by Shawn Dolan, PhD, RD, CSSD
Non-nutritive sweeteners are used to reduce calories in food. These sweeteners are also called alternative sweeteners, artificial sweeteners, and very-low calorie sweeteners. There are five FDA-approved non-nutritive sweeteners which are labeled as food additives (sucralose is one of them).
Sucralose (Splenda) is one of the newest non-nutritive sweeteners on the market in the US. The FDA has determined that sucralose is safe for human consumption and does not pose carcinogenic, reproductive, or neurological risks to humans based on over 100 research safety studies. The acceptable daily intake (ADI) is set at 5mg/kg of body weight per day. For example the ADI for a 60 kg athlete would be 300 mg/d. Most Americans consume on average 1.1mg/kg/d of sucralose. However, because the FDA classifies a product as safe or non-toxic does that mean it is good for you? Furthermore, what health benefits does sucralose provide us?
Some concerns to keep in mind:
- Splenda is not actually calorie free (the first two ingredients are dextrose and maltodextrin), however, it is 600 times sweeter than sucrose so you need very little to sweeten food.
- The chemical process used to make sucralose includes the use of chlorine which is considered a carcinogen and may cause GI problems, skin irritations, and headaches. However, much of the information available on side effects is anecdotal and not based on well-controlled research trials. There is evidence to support headaches are alleviated by eliminating sucralose from the diet.
So…is sucralose bad for you? The answer probably depends on your definition of ‘bad’! If ‘bad” means unsafe, the answer is probably no. If the question is sucralose good for you, the answer is probably no also! However, there are products that contain sucralose that many of us find useful as athletes (i.e. sport drinks).
Next, let’s tackle other non-nutritive sweeteners.
Following are the other four non-nutritive sweeteners along with potential concerns regarding each.
Saccharin (Sweet’N'Low)
- It was proposed in the 1970s to be banned from food due to a possible carcinogenic affect, instead products were labeled with a warning that it may be hazardous to your health, then in 2000, it was removed from list of potential carcinogens and found widely in the current food supply
Aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal)
- Provides calories, but a neglible amount due to its intense sweetness
- One of the most controversial non-nutritive sweeteners due to the fact that safety studies do suggest there is a relationship between aspartame and headaches, depression, cancer, and increased hunger
- Not safe for individuals with phenylketonurea (PKU) because of the phenylalanine
Neotame
- Chemically related to aspartame but without the PKU dangers
- Scientific studies potentially exist to support its safety, however, they are not readily available to the public
Acesulfame K
- Many people do not realize it is included in a food (ingredient list)
- Contains carcinogen methylene chloride which may cause headaches, depression, cancer (and others) in humans
Sugar alcohols are considered nutritive sweeteners because they contain calories, although fewer calories than sugar (i.e. sorbitol, mannitol, xylitol, etc). Sugar alcohols are not completely digested in the GI tract; therefore if eaten in large amounts, they can lead to abdominal gas and diarrhea.
Stevia is considered a sugar substitute, but has not been approved by the FDA as a non-nutritive sweetener to be used as a food additive in the US. However, stevia is permitted to be used as a dietary supplement in the US.
Keep in mind; sweeteners are non essential nutrients, meaning we do not need them in our diet (at least not physiologically)! In particular, non-nutritive sweeteners (as the primary ingredient) do not provide us with sufficient energy to fuel exercise; do not provide us with vitamins or minerals necessary for metabolism; and do not provide us with nutrients to help us repair or recover from intense exercise! However, non-nutritive sweeteners may be a good alternative to another sweetener if you are trying to lose or maintain weight, control blood sugar, or as an alternative to other foods in your diet. For example drinking a diet Hansen’s Grapefruit soft drink is probably a better alternative to drinking a Coke! In addition, non-nutritive sweeteners and sugar alcohols are used in sport drinks and electrolyte hydration tablets to provide flavor with fewer calories, which can be very useful for athletes. The bottom line…consuming non-nutritive sweeteners is probably not bad for you, but not necessarily good for you either, but at times useful!
April 24th, 2008 at 2:29 am
Dr. Dolan, thank you for the informative article. Last year I was worried about too much sugar in my diet so switched to artificial sweeteners, but was told that they were poisonous. So I switched to agave and stevia. Good to hear that Splenda is probably not dangerous since I consumed it massive amounts last summer.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:55 am
Very informational and helpful article.
When my wife was pregnant she was diagnosed with gestational diabetes.
We went to see a dietitian who gave us similar information about Sucralose, adding that while my wife was not encouraged to consume it, it was the safest of sweeteners for her and the baby if she planned to consume sweeteners.
She kept her consumption to a minimum and delivered a healthy baby, and I’ve taken the cue that if I do need a sweetener (psychologically, usually) that I will opt for the one safest for baby and mama.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
What about “gastro-intestinal distress?” It is a common side effect, and I can attest to it first-hand! I stay away from the stuff. Give me sugar. I’ll run it off.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Your question and comment regarding gastrointestinal distress is a good one! Based on published peer reviewed data on humans, no GI effects have been observed up to 1000mg of sucralose per day. However, individual GI systems respond differently to different substances. Sucralose is absorbed in the upper part of the GI, then excreted in the urine or feces. Some individuals may retain more in their gut before excretion which could cause the GI effects. The GI effect may also be dose dependent (higher dose, more effect).
May 20th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Regrettable that First Endurance has in no uncertain terms “ruined” the EFS product with the inclusion of toxins, i.e. sucralose. Based on my research and meta-analysis of longitudinal data on the long-term cognitive and metabolic effects of sucralose, I’ll be formulating my own from this point forward.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:29 am
J.St.Germain,
We are sorry to hear you feel this way. At First Endurance we rely heavily on the available research to formulate our products. This article reviewed the research on sucralose and found it to be quite safe. We would not formulate any nutrients into our products without this research. We do not rely solely on public perception. First Endurance goes far beyond typical nutrition companies when it comes to our research, by including a group of highly educated and widely varied team of scientists. This team includes Toxicologist Patricia Rosen MD http://www.firstendurance.com/erb.html#rosen.
Please realize practically all vitamins and minerals become toxic at advanced levels. Including those viewed by the public as highly healthful like vitamin e, c, a..etc. Singling out sucralose as a toxic ingredient does not parallel the research. Toxicity happens at levels higher that what is typically ingested. For sucralose this level is thousands of times higher that what you find on the market and tens of thousands times higher than what is found in EFS Lemon Lime and Fruit Punch. The same is true for vitamins you ingest every day.
Finally, you do have an option. Our EFS Tangerine and EFS Grape flavors do not contain any sucralose. We have done this not because of safety but because this offers a lower sweetness lower flavor version of a formula that can hence be mixed at double strength.
July 1st, 2008 at 2:02 pm
If you took ALL the chemicals into a site that explains WHAT CHEMICALS are really used in artficial sweetners, you would understand, “tiny amounts” of anything wont kill you, BUT……over time, YOU’RE FILLING your body with those chemicals including formaldayde (great if you’re deceased) and bleach which is fine for white sox!………….I SWITCHED TO “SWEET ONE” AND STEVIA PRODUCTS AND CAN BE FOUND IN SOME STORES IN THE MID WEST AND ON THE NET………I tossed ALL SPELNDA AND ASPARTAME products into the trash! and that cost me $$$$$ but my insides are worth it. Did you know airline pilots were told NOT TO EAT/DRINK anything w/ aspartame in it…..(it gives them headaches etc) lets live a better life ok?
July 8th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Keri,
Thank you for your comments. We encourage our customers to pose questions and concerns about our products and will always do what we can to answer those questions. Please realize that Sucralose is a cleaved sugar, so it does not contain these additional chemicals that you find in aspartame or other non-nutritive sweeteners. Sucralose is not the same as Aspartame or Acesulfame K which are synthetically produced. The most important item to remember is that currently there is no evidence that sucralose, at the micro levels used, poses no health risks.
We again urge any customers to pose concerns or even data that help refute or support these claims.
July 10th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Been using FE products since the launch of Ultragen and can’t believe for a minute that you are “selling out” by including artificial sweetners in your range! Why not just use 1 or 2 grams of fructose if you have to or Lo Han or Stevia ? Its common knowledge that the FDA and big corpotates such as Monsanto, ADM, Tate & Lyle etc are in bed together, so don’t take their word that these sweetners are safe. Look what happened to all those peolple that died from taking Vioxx! Many studies in rats have shown that when artificial sweetners such as aspartame, ace-k, sucralose are fed to them they develop all sorts of cancers. Please read Sweet Deception by Mercola and Excitotoxins by Blaylock.
Sucralose gets 10/10 for marketing but nil for health ! How can a sweetner (sounds better than drug) be approved by testing on just 100 people, and just how independand was that research ?
July 15th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Lloyd,
Again, we certainly appreciate the concerns posted by some of our customers and welcome any and all feedback. Fructose is a slow absorbing sugar with a very low glycemic index. At First Endurance we rely heavily on the most current research available and use this research to formulate our products. Because Fructose is low glycemic and slow absorbing it is not an optimal carbohydrate source for the replenishment of carbohydrates during exercise. We use only fast absorbing high glycemic carbohydrates.
There are some studies showing cause for concern when using aspartame, ace-K, but no current studies proving concern using Sucralose. Realize that sucralose acts more like and extract than a true synthetic derivative like ace-k or aspartame. Its manufactured by cleaving a sugar so the end result is a non-nutritive sweetener. We have have done extensive research by our Endurance Research Board that includes Toxicologist and MD Patricia Rosen and again conclude that the current research poses no risk. We do not claim that Sucralose is healthy, only that currently the research basis shows no ill effects. Lo Han and Stevia are both plant extracts that essentially ‘extract’ the active ingredient to a concentration that is highly sweet. There is always the perception that because they are from from a natural source it must be safe. You simply need to look at ephedra (an extract of the herb Ma Huang) to know this is not true. Classifying ingredients as Natural=safe and Synthetic=not safe is not accurate. Its also important to note that many, many nutrients fed to rats at ultra-high levels will become toxic and some even become carcinogenic..this includes natural ingredients like beta carotene, vitamin c and hundreds of other natural nutrients that we consume every day and have no concerns over. Stating that sucralose does this also is hardly an argument.
Please do keep the comments coming!
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:36 am
Thanks for your note Robert, but I still can’t believe what a blunder you guys have made here! I appreciate fructose is an inferior sugar and in large amounts can also affect gastric emptying, but 2 grams out of 24 grams of carbs is nothing and would not detract from the formula and together with a minute amount of stevia, say 30mg, would do the same job as artificial sucralose. Comparing Ma Huang to stevia is like comparing a Hummer to a Hybrid, one is a stimulant and the other is a natural sweetner that has been used by cultures of South America for hundreds of years. It has also been approved in Japan as a natural sweetner since 1970 and is perfectly safe. Ma Huang is indeed a strong herb but how many Chinese have died from taking it the last century or two ? It was only when obese Westerners with weak hearts starting taking huge amounts of it for dieting that problems arose! “Cleaving a sugar” almost sounds natural but don’t forget the chlorine and other chemicals that are added to sucralose - the end product could not be further from nature and is more like fertilizer than sugar ! Highly respected supplement companies such as Jarrow and Now Foods have never sold sucralose. I wonder why ? Why feed your customers junk “that is probably not bad”