consider sucralose (Splenda), aspartame and saccharine toxic poisons and would
recommend against their usage. Granted, you have been consuming the
poison in small enough portions that it probably hasn't caused immediate
noticeable harm. However, the same has been said about aspartame and the
deadly harm of that chemical has been well documented. A good suggestion would
be to use turbinado sugar (sugar in the raw), evaporated cane juice or even
Evidence supports Splenda is poison, as follows.
A possible problem with caecal enlargement and renal mineralization has been
seen in post approval animal research.
Sucralose Breaks Down
Despite the manufacturer's mis-statements, sucralose does break down into small
amounts of 1,6-dichlorofructose, a chemical that has not been adequately tested
Independent, Long-Term Human Research
None. Manufacturer's "100's of studies" (some of which show hazards) were
clearly inadequate and do not demonstrate safety in long-term use.
The manufacturer claims that the chlorine added to sucralose is similar to the
chlorine atom in the salt (NaCl) molecule. That is not the case. Sucralose may
be more like ingesting tiny amounts of chlorinated pesticides, but we will never
know without long-term, independent human research.
While it is unlikely that sucralose is as toxic as the poisoning people are
experiencing from Monsanto's
aspartame, it is clear from the hazards seen in pre-approval research and
from its chemical structure that years or decades of use may contribute to
serious chronic immunological or neurological disorders.
Let me start by saying that, as you may know, there is a quickly growing body of
evidence demonstrating the toxicity of
aspartame. This includes:
Recent European research showing that ingesting
aspartame leads to the accumulation of formaldehyde in the brain, other organs
and tissues (Formaldehyde has been shown to damage the nervous system, immune
system, and cause irreversible genetic damage in humans.)
An extremely large number of toxicity reactions reported to the FDA and other
A recent report showing that nearly 100% of independent research has found
problems with aspartame.
Why is this relevant to the sucralose question? Similar to the aspartame
situation 15 years ago:
Pre-approval test indicated potential toxicity of sucralose.
are no *independent* controlled human studies on sucralose (similar to 15 years
ago for aspartame).
are no long-term (12-24 months) human studies of sucralose's effects.
is no monitoring of health effects. It took government agencies decades to agree
that there were countless thousands of deaths from tobacco. Why? Simply because
there had been no monitoring or epidemiological studies. Without such monitoring
and studies, huge effects can easily go unnoticed.
So, without even addressing the pre-approval research showing potential
toxicity, it is clear that sucralose has a) no long history (e.g., decades) of
safe use, b) no independent monitoring of health effects, c) no long-term human
studies, and d) no independent human studies. I would hope that the
Precautionary Principle, now commonly used in Europe, would be a guiding force
for people who are interested in health. Otherwise, we might as well just use
any poorly tested, artificial (lab-created) chemical that has shown potential
for long-term toxicity.
As far as the pre-approval research related to sucralose.... As you probably
know, pre-approval research is rarely published. It is only available from the
FDA by filing a Freedom of Information Act request. However, you can see a very
short summary regarding sucralose and shrunken thymus glands in the "New
Scientist" (23 November 1991, page 13).