advertisement

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Splenda (Sucralose) Reveals Potential Harmful Effect on Humans -

Discussion in 'Parents of Children with Type 1' started by momandwifeoftype1s, Dec 9, 2008.

  1. momandwifeoftype1s

    momandwifeoftype1s Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    3,185
    Splenda (Sucralose) Reveals Potential Harmful Effect on Humans -

    Splenda reduces the amount of good bacteria (probiotics) in the
    intestines by 50%, increases the pH level in the intestines, AND
    contributes to increased body weight

    MINNEAPOLIS, Sept. 22, 2008 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- James Turner, chairman
    of the national consumer education group Citizens for Health expressed
    shock and outrage after reading a new report from scientists at Duke
    University. "The report makes it clear that the artificial sweetener
    Splenda and its key component sucralose pose a threat to the people who
    consume the product. Hundreds of consumers have complained to us about
    side effects from using Splenda and this study, published in October in
    the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A, confirms that
    the chemicals in the little yellow package should carry a big red
    warning label," said Turner.

    Among the results in the study by Drs. Mohamed B. Abou-Donia, Eman M.
    El-Masry, Ali A. Abdel-Rahman, Roger E. McLendon and Susan S. Schiffman
    is evidence that, in the animals studied, Splenda reduces the amount of
    good bacteria in the intestines by 50%, increases the pH level in the
    intestines, contributes to increases in body weight and affects the
    P-glycoprotein (P-gp) in the body in such a way that crucial
    health-related drugs could be rejected. Turner noted that the P-gp
    effect "could result in crucial medications used in chemotherapy for
    cancer patients, AIDS treatment and drugs for heart conditions being
    shunted back into the intestines rather than being absorbed by the body
    as intended."

    The study was conducted using male rats over a period of 12 weeks. The
    manufacturers of Splenda also used a rat study when they applied for and
    received approval to market the product from the U.S. Food and Drug
    Administration. At the time, the findings from their rat studies were
    extrapolated as to possible effects on humans. This is standard FDA
    practice and this study is consistent with that practice.

    Turner said, "This report followed accepted policies and procedures and
    the results make clear the potential for disturbing side effects from
    the ingestion of Splenda. It is like putting a pesticide in your body.
    And this is at levels of intake erroneously approved by the Food and
    Drug Administration. A person eating two slices of cake and drinking two
    cups of coffee containing Splenda would ingest enough sucralose to
    affect the P-glycoprotein, while consuming just seven little Splenda
    packages reduces good bacteria." Although the effect of consuming
    Splenda does not result from a one time use, the side effects do occur
    after accumulated use. Turner also noted unmistakable evidence that
    Splenda is absorbed by fat, contrary to the claims of Johnson & Johnson.


    Turner announced, "We are calling today on the FDA to immediately accept
    our petition filed over a year ago and initiate a review of its approval
    of sucralose and to require a warning label on Splenda packaging
    cautioning that people who take medications and/or have gastrointestinal
    problems avoid using Splenda. The new study makes it clear that Splenda
    can cause you to gain weight and lose the benefits of medications
    designed to improve and protect your health. The FDA should not continue
    to turn a blind eye to this health threat."
     
  2. Hollyb

    Hollyb Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    2,056
    oh great. the one artificial sweetener that tastes half-decent!
     
  3. danismom79

    danismom79 Approved members

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    5,300
    Citizens for Health never really sat right with me.

    I'll see if I can find that article when I go to work tomorrow.

    ETA: Here's the abstract of the study, if anyone's interested:

    Splenda Alters Gut Microflora and Increases Intestinal P-Glycoprotein and Cytochrome P-450 in Male Rats
    Authors: Mohamed B. Abou-Donia; Eman M. El-Masry; Ali A. Abdel-Rahman; Roger E. McLendon; Susan S. Schiffman


    Splenda is comprised of the high-potency artificial sweetener sucralose (1.1%) and the fillers maltodextrin and glucose. Splenda was administered by oral gavage at 100, 300, 500, or 1000 mg/kg to male Sprague-Dawley rats for 12-wk, during which fecal samples were collected weekly for bacterial analysis and measurement of fecal pH. After 12-wk, half of the animals from each treatment group were sacrificed to determine the intestinal expression of the membrane efflux transporter P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and the cytochrome P-450 (CYP) metabolism system by Western blot. The remaining animals were allowed to recover for an additional 12-wk, and further assessments of fecal microflora, fecal pH, and expression of P-gp and CYP were determined. At the end of the 12-wk treatment period, the numbers of total anaerobes, bifidobacteria, lactobacilli, Bacteroides, clostridia, and total aerobic bacteria were significantly decreased; however, there was no significant treatment effect on enterobacteria. Splenda also increased fecal pH and enhanced the expression of P-gp by 2.43-fold, CYP3A4 by 2.51-fold, and CYP2D1 by 3.49-fold. Following the 12-wk recovery period, only the total anaerobes and bifidobacteria remained significantly depressed, whereas pH values, P-gp, and CYP3A4 and CYP2D1 remained elevated. These changes occurred at Splenda dosages that contained sucralose at 1.1-11 mg/kg (the US FDA Acceptable Daily Intake for sucralose is 5 mg/kg). Evidence indicates that a 12-wk administration of Splenda exerted numerous adverse effects, including (1) reduction in beneficial fecal microflora, (2) increased fecal pH, and (3) enhanced expression levels of P-gp, CYP3A4, and CYP2D1, which are known to limit the bioavailability of orally administered drugs.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2008
  4. shirley83006

    shirley83006 Approved members

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,148
    i was concerned about that stuff. You have to think that anything artificial can not be good for you. This may explain why my daughter has been having alittle trouble with acid reflux. and i learned that if she was to take probiotics and improve her intestines (her digestion) it would improve a great deal. Here i have been giving her that and in turn the splenda has been sucking it out of her. i am glad that i have not been giving it to her as much lately. Now i will cut it out completely. Thanks for the info. I guess natural honey or maybe stevia which i will have to check out too. Natural sweeteners.
     
  5. Heather(CA)

    Heather(CA) Approved members

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Messages:
    10,153
    Seriously, with all of the stinking Technology we have...Can't SOMEBODY come up with an artificial sweetener that isn't bad for our kids:mad: This is why I rarely give Seth anything diet (Just the occasional soda) :rolleyes:
     
  6. Karenwith4

    Karenwith4 Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,442
    Did they sponsor the study?

    We don't use Splenda or other artificial sweetners like that. I really doubt their safety.

    Karen
     
  7. danismom79

    danismom79 Approved members

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    5,300
    Not as far as I know. Maybe my personal experience with a few nutcases is coloring my view of them, but they were very in-your-face with scare tactics. I'm not trying to invalidate the study at all, but whenever CFH is mentioned, my brain shuts down a little. That's why I prefer to read the original study.
     
  8. momandwifeoftype1s

    momandwifeoftype1s Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    3,185
    I can't understand the original study that you posted (my brain is numb from trying). What is your take after you read the two versions? Valid concern or not?
     
  9. danismom79

    danismom79 Approved members

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    5,300
    Just from reading the abstract, it looks pretty bad. Admittedly, I don't know much about gut flora. But what it looks like they found was that Splenda reduced good bacteria, but didn't affect potentially harmful bacteria. Increased fecal pH can be a risk factor for colorectal cancer. I don't know what all that stuff with the letters and numbers is. And I don't know how the amounts they gave the rats would correspond to human consumption.

    I really would rather see the actual study though. One thing that jumps out at me is that they singled out sucralose: These changes occurred at Splenda dosages that contained sucralose at 1.1-11 mg/kg (the US FDA Acceptable Daily Intake for sucralose is 5 mg/kg). Are they claiming that the sucralose in the Splenda is the problem, or Splenda as a whole?

    I'd also like to see if they have baseline data before administering the Splenda. And is there a control group?
     
  10. momandwifeoftype1s

    momandwifeoftype1s Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    3,185
    Are you going to look this up tomorrow at work?
     
  11. danismom79

    danismom79 Approved members

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    5,300
    I'm going to try. I work at an enviromental consulting firm, and we have a number of toxicology-related journals. I'm not sure if this is one of them.
     
  12. momandwifeoftype1s

    momandwifeoftype1s Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    3,185
    Of course, I just baked a batch of pumpkin blueberry muffins sweetened with Splenda this afternoon. Figures.
     

Share This Page

advertisement