Once again, we turn to our inbox to provide you, the readers, exciting content.
Love your site … i forget how I stumbled upon it, but it’s always interesting as well as informative.
With your focus on HFCS, I was wondering if you ever heard about any adverse effects of sugar subsititutes like Splenda (sucralose). I know there were issues surrounding Aspartame/Nutrasweet and I also vagely recall there were also concerns about saccerin causing cancer in mice.
The reason I ask is my girlfreind has been experienceing health isues and it seems to be linked to a recent moderate to high consumption of Splenda. She ingests it with coffee and tea.
(links snipped – Kate)
Just something FYI … I was hoping to find some clinical studies to back this up.
Thanks again …
Thanks for the compliments Jon. You make me blush…really. But to your e-mail.
First and foremost, get your girlfriend in to see a doctor. A GP is a good start, a nutritionist also would be applicable to your situation. Let them know of issue as well as your concerns. They will try to discern exactly what’s wrong. Self-diagnosis is always a bad, bad way to approach new health concerns.
Secondly, I’ve removed the links from your e-mail. My reason for this is that they were all heavily prejudicial. In trying to follow up on several of the incidents mentioned in the links, I was unable to uncover medical validation that sucralose was at fault in the items mentioned. I thought long and hard about this removal, but I want to give both pro and con sucralose positions, and your links definately skewed the post to the con. If you feel I was wrong to do so, feel free to add the links in the comments, and I will not remove them.
Having said that, let’s move on to the overall topic of your e-mail.
For those of you who don’t migrate to artificial sweetners (and full disclosure, I don’t. I’m a sugar or nothing gal), let me fill you in on Sucralose.
Sucralose is a non-caloric artificial sweetener. It is not saccharin nor aspartame, but a realtively new product, having only been introduced to America in 1998. It is manufactured by the selective chlorination of sucrose (table sugar), by which three of sucrose’s hydroxyl groups are substituted with chlorine atoms to produce 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-β-D-fructo-furanosyl 4-chloro-4-deoxy-α-D-galactopyranoside. Not only is 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-β-D-fructo-furanosyl 4-chloro-4-deoxy-α-D-galactopyranoside ridiculously hard to pronounce, it’s impossible to put on those little yellow packets you see on the tables at restaurants. So they shortened the name to “Sucralose”.
This little naming convention is a bit of a problem, because the “-ose” suffix in Sucralose gives the impression that sucralose is a naturally occuring product, along the lines of sucrose, glucose, fructose, etc. But it’s not an naturally occuring product. It’s man-made.
McNeil Nutritionals (makers of “Splenda”, a sucralose product) hasn’t helped matters much by their slogan “Made from sugar so it tastes like sugar.” Although this statement is technically correct, it conveniently leaves out the fact that…
- A. …sucralose is made in chemical plants
- B. …because sucralose is anywhere between 400-700 times sweeter than table sugar, they have to add maltodextrin. Maltodextrin is a bulking agent and additional sweetener that brings Splenda to the approximate volume and texture of an equivalent amount of sugar. Maltodextrin is made from corn starch.