A candid look at Splenda safety issues

So, is Splenda (Sucralose) safe to use? (updated April 2006)
Well now, this seems to be the million dollar question on so many people's minds nowadays ... Whether amongst my fellow low-carbers, by the many people coping with diabetes, those working at controlling their weight or by people wanting to eliminate or reduce the multitude of Sugars in modern diets. We (our family) do have a rather unique perspective on this issue, and I'm sure one you can relate to after reading this story. You see, we have been the largest personal users of Splenda on earth ... and we started doing so over 14 years ago. Unlike many other people who try and scare you with theory - we can talk from personal experience, so perhaps you may want to take the time to read what life has been like for our family. Yes, I write and sell Splenda-based cookbooks. I was the first author in the world to do so and still am the most prolific "Splendid author" ... but I was (and remain) a loving caring mother and wife long before I was an author, and the last thing I would ever do is to hurt our children or ourselves. I'm sure you would agree that absolutely nothing is worth risking health, family and happiness, and I'd rather never sell another cookbook if I thought for a minute that our own family or someone else's was going to be hurt by doing so. Life is just to short to have that on my conscience, and besides, we do not need the money from sales of books as God has taken awesome care of us. That said, there is so much hysteria on this subject (Most of which created by the "sugar lobby", other selfish interests or by genuine but misguided zeal) that by not at least presenting our case, we would seem to be conceding that there really is a problem. Special interest are very hard at work to keep sugars in almost every food we regularly consume and to reverse gains made by Splenda in the market place. Just 100 years ago people each consumed much less than 1 / 10th of the sugar we now each consume, and did not have the health problems we now mostly do. Type-2 diabetes was certainly not a teenage epidemic, and obesity was rare - but then so were pop, candy and all the processed foods with sugar added. Today those are immensely huge and profitable industries! See this issue for what it really is. Here then is our simple story. You can be the judge, weighing the believability of theory or selfish interests over that of simple practical experience.

(Our Family back then - April 1992) While it's true that Sucralose was tested over many years, and that there have been both human and animal trials with Sucralose, I suspect that the human trials must have been very controlled and likely did not represent an extreme case of Sucralose consumption and that the animal trials (probably using rats) did probably include extremely large amounts of Sucralose. Now I don't know about you, but I just cannot relate my health to that of rats! So then, is there a actual case of comparably "extreme human Sucralose consumption"? Yes, in fact there is! In fact ,to the best of my knowledge, there is only 1 such case in the world ... and I know them personally; you see, it is our family. Since 1991, when I became the first cookbook author in the world to start developing Splenda-based dessert (and other) recipes for my books, our family has consumed (on average) some 2,000 or more cups of Splenda annually, between the 4 of us, starting in 1991 when we were 35, 34, 7 and 4. My first book was published in 1993, my second book in 1997, my third book in 2001, my fourth in October 2002, my fifth in October 2003, my sixth in April 2004 and the seventh book is due out in October 2004. The development and perfection of hundreds upon hundreds of dessert recipes required the use of a lot of Splenda! A point that should not be under-emphasized, is that an entire country, Canada, was using Splenda from about 1991 ... that is some 8 years before it was available for use in the USA and more than a decade before it was available in many other countries, and all that time doing so without much fuss or bother at all. In fact, Canadians have been using Splenda in a variety of forms long before most people (around the world) even knew it existed. So imagine all of our collective surprise when a decade later some folks started portraying Splenda as being a "new" sweetener and intimating (but never having the courage to categorically state) that it is a hazardous substance as well? Well, for years now the number 2 and 3 spots (and others) on GOOGLE when entering the search word "Splenda" - generally ahead of us and other useful Splenda sites, have been the sites of "the Sucralose toxicity center" and a certain "Dr. Mercola's site". Their veiled allegations have spawned, other sites who took up their banner for a variety of reasons, but most of these are are somehow connected to Holistic healing type sites or the beleaguered competition, most of whom often take a very non-professional (negative and sensationalist) approach when talking about Splenda's safety (as well as other things). Very clearly they have a hidden (or perhaps not so well hidden?) agenda. Personally, I am a little "miffed" at their very sneaky self-serving approach, so much so that I am sharing a bit of my family's history with you to put things into perspective. It does not often happen this way, but us 35 million humble, gentle, peace-loving, quiet folks (Canadians) that live to the north of the mightiest nation on earth - the one that rules the world, the United States of America, actually can talk quite authoritatively on the subject of Splenda's safety, it's strengths and it's weaknesses, and do so much more helpfully than Dr. Mercola and these other sites! Years ago, rather perplexed, we e-mailed Dr. Mercola to point out our family's positive Splenda story, but it seems he is way more interested in only pointing out the very few poorly documented (and scientifically suspect) negative stories (heavily laced with innuendos) and he never even bothered to reply to us, so really, since these sites just mention the negatives, I'd have to conclude that they are really not interested in any balanced scientific approach at all. All of the negative information on Splenda is traceable back to one or two people/groups and they then simply point back to each other as "authorities" to back up their claims - not very scientific or even helpful at all but often effective at scaring people. Anyhow, as I update this article, more that 14 years after Splenda first appeared on our store shelves here in Canada, my husband and I are soon turning 50, and our sons are turning 22 and 19. To be totally safe I suppose we could all wait another 35 years or so, then after 5 decades we will all know more definitively if Splenda has harmed us and/or others in any way. BUT, until then, this is how we reasoned, when deciding to integrate Splenda (Sucralose) into our family's diet:

Back in 1991, we were ASSURED (by the USA manufacturers of Splenda) that:

(1) Sucralose is Chemically Inert and does not react with anything while in your body - This was/would be tough for us to verify.
(2) All the Sucralose ingested is excreted (un-metabolized) from your body - Once again, it would be tricky for us to verify this.
(3) Sucralose has no calorific content and cannot be used as an energy source - True, but it is interesting to note that Splenda does indeed contain calories, due to the addition of the fillers, maltodextrine and dextrose, giving Splenda 1/8th the calories of Sugar - higher than some other sweeteners, but still way better than sugar!
(4) Sucralose is very stable, even intense cooking/baking heat will not change it - This does indeed seem to be the case.
(5) Sucralose tastes very much like Sugar (Sucrose) and has no strange aftertaste - Well ... it is certainly the best tasting of the sweeteners we have tested.
(6) Sucralose has been approved for a very wide range of uses by the FDA and other countries - The FDA and other countries' Health departments/agencies (Health Canada being the first) did indeed approve it.
(7) Sucralose has been subjected to many tests over many years in many countries - Yes, but before it was released, it was not tested in huge amounts on people of both sexes and of all ages and over a long period of time. In effect, we Canadians became those test subjects. So then, you may ask us, how did Splenda fare?

(And in 2004) So, what if anything (health-wise) went wrong with our family during the last 14 or so years? With the benefit of hind-sight, probably around 1995 or so, I developed Hashimoto's Thyroiditis, a fairly common autoimmune condition, especially in women in their mid-life, that affects the thyroid. However, this went undiagnosed (as is often the case) until 2002. Since this condition is "acquired" by women, the world over and most of them have never even heard of or used Splenda, I doubt very much that Splenda was to blame for me getting it.. However, this condition made me "hypothyroid", which meant that losing weight (an ongoing struggle for most of my adult life) got to be almost impossible, and using Splenda to help me in that regard, took on a whole new meaning! I have fluctuated from my marriage weight (at 22 years of age) of 110lbs to as much as 150lbs, which on my 5'3" frame was quite noticeable! I regard my ideal weight now to be around 120lbs, though this has been a rather elusive goal for me with the mid to low 130's being where I have spent most of my last 9 years. Developing cookbooks (continuously) is, by it's very nature, quite calorific! I would hasten to add that if I were not developing low-carb recipes, I undoubtedly would be well above 150lbs, however, I'm in the low 130's. Every now and then I manage to push my weight down into the 120's, but having a "problematic thyroid" makes that quite a challenge! I started seriously investigating Low-Carbing back in the late 1990's, and by late 1998 my husband and I started to low-carb. In the last few years, my husband went on to have some struggles with mild hypertension which now is under control, but this runs in his family and probably has more to do with his weight (at times, like on world travels, he cheats) and a higher salt consumption than what is wise, as well as his "driven" nature and his stress-filled career and life - his in-laws (sadly) having been a major contributor to that stress. Other than that, our dental health is great, our weight is (almost) under control. We all have suffered from blessedly few viral/bacterial infections, since almost entirely eliminating sugar from our lives, and even fewer after adopting the low-carbing way of life. Overall I'd have to say that our general health and sense of well-being is excellent. As we did for our own family, you must research the topic well and decide whether to include Splenda (Sucralose) in your own diet or the diet of your family. For us now, there is no turning back - we are committed, long time users of Splenda. Time will tell if that was a wise or an unwise choice. We simply decided that our family's "Sweet-tooth" could not be removed, but that Sugar was certainly not making us any healthier! That was our family dilemma almost 14 years ago now.

Back then we evaluated the alternatives and chose to integrate Splenda into our Diet ... at least until something better came along. Nothing has ... as of yet. Above (and below) are recent photos of us all, taken when our eldest son turned 20, in early June 2004. They show all of us, with our eldest son now 20, our youngest 17, me 47 and Ian 48 ... still happy and healthy and, though we need to get serious again about "those last 10 lbs or so", not looking at all out of control as Ian and I approach 50, having (just this month) celebrated our 25th wedding anniversary. We are childhood sweethearts and have known and loved each other for 34 years, this Christmas. Obviously we care about each other and our children and would not do anything to jeopardize each other or our children. Our son's routinely achieve 90% and higher in all their academic achievements, are tall, healthy, have great physiques, pleasant personalities and are a credit to society! We have noted NONE of the supposed symptoms on the list in the so-called Dr's anti-Splenda website. How odd? After all, we all have consumed much more Splenda than any of the people he quotes as having terrible problems. How odd too that so many people now routinely use this product, including much of Canada for almost 14 years now, with no symptoms, yet he tries to make one believe that terribly dire consequences will result from using even a little Splenda ... and then quickly goes on to suggest you buy his book in which he tells you how to remove all and any sweetness in your life too - to be just like him. Hmm ... sounds somewhat "fishy"! It is not entirely impossible that some very few people exhibit adverse reactions from consuming Splenda, though I have never come across or heard of any in these last 14 years myself, but what he neglects to mention to place even that information in perspective (but I feel he should, as a professional) is that many people almost die from eating shrimp, strawberries, eggs and nuts etc. (all natural products - even if they are organically grown) and that the numbers of those "adverse reactions" clearly are very much higher than any of the so-called adverse reactions he reports on his website.

So, before you get "traumatized" by the inevitable "scare-mongers" out there on the web, just stop and think logically for a while ... While they desperately try and make you believe that Splenda is relatively new and has only been available for 5 or so years, that is just not true! Canada is an entire country in which MILLIONS of people have been regularly using Splenda for almost 14 years now. It has a National (Government run) Health care system, for which Federal and Provincial (State) dollars pay. So what exactly would be the incentive for Health Canada (our FDA) to approve Splenda and keep it approved, if it was costing these governments Billions of $'s in ongoing health care costs? Thus the thinly-veiled allegations that somehow these international "Health agencies", like Health-Canada and others, do not know what they are doing or are somehow "in the pocket" of Johnson & Johnson (the parent company) or Tate and Lyle (the manufacturer) so that they can make (in Canada) some 10's of Millions of $'s in profits each year (which is mostly sent down to the USA parent company anyway), while we here in Canada get stuck with a Billion $ health-care bill (for which we all have to pay, as a result of an "unsafe product") is just plain ludicrous! I have no doubt that our Health Department (which is totally independent of the FDA) knew exactly what it was doing when Canada became the first country to approve Splenda for Human consumption back in the early 90's - some 8 years before the FDA approved it for consumption in the USA. We have all been using Splenda for almost 14 years now, and there really have been no problems of any significance reported here. Still, just remember that there are no "iron-clad" guarantees" in life. Not consuming any food or drink will probably protect you from harmful substances, but then you'd be dead within 2-3 days from thirst anyway - however consuming just gasoline will kill you much quicker. Somewhere in the middle of those two extremes lies "reason" ... and that's a really good place to live! Ian's Dad, as a young boy, was pretty much already "given up for dead" from a massive bacterial infection (in the late 1920's) and lay dying in a remote part of the world (at the southern tip of Africa) when their family Doctor (at that time) suggested that "Sulfur drugs", the first antibiotics, just newly available in Germany, had been noted to cure that particular infection. These man-made (not natural!) Sulfur drugs were then flown from Germany to South Africa, in the antique planes of those days, and were successfully used to save his life. He went on to become a Doctor in the remotest regions of Southern Africa, in turn saving many people from dying from Typhus and other deadly diseases. The family in the picture (above) would not exist today were it not for man-made substances. Let's get real ... to take a "hard and fast" stance against everything "not natural" is also just plain dumb! Let's not forget that our own bodies produce Chlorinated-Hydrogen (HCl) in significant quantities and then pumps this very strong hydrochloric acid directly into our stomachs on a regular basis all of our lives, and has done so with humanity as far back as we can be traced. That acid, as it is produced by our bodies, is highly corrosive! As well, Chlorinated Sodium (NaCl) otherwise known as table-salt, is pretty useful stuff, so the "Chlorine bogeyman", though effective for scaring people, can also be very misleading! Yes, there are many dangerous natural and man-made substances, and there are many good natural and man-made substances ... so let's use "reason" to find the good ones, and "reason" to avoid the bad ones, but very importantly, let's try and avoid "hysteria" for determining either - that really serves nobody well at all!

Rest assured, if we notice ANY problems possibly relating to our massive Splenda consumption, we will let you know - right here on this web-site after doing some due-diligence. For now, ponder this: The average person (in North America) consumes about 170 lbs of Sugar a year (that is around 380 cups) compared with about 10 lbs a century ago, and displays a wide variety of side-effects from this over consumption of Sugar! In my family, for more than a decade now, we have almost eliminated the consumption of Sugar and each of us has consumed much more than that (some 500 cups annually) of Splenda instead of Sugar. On this website, there is a story of my "Thyroid problems". While it is remotely possible that these can somehow be related to my massive Splenda consumption, I personally doubt it. None of my family members seem to be showing any similar problems and thyroid problems have a natural tendency to occur (quite frequently) in women of my age, most of whom have never used any Splenda.

So, for now you can regard us Canadians as "Human test subjects" (notice that I did not say "test-dummies") for Splenda consumption. If anything does go wrong with any of the members of our family, we will detail it on this website, as we have done above, openly and honestly, and then we can all debate, openly and honestly, whether we/you think Splenda (reasonably) may have had anything to do with it. Remember, we have almost a decade-long head start on most of you in the massive consumption of Splenda (Sucralose) and, without a doubt, as far as people are concerned, we have been the largest users of Splenda on this planet! We likely have each consumed more Splenda (Sucralose) in almost 14 years, than most people will consume in their entire lifetimes. Our family and children have grown up on Splenda and we are all still alive, well, happy, in love ... and generally thriving. Worth mentioning is that by almost eliminating Sugar consumption in our family, we have indeed noticed improved health! However, it can be argued (with some merit) that if we eliminated Sugar and never used Splenda, we would likely be even healthier? Yes, perhaps, but one has to enjoy life too, and tasty sweet treats have been and continue to be an important part of all of our lives!

Sucralose is made from Sugar and is used to make Splenda which tastes like sugar. Sucralose, has no calories but also does not measure, look or act much like sugar. Sucralose is 600 x sweeter than sugar, so much less is needed for the same sweetness. To make it appear as a replacement for sugar, Sucralose is bulked up with Maltodextrin a carbohydrate derived from corn, giving it some calories but making it measure and act more like sugar. This combination is called Splenda Granular. Splenda Granular weighs 1/8 as much as sugar, has 1/8th the calories but lacks the volume sugar imparts to recipes, does not caramelize, is very tricky to use for chocolate recipes of all kinds, is even trickier to use for candy making, has a definite "lag" in it's sweetness and is generally not as easy to use as sugar in baking, which is exactly why I did much experimenting and wrote these Splenda-based cookbooks, to show how these flaws can be compensated for. For any recipes in which sugar contributes greatly to the structure and volume (which accounts for many desserts), it is not possible to simply substitute Splenda, and expect to still get a similar result. You need to make substantial modifications to the other ingredients in the recipe. These modifications are essential in order to end up with a dessert similar to the sugar-based original. This problem is not as prevalent in meat/vegetable dishes which use less sugar and in which the Sugar is simply used to "sweeten" the dish. Baking, Desserts and Candy is where the major challenges lie. Splenda Granular contains 100 calories per cup, whereas sugar contains 800 calories. Splenda is the 'marketing' or 'brand' name. Sucralose is its chemical name and it has ZERO Carbs and calories. Splenda is supposedly chemically inert and we are told that all the Sucralose one consumes is excreted unused. The Maltodextrin (starch used to bulk-up the Splenda) is, of course, recognized by the body as a 'weak' carbohydrate (actually it has a high glyceamic index, but because there is relatively little of it, by weight, present in a cup of Splenda it adds relatively few carbs/calories) and is treated as such by the body - thus the Carbs/Calories in Splenda. Splenda is heat stable at baking temperatures (like sugar and unlike Aspartame). Splenda is approved for use in the USA (1998), Canada (1991) and many other countries now. Splenda has been subjected to rigorous tests over a 20 year period and is generally deemed "safe". Splenda was discovered by the giant UK sugar company Tate and Lyle in the 70's. Splenda is marketed by a Johnson and Johnson subsidiary, the McNeil Specialty Products company. Splenda has been used in large amounts by my family for some 13 (going on 14) years now. Each member of my family has consumed thousands of cups of Splenda over that period, with no obviously apparent ill effects?. Splenda is certainly worth investigating as a sugar substitute! It is definitely a cut above other artificial sweeteners - but it is not perfect! Splenda Granular is what I use preferentially and occasionally I will use some (few) sugar free chocolate chips sweetened with a sugar alcohol (usually maltitol). I prefer not to use Sugar, but one can add some sugar into bread recipes, and others using yeast in the rising process, as the yeast consumes the sugar. I absolutely refuse to use Aspartame/Nutrasweet/Equal, Saccharin, Cyclamates or Sorbitol - even though they are cheaper. Splenda does not cause abdominal discomfort or tooth decay. Maltitol has some potential for some low-carbers, however, you may as well count it as having half the total number of carbs of sugar, just to be on the safe side. The problem is that most of the sugar alcohols (Those ending in "ol"), either cause various degrees of gastric distress (you may as well buy and eat Ex-lax rather than buying a Sorbitol sweetened chocolate candy) or others have a cooling effect on your mouth (kind of like menthol) and are not really "ZERO CARB" options, besides being expensive and sometimes hard to find! Acesulfame-K and Stevioside are somewhat interesting, but simply because Stevia occurs naturally (exactly the same can be said about SUGAR, by the way) simply does not guarantee that it is safe. Because the word "natural" can legitimately be applied to Stevia, it has big following - but that does not mean that it is definitively "Safe" - or even that it is "safer" than Splenda. Stevia proponents have yet to prove their claims scientifically beyond any reasonable doubt, though they do have lots of anecdotal evidence and it does not appear that any "smoking-gun" has been found yet, but really, the "taste-test" is what ruled it out for me - it's taste (in its various forms) leaves a lot to be desired! Acesulfame-K has received approval by the FDA, but it is important to note that Stevia is not approved by the FDA for general use as a sweetener, and thus I cannot promote its use in my cookbooks or on this website, as that could lead to seizure of my books at the border by US customs. In my humble opinion, no perfect sweetener to replace sugar is available yet, They all have "pros and cons", but for now Splenda is the best one out there! In our opinion (and it's one shared by so many people) a really positive step would be the release of a pill or liquid form of Splenda as well, which is pure Sucralose - i.e. with no fillers added. Many of us do not welcome the addition of Maltodextrine and/or Dextrose. I continue to be open-minded. If anyone can point me to a better and safer sugar-substitute than Splenda, I would certainly try it and, if it is indeed better, I would use it. So far this has not happened.

or if you tire easily of this "tempest in a tea-pot" created by selfish interests ... you may rather want to: