The following adverse effects from sucralose have been reported in research findings:
* Shrunken thymus glands (up to 40% shrinkage) (EO56)
* Enlarged liver and kidneys. (EO57 & E161)
* Atrophy of lymph follicles in the spleen and thymus (EO51, EO56, EO151)
* Increased cecal weight (E151)
* Reduced growth rate (EO57)
* Decreased red blood cell count (EO55)
* Hyperplasia of the pelvis (EO57)
* Aborted pregnancy (Maternal & Fetal Toxicity) (E134)
* Decreased fetal body weights and placental weights (EO32)
* Increase glycosylation of hemoglobin (HbA1c) for diabetics (E157) (Note: One of the effects of increased HbA1c is Cardiac Mortality.)
The manufacturer claimed that the sucralose was unpleasant for the rodents to eat in large doses. They said that starvation caused the shruken thymus glands. From the New Scientist (23 Nov 1991, pg 13):
“[Toxicologist Judith] Bellin reviewed studies on rats starved under experimental conditions, and concluded that their growth rate could be reduced by as much as a third without the thymus losing a significant amount of weight (less than 7 percent). The changes were much more marked between 7 and 20 percent, their thymuses shrank by as much as 40 percent.”
Some may ask: “Where can I find published results of the above-reference adverse effects?” These adverse effects where seen in pre-approval research conducted by the manufacturer of sucralose. The number after the adverse effect listed above is the number of the pre-approval study. For obvious reasons, the manufacturer chose to publish only the research that puts sucralose in a good light and not the studies listed above. Some information related to these studies can be found in the FDA Final Rule where the FDA advocates for the manufacturer.
In summary:
* Pre-approval research indicated toxicity of sucralose.
* We can trust the manufacturer to do whatever they can to avoid publishing any negative information about sucralose in the scientific literature.
* There are no independent controlled human studies on sucralose (similar to 20 years ago for aspartame).
* There are no long-term (12-24 months) human studies of sucralose's effects.
* There is no monitoring of health effects. It took government agencies decades to agree that there were countless thousands of deaths from tobacco. Why? Simply because there had been no monitoring or epidemiological studies. Without such monitoring and studies, numerous serious adverse effects can easily go unnoticed.
So, without even addressing the pre-approval research showing potential toxicity, it is clear that sucralose has a) no long history (e.g., decades) of safe use, b) no independent monitoring of health effects, c) no long-term human studies, and d) no independent human studies. I would hope that the Precautionary Principle, now commonly used in Europe, would be a guiding force for people who are interested in health. Otherwise, we might as well just use any toxic chlorocarbon as a food additive and even go back to using the highly toxic lead acetate as a sugar substitute.
Published research, what little there is, will be discussed in a subsequent article.
