Talk:Sucralose/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Sucralose. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Grey Market Sucralose

It would be nice if the article could mention the existence of grey market liquid sucralose to which maltodextrine has not been added. This is a pertinent issue for diabetics and those restricting carbohydrates. 98.210.63.69 (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is aspartame referred to as Equal in the first paragraph?

In the first paragraph, it says that sucralose has overtaken Equal in popularity, with a 62% market share. Shouldn't that say that it has overtaken aspartame? Unless its market share is only greater than that of Equal-branded aspartame--but if its market share is really 62% (of the artificial sweetener market, I presume?), then it's got to be greater than aspartame under any brand name.

I would just have changed it, but I didn't know if the author of that sentence had something particular in mind. But it should be made clear if it's just that sucralose sells more than Equal, in which case aspartame still sells more than sucralose, or whether Splenda sells more than Equal, or what.

I'll come back in a couple of weeks and delete the sentence if it isn't fixed by then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.98.202 (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Adverse effects

I see no mention whatsoever in the article of adverse side effects (e.g., diarrhea, disorientation and confusion, headaches, depression, anxiety, vomiting, extreme fatigue, as mentioned above), yet there appear to be many anecdotal reports of these effects. (It certainly gives me screaming diarrhea.) Shouldn't these be mentioned, even without a definitive clinical study? — Loadmaster (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Especially no, as these are just that - anecdotal. You could easily say eating meat caused your computer to explode. It just doesn't make it true, even if thousands of people claimed the same. It has to be proven scientifically is what I'm saying, and so far, all reliable evidence says safe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.97.220 (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Gives me an awful headache every single time I mess up and eat something with sucralose in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.23.29 (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Some drinks containing Sucralose are now labeled with:

Some consumers may experience a laxative effect.

So it looks like some drink manufacturers recognize the negative side effects of Sucralose, official or otherwise. — Loadmaster (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Find the specific drink manufactuer and product, seek out the reliable publisher, and cite it. The issue is one of verifiability... —Sladen (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the only sweetener to have laxative effects, the natural sweetener sorbitol does too. --UltraMagnus (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Cite it... WP:VERIFY is at the core of Wikipedia. —Sladen (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"Splenda usually contains 95% dextrose"??

The article currently says: Splenda usually contains 95% dextrose (the "right-handed" isomer of glucose - see dextrorotation and chirality), which the body readily metabolizes. I couldn't find any source for this claim. Can anyone clarify it? Or is it even true? Richwales (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This manufacturer's website (here) says the "granulated and packet products" contain dextrose and maltodextrin. But it doesn't specify a percentage. Probably it varies from one product to another. TimBuck2 (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, but 95%?? Adding that much dextrose/maltodextrin would seem, to me, to largely defeat the advantages of the sucralose in Splenda — hence my questioning whether this claim is plausible. I would really like to see a source for the percentage. Richwales (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The article says that Splenda is only 14% as dense as sugar - presumably the dextrose and maltodextrose are fluffed up in some way. So a certain volume of Splenda has much less calories than the same volume of sugar. And since sucralose is 600 times as sweet as sugar you would only need 0.17% sucralose to 99.83% of the other stuff. TimBuck2 (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

that's correct. the concept behind splenda isn't that a tiny amount of sucralose is combined with an inert substance that has no calories, it's that it's combined with a sugar that can be fluffed up, so a gram of splenda has the same number of calories as a gram of sugar when compared by weight, but a teaspoon of splenda weighs far less than a teaspoon of sugar when compared by volume. -无名氏- 00:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

unbalanced

I added the unbalanced tag to this article, half of it is devoted to saying that it is unsafe... which seems pretty unbalanced to me. Of course the article needs to mention such issues, but the section could do with trimming down a little, or the rest expanded.... --UltraMagnus (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you on this one. As far as I'm concerned, be bold and trim it down, and we'll see how it goes. I think especially the whole discussion of rat thymus effects could be well summarised in one short sentence, and the long quote from the FDA as well, especially as it is cited. --Slashme (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a Wiki-guru, but half=unbalanced?? I came to the article looking for accurate info on the subject, and the only thing that I thought unusual was the "inaccurate or unbalanced" tag. Otherwise it seemed balanced to me. Jd4x4 (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent Journal Mention

A collection of recent journal articles related to Splenda health effects could be collected here. I will start with one...

Splenda Alters Gut Microflora and Increases Intestinal P-Glycoprotein and Cytochrome P-450 in Male Rats

Authors: Mohamed B. Abou-Donia ; Eman M. El-Masry ; Ali A. Abdel-Rahman ; Roger E. McLendon ; Susan S. Schiffman

"Evidence indicates that a 12-wk administration of Splenda exerted numerous adverse effects, including (1) reduction in beneficial fecal microflora, (2) increased fecal pH, and (3) enhanced expression levels of P-gp, CYP3A4, and CYP2D1, which are known to limit the bioavailability of orally administered drugs." Telltree (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is another article that could be integrated "Chairman of Citizens for Health Declares FDA Should Review Approval of Splenda" [1] MaxPont (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Splenda vs Equal

In the opening paragraph there are stats comparing Splenda to Equal, but since Equal has generic equivilents and at the time Splenda didn't, I don't think it's a fair comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.214.184 (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(moved new section to bottom per convention) I don't know of any policy that says Wikipedia has to be "fair". It is a properly cited fact describing Splenda overtaking the previous top selling brand of sweetener. -Verdatum (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Only safe artificial sweetener?

The article says that sucralose is the only artificial sweetener deemed "safe" by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, but one of the article's own sources, directly from the CSPI, also lists neotame as safe. Neotame is also an artifical sweetener. See "safe" list (May 2008) here: http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/additives.pdf.

76.19.14.53 (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The CSPI seems to contradict itself because in the other link they say "The only artificial sweetener to get a “safe” grade is sucralose (Splenda). " TimBuck2 (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of high dose animal studies

This article seems to focus quite a bit of detail on animal studies that suggest some safety concerns. But the relevance of these very high dose animal studies to much lower consumption in humans is nowhere to be found. Sucralose is considered the safest of artificial sweeteners, but a casual reader would not get that impression from the current focus on minute details of studies that really aren't important in terms of consumer safety. TimBuck2 (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Biodegradable??

Maybe this goes without saying, but is this chlorinated complex readily biodegradable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.12.166 (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In the environmental section of the article, it states "sucralose is digestible by a number of microorganisms and is broken down once released into the environment". TimBuck2 (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is sucralose stable and unreactive?

In its organic chemical structure, sucralose has two primary alkyl chlorides and one secondary alkyl chloride. The carbons attached to those chlorines should all be good electrophiles. Sucralose also contains several hydroxyl groups which should be good nucleophiles. The environment and the human body has many external nucleophiles that could react with sucralose. So, why doesn't sucralose react with itself to form tricyclic rings or dimers, trimers, etc. Also, why is it stable in the presence of water (even when heated)? Bob Widing, Department of Chemistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, bwiding@uic.edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.199.179 (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In general, chlorinated sugars are significantly less reactive as electrophiles than simple alkyl chlorides. Years ago, I encountered this problem in my research and looked into why this is the case. The reason, as far as I can tell, is that the electron-withdrawing functional groups (ethers and alcohols) adjacent to the C-Cl bond create a partial positive charge near the reacting center. The transition state of an SN2 reaction also involves developing a partial positive charge on the reacting carbon. These two adjacent partial positive charges are a destabilizing effect on the transition state which significantly reduces the reaction rate. The steric bulk (alpha-branching) also makes an additional significant contribution to reducing the reaction rate. Considering that the chemical environment of the body is just not terribly nucleophillic relative to what is achievable in a laboratory flask, chlorinated sugars turn out to be fairly inert biologically. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility is that the nearby electron-rich groups make nucleophilic attack less kinetically favorable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.156.15 (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

First sentence sounds like a company press release

Is it necessary to state in the very first sentence that it is a product that does not promote tooth decay? Did J&J write that in? The tooth decay aspect should occur later in the article. --199.52.13.103 (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the article, you can see that it was just me that added it. No need to imagine something sinister. Seemed like a good idea to me at the time, but if you think there is a better place for that statement, go ahead and move it. TimBuck2 (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Compound vs. brandname

This article seems to conflate sucralose (a molecular compound) with Splenda (a granular food additive containing a tiny fraction of sucralose). The Splenda stuff could really do with moving to its own Splenda (sweetner) article and then it can rant and rave about competition with Equal (sweetner) all it likes. —Sladen (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Or both Splenda and Equal (and any other brands) could be discussed (briefly) in a dedicated section of this article.

Ben (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, for the moment (because of the sheer bulk of Splenda coverage) I've split[2] that to a separate article and also named SucraPlus as being another brandname for bulked up pseudo-granular domestic form—Equal (sweetener) appears to be a mix of aspartame, dextrose and maltodextrin rather than sucralose-based.

Please can people review/tweak both of the split articles to ensure that they still make adequate sense. The Splenda article content can be considered under WP:SPAM separately from the Sucralose content. —Sladen (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Environmental Effects: Organochlorides

Also, a variety of a simple chlorinated hydrocarbons including dichloromethane, chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride have been isolated from marine algae. ...And?

This sentence seems rather superfluous without any elaboration. Especially given that simple chlorinated hydrocarbons are rather different to a large bicyclic compound. --128.243.220.21 (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hyper-Sensitivity to Sucralose?

Are there studies about hyper-sensitivity to sucralose? I can pick it out of most every food I've had it in, and quite frankly the aftertaste is sour/bitter and makes the food uneatable for me. It really bothers me especially since it's not displayed on the main packaging, but rather only in the ingredients. Even in "regular fat" and non-"low sugar" foods, sucralose is present and ruins the product for me. Freddicus (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No studies that I know of, but I have the same issue with sucralose. It does not taste sweet to me, and triggers migraines. bobthecow (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternative brands

Sucralose sweeteners are also produced under the brand name Cukren by the Czech company IRBIS. Their low-calorie sweetener tablets are produced at pharmaceutical standards.

the above was added by user:Irbiscukren guess signbot is slacking.

I removed the manufacturer information you added because it didn't really fit in the "product uses" section. It may be best to add it to the history section if you know the date it was released, although please try to cite a wp:reliable source when you do.--UltraMagnus (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotal reports and WP:NPOV

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is our policy for all articles. I assume there is no dispute about the plentiful anecdotal reports of distress caused by sucralose consumption. Yet there is no mention in the article of these reports. Don't be misled into thinking that because they are "not scientific" they do not belong in our encyclopedia. The existence of the reports is undisputed and easily sourced. That the article makes no mention of them is clear evidence of undue weighting of the article content. Because this has been raised on this talk page repeatedly, I am flagging the article with {{press release}}. (Disclaimer: I have no affiliation whatsoever with the food or chemical industries. Please feel free to state your own affiliations in any responses to this concern!) (sdsds - talk) 20:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As an editor that has worked with many articles on chemicals, the consensus seems to be to use Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) as the relevant policy when it comes to sections describing the positive and negative health effects of chemicals (such as pharmaceuticals, food additives, pesticides, etc.). So that is probably the best place to get guidance about whether specific anectodal reports should be referenced. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to revert[3] the spam tag. I'm quite happy to believe that there may be issues with individual parts of the article—as it stands the article has a huge number of reliable and high-quality citations used to support it assertions (documented facts). If there's the odd sentence that needs improving, please tag it with {{vague}} or {{cn}}, or better still, find a reliable source for what you're eager to see, click edit, and contribute to the article directly. Were there any particular (specific) words, sentences or paragraphs that you feel could benefit from more work? —Sladen (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The article does not meet the requirements of WP:DUE. The cited source regarding sucralose as a migraine trigger is unduly obscured in the "Other potential effects" section; it is due a section (or at least subsection) of its own. Further, the assertions that sucralose (or splenda) have a laxative effect are not even mentioned in the article. Yet even the Health Services department of Columbia University see fit to mention it in their information! See http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/3276.html. These kinds of warnings may not deserve a statement that sucralose (or splenda) causes the effect; the warnings, however, are themselves due a mention! (sdsds - talk) 01:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The digestive problems that are well known for some artificial sweeteners are only for ones that are used in bulk (sorbitol, in particular). Since sucralose itself is so sweet, it is not used in bulk - it is only added to foods in tiny quantities. Splenda, however, is used in bulk because it contains mainly carbohydrates such as maltodextrin. So maybe this kind of information would be best added to the Splenda article, or maybe to maltodextrin, rather than here. Deli nk (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Discovery of Sucralose

It seems that sucralose was discovered in the process of trying to create a new insecticide, and indeed has the same chemical structure as many insecticides, herbicides, etc. (covalent bond between Cl and C). Given that the there is a section on the history and discovery of sucralose, this seems worthy of mention. This seems to be in many resources, including the book Sweet Deception by a UCSF doctor (who presumably cites his sources); meta reference here: [4]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.77 (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The line "On a late-summer day, Phadnis was told to test the powder." seems out of place and could be expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe2832 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sucralose does in fact break down?

I've heard from various sources that sucralose does in fact break down in the body into small amounts of 1,6-dichlorofructose - that's why it actually tastes sweet when you put it in your mouth. Can anyone confirm or deny - and add to the article as appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.223.111 (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Small edit for neutrality

I took out "Unlike aspartame" in the first section as mentioning aspartame, a competitor, does not expand upon sucralose in any way and only serves to cast aspartame as inferior by comparison. It isn't needed and screams POV. Mattbrown04 (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Flagging for POV

After reading through the talk page and looking carefully through the history, it seems that there has been a de facto effort to remove all health criticisms or conflicting studies about this product. As a result, the entirety of criticisms have been removed or taken out of context and the tone of most of the entry is a glowing endorsement. A quick glance at Wikiscanner shows edits straight from Johnson & Johnson, the manufacturer of Splenda and there seems to be some WP:COI edits going on by people who work in the industry, although I'll assume good faith and let the offending parties speak up if they have a COI to disclose. The "Criticism and controversy" section has been suspiciously purged via attrition, most notably the US Sugar Associations' criticisms, the complaints made to the FTC and FDA, as well as Whole Foods Market's stance on not carrying any products with sucralose. I see that there was a call for a discussion, and when no one replied to this one-sided "debate" the material was quietly removed. Discussions and debates don't happen overnight, and acting unilaterally without waiting for feedback does not help facilitate a balaced 'pedia. Consensus is reached through negotiation, not polls or voting. Polling discourages consensus. (See WP:POLLS) There is material at Sugar substitute that appears to be a POV Fork which needs to be re-added to this entry.

I'm not going to wholesale re-add the redacted material, but I am flagging this entire entry as POV until there is at least a token effort to appear non-partisan. - Editor6212578 (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree that this article is written from a partisan point of view. In fact, more than half of the article is devoted to potential health risks, natural alternatives, litigation, controversy and criticism. Sucralose is gaining popularity, being preferred over other artificial sweeteners, in part because there is less evidence of health dangers. If anything, I think this article needs some expansion in the areas such as the "cooking" section, which might help to explain why the use of sucralose is apparently growing so much.

As for your accusations of conflict of interest edits by Johnson&Johnson, I don't see anything. According to Wikiscanner, only four edits in the entire history of this article have come from IPs belonging to J&J (unless I'm missing something). And each of those edits looks good to me - certainly none of them involved removing any criticism. As for "offending parties" and "people who work in the industry", I don't see any registered users that seem to be pushing a pro-sucralose agenda. Please don't make vague unsubstantiated accusations: Who exactly are you referring to? Deli nk (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the article as misrepresentative either. The instructions for the POV template say "Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute" and the person who placed the flag on the article does not seem to have come to the discussion, so I have removed it (at least for now). TimBuck2 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is not dictated by editors who park on their favorite entries and dictate to others that their opinions and perceptions are the only valid ones ( POV pushing.) The issue is not resolved, the template was inappropriately removed. I clearly stated why I feel that the article is biased, mentioning the unilateral removal of the "Criticism and controversy" section the creation of the content fork over at Sugar substitute and am calling for further feedback from uninvolved editors. TimBuck2, you have given your opinion on how this entry is wholly neutral and unbiased. Great. Now allow others to give feedback, no matter how long it takes. Please do not remove tags without meaningful discussion. We cannot all perch on our watchlist and monopolize the content. - Editor6212578 (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

64.72.48.213 (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Mostly as a non-biased reader (although I am also a research scientist with a government agency) this article frequently Is reading as a NON-NEUTRAL (i.e., advertisement) for sucralose or the 'complete' safety of sucralose. I think any previously written criticisms on sucralose should not have been deleted, but should have been left in the article and moved to an area of the article called 'disputed positions' or something like that. Blatant removal of criticisms is a sign of article manipulation in order to sell a certain POV.

What the hell are you talking about? I haven't "parked" on this article, I haven't dictated that my opinions are the only valid ones, I haven't prevented others from giving feedback, I haven't monopolized any content... What's with all the preposterous accusations??? I removed the tag according to the instructions for its use. The different one that you have now added back seems more appropriate. If you are going to make any reasonable contribution to Wikipedia, I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's assume good faith policy - Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Making reckless accusations is not consistent with Wikipedia's collaborative environment. TimBuck2 (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree that this article slants one way or another. As a food scientist I have no particular affinity or complaint about this particular product and I feel that both sides of the argument are present for review. The only portion of the article that I have a reservation about is the "anecdotal reports of allergic reactions..." either show the evidence of these or delete this from the article. Foodfairy (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that I also think the article presents a reasonable and balanced view of sucralose. It presents in a neutral way both the positives and negatives. There has been plenty of discussion on this talk page dealing with various issues pertaining to content in the article and I don't find any evidence of any persistent problems that weren't dealt with. Also, I find the accusations of misbehavior described by Editor6212578 to be completely unfounded and inappropriate. The NPOV tag has been on the article for more than a month, and there seems to be a clear consensus that the article doesn't currently have a problem, so I'm going to remove the tag now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I just feel like mentioning that even if this article doesn't declare health criticisms or conflicting studies, maybe it's because they're weren't reliable ones, if you can ever prove there were some added. And second, Johnson and Johnson, a maker of the product, is suspect for being bias, yet the Sugar Association apperantly has no bias? Unless you can make an argument based on publicly available studies showing this product is harmful, in contrast to the plenty of studies added to the article that show it isn't, the science overwhelmingly shows this product is not harmful in reasonable (under GRAMS per day) amount in humans, even when taken for months to years at a time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.97.220 (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

How is sweetness measured quantitatively?

I always thought of sweetness as a qualitative matter (e.g. I enjoy many candies that my mother thinks are sickeningly sweet), but this article clearly treats it as something that can be measured quantitatively (e.g. "3.3 times as sweet as aspartame"). Could we please specify how sweetness is measured quantitatively in the article, perhaps with a link to an article about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.92.148 (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Subjectively and statistically, using large groups of humans—the result being a relative measurement against some arbitrary substance (eg. sucralose). Also see Saccharimeter and Brix. —Sladen (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

How certain is it that the chlorine can be ignored?

The article dismisses any toxic effect of this chlorocarbon by citing studies showing that it's not readily absorbed in the gut or into fatty tissue. Yet many chlorine compounds, both organic (Lindane, DDT, toxaphene, chlordane, aldrin, endrin,^[1] PVC) and inorganic (KCl, NH4Cl, ZnCl2) are systemically poisonous, that is, not requiring either digestion or storage in fatty tissue.

Another question regards a structural comparison of the bond energy and angle configurations of sucralose and insecticides. is the configuration of sucralose more stable and hence less likely to be poisonous than that of insecticides? It sounds reasonable, but needs citation.

I would think more research to help the article address more fully the health implications of sucralose is very much called for. Sucralose has a steep adoption curve and has become a large dietary component in "Western" cultures very quickly. Any deleterious effects would have unfortunate consequences.

I'd do the research myself, but I have no qualifications in this area or sufficient spare time. The issue of establishing the safety of sucralose is clearly a very important one, so this reminder may be apt.

^ CURRENT Medical Diagnosis & Treatment 2010.

David Spector (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The article does not "dismiss it"—the peer-reviewed scientific papers that the article cites "dismiss it". If you can find a reliable source (WP:RS) to back up your assertions, you can add it. —Sladen (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of the "bad" chlorocarbons that give chlorocarbons a bad name are fat-soluble. This leads to drug-like properties, except that they're toxic. The water solubility of sucralose gives it radically different properties. The chloride ion itself is not toxic. You're not correct about those salts being toxic because of their chlorine content, it's the cation that's responsible for their immediate effects. The lead up to the argument is not convincing, i.e.. Furthermore, the body does not recognize sucralose as a sugar; it is mostly excreted. According to this article, the body seems to treat sucralose as a xenobiotic alcohol, not a sugar, since its metabolites are glucose conjugates. Similar reactions occur to other "foreign bodies" that contain hydroxyl groups. The article is full of safety info already and oodles and oodles more could be ladled from journals, so I don't see the point in any scaremongering. --vuo (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that it is not toxic "at small doses" seems contradictory. Either it is toxic or not. At very small doses you would not suffer adverse reactions to mercury but it is still toxic. 97.91.171.122 (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Because everything is toxic at some dose, the word becomes meaningless without some qualification. So describing something as "non-toxic at small doses" is quite reasonable in the non-technical setting of an encyclopedia geared toward a general audience. In a technical setting, more quantitative descriptors (LD50, for example) would be preferable. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sensitivity to dextrose?

"Allergic reactions to sucralose have not been documented, but individuals sensitive to either maltodextrin or dextrose should consult a physician about using any sweeteners containing these fillers."

Dextrose is simply D-glucose. Being sensitive to D-glucose, in any meaningful sense of the word "sensitive", is just about physiologically impossible. Even type 1 diabetics don't need to worry about dextrose in the quantities found as filler in artificial sweeteners. Or am I missing something here? Yaush (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, doesn't sound very likely (perhaps the editor was thinking about fructose malabsorption?) and it's not supported by a source. The wording seems to be stemming from this edit. Since it lacks a source I'd suggest removing it for now.--Six words (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Googling the phrase "maltodextrose sensitivity" turns up some medical/nutrition-related hits. Searches on "dextrose sensitivity", however, turn up nothing of significance in terms of human health as far as I can tell. So I have removed "or dextrose" from the cited phrase. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sensitivity to dextrose?

"Allergic reactions to sucralose have not been documented, but individuals sensitive to either maltodextrin or dextrose should consult a physician about using any sweeteners containing these fillers."

Dextrose is simply D-glucose. Being sensitive to D-glucose, in any meaningful sense of the word "sensitive", is just about physiologically impossible. Even type 1 diabetics don't need to worry about dextrose in the quantities found as filler in artificial sweeteners. Or am I missing something here? Yaush (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, doesn't sound very likely (perhaps the editor was thinking about fructose malabsorption?) and it's not supported by a source. The wording seems to be stemming from this edit. Since it lacks a source I'd suggest removing it for now.--Six words (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Googling the phrase "maltodextrose sensitivity" turns up some medical/nutrition-related hits. Searches on "dextrose sensitivity", however, turn up nothing of significance in terms of human health as far as I can tell. So I have removed "or dextrose" from the cited phrase. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Small edit for neutrality

I took out "Unlike aspartame" in the first section as mentioning aspartame, a competitor, does not expand upon sucralose in any way and only serves to cast aspartame as inferior by comparison. It isn't needed and screams POV. Mattbrown04 (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

complete,blatant lack of neutrality

its obvious that whomever is writing and re-writing this article works for the makers of sucralose. it is completely biased and should be tagged as such, then rewritten and locked. There are literally thousands of websites with hundreds of thousands of complaints from people about this product, yet to read the article you would never know it. Theres also not enough information about lawsuits that have been filed against the makers of this product. There is also little mention of all the types of products you would find this substance in. And There is no mention of why its being put into products that already contain sugar, and food items most would never expect, like bread and microwave popcorn, for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gawdsmak (talk • contribs) 08:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Websites with complaints generally aren't considered reliable sources here, and we cannot create original content (i.e. include our own opinion/knowledge). If there are reliable sources telling us about lawsuits or explaining why sucralose is used in combination with sugar, the article can mention it. --Six words (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If anything, this article is biased against sucralose. A large portion of the article discusses animal studies that are of little importance to human health issues. Studies in rats and mice can be useful to point to potential health hazards. Sometimes the same effects are found in humans, but often they are not. Once observations in humans have been made, as is the case with sucralose, the animal studies are completely irrelevant. The fact that they are mentioned in this article gives the false impression that those animal studies are important, and indicate safety problems with sucralose, when in fact the exact opposite has been shown to be true. If we want the article to be neutral, references to the animal studies should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.89.95 (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit for Neutrality

In the last section Other potential effects I think this sentence: "Another report suggests sucralose was a possible trigger for some migraine patients." is too speculative. The sentence is only backed by one study as opposed to a number of different research findings that come to the same or a similar conclusion. The entire section could be considered too ambiguous to be included in the Sucralose entry, but at the very least I think this sentence could be removed.

Does anyone have any insight? Appreciate your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatCray (talk • contribs) 20:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is all that relevant for the reasons you state. In fact, I think much of what is listed in the "Other potential effects" section and the "Thymus" section should be removed too because they include only items that are entirely speculative in terms of whether they are relevant at all to humans. TimBuck2 (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Another request to edit for neutrality

I agree with some of the other discussions in the talk archives that this may be a biased article.

The first reference used in the article is the Web site sucralose.org. This site, which contains no negative information about sucralose, is operated by "The Calorie Control Council" and claims to provide science-based information about sucrolose. The site's domain name administrative contact is Johnson & Johnson (the manufacturer of Splenda). Assuming J&J runs the site, isn't it a conflict of interest to use it as a reference? At the very least, shouldn't this be clearly noted?

Other references are for studies conducted by McNeil Nutritionals (a Johnson & Johnson company), and at least one by Cantox, a for-profit consulting firm for McNeil. I'm fine with using them as references, but again I'm wondering if this should be clearly noted. Any good newspaper article would go out of its way to disclose a conflict of interest like this. There's a difference between a study, and a study done by a company that has financial interest in the outcome of that study. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.31.105.56 (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, we should use high quality sources (i.e. scholarly sources and news sources), but if a source is OK also depends on what it is used for. As far as I can see, those sources are used for pretty uncontroversial statements (that it's a non-caloric sweetener; when, where and how it was discovered; in how many state it has been approved), so I don't think there's a conflict of interest here (there might be with the Cantox source - which one is that?). --Six words (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Before the FDA approves a food additive, it requires the manufacturer to conduct safety studies. Therefore, much of the scientific data available for sucralose will be, by necessity, published by McNeil. If the study is published in a peer-reviewed journal, any concerns associated with the inherent conflict of interest are minimized by the fact that the methods and conclusions are reviewed by independent scientific experts before publication. Such articles meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. Ideally, Wikipedia should rely on secondary sources, such as reviews by regulatory agencies (FDA, European Food Safety Authority, etc.) some of which are referenced in our article, and since there doesn't appear to be anything from these regulatory agencies that contradict the primary sources, I don't think we are using any of the primary sources inappropriately. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Chlorinated substances

I removed this paragraph because the whole point of the paragraph is to say that nothing in the paragraph is relevant. The information is therefore quite useless.72.94.61.91 (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sucralose belongs to a class of compounds known as organochlorides (or chlorocarbons). Some organochlorides, particularly those that accumulate in fatty tissues, are toxic to plants or animals, including humans. Sucralose, however, is not known to be toxic in small quantities and is extremely insoluble in fat; it cannot accumulate in fat like chlorinated hydrocarbons. In addition, sucralose does not break down or dechlorinate. The chemistry of organochlorides differs from that of inorganic chlorine salts. Therefore, comparisons of sucralose to the safety of chloride salts, such as those made by the International Food Information Council (IFIC), are not relevant.

Weight Gain

I have flagged the paragraph under "Weight Gain" as needing citation, however due to the massive spelling errors, biased language (i.e., "unfortunately") and reference to a substance irrelevant to the discussion (Stevia), it may need to be removed entirely. Laurathecarrot (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Laurathecarrot

We (edit conflict)ed there...I removed it essentially for the same reasons. Substantial uncited health advice and drawing comparison with claimed common-lore that is also uncited. It also made changes regarding the metabolism and caloric content that directly contradict the cited sources given for them. DMacks (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Taste

The article makes no mention of the perceived taste of sucralose. Some references to subjective observations and objective testing would be useful. Anecdotally, it is known that many consumers find the sweetener to have an unpleasant aftertaste. algocu (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Other Potential Effects

This section is a bit confusing. The Duke University study concluded there might be health effects, but Duke University said the study was not rigorous? Some clarifications of the individual parties within Duke would be helpful. Andy Kass (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Center for Science in the Public Interest downgrades Sucralose safety

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a nonprofit watchdog group, said today that it was downgrading its safety rating of sucralose from "safe" to "caution," meaning that the additive "may pose a risk and needs to be better tested." This should be integrated in the article. Ref: Fox News: [5] CSPI press release: [6] MaxPont (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You might want to add it to the CSPI article. I do not think however that the organization is of such significance that their recommendations should be mentioned here or in articles about other food products upon which they comment.

user ee1518 comments: The Question is, how reliable CSPI is? If it is a reliable source of information, then the information they give should be included in this article AND other articles.

If the reliability is questionnable, then of course it should not be included in the article as there are many Wikipedia readers who believe anything they read, even if we write "this is a very unreliable organization". ee1518 (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.foodprocessing-technology.com/projects/tateandlyle/
Triggered by \bfoodprocessing-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This conclusion doesn't quite follow from the premise....

"Furthermore, in its pure state, sucralose begins to decompose into polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and other highly toxic substances at temperatures above 119 °C or 246 °F. Thus, in some baking recipes, such as crème brûlée, which require sugar sprinkled on top to partially or fully melt and crystallize, substituting sucralose will not result in the same surface texture, crispness, or crystalline structure." [I would think you should be concerned about poisoning yourself. And doesn't follow that you shouldn't bake at all with it, as baking cakes and cookies usually requires temperatures around 350 degrees F?]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.34.51 (talk) 03:47 &48, 27 June 2014

Regarding the more general question about cakes and cookies, the oven is 350 °F. The internal temperature of the item being cooked doesn't get anywhere near that hot (unless you burn your dessert). See [7] and [8] for some discussions recommending up to low 200's (°F) for baking. DMacks (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless the IP who asked is a physical scientist, or a pretty serious baker, they should be dissatisfied with that response and ask why anyone goes to all the trouble of heating the oven to 280° above room temperature rather than just, say, boiling (about 140° above RT). I think the unstated element of this is heat flow thru air, which for any given oven temp limits the speed at which cooking can progress. Note our perhaps unstated conventional wisdom that blowing hot dry air (say, on your skin) is a much slower way to transfer heat (to you) than squirting (or even briefly splashing) hot or boiling water on you, or (still more rapidly) steam (which is far more scalding than the so-called "steamy" visible moisture you see not far above the spout of a boiling teapot). Likewise, you can boil an egg (supplying heat via already boiling water) much faster than you can bake it -- outside its shell, please! -- in even much hotter air.

The reason that baked goods (and cooked meats) are much darker on the outside, than barely inside the surface, is that air in a very thin boundary layer next to the food is cooled (primarily by evaporation of water from the food into the air) to probably within a degree or two above boiling, while the interior of the food stays, until the surface layer is utterly dry, nearly as cool as it started (tho it gradually gives up moisture to shallower regions). The purpose of heating the bulk of the air so hot is to keep heat flowing into the air boundary layer (and thence into, successively, what will become the crust on baked goods, and the deeper interior of the food) fast enuf to keep the surface layer of the food close to (rather than significantly below) the boiling point in spite of the effective loss (due to evaporation) of heat (the heat of vaporization) within the oven. (Note that this "loss" does not violate conservation of energy; the heat shows itself again whenever the the moisture condenses -- e.g. warming the surface on which it condenses -- and in theory you can use it to produce energy, e.g. in an probably non-commercially-viable analog of a steam engine.) The recipes have been developed by collective experience, presumably via trial and error by ancient and medieval cooks in many cases, and, with additional trial and error needed to translate traditional knowledge into successive management techniques efficient for better ovens. As technology advanced, it was eventually worth translating such knowledge into numbers, reflecting which time/temp combinations produce a dense soggy mess, which a pleasant dish, and which a scorched mess. There may be, according to the guesses my physics and chem can support,

cases where one temp and time combination produces the ideal result according to the recipe writer's taste,
others where the temp is the highest (among the round numbers commonly marked on oven thermostats) consistent with the best-quality result -- in order to finish the baking in the shortest time, and
still others where they have specified a highest time likely to be acceptable to their expected audience, even if some longer baking times at respectively lower temps would improve the quality of the result.

Hopefully there's a WP article (or a few, jointly) elucidating that as well or better, but it's worth the effort of anyone who notices it to link from here to that article. If not, someone should either fix the appropriate article(s), or link those articles' talk pages to this talk page and section. (I might get to that, but no promise -- and i haven't unless i note it here.)
--Jerzy•t 07:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

More risks

See http://www.prevention.com/food/healthy-eating-tips/health-risks-sucralose . Jidanni (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Sucralose. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The Swedish dead link corrections appear not to have been made, which is about right because they get 404's. I'm striking them out. - 173.21.216.98 (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

New safety study: "Thermal degradation of sucralose"

Hi there!

I've just found a recent research that might change the "Safety studies" section considerably... "Thermal degradation of sucralose: a combination of analytical methods to determine stability and chlorinated byproducts", at http://www.nature.com/articles/srep09598 .

According to this study, "These findings not only corroborate the suspected instability of sucralose to high temperatures, but also indicate that even exposed to mild conditions the formation of hazardous polychlorinated compounds is observed." Also, "we found strong evidence that PCAHs are formed from sucralose at boiling-water temperatures (up to 98°C), which is the usual temperature reached when preparing hot beverages such as tea or coffee."

Since I'm no expert in the subject, I'll leave any article changes to other editors.

AltoRetrato (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDRS, we do not commonly report on individual studies when it comes to health or medical concerns, and prefer to rely on rigorous secondary sources such as systematic reviews or reports from authoritative bodies such as the CDC or WHO. Additionally, this study, while in a highly reputable journal, doesn't make a judgment as to the safety (or lack thereof), simply presents evidence that sucralose degrades under certain conditions. Whether that degradation is of immediate health concern to consumers is not specified. This means the study appears to be preliminary, and further analysis would need to be completed to determine this. Usually when sufficient corroborating evidence of this has been published, we would see recognition by large authoritative bodies or in systematic reviews of the substance.  Adrian^[232] 22:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

How safe is sucralose? Why not to use pure sucralose?

1) How safe is, in fact, sucralose?
2) Is sucralose sold as a pure substance?
3) Why add potassium acesulfame to sucralose? (Potassium acesulfame has been reported as eventually carcinogenic...)

I have observed a lot of named sucralose-based products, which show potassium acesulfame as flavour complement.

4) Why not to use sucralose as a pure substance, with only some essential agregated vehicles, if necessary?
Aainitio (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Most of those questions are answered in the article, with citations. I'd additionally like to point out that this is not a forum and also not a place for medical advice. You can try your luck at Wikipedia:Reference desk.  Adrian^[232] 20:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all. Aainitio (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight given to possible weight gain

This is something that's been barely studied, and it was a sexy headline in the popular press. This is not something that has to do with sucralose specifically, yet an unduly large portion of this article is dedicated to it. That content might merit a mention here, but I don't think it belongs in the lead. Any mention should lead to the sugar substitute article, which itself mentions "a possible association of routine consumption with weight gain and risk of heart disease," referring to the same source given in this sucralose article. One meta-analysis suggesting a possible association is not worthy of an encyclopedia. It is fear-mongering, and we should not support that.

The gold-standard studies (randomized control trials, RCTs) did not show an effect, only the cohort studies did, and the average BMI difference was 0.77. This is not a matter of obesity. This is a matter of a clinically meaningless amount of body fat that was not likely added because of the artificial sweeteners. It was more likely because of the lifestyles of people who are most likely to use them, or some other factor that was not measured. Or it's just a statistical blip. Here's a telltale quote from the source: "Overall, there was limited evidence for the effect of nonnutritive sweeteners on BMI, with 3 long-term cohort studies suggesting a modest increase in BMI that was not confirmed in 2 RCTs." If the RCTs don't confirm the data, it's probably no good. It reads like that through the article's weight section as well, though only statistical significances are given, not actual weight differences or anything clinically meaningful. Remember, statistical significance is not clinical difference. Remember also that correlation is not causation.

The biggest factor in the discussion of removing this information from this article is that neither sucralose nor Splenda is mentioned in the source as a nonnutritive sweetener used in any of the studies analyzed. The source does not establish relevance to this article. Dcs002 (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

After nine days with no comment or response, I made the changes to the article so the information given is in line wit the source. Given the tenuous nature of the evidence and that the magnitude of the effect, if real, is very small, I removed it from the lead as well. It gives weak evidence undue weight. It doesn't belong there. Dcs002 (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why this "though not mentioning sucralose specifically" was added. Source specifically mention sucralose three times[9] What source says a BMI increase of 0.77 is "meaningless"

Meta analysis are high quality sources. Not sure why one would not mention it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The result of the meta-analysis was inconclusive. That is why it is of limted value, and it certainly should not be in the lead. Not based on the source given. The text, as you reverted it, also assumes that people generally consume sucralose in an effort to lose weight. What is that based on? This text argues against something that has not been established as relevant. (I use it to enjoy sweet snacks and beverages while controlling my diabetes. I have no interest in losing weight, nor would a BMI change of 0.77 bother me.)

Sucralose was mentioned as an example of a nonnutrtive sweetener (not zero-calorie sweetener), not as a specific sweetener used in any particular study regarding weght. That makes it even less relevant as a source for a comment on its potential effect on weight.

A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies under analysis. "Garbage in, garbage out" is a sayng among researchers. In this case, ambiguous in, ambguous out. The conclusion was ambiguous, and that means nothing scentfically. It means "not significant."

I did not wrte in the article that a BMI change of 0.77 was meaningless, so I didn't source that statement. Since you asked, here's my rationale: The dfference between obesity and "healthy weight" is a BMI of 5.0. Calle et all (N Engl J Med. 1999 Oct 7;341(15):1097-105.) showed mortality figures based on BMI, and 0.77 was just over half the distance between any two data points they measured. They had nearly a mllion subjects in that study. A change of 0.77 mght or might not be enough to move into a different cohort, but the difference is slight. Data have shown a meaningful benefit of a 10% change, but 0.77 doesn't get you there. I am not just using amateur logic here either. I am well-educated in the field, and I have reviewed (and published) many papers like this. That is of course meaningless regarding the article's content, but you asked about why I said it was clinically meaningless in this discussion. I was an obesty researcher for 8 years with a PhD in nutrition, though I left obesity research some time ago.

This article should not be a forum for fearmongering. Interpreting this meta-analysis as anything but an unanswered question is unwarranted (as the authors assert), and it can spread fear of sucralose. That is not founded in the source, or anywhere else. Dcs002 (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

[1] CURRENT Medical Diagnosis & Treatment 2010.

[1]