Sucralose
Wednesday April 16, 2008
One common way to cut calories is to use artificial sweeteners. When I was a kid most diet sodas had saccharin (of course they also had little tabs that we pulled completely off the can). I thought saccharin tasted just terrible. Then aspartame came along and pretty much replaced saccharin.
Today, aspartame is being nudged over by Splenda, which is made from sucralose. A lot of people think sucralose has a better flavor than either saccharin or aspartame. Learn more about sucralose.
Poll:Do you use artificial sweeteners?
Photo © Mario Tama/Getty Images
Comments
Uh… you need to read the latest research on artificial sweeteners and calorie consumption. This article is bogus.
Bogus credentials?
Shereen has NO evidence that this ’sucralose’ product is not toxic to the body other than FDA approval.
She should NOT be trusted as the FDA are criminals looking to poison people in order to make more money from medicine and low I.Q. levels! This article is a sham!
Psilias, do you have proof that sucralose IS toxic to the body? Do you realize that the FDA is filled with government employees? For one, it is extremely hard to prove something ISN’T toxic. Prove it is. For two, federal employees are salary and regular people just like you and I. They are not out to “get us” so we don’t get social security. They do not make more money as an individual by trying to kill us sooner. So why would they?
I have two words for all of you “All-natural crusaders” – WITCH HUNT
If anyone has the intelligence, patience and time just go and google sucralose and read up on it. Yes it is dangerous and toxic the people who described clinically what happened to them aster ingesting this garbage. The FDA and the well paid staff of so called experts have one thing in mind and it isn’t in your best interest as they are interested in the profits for all these corporations who want to market a product and tell you that it safe since the FDA approved it. Its a blatant lie
and the scientific research they are doing is flawed and not leveling with the public is a crime which they get away with all the time/
Witness the drug and pharmaceutical industry and the doctors who are more that happy to tell you it is all in your head, so lets play
Russian roulette take the drugs I am giving you and hope for the best. Then if there are adverse effects don’t blame the doctor or the FDA they are experts and they are in authority and know what they are doing.
Sucralose is a derivative of sugar, but if you read the literature and know anything about chemistry, you have to understand that if it didn’t come from a real plant, I would be very cautious or not even allow this toxin in my body if I can help it.
Just read folks and if you want to know how it effects you, try an experiment and drink and eat this till it comes out your ears, if you get any symptoms i.e. aching joints, pain in the legs , blurred vision, migraine, muscle weakness, insomnia,diarrhea,shaking,bloating , gas, trembling, seizures, and there is more in that the body does metabolize this the kidneys and the liver are effect as well and what comes out in your urine is the residue of what is left and then it goes into the water system,
that is into environment. Oh did they study the effects of that process as well?
Did they do an environmental study? I think not. They are interested in on thing and its money and big profits. To hell with your health and well being.
Peter Tarsio
Just curious – since everyone thinks that adding a chloride molecule makes this thing as dangerous as swalling ten gallons of pool water…
Isn’t salt just NaCl? Isn’t potassium integrated with Cl groups? Why does adding a chloride here make this so toxic?
Its all about education. Until people move away from the mainstream media, marketing and toxic “convenience” products and simplify what they put into their body-they will only realize it is actually bad after they have consumed it for a while–with harmful effects. People need to always do their research on “new” products–be especially careful with any of the big companies–they are the worst ones because they spend so much on advertising and lack any sort of ethical conscience. It is what it is–but people do not have to follow them–purchase healthy and responsibly–support good business not toxic ones.
I don’t know what you’re talking about, Glenn. I have consumed Sucralose for years with NO negative side effects. Just saying that there are negative side effects, even if it’s true for you, doesn’t make it true for everyone.
Some people are lactose intolerant. Are you going to recommend no dairy products for everyone just because of that? From the leaning of the belief systems demonstrated here, you probably would agree with that, too, now that I think about it.
Well MC,
Since you put it that way. The FDA approved Aspartame back in 1974, then Sucralose “MUST” be safe.
And to use your exaple of lactose intolerance, I know of people who smoke but have not yet died of cancer, or have died of other not smoking related death (car acccident) then smoking must also be safe for some poeple, just not the poeple that they “may” effect.
I know 3 people who would excessively drink diet soda (you’d hardly ever see one of them without one). All 3 came down with brain tumors and all three have since died. I also know lots of folks who drink diet soda but have not had any ill affects, yet. Small sample, I know. But you can count on me never drinking ANYthing diet or the rest of my family. Why put artificial anything into your body?
Although I am skeptical about artificial sweeteners and have no great love of corporate America, I am trying to keep an open mind and approach the information with even handedness. What strikes me most is the weight given to completely baseless and unverified “testimonials”. There are scores of factors that could have caused these maladies and yet they are unchallenged and held up as fact when in most cases, they would not stand up to any serious scientific scrutiny. Drawing the conclusion that diet soda caused someone’s brain tumor just because they drank alot of them is naive. Throw out any testimonials and study the scientific reports. On EITHER side, look who paid for the report or who their parent company is, look for double-blind tests with control groups, look at test group size and breadth, look at quantities and exposure rates…the tests that satisfy all of those things are probably pretty darn reliable.
ORIGINAL PAPER
Josephine McCourt Ć Joerg Stroka Ć Elke Anklam
Experimental design-based development and single laboratory
validation of a capillary zone electrophoresis method for the
determination of the artificial sweetener sucralose in food matrices
Received: 11 January 2005 / Revised: 5 April 2005 / Accepted: 13 April 2005 / Published online: 19 May 2005
Springer-Verlag 2005
Abstract A capillary zone electrophoresis (CZE) method,
optimised chemometrically, underwent a complete
in-house validation protocol for the qualification and
quantification of sucralose in various foodstuffs. Separation
from matrix components was obtained in a dinitrobenzoic
acid (3 mM)/sodium hydroxide (20 mM)
background electrolyte with a pH of 12.1, a potential of
0.11 kV cm1 and a temperature of 22 C. Detection
was achieved at 238 nm by indirect UV. Screening,
optimisation and robustness testing were all carried out
with the aid of experimental design. Using standard
addition calibration, the CZE method has been applied
to still, carbonated and alcoholic beverages, yoghurts
and hard-boiled candy. The method allows the detection
of sucralose at >30 mg kg1, with a linearity range of
50–500 mg kg1, making it suitable for implementation
of the recently amended ‘‘Sweeteners for use in foodstuffs’’
Directive (European Parliament and Council
(2003) Off J L237:3–12), which set maximum usable
doses of sucralose for many foodstuffs, most ranging
from 200 mg kg1 to 450 mg kg1.
Keywords Capillary electrophoresis Ć Sucralose Ć
Experimental design Ć Validation Ć Food
Introduction
Sucralose, discovered in 1976, is made from sugar
and tastes like sugar but is an artificial sweetener
(1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-b-d-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-
4-deoxy-a-d-galactopyranoside) produced by chlorinating
sucrose. It is approximately 600 times sweeter than
sugar and is also stable during processing and on the
shelf. The allocation of an acceptable daily intake (ADI)
of 0–15 mg kg1 body weight by the Joint FAO/WHO
Expert Group on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1990 has
meant that it has become a very widely used artificial
sweetener, occurring in over 3,500 different products
throughout the world. Due to a recent amendment [1] to
the EU Sweeteners Directive permitting the use of sucralose
(E955) at certain concentrations, all EU Member
States, including the ten new EU Member States, are
required to amend their national legislation by January
2005 to harmonise with the Directive. The fact that from
2005 many sucralose-containing products will be available
in the EU means in turn that reliable methods will
be needed for its separation from natural sugars and
other matrix components, and for its quantification.
Maximum usable doses have been set for sucralose, in
this new amendment, for a broad variety of foodstuffs,
ranging from 10 mg L1 in energy-reduced beer to
2,400 mg kg1 in breath-freshening microsweets, with
beverage limits set around 300 mg L1, yoghurt limits at
350 mg kg1 and candy limits at 200 mg kg1 to mention
but a few.
The chlorination of sucrose (to produce sucralose) is
a process whereby three hydroxyl groups of the sucrose
molecule are substituted by three chlorine atoms (see
Fig. 1). The very much increased sweetness of sucralose
(as compared to sucrose) is due to the structure of the
molecule; the two chlorine atoms present in the fructose
portion of the molecule lead to more hydrophobic
properties on the opposite side of the molecule.
The common approach for sucralose determination is
to use high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)
with refractive index (RI) detection [2], with sucralose
detection limits of about 10–50 mg kg1 being reported
(depending on sample type). However, since RI detectors
are sometimes sensitive to temperature fluctuations,
inconsistent retention times and low compatibility with
gradient elution, other analytical possibilities have been
looked into. Methods such as high performance thin
layer chromatography (HPTLC) [3] with sucralose
detection limits of 30.0 mg kg1 in beverages have also
J. McCourt (&) Ć J. Stroka Ć E. Anklam
European Commission, DG Joint Research Centre,
Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements,
Retieseweg 111, 2440 Geel, Belgium
E-mail: josephine.mc-court@cec.eu.int
Anal Bioanal Chem (2005) 382: 1269–1278
DOI 10.1007/s00216-005-3258-5