the low-carbohydrate, calorie-counting dieter.
Yet a small but vocal cadre of chemists, ‘natural’ nutritionists and toxicologists claim that sucralose causes a number of problems ranging from cancer, weight gain, obesity, diabetes, reproductive and neurological effects.
“There is absolutely no reason to believe that [sucralose causes such problems] and it is tested very thoroughly,” FDA chemist George Pauli said. “We wouldn’t have allowed it on the market unless we were confident.”
The FDA approved Splenda in 1998 after reviewing 110 studies in humans and animals designed to identify the risks identified by critics over a lifetime of exposure, according to FDA spokesperson Mike Herndon. The FDA aims to ensure safe expose at least 100 times the amount a human being would normally consume, Herndon added. The drug is currently approved in 27 countries.
“There is absolutely no evidence of carcinogenicity,” Pauli said, adding that Splenda is “essentially non-caloric and has nothing in it that would cause it to add weight.”
This assessment is shared by most experts who reviewed the FDA’s work and literature.
“I trust the FDA based on what I saw,” University Clinical Nutritionist and Dietician Cynthia Payne said. “The evidence that we can see from animal test literature is that these [sweeteners] are safe in small doses.”
Sobering similarities
Critics contend that the FDA has yet to conduct carcinogenetic tests on humans, as well as cite evidence that rats experienced negative effects on the bladder and appetite suppression.
“We don’t know [sucralose is safe] because no long-term studies have been done,” said Lee R. Zehner, a chemist and president of Vivilac Corp., which manufactures a ‘Whey Low’ natural sweetener that competes with Splenda.
“The FDA doesn’t know, and McNeil doesn’t really know,” Zehmer said.
Representatives from both McNeil and parent company Johnson & Johnson did not return phone calls seeking comment.
For chemists, the problems are even more obvious — some contend sucralose has an eerily similar chemical makeup to DDT.
Industrial chemist Ron Martini, who specializes in insect control and lectures on public health, said sucralose is made by taking a sugar molecule, removing three hydroxyls and introducing chlorine, “the attack dog of chemistry,” instead.
He added that this chlorinated sugar breaks down in the metabolic processes, leaving in one’s body free chlorine similar to chemical weapons, sanitizers and pesticides.
“This is plain vanilla, there is nothing arcane, nothing that takes a great deal of understanding to perceive,” Martini said. “Water is wet – chlorine is deadly.”
Some chemists counter that argument by stating that chlorine is naturally a part of salt, sodium chloride.
“Sodium chloride has [chlorine] too, and that is not deadly,” Pauli said. “From a chemistry standpoint, you take a sugar molecule and modify it.”
Zehner dismisses this argument.
“That is a bogus comparison – there is no comparison between the two,” Zehner said “The chlorine is very different in those two. But the chlorine in Splenda and DDT are similar because it is [covalently] bonded to a carbon atom.”
Martini said the salt does not disassociate, breaking apart in the digestive process like sugar does.
“When you chlorinate sugar, it is going to break apart and release the chlorine,” he said.
Splenda’s Web site maintains that the sucralose compound passes through the body without breaking down.
Weighing in on the issue
So far, literature does not support the contention that Splenda causes cancer. A study conducted by Dr. Martin Weihrauch from the University of Cologne in Germany published in the Oct. 2004 issue of “Annals of Oncology” found that while it was too early to definitely declare there to be no cancer risk, such risks appear to be most likely minimal.
“As many artificial sweeteners are combined in today’s products, the carcinogenic risk of a single substance is difficult to assess,” Weihrauch wrote. “However, according to the current literature the possible risk of artificial sweeteners to induce cancer seems to be negligible.”
These studies do not hold water with Janet Hull, an ecologist, toxicologist and hazardous waste specialist who claims the artificial sweetener aspartame caused her to develop a rare disease of the thyroid in 1991. She said doctors were unable to pinpoint the cause and cure her, but that she removed aspartame from her diet and was cured in 30 days.
Since then, Hull has made a career as an alternative health specialist, urging people away from these sweeteners and recently publishing a book, “Splenda: Is it Safe or Not?”
“Go back to using nothing, just regular natural sugar,” Hull urged, stating that people who consume a lot of Splenda are experiencing liver problems, bladder control issues, higher blood pressure and problems with their libido. “We’re already witnessing it, but people don’t want to accept the fact that the Diet Coke that people are drinking every day is causing them to have this reaction.”
Keeping Thin
Despite all of the criticisms leveled against it, supporters contend Splenda is an enormous help for dieters. They maintain it allows people to eat many of the same things they have always enjoyed in a diet form with a similar taste with practically no calories.
“You can finally have your cake and eat it too!” materials on a McNeil Web site promoting Splenda proclaim.
Splenda is essentially a zero-calorie additive, but because of all the ingredients, FDA regulations dictate that it be classified as “low-calorie.”
“Ultimately, the bottom line is calories,” Payne said. “When I look at sweeteners from an obesity standpoint, what I see is a large amount of calorie-containing sweetened liquids,” which tend to cause people to gain more weight than calories consumed in a solid form.
Some say that even though Splenda has no calories, hunger will persist anyway, and as a result, it does little to quell weight gain.
“If you get the taste buds excited they anticipate the sweetness and calories — they’re going to get it from somewhere else,” Zehner said. “To me it is common sense that you can’t cheat Mother Nature.”
Deceptive advertising?
But is Splenda sold to consumers at face value? Lawsuits allege McNeil markets Splenda deceptively, leading many consumers to believe that it is a natural sugar product. A survey conducted by Consumers for Science and Public Interest found that 47 percent of consumers who use Splenda think it is natural.
“They are misleading consumers to the extent that half of the consumers that use it think it’s natural,” said Sugar Association President Andy Briscoe, whose association filed suit against McNeil.
Briscoe said the suit “is targeting the fact that they have marketing terminology that says ‘Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar.’ This is misleading to consumers because the final product contains no sugar.”
Moderation is key
Ultimately, the majority of experts say Splenda is healthy in moderation, even in light of the small possibility of negative health effects.
“While these things like Splenda appear to be safe, my advice is to only use one or two artificial sweeteners of one type per day,” Payne said. “It still makes sense not to do experiments on the human body.”
The current suspicion of Splenda resembles the two-decade questioning of another artificial sweetener, saccharin, found in Sweet N’ Low and other products.
In 1977, the FDA tried to ban saccharin because animal studies showed it caused cancer of the bladder, but the product was kept on the market with a warning label, according to Nutrition Action Healthletter. In 2000, the warning label was removed by the FDA and National Institutes of Health. A 2003 study by the National Cancer Institute questioned the conclusions and found a slightly increased bladder cancer risk with heavy consumption.
Using this experience as a guide, it is likely the public debate over Splenda is just beginning.
