There was an error in this gadget

Monday, May 2, 2011

Wake up FDA, Splenda is Not Safe for Consumption

The makers of Splenda, McNeil Nutritionals, would like us to believe that it is the perfect sugar substitute; as sweet as sugar, but contains no calories, does not create a surge in insulin and offers no long-term side effects or long-term health damage. If only this were true. Splenda, (sucralose), has more in common with DDT than with food. The bonds holding the carbon and chlorine atoms together are more characteristic of a chlorocarbon than a salt — and most pesticides are chlorocarbons. Splenda is the trade name for sucralose; a synthetic compound stumbled upon in 1976 by scientists in Britain seeking a new pesticide formulation. Sounds delicious, right? It is true that the Splenda molecule is comprised of sucrose (sugar) — except that three of the hydroxyl groups in the molecule have been replaced by three chlorine atoms. Supporters of Splenda claim that just because something contains chlorine doesn’t mean that it’s toxic. But chlorine is toxic. Chlorine is linked to cancer of the esophagus, rectum, breast and larynx, of Hodgkin’s disease and to atherosclerosis and resulting heart attacks.

Why would the FDA allow a product with proven carcinogens to flood our food supply? Our current regulatory system doesn’t do a good enough job ensuring our long-term safety. The FDA claims Splenda is safe because “it is made from sugar.” Sucralose starts off with a sugar molecule, but that's where the similarity ends. Splenda is not a natural sugar; it is a chemically derived, chlorinated artificial sweetener.

A study published in 2008 found that Splenda reduces the amount of good bacteria in your intestines by 50 percent, and increases the pH level in your intestines. It's very disturbing that Splenda can destroy healthy intestinal bacteria as these bacteria are absolutely vital for supporting your general health. 80% of your immune system is located inside your digestive tract, which means that your digestive tract is the most important factor in your health. It has been estimated that 90% of all chronic symptoms and chronic conditions are caused in part by poor or declining gut health. What’s even more disturbing is that these studies were done in 2008 and yet Splenda is still considered safe.

However, it gets worse. Splenda also affects a glycoprotein in your body that can have crucial health effects, particularly if you are taking certain medications like chemotherapy or are in treatment for AIDS. Moreover, studies done using animals have found the following issues:

• Decreased red blood cells—sign of anemia
• Increased male infertility by interfering with sperm production and vitality
• Brain lesions at high doses
• Enlarged and calcified kidneys
• Spontaneous abortions in nearly half the rabbit population given sucralose, compared to zero aborted pregnancies in the control group
• A 23 percent death rate in rabbits, compared to a 6 percent death rate in the control group

FDA, are you sleeping? It’s been almost 30 years since aspartame hit the market. The FDA needs to ban Splenda and other artificial sweeteners. They have the power to prevent damage to human health sooner than with NutraSweet, which has damaged the health and the lives of millions of innocent consumers since it was placed in the public food supply in 1982, but when will they catch on? In the meantime, knowledge is power. As an educated consumer, you have the awareness to choose what you and your family will ingest. Artificial sweeteners may affect your health, so why take the chance? Organic agave syrup or Stevia are much better alternatives.

Elyn Jacobs

Elyn Jacobs is President of Elyn Jacobs Consulting, Inc. and a breast cancer survivor. She helps women diagnosed with cancer to navigate the process of treatment and care, and she educates about how to prevent recurrence and new cancers. She is passionate about helping others get past their cancer and into a cancer-free life.

Read more:


  1. another helpfull link...Artificial sweeteners are frequently recommended as a practical way of replacing sugar found in the modern diet. But the research on nonnutritive sweeteners such as these three shows they're far from healthful alternatives to sugar:

  2. I would like to add that diabetes organizations and magazines are telling patients to use Splenda. I do not have diabetes, but used it for about a year and now I have fructose malabsorption. I cannot eat any fructose without severe cramping and had no problem until I used Splenda. It also worsened my problems with IBS.
    Why doesn't the FDA tell the truth?

    1. Thanks for sharing your experience...hope you feel better! Elyn

  3. Wheres your scientific evidence that support these claims? Just another conspiracy theorist blogger. I've taken sucralose long before it was commercially popular for decades. I've also done cycles upon cycles of steroids and my cholesterol levels are in the low 10th percentile for my age, and my physical health is that of a man in his late twenties, even though I am much older. Shouldn't I be dead by now with all that sucralose I'm ingesting daily?

  4. Anonymous, you are certainly entitled to consume this and any other toxins if you are comfortable with them. I cringe when I think of the toxins I consumed before I knew better.

  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  6. Here is another good read on the subject:

  7. Splenda and sucralose proven to contribute to development of diabetes

    Learn more:

  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


If this blog was helpful to you, please let me know, thanks!