The Home of Peak Natural Performance

The Truth About Sucralose (Splenda) and Other Artificial Sweeteners

Written By Christie Leclair

Sucralose is the sweetening flavour in many artificial sweeteners, the most popular of which is Splenda. Sucralose was first approved in Canada and other markets starting in 1991, and then brought into the US market after being approved by the FDA in 1999.

Prior to approval, there was extensive research on sucralose and the FDA rated sucralose as “safe” because it was considered an inert substance. This means it contains no calories and passes through the gastrointestinal tract remaining intact, having virtually no effect on the body at all. Sucralose is about 400-600 times sweeter than refined white sugar when measured by weight (Soffritti et al, 2016). This is important to keep in mind for later, when we discuss how taste affects hormone secretion.

The diet market in America is huge, so having a product that promises to reduce caloric intake at no cost is a no-brainer. The “Sugar and Sweeteners - Global Market Outlook” report for 2017-2026 reported that the total global market for all sugar and sweetening products was $116.24 billion in 2017 and is expected to grow to $164 billion by 2024 (2018). The possibility to make money in this industry is a great motivating factor when the diet industry is comparably large.

Sugar, and carbohydrates in general, are considered to be one of the primary causes of obesity in America because of overconsumption. Many diseases, including type 1 and 2 diabetes are managed by monitoring sugar intake. A sweetening agent with allegedly no impact on caloric intake or blood sugar levels, that still offers that addictive flavour has been a huge hit. Sucralose and other sweeteners have been added to an estimated 4,500 food products, including a number of health foods and junk foods, while marketed as a “healthy alternative”.

Getting in on a piece of the market share in the last 20 years are several other artificial sweeteners, appearing in gums, diet sodas, baking products, in prepared packaged foods, and even in many physical performance supplements, like protein powders and pre-workout aids to make it more palatable without adding unnecessary calories.

Other unnatural sweeteners to keep in mind when checking the food label include:

Aspartame
Acesulfame potassium
Neotame
Saccharin

New Research

In recent years research has caused the FDA to downgrade their rating of sucralose from “safe” to “caution” and then even further in 2016 as an additive to “avoid” (CSPI, 2016).

There have been several studies showing that we really do not know the full effects of using these chemicals on a regular basis and motivating the FDA to gradually change its rating of these products.

In a 2016 study on sucralose and cancer markers, a link was found to certain types of cancers in male rats, even though several other studies by the manufacturer failed to do so (Soffritti et al, 2016). This study in particular was a motivating factor for the FDA to reconsider its rating for sucralose.

In another study in 2013, it was found that sucralose did have an effect on the gastrointestinal tract (GIT), meaning that it may not actually be inert (Schiffman and Rother, 2013). This study on rats showed a change in the microbial biome of the gut, with a reduction in the beneficial bacteria. This study has not been conducted on humans, however, the importance of a diverse and healthy gut biome is still being discovered. Both physical and mental health are closely related to gut health leading many researchers to find these results particularly alarming.

Several studies in 2014 showed that the change in the gut biome caused by non-caloric sweeteners was causing the gut to become more glucose intolerant through functional and compositional changes to the microbiota (Suez et al. 2014). Though the chemical itself remains intact, a lot of research is showing that it leaves a mark on the digestive system.

Artificial sweeteners effect on gut biome.

A research review conducted at the University of Manitoba in early 2019 concluded that we don’t really know if there is any benefit at all to improve glycemic control and insulin resistance in high-risk individuals. There is simply no conclusive evidence and more research is required in randomized controlled trials (Ahmed et al, 20919).

The Effect of Artificial Flavours

The complexity of the human body is not fully understood. With or without calories, food smell and taste have a chemical and hormonal effect on the brain and body. A study with human test subjects compared insulin levels after being orally administered either sucralose or water showed an increase in insulin levels of 20% (Pepin et al, 2013). We know that there is an automatic insulin response to sweet smells and tastes that the body seems to do in preparation for high sugar foods.

Again, in this case, it can be argued that neither sucralose nor any other sweetener can be considered inert, as it does cause several short-term changes in the body. Researchers have been calling to rethink the massive use of artificial sweeteners, which is now the world’s most common food additive.

What about the other artificial sweeteners?

Different studies have found varying results, including that saccharin and acesulfame-K also affect insulin levels, but not blood glucose levels. Aspartame is also extremely popular and studies show mixed results on whether it impacts insulin levels, as well as its possible effect on gut microbiota.

The Long Term Effect of Artificial Sweeteners on Humans…

We have little to no information on the long-term effect of artificial sweeteners on humans because there are no studies that have taken this on. However, new studies on the long-term effects of daily sucralose consumption over about 6-week periods show a change in brain signaling for appetite control and weight gain and loss in mice (Contreras et al, 2018). The conclusion suggests that individuals might have increased cravings for sweet flavors and cause weight gain.

Even with this information, there isn’t enough proof to show a clear and inherent danger to public health for the FDA to consider banning sucralose or other sweeteners. Without very conclusive and definitive proof, it is difficult to shut down such a big player in a massive industry.

We know the long-term effect of chronic sugar consumption is probably one of the most dangerous for human health.

The Long Term Effect of Artificial Sweeteners

Are Artificial Sweeteners Worth The Risk?

Before taking in all this information linking sucralose to cancers, gut deterioration, blood sugar levels, appetite signaling problems, and running scared, consider the fact that nearly all foods we consume have also been linked to the same problems.

There is a serious problem in the west with sugar. Obesity, diabetes, and heart disease rates have been at an all-time high for the last decade, and getting away from refined white sugar and carbohydrate-heavy processed foods have been difficult for many. These are the big three killers in America that are massively influenced by a person’s choice to consume (or addiction to) sugar and simple carbohydrates.

Sugar does a lot of damage to the gut biome, causes cancers, weight gain, diabetes, the FDA has warned against, and it is considered addictive, yet it is consumed in copious amounts. Health food and supplement companies have promoted low sugar or zero sugar options by taking advantage of sweetening products and have undoubtedly helped millions get away from refined white sugar.

Many people have argued that the lesser of the two evils is to take on the small risk of artificial sweeteners because getting off of sugar completely is too daunting or difficult. Is there another way?

Natural Sweeteners

Luckily, newer products have surfaced that may be a better choice. Natural sweeteners such as agave, monk fruit, and stevia have come to the market with great success because they are derived from organic plants. While agave is highly processed, both stevia and monk fruit are not. The sweet flavor in these is naturally occurring.

Stevia is derived from a plant indigenous to South America. It contains no calories and is about 100 to 300 times sweeter than sugar. Higher-end health products have quickly followed suit switching to stevia. There is little to no evidence linking stevia to any of the conditions that are linked to artificial sweeteners. Instead, the most up-to-date research is very hopeful about its application in pharmaceuticals to improve human health. They write stevia is “being attributed to its phytoconstituents prominent antioxidant, antimicrobial, antidiabetic (antihyperglycemic, insulinotropic, and glucagonostatic), antiplatelet, anticariogenic, and antitumor effects.” (Salehi, et al. 2019)

Monk fruit is also a zero-calorie, natural option, originally grown in southern China. It is about 150 to 250 times sweeter than sugar. There is little processing involved to get the sweetness from the fruit into its usable, powder, syrup, or granular form. Because it is difficult to grow, it is more costly than other sweeteners and can be hard to find. Health food companies are motivated because it is an antioxidant and has no effect on blood sugar levels.

If you don’t mind the extra calories, you can choose natural sweeteners like:

Raw organic (local) honey
Raw molasses
Natural (real) maple syrup
Coconut sugar

These all contain calories but are naturally derived sweeteners that are generally unprocessed. They don’t contain chemicals, and we know the effect they have on the body. Many of them have unique health properties, containing minerals or vitamins that are beneficial, and are low glycemic foods.

Measuring the value of a sweetener by how many calories it contains becomes somewhat less relevant when we start talking about health. The net benefit of a natural sweetener, even if it is more expensive and costs more may be greater than a chemical sweetener that has zero positive effects and may have some negative effects.

When it comes to overall sugar consumption we can say that reducing consumption is the best way to reduce health risks associated with it. Cutting out sugar products like treats, cookies, baked goods, prepared marinades and dressings, and soda will do a world of good to the body compared to cutting down a couple of calories in your smoothie or protein powder. Interestingly, a study comparing the effect of coca-cola beverages on tooth enamel found decay in their products, with little difference seen between those sweetened with sucrose, aspartame, erythritol, and stevia (Korte, A. 2019). Staying away from the “healthier” option of junk food is generally recommended by all health professionals.

Consider that an apple contains around 55 calories, a banana about 90 calories, and an egg averages 155 calories. The majority of the calories in fruits are sugars, but we would consider them healthful and beneficial because of the net benefit of all the nutrients that come with them. Using a natural sweetener in moderation that contains calories and nutrients becomes a viable option when you look at it from this perspective.

We recommend that you remain educated about how you fuel and nurture your body.

Sources:

Ahmad SY1, Azad MB1 ,2,3, Friel J1, MacKay D1,2.“Recent evidence for the effects of nonnutritive sweeteners on glycaemic control.” Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care. 2019 Jul;22(4):278-283. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31033578

Susan S. Schiffman & Kristina I. Rother (2013) “Sucralose, A Synthetic Organochlorine Sweetener: Overview Of Biological Issues”. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 16:7, 399-451, DOI: 10.1080/10937404.2013.842523 Retrieved from:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2013.842523

Soffritti M., Padovani M., Tibaldi E., Falcioni L., Manservisi F., Lauriola M., Bua L., Manservigi M. & Belpoggi F. (2016) “Sucralose administered in feed, beginning prenatally through lifespan, induces hematopoietic neoplasias in male swiss mice”. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 22:1, 7-17,DOI: 10.1080/10773525.2015.1106075 Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10773525.2015.1106075?journalCode=yjoh20&

“CSPI Downgrades Sucralose from "Caution" to "Avoid": New Animal Study Indicates Cancer Risk. February 8, 2016 Retrieved from: https://cspinet.org/new/201602081.html

“Sugars and Sweeteners - Global Market Outlook (2017-2026)” Retrieved from:
https://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/657xb5/sugars_and?w=4 August 2018

Suez, Korem, Zeevi, Zilberman-Schapira, Thaiss, Maza, Israeli, Zmora, Gilad, Weinberger, Kuperman, Harmelin, Kolodkin-Gal, Shapiro, Halpern, Segal, Elinav. “Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota.” Nature. 2014 Oct 9;514(7521):181-6. doi: 10.1038/nature13793. Epub 2014 Sep 17. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25231862