Sucralose is 600 times sweeter than sugar and itself contains no calories. Although it has been marketed as a healthy product that can help fend off obesity and diabetes, sucralose consumption has been linked to leukemia, weight gain, obesity, diabetes, liver inflammation, metabolic dysfunction and other illnesses.
Sucralose backers have also claimed it is poorly absorbed and does not significantly bioaccumulate in the human body. However, a 2018 study found that sucralose metabolizes and bioaccumulates in rats. Based on this recent science, U.S. Right to Know petitioned the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate deceptive advertising claims by Tate & Lyle and Coca-Cola.
Key Facts About Sucralose
After more than a decade of regulatory consideration, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved sucralose for use in 1998 in 15 food categories; a year later, the agency approved it as a general purpose sweetener. It was the fastest shift in FDA’s history from a specified usage to general purpose approval of an artificial sweetener.
Of the over 100 studies FDA reviewed at the time, none involved humans, and only three lasted more than a year. Many of these studies were not even published for public scrutiny. Subsequent studies, including longitudinal ones involving human populations, have raised concerns about the health risks of sucralose. But the FDA has not reevaluated its authorization with the current science.
FDA’s 1998 authorization claims that “sucralose is relatively poorly absorbed” into the body. Recent science casts doubt on that claim (see USRTK petition to FTC). Read more about Splenda’s history of deceptive marketing below.
In a 2008 oral history interview conducted by the FDA with Alan Rulis, former FDA director of the Office of Food Additive Safety, Rulis stated that, “We discovered, way too late in the process, I think, that there was an unresolved issue that had to do with the test animals in some studies showing a more-than expected body-weight-gain decrement while on sucralose dosing.”
Food Chemical News also reported that, in 1995, McNeil Nutritionals — a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary and marketer of sucralose as branded Splenda — had planned to submit its product approval application. But, “in the process of completing a six-month clinical study in diabetic patients…[t]hat study raised concerns about the effect of sucralose on blood sugar in those individuals, and McNeil asked the agency to withhold its final decision until additional work could be done.”
CPHI & PMEC China is Asia’s leading pharmaceutical show for trading, knowledge sharing and networking. It spans all ...Take more
A custom formulation designed to meet your specific nutrient and application requirements that often requires deeper col...Take more
2022 has been passed ,2023 is coming,Although we are still faced with many challenges ,we hope that in the new year ,we ...Take more