In most cases I would always say yes. But here is my dilemma. I know we eat too much sugar and I know it has been responsible for many health issues from obesity to Type II Diabetes. While I like Stevia, some don't like the taste. From a scientific stand point, I have to sometimes be practical and go with what I have evidence on and not condemn something just because it is not made directly by nature. When I first began studying nutrition I always thought natural was better, until I learned for example that fats not treated with preservatives become rancid, and that rancid fats produce more toxic effects on the body than the preservatives did. Also, just because something is natural does not mean that it is good for you, nature produces many poisonous substances. Just the same, just because we change the molecular structure of a molecule like sugar, to produce a substance that does not play with our blood sugar, does not mean it's bad. In 8 years of using products in weight loss that use Splenda, I have never seen a bad reaction. A person can be allergic to anything, so some may have issues because of this. That does not make it poison. So, until I see valid studies that indicate Spenda is bad, I have to recommend it over sugar. But by all means, use Stevia first when ever you can, if you think it is better.
Questions people have raised about Splenda and the scientific answers...
"Sucralose is a chlorinated sucrose molecule."
That's correct, but the innuendo is that sucralose is bad because it contains a form of chlorine. Not so. Sucralose does not contain elemental chlorine--it's chloride, the same form of chlorine found in table salt, tomatoes, and many other vegetables and fruits.
"There are few studies that have examined the long-term effectiveness of sucralose."
There are over 70 studies on sucralose published in peer-reviewed journals. None have demonstrated an increase in mutageneticy, miscarriage rates, birth defects, or anything else that would be a cause for concern. Sucralose was approved for use in Canada and some European countries 15 years ago; if there were health challenges associated with sucralose use, they should have emerged by now. They haven't.
"Sucralose caused shrunken thymus glands in rodents."
This accusation about the negative effects of sucralose on the thymus fails to note that the mice were given doses 5,000 times sweeter than a human would ever eat. In fact, the mice refused to eat because the food was too sweet--and since they didn't eat, they lost weight. It was the weight loss that caused the thymus to shrink, not the sucralose. In spite of that, the rats fed the high amounts of sucralose were able to mate successfully; their progeny were also fed the high amounts of sucralose, also experienced the same effects on the thymus, and also reproduced successfully (3).
"Sucralose caused caecal enlargement in rats."
The implication is that this is bad for the digestive system (the caecum is the first part of the large bowel). Two points: first, when rodents eat anything that changes the fluid levels in their gut, they experience caecal enlargement. It happens with many food additives that are given to rodents in amounts thousands of times greater per body weight than a human would ever ingest. Second, and even more interesting, is that sorbitol, one of the approved sweeteners endorsed by anti-sucralose websites, also causes caecal enlargement when given in large doses (4).
"Almost all of the websites critical of sucralose endorse Stevia as a sweetener."
This is an extract of the Stevia rebaudiana plant from Brazil. But did you know that there have been only 92 studies on Stevia? Did you also realize that Stevia may cause infertility (5)? That's the same type of fact-stretching employed by the anti-sucralose websites, but that study was done on Stevia in rodents and those are the results. The point is you can find a negative study on just about any food or food additive, but you don't judge a product on the strength of one study. The sum total of research should be examined in order to come to a conclusion--something the anti-sucralose advocates refuse to do.
"The manufacturer did the research."
True. But who should pay for the research? A competitor? The sugar industry? The U.S. Food and Drug Administration--in other words, our tax dollars? If the research arm of the U.S. government, the National Institutes of Health, funds research on all food additives, who'll decide the order in which things get tested? These websites state the obvious and then imply that it's bad. Fine. They should prove it by showing that the published results were tainted in some way. Better yet, they should raise the money and fund the research. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and take cheap shots.
The Food & Drug Administration has approved the use of this low-calorie sweetener.
The American Diabetes Association accepts the FDA's conclusion that these sweeteners are safe and can be part of a healthy diet. The position of the American Dietetic Association is that consumers can safely enjoy a range of nutritive and nonnutritive sweeteners when consumed in a reasonable diet (6). Countries world-wide including Canada and the European Union have approved Sucralose for use in their countries. These associations and countries came to this conclusion based on research and science, not innuendo, misrepresenting the research, and exaggerating anecdotal observations.
References:
1. Putnam, J., at al. U.S. Per Capita Food Supply Trends: More Calories, Refined Carbohydrates, and Fats. Economic Research Service, USDA. Food Review, Winter 2002.
2. Henkel, John. Sugar Substitutes: Americans Opt for Sweetness and Lite. FDA Consumer Revised December 2004.
3. Kille JW, et al. Sucralose: lack of effects on sperm glycolysis and reproduction in the rat. Food Chem Toxicol. 2000;38 Suppl 2:S19-29.
4. MacKenzie KM, et al. Three-generation reproduction study of rats ingesting up to 10% sorbitol in the diet--and a brief review of the toxicological status of sorbitol. Food Chem Toxicol. 1986; 24(3):191-200.
5. Melis MS. Effects of chronic administration of Stevia rebaudiana on fertility in rats. J Ethnopharmacol. 1999 Nov 1;67(2):157-61.
6. Position of the American Dietetic Association: Use of Nutritive and Nonnutritive Sweeteners. J Am Diet Assoc. 2004;104:255-275.
Christopher Wiechert, C.N.C.
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Please visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Click here if you would like to subscribe to our free HealthBlogger News Letter.
Write... add me to your list on the subject line.
Please pass these on to anyone you want.
