June 2005 | Whole Health
Clean Living
Sugarcoating Splenda
by Rebecca Ephraim, R.D., C.C.N.
I’m really confused about the sugar substitute Splenda. I try to avoid white sugar but is this alternative any better? —Erica on the Internet
Ah, the tortured love-hate relationship so many of us have with white sugar. Our intention to avoid this high-calorie, zero-nutrient substance (that’s soooo tasty) makes us suckers for any sweetener that parades itself as tasting like sugar but without all of its adverse health implications.
With brilliant marketing, Johnson & Johnson, which distributes Splenda in North America, has capitalized on our quest to find a new sweetie. Its slogan, “Think sugar, say Splenda,” has helped make it the leader among artificial sweeteners — reaping more than 50 percent of that market.
However, the catch phrase has gotten Johnson & Johnson into big trouble — as in lawsuit. But for that very reason, we, as consumers, have potentially excellent access to the truth; if Splenda goes to trial, the arguments for and against it will be laid bare.
Meantime, the health take on this sweetener is pretty sour. There have been no long-term studies looking at potential health problems of sucralose (Splenda’s generic name) in humans. What’s more, approval of its use was based on studies that have been financed by either its maker, Britain’s Tate & Lyle, Johnson & Johnson or those affiliated with them.
Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration noted that rats fed huge doses of sucralose suffered shrunken thymus glands, it was still approved. The thymus is critical in developing the human immune system and because of this, Splenda can be dangerous for people with compromised immune systems.
Other animal research has also suggested possible side effects, including enlarged liver and kidneys, decreased white blood cell count and reduced growth weight (think children).
Splenda, which came on the U.S. market in 1998, consists of sugar molecules to which chlorine atoms have been added. In fact, the patented “starter” material to make it doesn’t even have to be anything natural — it can be synthesized in a lab. Importantly, this artificiality calls the question of whether Splenda is safe to eat.
However (and unfortunately), health and safety have little or nothing to do with the lawsuit. It’s about commerce.
Johnson & Johnson markets Splenda as being “made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar.” And that campaign has fueled allegations that it’s misled consumers into believing that Splenda is as natural as sugar.
That’s why the Sugar Association, representing sugar beet and sugar cane farmers, filed suit and posted a well- researched website (www.truthaboutsplenda.com) outing the sweetener (check out the Fact vs. Fiction section). They’re worried about their livelihoods.
Merisant, the maker of aspartame (Nutrasweet and Equal’s generic name), a product whose safety also faces ongoing questioning, has filed suit in federal court alleging false and misleading advertising, as well. If only this case would come to trial, the lawyerly arguments — regardless of their motivation — might give us an unprecedented earful of the potential health problems behind this artificial sweetener. Alas, it may be too much to ask.
As far as alternative sweeteners go, a far safer bet would be to try stevia, an herb that’s used regularly as a sweetener in numerous countries, including Japan. Supporters tout stevia as all-natural, non-toxic, non-caloric and safe for diabetics. I like the taste of the liquid form best. It comes in a small bottle with an eyedropper that’s easy to carry. And there are numerous stevia recipe books to make delectable sweet goodies that can rival the taste of you know what.
Rebecca Ephraim is a registered dietitian and certified clinical nutritionist.
Recommend this page to a friend
Top Ten pages recommended to friends:
