Splenda Sweet success but sour press
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
food/nutrition
Splenda
Sweet success but
sour press , —
Sandra Tonn, RHN
With increasing awareness about the dangers of
chemical sugar substitutes such as aspartanne,
consumers are searching for a replacement.
"What aboui Splenda?" they ask me, hoping to receive some
assurance from a nutritionist that they can enjoy their sweets
without calories or adverse health effects. They eagerly insist.
"It's made from sugar, so it's natural," and wait for permission
to indulge.
Just add chlorine
I wondered how an artificial sweetener could be natural and
decided to investigate. The patented multi-step process starts
with cane sugar. Three hydrogen-oxygen groups on the sugar
molceulc (sucrose) are repkiccd wilh three chlorine atoms.
resulting in an artificial compound that is approximately 6{){)
times sweeter than sugar. This compound, which was named
sucralose. is chemically stable and, therefore, stands up to high
temperatures without losing its taste. It is gaining popularity
wilh both manufacturers and consumers. »
So sucralose is made with sugar, but "Only eight percent knew Merisant Worldwide Inc., the makers
the finished product is not natural. In of the low-calorie sweetener Equal.
Splenda was made from
fact, the reason it has no calories is The second federal suit was filed by
because it is not a sugar. Why, then, do sugar and chlorine." The Sugar Association, a trade organi-
many consumers have the impression zation that represents the US sugar-
that it is natural? And does this cane and sugar-beet industries.
impression bring with it an assumption Merisant's lawsuit states, "Splenda
ot safety? Such questions have spurred is not natural in any sense of the
a rash of criticism and lawsuits against word." James Murphy, counsel for
the makers of sucralose, McNeil The Sugar Association, says. "[McNeil
Nutritionals. Nutritional] is misinforming con-
sumers about the reality of the chlori-
"Made from sugar, so it nate product Splenda." Both parties
tastes like sugar" point an accusing finger at McNeil's
Joe Schwarcz, Director of the McGill Splenda ad campaign slogan: "Made
University Office for Chemistry and with sugar, so it tastes like sugar."
Society in Montreal, is an authority on
artificial sweeteners and maintains Sour industry war
that sucralose is safe. His only criti- Lan Lai-Minh. Director ol" Commun-
cism about sucralose is its marketing ications for McNeil Consumer Health-
Sii.
approach which associates the artificial care at the Canadian headquarters in
sweetener with sugar. Schwarcz told that it was an artificial sweetener, 47 Guelph. Ontario, said in a telephone
the Montreal Gazelle that "sucralose is percent of users incorrectly believed interview, "Nowhere do we say that
different from sugar. Incorporation of Splenda was a natural product. Splenda is natural."
three chlorine atoms into the sugar CSPI Executive Director Michael F. It is a fact that Splenda is made from
molecule converts it into a totally new Jacobson. who. with a number of con- sugar and that it tastes like sugar. lt"s
substance."
sumer groups, is encouraging an inves- also a fact that Splenda, whieh has
The Texas Consumer Association, tigation, says. "Splenda's artificiality been on the market since 1991 in
an Austin-based watchdog group, con- may present a marketing challenge, Canada, has become the number one
tends that by using the word "sugar" but that's not an excuse to confuse sugar substitute. On US shelves since
in ads and on packaging, McNeil is consumers and lead them to believe 1998, Splenda has gained more than
trying to link their product with sugar that Splenda is natural or in any way half of the US market in the last four
in the minds of consumers to convince related to sugar." years. Lai-Minh says the legal action
them that sucralose is more natural While the CSPI criticizes McNeiPs taken against McNeil ''appears to be
than other sweeteners. advertising campaign, it also considers in reaction to the success of Splenda."
The Centre for Science in the Public Splenda to be safe. However. CSPI Before reaching the courts, the bat-
Interest (CSPI) commissioned a US also says aspartame is "probably safe." tle began on the Internet with the
Internet survey in April 2004 to find while some consumer-advocate groups launch of the "Truth about Splenda"
out how consumers perceive Splenda. consider it decidedly unsafe. website. The site—which is slick,
The survey, which included 426 Thus far, three state consumer class convincing, and features a flavour of
Splenda users, showed that only eight action lawsuits and two independent fear—is promoted as a public
percent knew the sweetener was made federal suits have been filed citing education campaign by a group of
from sugar and chlorine. While 57 per- false advertising and the misleading of concerned consumers but is actually
cent of Spienda users correctly believed consumers. The first to file suit was headed by The Sugar Association.
alive.com 103
McNeil considers the sour attack on "The Long-term safety of genetic, and reproductive damage.
their sweetener a smear campaign in Hull agrees with Mercola and says
sucralose is unknown."
an attempt to boost the sale of sugar. shrinkage of the thymus gland in
In response, they are suing The Sugar animal studies is a great cause for
Association and other defendants. The diarrhea. However, some of his infor- concern since the thymus gland is a
lawsuits have not scared olT Coca-Cola mation is outdated, exaggerated, and foundation of immunity.
Co.. who will launch a Splenda-sweet- poorly supported, which damages his
ened version of Diet Coke this year, credibility with independent critics. Sweetly safe?
making the sweetener even mt)re Mercola does accurately point out a In 1989 the European Commission
available and popular. key argument in the debate: the long- Scientific Committee on Food (SCF)
term safety of sucralose is unknown. stated that sucralose was safe, but had
Dangerously sweet? While McNeil tells consumers that concerns about immunological effects
Advertising aside, we know sucralose the body does not absorb sucralose, (including an impact on the thymus,
isn't natural, but is it sale? Apart from the FDA's "Final Rule" report spleen, and white-blood-cell counts)
the bad-mouthing of its competition, showed that 11 to 27 percent of the and niutagenic activity shown in ani-
very few people are speaking t>ut compound is absorbed into humans, mal tests. Consideration of new data
against sucralnse. Alternative health with the rest being excreted, resulted in a second opinion from the
guru Joseph Mercola provides a con- unchanged, in feces. Dr. Janet Starr SCF, released in September 2000. The
vincing account of why to avoid Hull (Janethull.com), author of the second report stated, "There is
sucralose. including potential prob- book Sweei Poison: How the World's adequate evidence, both for sucralose
lems with thymus glands, liver, kid- Most Popular Artificial Sweetener is and its hydrolysis products, that there
neys, spleen, growth rate, aborted or are no concerns about mutagenicity.
Killing Us: My Story (New Horizon
extended pregnancy, lowered red carcinogenicity. [or] developmental or
Press, 2001), says that chlorocarbons
blood cell count, increased weight, and reproductive toxicity."
have long been known to cause organ.
april
The first regulatory body to endorse 20 years and has an unparalleled sweetener is natural and that there is
the safety ol sucralosc. in 1990, safety profile. It is also true, however, no place Tor artificial sweeteners in a
was the Joint Expert Committee on that most of those studies were con- truly healthy diet. One is either willing
Food Additives (JECFA). which dncled by McNeil Nutritionals and to consume artificial foods or not.
includes the Food and Agriculture none of them were long-term. When we are willing, we must take the
Organization of the United Natit>ns Consumers looking to the Canadian health risks that inevitably eome with
(FAO) and the World Health Diabetes Association or Dieticians of such choices.
Organization (WHO). In 1991. Canada will not receive any help in The sweetest advice I can give is to
Canada's Health Protection Branch determining the Iruth in this sweetener stop searching for a way to get away
became the first nalional regulatory war. Both organizations simply believe with eating an unhealthy diet. In ihe
agency to endorse the safety of that all sweeteners available in our long run. artificial sweeteners do nol
sucralose. permitting its use in foods country go through rigorous testing benefit anyone except for those who
and beverages. The US Food and and therefore must be safe. However, are concerned with the business of
Drug administration (FDA) followed as recent revelations about Vioxx manufacturing and advertising such
wilh the broadest initial approval ever show, "rigorous" has proved to be a products, a
given to a food additive and extended
relative lerm when it comes in big
the approval in 1999. Today, sucralose
business in North America.
is permitted for use in more than
60 countries.
Sweet advice
While critics say that sucralose Whal dt) I tell people who ask me,
approval was based on only a lew tests "What about Splenda?" In the end I
conducted by the manufacturer, the say that sate or not, misleading or not. Sandra Tonn, RHN, is a registered
truth is that sucralose has been tested, Splenda is an artificial sweetener. I holistic nutritionist and freelance writer.
in more than 100 studies, for the past say. quite simply, that no artificial sartdratonn.com.
106You can also read
