Splenda is the #1 artificial sweetener sold today. Between 2000 and 2004, the percentage of U.S. households using it went from 3 to 20%. In one year, Splenda sales topped $177 million compared to 62 million on aspartame-based Equal and $52 million on saccharine-based Sweet’N Low. All of these sweeteners can be found in blue, yellow, and pink packets everywhere from restaurants to patient trays in the hospital to ingredients in all sugar free items in the grocery store.
Is Splenda (sucralose) really sugar? On the packet it says “made from sugar so it tastes like sugar.” It starts as sugar in the laboratory; in the five-step process of making sucralose 3 chlorine molecules are added to one sugar molecule. The new sugar molecule doesn’t occur in nature, so the body cannot properly metabolize it. Since it is not digested, it has zero calories. Splenda bears more chemical similarity to DDT than to sugar.
Splenda has been on the market for over fifteen years. Finally the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has downgraded Splenda from its former safe category to one of caution, following an unpublished study that found it may cause leukemia in mice. Splenda has been found to reduce the amount of good bacteria in the intestines by 50%.
The following reactions have all been reported after the consumption of Splenda:
Migraines
Seizures
Dizziness
Blurred vision
Allergic reactions
Blood sugar increases
Weight gain
Gastrointestinal problems
To test for yourself, go off all artificial sweeteners for 2 weeks, making sure to read all ingredients on packages of food you consume. Then add them back in and after three to four days and see how you feel. If symptoms return, you need to call the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator. Find the phone number for your state and report any reaction without delay.
1 Comment
A little inflammatory and sensationalistic. “Splenda bears more chemical similarity to DDT than to sugar.” Really? As a chemist, having reviewed the molecular structure of both molecules, I can safely say: No, this is not the case.
Some random 401(c)(3) got results that said it might cause leukemia in mice, but not good enough results to publish? Please.
“Splenda has been found to reduce the amount of good bacteria in the intestines by 50%.” Source please, it’s stated as a fact but sounds suspicious. As does the entire article, as it seems to espouse a “all chemicals are bad” agenda from the get-go.
All the “reactions” are just as easily caused by inebriation. Calling them “reactions” implies a cause and effect relationship, which is not substantiated. How is it known they are related to Splenda exposure and not something else? What’s the likelihood that it is unrelated entirely? How about some statistical analysis?
As a chemist, I know chemicals are bad. But this is a biased, unfalsifiable article that puts faith before fact. Yeah, I don’t consume saccharin, aspartame, or sucralose. Sugar is healthier, natural, and well understood metabolically. But let’s keep it real. This article needs critical analysis and fact-checking with sources. Otherwise, I love it