Not content with baseless accusations against aspartame, an activist group (Citizens for Health) recently petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to revoke approval of sucralose, the new alternative sweetener (sold as Splenda). Citing the fact that sucralose contains chlorine, the group claims that there is a dearth of scientific study of its effects on human health -- because studies of sucralose aren't exactly the same as studies of Splenda, the commercially available form. Further, the group says that there should be a warning on Splenda for people who can't tolerate the milk sugar galactose. Neither of these supposed problems is real.
First, while gaseous chlorine is indeed poisonous, chlorine is actually an essential dietary constituent for humans. It makes up about half of table salt (sodium chloride), and the fact that a molecule of sucralose contains three atoms of chlorine has no relevance whatsoever for human health.
Second, there is no necessity for testing Splenda instead of sucralose. In addition to tiny amounts of sucralose, Splenda contains dextrin (or glucose) and maltodextrin, both of which are commonly used in foods, and there is no reason to think that either would cause problems for humans. Because sucralose is about 300 times as sweet as sugar, only very tiny amounts would be used in a table top sweetener or food -- so tiny that it would be hard to package or use by itself, so small amounts of other, harmless carbohydrates are added as "carriers" for the sucralose. Neither of these contains galactose. Thus it is difficult to see why any galactose-intolerant person would have a problem.
As ACSH has pointed out many times, even if a substance is toxic at high doses, trace amounts are not therefore dangerous. With respect to intensely sweet sugar replacers such as aspartame and sucralose, the fact that only very tiny amounts are used to provide the sweetness of sugar should reassure consumers that negative effects are highly unlikely.
If one delves into the website of Citizens for Health, it becomes apparent that the group's agenda is to attack the use of any food produced by modern technology -- whether or not there is any real reason to question the safety or utility of such products. At a time when obesity has been increasing at record rates in the United States, any product that can lower caloric intake safely, as sucralose can, should be accepted, even embraced. And if this group were really interested in public health, they would encourage consumers to take advantage of such products. Perhaps Citizens for Health should consider a new name: "Citizens for Health Panic" would be a better description!
Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D., is Director of Nutrition at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).
