Talk:Sucralose/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

How is it made?

Ok, good article, but what exactly is it made from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.198.83.186 (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sucralose in soft drinks

• Removed "Additionally, Coca-Cola and Pepsi released new versions of their colas (Coke C2 and Pepsi EDGE) replacing half of the traditional high fructose corn syrup with sucralose."

This isn't true. They just removed the real sugar.

Actually, you're wrong. Sucralose is included in the list of ingredients of C2. Jrkarp 02:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

on May 23, 2005 Diet 7UP will become the first leading diet lemon-lime carbonated soft drink to be reformulated with Splenda - rather a lot of qualifications there! 81.158.204.67 04:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Added links in the 7-UP information and added the Shasta information with links.

Coca-Cola hasn't had any real sugar (except for the Kosher variety) since the "return" of Classic Coke after the New Coke mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.136.146.33 (talk • contribs) 5 July 2005

Flavor?

What about flavor? Saccharin and other sweeteners have unpleasant after-tastes, does this affect sucralose as well (considering its close chemical relationship with sucrose - perhaps this isn't an issue)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.119.131.73 (talk • contribs) 23 August 2005

I just tasted sucralose in Minute Maid Light. It's the same awful taste, very similar to aspartame and it lingers for a good while. I don't get how people drink this. 72.139.78.26 02:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Medically, drinks containing added sugar aren't an option for some people. That's how people drink this.68.43.25.206 11:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Many (most?) Splenda products also use acesulfame K, which has an awful aftertaste. I find that things with Ace-K taste much much worse than things without it.Orbicular 13:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

We need to fix the current article. It doesn't mention that primary flavor (not aftertaste) is still a big issue for Splenda. It might be one of the best sugar substitutes, but it unanimously fails direct taste tests with plain, old sugar. Until we get a proper citation, you can test this for yourself. Cook two batches of the same recipe (e.g., cranberry sauce) at the same time and have people who don't even know that one is made with Splenda taste them both. 216.231.42.53 13:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The lack of significant bad aftertaste (relative to saccharin) is one of the reasons for this products substantial commercial success. Mjb10000 15:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a taste test (sponsored by Splenda/McNeil) that supported people liked blueberry muffins made with Splenda better. However, mine get soggy after a few days, so I either use the sugar blend or all sugar. --Moop stick | (Talk) 23:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have always suspected, personally, that *some people* will always taste the difference between this and sugar... but others don't. My mother quite happily puts Splenda in everything; I had to stop eating most of her desserts because they taste so chemical to me. It's like cilantro; to me it tastes like dish soap, but many people look at me like I'm crazy when I say that. It would be interesting to see if there's anything scientific out there about this. I really though that the 'Made from sugar so it tastes like sugar!' was a scam until I found out that my mother thought it tasted fine. 131.123.56.235 20:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, splenda tastes indistinguishable from sugar to me. But I find other artificial sweeteners completely distasteful. We all have different taste buds, I guess. Deli nk 20:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I too find the taste of Splenda (in Diet Rite, which does also contain Ace-K) "indistinguishable" from sugar. I put that in quotes because as a diabetic who prefers near-normal blood sugar, I avoid honest-to-goodness glucose-fructose whenever possible. There perceive no aftertaste. I wonder - could the aftertaste of different sugar substitutes (which almost is always described as "bitter" be related to the |PTC mutation? It certainly can't be the PTC mutation itself - about 70% of the population tastes PTC as bitter. But a similar mutation perhaps in a different protein in the taste buds?

I find that Splenda tastes quite good. There is definitely a bit of an aftertaste, but the delicious 0 calorie cream soda I'm drinking right now says it's worth it. I do find that the taste is nowhere near as bad as that of other fake sugars. !jim 04:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the after taste of Splenda is 1000x better than aspartame. Though the more you drink of both the less you can detect it.

Another thing to consider it that (I think) Splenda is much sweeter than aspertame on molar basis. I don't know if the 'extent' of the aspertame depends on the number of molecules of the sweeteners depends on the amount of the chemical, but it might, and this might explain why Splenda at least has less of an aftertaste the aspertame, or one that is undetectable for most people.

Personally, I prefer aspartame based products like Nutrasweet. I don't get a bitter aftertaste from it, like I do with sucralose based products like Splenda. Unfortunately, more and more products are being made with Splenda, and also unfortunately I have to consume them since I am on a suga restricted diet.Aoa8212 13:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Chlorine

The above claim that "the body has mechanisms for dealing with...chlorine" is misleading, especially when compared with the "chlorine" in table salt. Table salt contains "chloride", not chlorine, and definitely not primary alkyl chlorides such as sucralose. As a doctor, I can assure you that any basic Organic Chemistry textbook will tell you that primary alkyl chlorides such as sucralose are indeed reactive substrates and are not dealt with in customary fashion on a regular basis in metabolism. (preceding unsigned comment by 128.193.93.179 20:43, August 11, 2005 (UTC))

I removed this remark from the article since it's an editorial comment. Rhobite 20:43, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Before seeing this comment, I had the exact same reaction (minus the assertion of an MD degree), and changed the article to reflect the simple facts of chemistry. I happened to learn this fact from Neal Stephenson's Zodiac, rather than from Any Basic Organic Chemistry Textbook (had trouble even finding the author of that particular book...someone should really fix that link!), but it really is an important point that should be emphasized.--Joel 03:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The diagram shows the methoxy groups being substituted, not the hydrogen. Is this correct? Mark Saler 15:47, February 2006

The chemical structure image in this article is correct. Hydroxyl groups of sucrose are replaced with chlorine atoms (which in this case are less reactive as alkylating agents than a typical alkyl chloride). Edgar181 22:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Chlorine sodium hypochlorite is a cause. category:Organochlorides are a result, because it's easy to make the salt into a gas: Acidify it. I'm not a doctor, but I hav studied chemistry. I'll say that when I read the report of [1] Edmonton's water treatment conditions and result, I paid attention to how hard they were trying to minimize organochlorides and getting those results. As with just about anything, these things occur naturally, but not nearly as much as when people try to use them. Organochlorides, generally, are stable. Biological materials, generally, are not. To complicate matters, some organochlorides hav first-stage decomposition products, which means that they are *not* stable, but the closer you get to a carbon connected to chlorine, the more stable these products become. I'm not sure where you would find that information in print from a notable author. That information can be synthesized from information in Chemistry 250 textbooks, but in jeneral, training Chemists is a purpose opposed to telling them how danjerous their products are. I hav bleach at home. I rarely use it. I prefer borate for topical disinfectant. I prefer acetone or alcohol over that. The latter is available at a dollar store. Drying and heating are also effective against many microbes. Brewhaha@edmc.net 11:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Relative Risk

Is it worth comparing to other risks, e.g. mentioning that other food additives such as Olestra are considered greater health risks? Perhaps a diet food additive category would be appropriate. Ah, there already is one: [The food additives category] that includes Olestra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talk • contribs) 5 October 2005

I needed to edit your comment because the Talk page of Sucralose was getting automatically listed in the category instead of the article! Whoops! :) Applekid 22:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

INCOMPLETE QUOTATIONS

• Added

Moreover, the rats so fed were only 7-20% underweight Vs the average for the control group.

In this particular study rats who were severely starved to the point of 30% weight loss, but not fed Sucralose only had their thymus shrink by an average of 7%. Versus the 40% average thymus shrinkage for the rats that were fed 3% sucralose, and not starved. "The net conclusion from all this is, that both the Thymus shrinkage and the growth retardation caused by sucralose were enough to in each case disqualify sucralose from the marketplace."

Honestly guys, whether you are for, or against something, this is an encyclopedia, and should be treated as one. If an article is to be cited, then list ALL OF ITS FINDINGS. That study found a 40% shrinkage with it's highest dose sucralose group vs the 7% shrinkage with its starvation group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.43.237.183 (talk • contribs) 11 January 2006

Popularity?

Could someone please provide information regarding Splenda's popularity vs the other alt sweeteners?

Thanks!

-Z —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.203.184 (talk • contribs) 20 February 2006

Sucralose has been highly successful. The product is widely approved by regulatory authorities and used to sweeten over 4000 foods. Mjb10000 21:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Propel?

Check out this site...

http://www.holisticmed.com/splenda/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.179.81.78 (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is propel listed under branded uses, when it doesn't contain sucralose? Is it a typo in the description (which says sucrose) or an error to contain it? Długosz 7 April 2006

All the bottles of Propel I've seen have sucralose on the list of ingredients. Perhaps Propel didn't initially contain sucralose and you were looking at old bottles? Or perhaps you were confused by the fact that Propel also contains "sucrose syrup" much earlier in the ingredients list, with sucralose embedded in the list of additives? 198.184.20.94 13:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the KIWI-STRAWBERRY only lists sucrose syrup not sucralose and is nowhere on the label, and it was bought on 4-05-07.

This whole portion of the paragraph below does not make any sense and does not add anything to the entry. "This is because sucralose is a chlorocarbon. It has been said that the chlorine in sucralose is safe, because chlorine is normally present in nature. However, the most common form of chlorine in nature (as in table salt, sodium chloride) is as chloride ions (Cl-). On the other hand, the three chlorine atoms in sucralose are covalently bound to carbon."

Why mention this stupid comment about "chlorine...is safe because it is present in nature". Arsneic, mercury, strychnine and countless other toxic substances are present in nature, it does not mean they are safe. Sodium chloride has no chemical relationship to sucralos, so it is like comparing a rock to a battleship.

Safety

The example showing how animal studies can produce different results when compared to human trials was not balanced, showing only an example where animals can be poisoned by consuming a food item that is harmless to humans. I added the opposite situation, using Thalidomide as the example, which has no harmful effects in rat fetuses but causes deformities in human fetuses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.101.177 (talk • contribs) 4 May 2006

How about discussion of the symptoms that some people see using this product? I don't see any mention of that. Many people get very bad diarrhea using products that have this...

• • • Yes, its kind of like the symptoms people were reporting after consuming MSG**** I prefer hard evidence to anecdotal evidence.

Yes, "hard" clinical evidence is preferable to anecdotal evidence, but anecdotal evidence cannot simply be ignored - even if all it says is "we should do a more thorough study on this. This happens all the time in science I see - from questions about cholestrol and heart disease, to questions about hypothyroidism and arteriosclerosis, questions about whether vitamin K supplementation or taurine or boron supplementation could benefit osteoporosis (there is clinical evidence about taurine and vitamin K I know). There are reams of "anecdotal" evidence for the effectiveness of low-carb diets in diabetes (researchers take note: Dr. Richard K Bernstein would like to hear from you, and will share all his anonymized patient data with legitimate researchers..). Getting a bit more 'controversial' (if bringing up the dreaded 'lipid hypothesis' is not enough) there is enough 'anecdotal' evidence for the effectiveness of chelation, HBOT, methylcobalamin, and yes, vitamin K for SOME parts and kinds of autism disorder to at the least prompt the CDC to do a real honest-to-goodness study on the effectiveness of this - instead of simply letting ARI do all the 'quasi -research' on it, and then ignoring it because it's only 'anecdotal'. Hopefully this will soon change with the recent actions of the AAP, and other "recent developments".. But the point is, anecdotal evidence should not simply be exist because it is anecdotal. I believe aspertame was discovered because someone accidentally tasted it (I think Splenda may have been discovered the same way. I think Viagra was discovered by a serendipitous effect (we all know what that effect WAS) on healthy men in the Phase I trials. (My cousin worked for Pfizer, so this is technically here-say I suppose). All of these are "anecdotes". I don't think the inventor of aspertame, McNeil Nutritionals, or Pfizer is complaining though.. They simply followed through on these anecdotes with more formal study. In science, discoveries (for good and ill) are often made at least in part by such mistakes and 'anecdotes'. As humans, we proceed at our own caution if we forget that and only go down the roads of inquiry that have already been plowed for us..

"The acceptable daily intake for sucralose is 5 mg / kg of body weight per day."

I don't see how that's possible. This section of the article seems to suggest that most people should not even have one packet of Splenda per day. Nanten 23:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

thats because splenda packets are mostly dextrose or maltodextrin, so as to bulk up the packets. thats why you can use it 'cup for cup' when cooking, even though sucralose is 600x sweeter.--Skp2y F thorax 01:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that none of the statements made in the fourth paragraph (beginning with "Chlorine atoms are covalently bonded...") of the Safety section are supported by the reference given at the end of it ([10]). Even if one assumes the reference was given in support of the last statement made ("...sucralose does not break down or dechlorinate.") the statement is wrong based on the studies and conclusions I have seen, even in the article referenced. In humans (according to one study), at least, 2.6% of the ingested sucralose was found in metabolites in the urine, and 7.2% never passed out of the body in a measurable form (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10882816). Note the author lists are substantially similar. In light of this I think the paragraph should be removed, or at least the last sentence and misleading reference. In addition, the claim is directly refuted in the following paragraph. (168.253.135.250 18:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

I noticed that in the picture in this section, where sucralose and sucrose (normal sugar) are compared, sucrose is depicted wrongly (compare to the picture of it in its own article.) Big Paradox 09:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

To me, it appears that the sucrose depiction in this article is correct and so is the one in the sucrose article. This article uses skeletal formulas, while the image in the sucrose article is a Haworth projection. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I missed that. Sorry. 87.227.64.221 13:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

More studies to mention

Several studies are mentioned and commented on here: http://tsudonimh.livejournal.com/71327.html …The article would do well to have the studies mentioned, I think.—mjb 00:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"Sucralose danger" link

The "Sucralose danger" link under the "Criticism" heading of the "External links" section takes you to a page with a huge "Enter your email address" thing blocking the top part of the article. It's annoying and spammey with no close option. Is it really worth linking to it?

Commented out, page not available in UK. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sucralose in Non-Diet foods

Could somebody enlighten me as to why anyone would put sucralose in non-diet foods (many of which contain other sweeteners, ie sugar)? 172.193.41.99 05:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Think of Coca-cola C2. It was a mix of high fructose corn syrup and Splenda. It was marketed to people who wanted to reduce their calorie intake but didnt like the diet aftertaste that was associated with aspartame. --Moop stick | (Talk) 02:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Selection of sweeteners is based, in part, on taste and cost. Sugar and corn sweetener are used in various proportions depending on prices. The manufacturer using them wants to pay the minimum possible to make a producty that will sell. It is possible this strategy includes sweeteners like Splenda. If a baking company can save production costs on a batch of cookies (or whatever) by buying $100 worth of Splenda instead of $250 worth of sugar or corn syrup,the company will want to do that. Note the recent increase in corn prices due to ethanol demand for fuel. That translates into higher basic foodtstuff prices (higher prices for corn syrup).

21:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Raryel

Does anyone know about the effect of Splenda on diabetics? I'm having some trouble finding any info on this. I've read several places that it is safe for diabetics. Here is one place; http://www.ific.org/publications/brochures/sucralosebroch.cfm Techefnet 12:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The American Diabetes Association accepts sucralose as a safe substitute for sugar: http://www.diabetes.org/nutrition-and-recipes/nutrition/sweeteners.jsp 21:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Raryel

I just noticed that sucralose is in energy drinks claiming they have fruit juice in them. Why is this? I've noticed that in energy drinks that have sucralose in them, the vitamin content is much higher than those that do not have sucralose in them. They usually also have quite a bit of sugar in them too which is why this peaked my interest.(MGoers37 02:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC))

Structure = Slant in Final Paragraph?

The structure of the final paragraph leads to a probably unintentional tone of bias:

"Critics of sucralose often favor natural alternatives, including Xylitol (Birch sugar widely used during World War II), Malitol, Maltitol, Thaumatin, Isomalt (popular in some European countries), and the unapproved sweetener Stevia (widely used in Japan), which is sold on many sites claiming that sucralose is unsafe. In the US, Stevia can only be sold as a dietary supplement, not a sweetener, and it may not be sold at all in the UK."

I'm noticing particularly the conjunction of the facts that the "unapproved sweetener Stevia" is "sold on many sites claiming that sucralose is unsafe." While this may be true, it tends to malign poor Stevia (nothing to do with this article) and marginalize critics of Sucralose as peddlers of possibly dangerous "dietary supplements" entirely unavailable in other countries (I'm not sure what the final sentence contributes at all to this article except to bolster that argument.) It may very well be true that critics of sucralose are marginal, but there should be better evidence of it than selling Stevia (which not all of them do, I think?)

Again, my feeling is that this is largely a problem of structure, of trying to talk about two topics (critics and other substitutes) at once.

Thanks, Grammargal 11:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

i agree that thematically its kind of all over. the information about substitutes used by its critics is a nice addition, however. id suggest removing everything past "the unapproved sweetener Stevia (widely used in japan)." if we want to know more about stevia and its legality of sale, we can look it up ourselves. --Skp2y F thorax 01:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I might put discussion of alternatives into nothing but category:sweeteners, whether alternative or synthetic (I guess that the jeneral category is underpopulated). IMAO, fruit juice is an alternative for containing metabolites, minerals and enzymes, but I don't see how I could make any article on it avoid a point of view, much as introducing alternatives to alternatives opens more ground for POV.

BTW, I took out the paragraph trying to defend the filler in suckerlose, but maybe I should replace it with elaboration on the big strawberriess we see in Canada. Brewhaha@edmc.net 11:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Advocacy/critiscm external links

I'm wondering why there are so many links to advocacy and critism sites on this article. The debate does not seem to have been deemed worthy of significant content in the article itself. I've just removed one link that was placed there by the website marketing firm that created it. I'd like to get rid all of them since the links on their own seem to add little in the way of encycloedic value to the article. Other thoughts? --Siobhan Hansa 12:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

personally, i agree. after looking at the advocacy and criticism links, i found no cited, factual information other than what was already in this entry. the rest is all anecdotal. the premise behind the all splenda cookbook was interesting, but it failed even to talk about the differences between sugar and splenda in cooking in depth. beyond the difference in volume, its lack of carmelization, and it's volume, the article presents nothing. this is unfortunate because i think the cooking section needs work, but thats not exactly on topic. --Skp2y F thorax 11:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Accepted Daily Intake? BS

"The acceptable daily intake for sucralose is 5 mg / kg of body weight per day."

There's no way to find out how much sucralose is in a bottle of soda. Do you know why? It isn't listed on the bottles. Millions of people are drinking beverages, or eating foods that have more than that amount of sucralose per serving size. It doesn't make any sense and doesn't belong in the article. But if people are dumb enough to eat that stuff, I guess they might as well go over what's "accepted" for something that's detrimental to your health.

The Sucrose (sugar article indicates sugar weighs 1.59 grams/ml. 5 ml equals one teaspoon. The little yellow Splenda package shown in this article contains the sweetness equivalent of one teaspoon of sugar -- in other words, the yellow package is equal in sweetness to about 3 grams of sugar. The article states that sucralose is 600 times sweeter than sugar, so that yellow package contains about mg of sucralose. A 20 kg child would have to consume 20 packages to meet its limit. A 70 kg adult would need to consume 70. --A. B. 04:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You aren't getting the picture. Bottles of juice or soda, or cups of yogurt do not show the amount of mg of sucralose that they contain. They don't have tiny pictures of yellow packets saying, "Okay, boys and girls, this contains five packets of Splenda, so you can have 15 more today until you've reached your limit." That's my point. Also, some of us use pounds instead of kilograms, though I guess I should start carrying the formula and a calculator around with me.

70 packets = 3 cups of Splenda. Nobody should consume that much of any sweetner in a day. Really all you would need to do is compare how much sugar is in the regular product. In addition to that, most diet products that contain sucralose are usually mixed with Ace K or aspartame to reduce the cost of the product, so your not getting pure sucralose. I really wouldnt worry about how much sucralose you've consumed, as you probally wouldnt meet that limit most of the time. --Moop stick | (Talk) 16:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop this conversation. This talk page is not a forum for discussing the pros and cons of sucralose. It's for discussion related to improving this article. Please keep the conversation on track by focusing on the verifiable, published, significant opinions of experts in the subject, and how that information should be incorporated into the article. Your own ideas on what is healthy, appropriate, or possible to calculate are not appropriate subject matter for discussion on this page. Find another website if you are interested in pursuing this discussion. --Siobhan Hansa 18:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I think something should be added to the article to the effect of, "There isn't really a way to find out how much mg of Splenda is in a product, but you shouldn't worry since a 20 kg child won't reach its limit of 4/5 of a cup of Splenda. 4/5 a cup of Splenda has Xmg of Splenda.(And then have a table giving average mg amounts of things with Splenda in them: yogurt, soda, etc.)" Or just remove the part about the daily limit. Did I do my calculations right? And, what does "UTC" mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.38.242.66 (talk)

We're an encyclopedia and our articles are supposed to summarize the opinions of experts in the field, not our own thoughts or research. To get something like this in the article you need at least one citation saying basically the same thing from an expert in the field that has been published in a reliable source. Otherwise it's considered original research and not suitable for an article on Wikipedia. It's not something I've read a lot of experts being concerned about so I can't help you with finding a citation, though if you have heard similar and can provide more context I might have some ideas about appropriate places to search. UTC - Coordinated Universal Time, because editors can be from different time zones, publishing time in UTC is supposed to help you work out the relative time in your own timezone. For most every day purposes UTC is equivalent to Greenwich Mean Time. --Siobhan Hansa 21:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Dental Effects

I was curious to know whether or not any studies on sucralose's effect on teeth had been published; it would make for a useful addition to the safety section. Chubbles1212 08:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are studies at[2]. Splenda does not support bacterial growth, and rats fed sucralose vs sucrose had 10-20 fold lower levels of S. mutans. --Moop stick | (Talk) 20:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Whole Foods Market advertisement

I can't understand why the Wikipedia community allowed a clearly blatant advertisement for Whole Foods Market to reside here for so long masquarading as encyclopedic information. Here's what was in the article:

The food retailer Whole Foods Market has made an official policy statement of not carrying products containing sucralose in any of its stores. Their main argument for the decision is safety. They point out that most of the studies were commissioned by organizations that had a financial interest in the approval of sucralose. They note that few negative studies and media coverage of sucralose exists but don’t think that the absence of negative information means that sucralose is safe. Other arguments from Whole Foods is that sucralose is a highly processed molecule and an artificial sweetener. Therefore it does not fit with the Whole Foods philosophy of promoting “real” food.^[13]

References

13. ^ "Sucralose" Whole Foods Market, reference library

If this information really has to be included, this paragraph should be rewritten in a way that refers to Whole Food Market in a completely anonymous, non-commercial fashion. As it was, this paragraph was effectively just a commercial advertisement telling health-conscious consumers “You Can Trust Us!™®^SM” when buying health food. This is against Wikipedia policy. In my opinion, a much better source of information for the Criticisms and controversy section is The Sugar Association’s The Truth About Spenda Web site. It's a hard-hitting site and, at least, is paid for by a consortium of companies. Greg L 06:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• I later added the following to replace the above "advertisement":

“ The Sugar Association’s health-related concerns revolve around three essential points: 1) sucralose is a chlorocarbon, 2) up to 27% of sucralose that is ingested is absorbed into the body by the digestive system, and 3) long-term human studies with sucralose have not been performed. ”

Greg L 23:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Not much of a debate with one person participating. I removed some text that could be viewed as commercial and restored the section. It is notable when the market leading retailer of "health food" decides not to carry products with a certain food additive. Mentioning the company name is necessary to establish its notability. I can hardly see how that is a "blatant advertisement for Whole Foods Market". MaxPont 15:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• MaxPont: There's not much support for a blatant advertisement if there's just one person (you) putting it back in;-) Fine. Seeing that you really insist on having information of dubious encyclopedic value, I revised it so its overpowering comercial aspect is toned down. In part, I accomplished this by putting their position in the past-tense form. The associated reference discloses the necessary citation and notability (Whole Foods Market) and also links to their policy statement. This is solidly where detailed information like this belongs. P.S. I also redirected the outdated, broken link to Whole Foods Market's position-statement to their current one. Doesn't anyone give a crap about details anymore? >return to Criticisms and controversy<
  Greg L (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well Greg, that's how it works on Wikipedia. Two editors are involved, have differing opinions, and discuss the matter. MaxPont 14:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to stir things up, but is it really necessary to even have a paragraph explaining why a natural food retailer chooses not to sell food that contains this artificial additive? This paragraph never came across as advertising to me, but it does appear quite superfluous. --Ed (Edgar181) 21:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree; I don't think the article belongs. I deleted the original version for the reasons originally stated above but MaxPont felt it added something to the article and put a revised version back in. I further revised it to make it even less commercial and a bit more encyclopedic. However, I agree with you as regards its current form. I don't know what the standard is for removing something, but I would propose that the standard used for deleting Featured Pictures be used: two-thirds consensus to delete is required. Greg L / (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Vote Issue: Whole Foods Market paragraph

The issue being discussed is whether the “Whole Foods Market” paragraph at the bottom of Criticisms and controversy should stay in the article.

Parties

Support, the paragraph should stay: Please sign with # ~~~~

Oppose, the paragraph should be deleted: Please sign with # ~~~~

1. Greg L 03:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Reason: It lacks sufficient noteability to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. It smacks more of the sort of news item that would appear in a health food industry trade rag.

1. Avelinak 16:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Debate

I think it should stay. That is factual information which highlights a current companies decision to not stock anything with sucralose. Whole Foods has researched the studies and made it's decision, but the reason this has significance is based on Whole Foods business model, which is to stock only natural, healthy products. Splenda's slogan, "tastes like sugar because it's made from sugar" challenges Whole Food's model of what natural and healthy is. The fact that Whole Foods (rather than Joe's Groceries or Kroger's) made the decision IS a criticism and could be considered controversial.Lordoftheroach2000 14:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• As regards my oppose vote, even as revised, the entry still lacks sufficient noteability to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. It smacks more of the sort of news item that would appear in a health food industry trade rag. Greg L 03:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not the normal Wikipedia way to handle differences in opinion. The reason is that the arguments are considered more important than head-counts. In a controversy over edits, all sides should argue their case and try to convince in order to reach a consensus. MaxPont 11:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Well… obviously. That’s what this “Debate” section is for. It’s a forum where, as you said two lines above “…all sides should argue their case and try to convince [the others] in order to reach a consensus.” This is a big improvement on the “old-fashioned way” where two authors engage in an endless steam of deleting and reverting text. People who vote here can change their votes any time they want to. This is precisely the way Featured picture candidates are nominated and adopted (see this example) and it works very well. Votes are made. Arguments and debate goes on. Votes are revised. If no consensus (two-thirds vote to adopt the picture) develops, the nomination goes down in flames. If a “support” consensus does develop, the picture graduates to Featured pictures status. The major difference here is that my proposed standard for deleting the paragraph is the same as for delisting pictures: a two-thirds consensus is required to remove the text. If the process was done they way you seem to be fond of, people would just add any old picture to the Featured pictures pages and then “delete & revert” wars would endlessly rage. This forum gives others an opportunity to weigh in. Now… I completely re-wrote the paragraph that’s the focus of this debate in order to make it palatable and I still don’t like it. Frankly though, my “oppose” vote is a weak one because the paragraph on Whole Foods Market provides a succinct list of all the key arguments that detractors of sucralose cite. But I simultaneously believe as Edgar181 does: “…is it really necessary to even have a paragraph explaining why a natural food retailer chooses not to sell food that contains this artificial additive?”  To me, it’s not at all encyclopedic. Now we can find out how other Wikipedians feel about it. This is just what would happen in a conference room full of editors at a regular, paper-based encyclopedia: debate and vote. Greg L 19:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC) (P.S. Or mabye it will be like that Vietnam War slogan: “What if they had a war and nobody came?” Greg L 20:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

Safety

Two recent case studies report migraine attacks,in people subject to migraine, triggered by sucralose. and —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goughsp (talk • contribs) 15:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

I can confirm, this stuff gives me migranes as well as a feeling of euphoria and a feeling of sickness... I just drank a Liption Diet Ice tea with splenda and am now regretting it 100%. This stuff shouod be pulled off the market.

Ancedotal evidence, while good for a laugh, does not belong in an encyclopedia. For example: "I feel no ill effects when consuming Splenda, therefore everyone who does is a hypochondriac."

See my comment in Safety section 1 about anecdotes: Anyway, I would say that Pubmed articles 16618274 and 16942478 (both in a journal I've never heard of, both 'anecdotal' case reports, but both by different authors and presumably in a peer-reviewed journal) are better than just some person rattling off on the Internet. At least enough to call for more study on WHY these things might happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.143.32 (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

error in article

The last three lines of the section "Safety" state

SPLENDA usually contains 95% dextrose, which the body metabolism transforms into glucose (Synonym for D-glucose). Apart from use of chlorine, the safety information many specialists and the media give to consumers, is that it's safe to ingest as a Diabetic "free of problem" sugar-supplement

Dextrose is a synonym for glucose so "transforms into glucose" is nonsensical, also it does not appear in the listed ingredients on Splenda packages: did we mean to say "Dextrins"?

Also the significance of "Apart from the use of chlorine" is unclear. The presence of chlorine in food and additives is not of itself a hazard and in fact is an essential. Presumably we are referring to chlorine covalently bonded to carbon which could be hazardous in a lipid-soluble substance, which sucralose is not.

GraemeLeggett 17:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

criticisms and Controversy information should be put in a seperate article

To remain fair and balanced, I feel that the criticisms and Controversy information should be put in a seperate article. Just like Aspartame and Aspartame controversy are in seperate articles. The article for Sucralose should just explain what Sucralose is. If someone wants to read about the controversy, they should go to a new article titled Sucralose controversy or something like that. User:Antmusic

So long as a reasonable overview of controversy and criticism remains, i hav eno issue with th ebulk beinbg shifted to a new article - but that would be for presnetation needs and I don't see whay retaining it completely is a issue of fairness and balance. GraemeLeggett 17:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Resounding No. Splitting articles should only be done if one section grows in length and makes the whole article to long. Look at: WP:SUMMARY. Moving the Aspartame Controversy section was justified because it became to long. The "sucralose controversy" section is short. There is also a clear Wikipedia Policy against splitting articles in order for each side to argue their case in controversial issues: this: Look at WP:POVFORK for more details. MaxPont 09:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

References

there's a reference to this page http://www.diabetes.ca/cpg2003/chapters.aspx?table1acceptabledailyintakeofsweeteners.htm noted in the article as diabetes.ca

The page says 2003 clinical practice guidelines. i don't know how often the scientific community updates their guidelines. But is there no newer information than this? And even if there is, is this information still reliable as a whole? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.137.75.31 (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC).(24.137.75.31 19:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

citation needed

under history there's a 'Citation needed' marker next to the names of the people who 'discovered' Splenda. i have an article that states the same names and goes into more detail of their status. it's a full essay actually, but I don't know how to make sure it isn't infringing on any copy write laws of any sort. or if the website is indeed authentic.

so here's the link http://www.kon.org/urc/frank.html and hopefully this was of some help. (24.137.75.31 19:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

Criticism and controversy section: Metabolites

I've put a NPOV tag on the criticism and controversy section, because I think it is becoming excessive. The controversy surrounding Splenda is a minority point of view and Splenda is considered safe by every regulatory agency that has weighed in. The bloated criticism section gives the article the impression that there is more concern than really exists. A criticism/controvery section is certainly warranted, but as it exists now, it is giving a false impression. Of particular concern is the guilt-by-association nature of the section. Mentioning banned pesticides 2,4,5-T and DDT as well as dioxins is really over the top. Maybe some chemists can weigh in here, but I think this is taking liberties with the science - implying chemical properties of certain chemicals in a very broad class of chemicals apply to every member of that class. Deli nk 16:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You might be right. But you might not. I agree with you wholeheartedly though, we should indeed have chemists weigh in on this. I have no agenda here. I worked for seven years in R&D with a chemist with a Ph.D. in biochemistry. He's extremely knowledgeable and is now in his mid-70s. I discussed the concerns with all the artificial sweeteners a few months ago and the subject of sucralose came up. Apparently, he subscribes to the professional chemistry journals and some studies on sucralose have recently come out. His reaction to sucralose was instantaneous and quite negative. It seems for those who are "in the know," messing around with ingestible organochlorides is like playing with fire. This is precisely what the Sugar Association is alluding when they say their concern is over how sucralose is a “chlorocarbon.” The trouble is, this article didn't have the courage to explain why that should be of any concern. Readers were given a little "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" hint to click on the one "chlorocarbon" link (now "organochloride") to find out what the issue is.

I'll be contacting the chemist in a hour or so and ask him to review and comment here about what I recently added. Perhaps it is "over-the-top." Maybe it’s simply hitting the nail right on the head. Will that settle the issue? I doubt it. People can always complain that this is "original research". And yet, getting a Ph.D. chemist to comment on this is precisely per your suggestion. If people suspect "my Ph.D. is biased" but thier’s isn't, then they can have their’s weigh in. At least starting with one Ph.D. chemist to address this is a beginning. And it's better than having armchair novices trying to decide issues as complex as this. Who knows? The end result of all this effort might be some added citations to some studies fleshing out what has up to now only been skepticism over chlorocarbons. Regardless of the outcome, the exercise will be interesting. Greg L (my talk) 00:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: I took a look at what I added this morning and agree that it took the paragraph "over the top". While the "trace contaminants" issue is extremely important with chlorocarbons, citing the specific example of dioxin in 2,4,5-T (the "Agent Orange" debacle) was excessively inflammatory. The chemist will review the article as now revised. I also shortened the example lists of synthetic organochlorides to no more than three per class and specifically targeted DDT since it seemed excessively inflammatory. Greg L (my talk) 01:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

To a certain extent, I agree with Deli nk that there was some misrepresentation of the chemistry is the criticism. Chlorocarbons as a class are not unusually toxic. There are certain members of the class that are highly toxic, though - but basic safety testing would quickly reveal that level of toxicity in sucralose if it existed. I also took issue with the statements that incorrectly implied a connection between whether a chlorocarbon was synthetic or not and its level of toxicity. Many of the chlorinated solvents that are of concern in groundwater pollution are also produced by microorganisms. I have removed the statements that I found of concern from a chemistry perspective, and also removed the NPOV tag because it seems that Deli nk's concerns have been addressed. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me now. Thanks Greg and Ed. Deli nk 15:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the facts you stated above and what I can cite at this point, it seems fair. However, as now revised, it drops any mention of the issue of trace compounds that inevitably arise from most synthesis processes. With chlorocarbon chemistry, this issue seems an important one. I believe it’s what underlies chemists’ concerns (but I'm not certain that's the case). I contacted my Ph.D. biochemist friend last night and asked him to review what I wrote. I suspect he didn't have a chance to review the paragraph before you revised it. I don't think that will be a problem though. Remember, this guy was trained in England as a biochemist and got his Ph.D. in the field. As is the custom with British professionals, he has plenty of alphabet soup after "Ph.D." in his title. When I worked with him for seven years, I occasionally had long conversations about biometabolism. What stuck out in my mind when we discussed sucralose a few months ago was how unusually definitive and instantaneous he was in his concern over sucralose's organochloride chemistry. He thought that was foolishly playing with fire and the burden of proof required of the manufacturer to prove its safety was way too low given the inherently dangerous chemistry. I don't know what the idiosyncrasies of the subject are that underpins his concern. I'll see if he is willing to comment in written form here. If not, I'll have to reduce a telephone conversation to written form and post it here. I'll also be sure to ask him to cite any new published scientific articles on the subject. I'm sure it will take a few days — and maybe even a reminder from me — for him to get around to reviewing this article. Greg L (my talk) 16:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My take on the trace compounds section is that the same concern would exist for any synthetic process - quality and reliability of product is something that regulatory agencies take very seriously. As for the additional burden of proof that might be necessary for chlorocarbons, I can say from experience in pharmaceuticals is that there is no regularatory agency that finds it necessary to apply additional scrutiny to compounds containing chlorine. If your friend believes otherwise, he holds a minority opinion. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Edgar181: I spoke with my chemist friend, Shibli Bayyuk, BSE, MSc, Ph.D., MRCP, about sucralose. He is not experienced in Wikipedia and has authorized me to jointly write on his behalf. Dr. Bayyuk reviewed what I originally wrote in the sucralose article (the first paragraph of the Criticisms and controversy section) as well as what is there now. He also read the discussions above. He disagrees with several of your statements.

  I should say at this point that I worked with Shibli for seven years in R&D. He’s named in six patents. I know he knows his business when it comes to biochemistry. I cannot attest to your credentials, knowledge, and experience since I know hardly anything about you. I’d be interested in knowing more.

  Before addressing the disputed points, Shibli had these observations: First, the chemical formula of sucralose was misnamed by the discoverers or the manufacturer. Sucralose can be made from a variety of carbohydrate feedstocks. Perhaps for marketing reasons, it is currently made from sugar (“Made from sugar so it tastes like sugar”). Accordingly, it is not a galactopyranoside (lactose-like structure), it is actually a glucopyranoside (sucrose-like structure).

  Secondly, one of the three chlorine substituants is on carbon-2 of the fructofuranoside. This is the functional group of the molecule. This chlorine atom is likely to be much more reactive than the other two and its fate has not been established. Also, what is not disputed is that not all ingested sucralose is directly excreted from the body; some is absorbed and, in turn, some of that is metabolized. The body must metabolize a organochloride and doing so always results in metabolites.

  Dr. Bayyuk read the entire monograph of sucralose (the scientific release from the manufacturer) and says it makes no mention that metabolomics were conducted to determine what each metabolite is and what each one’s health effect(s) might be. He is also concerned that, even according to the manufacturer, large doses of sucralose have a marked effect on the thymus gland, which is directly involved in the immune system. No one has yet established what the cumulative effect of long-term exposure to small amounts of this compound are on the immune system, and in particular on the T-lymphocytes.

  As regards your statement that “there is no regularatory [sic] agency that finds it necessary to apply additional scrutiny to compounds containing chlorine,” he says that is a flat-incorrect statement. Almost any drug containing an organochloride normally receives lots of extra scrutiny. In particular, the FDA would normally require a detailed study of the metabolites. And yet, this is precisely what the FDA apparently did not require of the manufacturer of sucralose. Why? Because it’s a food and not a drug? That “pass” seems illogical.

  I also don’t believe you were properly addressing the issue at hand when you stated “[c]hlorocarbons as a class are not unusually toxic.” Dr. Bayyuk pointed out that man-made organochlorides as a class—which is what we’re dealing with here with sucralose—are frequently toxic and any new organochloride that is to be used as a food should certainly be presumed as such until solidly proven otherwise. Even naturally ocurring organochlorides, such as alkaloids, are often highly toxic.

  Dr. Bayyuk neatly sidestepped the issue that sucralose contains trace amounts of related — but different — organochlorides. This is the sort of problem that arose when the production of the herbicide 2,4,5-T (a chlorocarbon) produced trace amounts of dioxin (another chlorocarbon). It appears that sucralose is about 98% pure. According to Announcement No. 167 from Japan’s Ministry of Health and Welfare, the other 2% contains compounds like arsenic, chlorinated disaccharides, chlorinated monosaccharide, and triphenylphosphine oxide. What health effects and interactions—if any—the metabolites from these impurities might have would have been addressed by casting the wide net of simply studying the metabolites. This wasn’t done.

  The study of metabolites is expensive and the chronically underfunded regulatory agencies don’t have the resources to conduct them themselves. They rely on studies produced by the manufacturer. Manufacturers have varied and compelling financial incentives to avoid metabolomics and do so only if a regulatory agency requires it. While developing a test protocol, the FDA to a certain extent relies on experts from the manufacturer to pinpoint various technical issues that should be addressed. If the relationship between the personnel at the FDA and the manufacturer becomes too cozy—as appears to have happened in the cases of both sucralose and aspartame—this process can be undermined. Regardless of the reason, the manufacturer of sucralose was not required to study the metabolites. This sort of laps is unusual and feeds the fires of critics who say the FDA is caving too easily to the desires of big business.

  I intend to expand somewhat on the Criticisms and controversy section with regard to the metabolites issue. But I first want to invite comment and give you and others an opportunity to refute my view of these new “facts.” I want to wait for feedback because, though Dr. Bayyuk has proven to me over the years that he is extraordinarily knowledgeable and competent, I can’t ignore that he is basing his views on the fact that he saw no analysis of metabolites in the monograph. This is an absence of evidence, which warrants caution. I want to afford you and others an opportunity to prove otherwise. Perhaps a thorough analysis of metabolites has been done and the information is available somewhere. I do, however, find it exceedingly odd that the entire Sucralose article doesn’t contain either the word “metabolite” or “metabolites.” Regardless of the outcome, this subject should be addressed. Greg L (my talk) 23:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Greg, You’ve written quite a bit, and I’ll try to address as much of it as I can. But first, it doesn’t matter much to me what credentials your friend has, and I’m not going to try to use mine to my advantage here. Also, I’d recommend that your friend make his points directly, because I think something is getting lost in translation here. Some of the points he makes don’t quite make sense chemically.

the chemical formula of sucralose was misnamed
Since “sucralose” is not a scientific name, and there aren’t any kind rules for how a common name is given to a chemical compound, I don’t see how it could be “misnamed”. It is named according to what it is derived from, not what it has a stereochemical similarity to. Sucralose is made from sucrose, so they named it accordingly.

Sucralose can be made from a variety of carbohydrate feedstocks. Perhaps for marketing reasons, it is currently made from sugar
It is not made from sucrose for marketing reasons, but rather because it’s the only economically reasonable manufacturing process. I’ll challenge anyone to come up with an easier way to make it from a different feedstock. I can think of other ways to make it, but certainly not an easier one.

it is not a galactopyranoside
It is a galactopyranoside, as evidenced by the systematic name in the infobox.

He is also concerned that, even according to the manufacturer, large doses of sucralose have a marked effect on the thymus gland, which is directly involved in the immune system. No one has yet established what the cumulative effect of long-term exposure to small amounts of this compound are on the immune system, and in particular on the T-lymphocytes.
This, I completely agree with. As with any new product that is consumed by humans, the longterm safety is difficult to determine. Results from short-term large-dose studies can provide some guidance, but they often don’t correspond well to long-term lower-dose consumption. This applies equally to studies that have turned up no negative effects as to the ones that have.

The body must metabolize a organochloride and doing so always results in metabolites
This statement doesn’t make any sense to me. The body doesn’t need to metabolize an organochloride – it could be excreted completely unmetabolized. With sucralose, some of it is metabolized, but most is not.

This chlorine atom is likely to be much more reactive than the other two and its fate has not been established
Yes, the relative reactivities of the chlorides can be determined. But it is not true that the fate of the more reactive chloride has not been established. Studies of the metabolites have demonstrated that the only metabolites are glucuronides. This involves reaction at the alcohol functional groups and all the chlorides are unaffected. I can give a chemically detailed explanation about why the chlorides are not reactive under biologically relevant conditions, if anyone is interested.

man-made organochlorides as a class—which is what we’re dealing with here with sucralose—are frequently toxic
The toxicity of any compound is completely independent of whether it is natural or synthetic.

As regards your statement that “there is no regularatory [sic] agency that finds it necessary to apply additional scrutiny to compounds containing chlorine,” he says that is a flat-incorrect statement. Almost any drug containing an organochloride normally receives lots of extra scrutiny. In particular, the FDA would normally require a detailed study of the metabolites.
I’m not sure what the disagreement here is. All drugs evaluated by the FDA require a detailed study of metabolites – there are no additional requirements set aside specifically for organochlorides.

the FDA would normally require a detailed study of the metabolites. And yet, this is precisely what the FDA apparently did not require of the manufacturer of sucralose. Why? Because it’s a food and not a drug? That “pass” seems illogical.
the manufacturer of sucralose was not required to study the metabolites
On several occasions you say there are no studies of the metabolites. This is simply not true. There have been many studies of the metabolites of sucralose – in both humans and animals. Browsing through the titles of ~1000 scientific publications covering sucralose, I see at least a dozen which appear to be metabolism studies. One of the studies is even cited in the article. I can't speak to whether these studies were done because the FDA required it or not, but presumably the FDA considered the results regardless when evaluating sucralose.

As someone mentioned earlier, the safety of sucralose has been evaluated by many regulatory agencies around the world, and uniformly found it to be safe for use in food. I don't see any evidence that sucralose has been "given a pass" or that there is much scientific controversy about its safety as there is with some other sugar substitutes such as aspartame. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed: Crap I wish you'd read what I wrote before you spew "answers." Just an example: I wrote “Dr. Bayyuk read the entire monograph of sucralose (the scientific release from the manufacturer) and says it makes no mention that metabolomics were conducted to determine what each metabolite is and what each one’s health effect(s) might be.”. I also wrote “…the FDA would normally require a detailed study of the metabolites. And yet, this is precisely what the FDA apparently did not require of the manufacturer of sucralose.” Your response to these was “On several occasions you say there are no studies of the metabolites. This is simply not true.” (my emphasis). Ed, I didn't say there were no studies on metabolites, I said the manufacturer was apparently not required by the FDA to conduct any. It's a pretty damn unfortunate statement regarding the FDA's oversight of American health when a Wikipedia article on a chlorocarbon doesn't even mention the word "metabolite". Why was the manufacturer not required to produce any? If they have nothing to hide, why didn't they conduct the studies and include the information in the monograph without an FDA mandate to do so?

As regards education and qualifications, Wikipedia has suffered from contributors who have over-inflated their qualifications. My curiosity is piqued now. So with regard to your statement, “But first, it doesn’t matter much to me what credentials your friend has, and I’m not going to try to use mine to my advantage here." Don't be shy; what are your credentials? Are you really qualified to weigh in on a discussion of biochemistry with someone who has a Ph.D. in the discipline? If so, prove it. Greg L (my talk) 22:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Tell you what, I'm not going to get into this discussion, but I have a couple of things to remark on. First, It seems that Ed is not discounting the need for detailed establishment of the safety of food additives, particularly sucralose. He simply seems to be saying "let's keep it within the realm of reasonable science and not jump to unfounded speculation". Greg, you raise reasonable concerns but, as Ed has pointed out, a lot of these have been addressed. My biggest concern is with your final statement here, as it seems rather odd. You seem to be under the impression that one Ph.D. biochemist's opinion on the matter trumps someone else's because of his degree. It seems to me that a whole team of Ph.D.s and M.D.s developed this suff and did the studies to say it is safe. Not to mention the good folks at the FDA (Ph.D.s and M.D.s across the board, mind you) who gave it the thumbs up. So, by your own logic, doesn't this render your lone Ph.D.'s opinion as insignificant? Of course, this doesn't grab me as a necessarily logical conclusion, but it seems to follow from your line of reasoning above.

• I have a Ph.D in bioorganic chemistry. Most particularly, medicinal chemistry, which means I designed drugs for a living before relaxing into a teaching position. I am well versed in the fundamentals of biochemistry, pharmacology, synthetic and physical organic chemistry, and to a lesser degree, molecular biology and physiology. You want to talk about the fine details about how drugs actually work, I'm your guy. All this means is that I can follow this conversation and pick out reasonable statements from the B.S. I am quite knowledgable when it comes to the reactivity of organochlorides, but I have not looked into the numerous publications on sucralose nor carried out a detailed analysis of their findings. What does this mean? It means that I can not comment with authority on the idosyncrasies of sucralose reactivity or toxicity. What you should keep in mind is that, unless your friend the biochemist has carried out a full and detailed literature review of the subject, and I mean well beyond the package insert, you shouldn't be passing off his opinion on the matter as fact either.

• Your friend is right, there is good reason, based on its sturcture, to have some concerns about the safety of sucralose, and its reactivity should be investigated. Maybe it has been, maybe it has not; I haven't looked into the matter. Yes, according to basic theory, organochlorides can be expected to react as electrophiles (although the chloride ion is generally a poor leaving group). That doesn't mean sucralose is necessarily going to act as an alkylating agent. To be honest, this was my immediate concern when I first saw the structure of sucralose. The fact that it is on the market, however, makes me believe studies to determine its reactivity have been carried out, though I do not know this for a fact. It's worth looking into. In any event, my concern remains: unless your friend has specifically studied the aggregate research on the toxicity of sucralose, you would be best served not to wield him as an authority with which to cudgel your adversaries on Wikipedia. Also, you challenge Ed (by the way, I don't know Ed) for proof of credential while offering no "proof" that you are actually consulting with a biochemist. Now, I'm not challenging your assertion here; I have no reason to believe you are not talking to a biochemist. Just be reasonable about what you demand from others when the opinions you are posting can not be defended as infallible.209.59.88.165 16:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)P. Cogan

Are all of these links necessary?

Are all of these links necessary? It adds absolutely nothing to link to 1993. Just put 1993 and leave it at that. Ridiculous. The frequent alternating blue and black text is very distracting and adds little if anything. I'm editing out the crap. Smell ya later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.35.225.230 (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Link to migraines

This article should probably mention the observed link between sucralose and migraines: [3]. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-03 20:25Z

Sure, as soon as you can provide a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.250.98 (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Insecticide?

I'm moving this comment here for now: "The Chinese company Sinochem Qingdao markets Sucralose as an insecticide" because it's not clear at all from the link that this is in fact the case. Is there any reliable evidence that it is used as an insecticide or even has any kind of insecticidal properties? A google search turns up nothing more than what could be considered unsubstantiated rumors. If this statement can be sourced, maybe it should go back into the article, but the current statement and link is definitely insufficient as it is. Deli nk 18:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the addition again today. The citation is not at all clear. The only mention of sucralose I can find is in the URL itself. A claim like this needs more context too. Is it actually used as insecticide? Where and for what? -- Siobhan Hansa 23:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Calorific Intake compared to Sugar

I have just looked at some Splenda in my kitchen and according to the packaging it has 391 kcal per 100g, whereas the caster sugar in my kitchen has 398kcal per 100g which makes Splenda have 98% of the calories of sugar (at least in the UK), so aren't the calories figures given on the page then totally wrong? Eraserhead1 20:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the article with the calorific intake for Splenda from their UK website and the value for Sugar from the Wikipedia article (which claims 390kcal per 100g for white sugar).Eraserhead1 13:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Biased Discussion of Alternatives

I find parts of the discussion of safety and alternatives biased. One statement that stuck out in particular was the "Critics of sucralose often favor natural alternatives..." section. First, I think a discussion of disadvantages of those other sweeteners doesn't belong into this article. Second, adults can consume 100g of Xylitol without problems, and above that you may get a mild laxative effect; that hardly requires "careful monitoring" as the article says. Overall, the article seems to try to argue that Sucralose is a reasonable tradeoff, and that's not a NPOV. I suggest deleting the entire paragraph and replacing it with a sentence that simply points out that there are alternatives; people can go to those entries and make up their own mind. Jcarnelian 11:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, so I have removed the off-topic criticism of natural alternatives. Deli nk 13:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Packing and Storage

The first problem with this section is that it's not about packing and storage. It's about the contents. It offers an explanation that sounds like it came from the manufacturer, but it doesn't wash. The strawberry-fronted package still contains what is mostly a sugar that isn't always sweet, so of course it measures like sugar -- it IS sugar. The bare mention that Splenda has been criticized for this is all we need to know. Brewhaha@edmc.net 21:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What the hell are you jabbering about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.250.98 (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Studies and POV

While organizing material on safety and marketing controversies, I came across two passages I decided to remove unless they can be improved:

According to Food and Diet's website, numerous claims have been filed about possible side effect complaints by users of sucralose-containing products, including Diet Rite cola. Complaints and suspicions documented on the site of possible side effects of prolonged use of sucralose have included drug-like feelings of disorientation and confusion, headaches, depression, anxiety, diarrhea, vomiting, extreme fatigue, and more. Splenda - Food & Diet

It looks like this is a website which collected complaints from visitors. This is highly misleading; because of the placebo effect, if you ask people to report adverse effects from pretty much anything, you'll get a wide variety of symptoms, not unlike those listed. There have been some actual peer-reviewed studies which have reported a narrower list of adverse symptoms. I don't know whether or not they were controlled or not, but I have left them in the article because they are considerably more reliable as sources. Some due diligence is probably in order to check those studies and see if what the response was from the scientific community (including noting whether or not they were controlled).

The consumer advocacy group Citizens for Health has filed a petition with the FDA. They have asked the FDA to withdraw its approval of Splenda pending additional investigation of claimed side effects such as stomach pain and other digestion problems.

Without context, this seems highly negative but of dubious reliability. "Citizens for Health" sounds like something everyone would support, but is this a large nationally-recognized advocacy group, or a small bunch of crazy people? It also sounds like the FDA could be on the verge of granting their petition, but it could be that the FDA has already examined it and dismissed it as without merit. Can we get a reference for this and some context? -- Beland 03:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Calorific Content

It is my understanding that sucralose cannot be metabolised by the body and so, although it may contain a certain amount of chemical energy, it contains no "calories" in the sense that this is taken to mean by people when they purchase food. The article does not seem to state this and appears to state that sucralose can be metabolised by the body. Can anyone offer calrification on this matter? 81.105.68.85 11:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You may be confusing the article's treatment of the retail Splenda product with its treatment of sucralose. The article says that only 11 - 27% of ingested sucralose is absorbed into the blood stream and only 20 - 30% of that (which is approx 2 - 8% of the ingested amount) is metabolized (safety section). It also says that little of the sucralose in Splenda is metabolized but the fillers used in retail Splenda to give it bulk contain calories that are metabolized. (Energy (caloric) content section). So the article indicates that a small amount of sucralose is metabolized - but the caloric issue is more about fillers used in the retail Splenda product. -- SiobhanHansa 14:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal

I've removed a statement about some people claiming allergies to sucralose because it was sourced to blog comments. If allergy is a notable symptom of consuming sucralose, a medical reference shouldn't be hard to find and the comment can then be added back in. Deli nk (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You've also removed the part about chlorine allergy and the absence of chlorine from the package label. This was not based on blogs. It is based on the back of the package shown in the article, the chlorine atom shown in the article, and chlorine allergy from the Wikipedia article allergy. I relocated people claiming allergies to sucralose to under 'Public Criticism', where it is more appropriate than under 'Safety'.66.81.146.254 (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is going to be a connection made between allergy to the chlorine added to water and the forms of chlorine in sucralose or other food products, a reference is needed. The forms of chlorine for these two uses are completely different, so it's highly unlikely that there is a medical connection between the two. A scientific or medical study making this connection is necessary in order to make the claim in this article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this article should hav a high rating for importance, because it's for human consumption. The quality is excellent; even if there's some squabbling between parties that seem to hav a vested interest (and we all do), I can't find a compelling reason to let two requests for fact checks stand. Brewhaha@edmc.net 11:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am curious (layperson's interest) about the effects of sucralose on dentition vis a vis other sweeteners (including sugar). Any advice or research? 72.38.156.226 18:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

=

I disagree about the quality of the article. It's obvioulsy slanted toward the manufacturer's interests and dismissive of any concerns about the reactivity of carbon-chlorine bonds, especially those situated by activating neighboring groups, such as the chlorohydrin moiety. It also fails to mention the deceitful inclusion of this adulterant in non-diet foods without proper labeling.96.244.46.219 (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)