Splenda is a favorite of many trying to avoid overdosing (or even using) sugar. Sugar is definitely bad. But this stuff is hardly a better option. Consider these fun facts:
- As of 2006, only six human trials had been published on Splenda (sucralose).
- Of those six trials, only two were completed and published before the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption.
- The two published trials had a grand total of 36 total human subjects.
- Of those, only 23 people were actually given sucralose for testing.
- The longest trial had lasted only four days and looked at sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance.
Feeling motivated yet? Nothing like Mother Government and her FDA looking at 23 people and telling the rest of us the poison isn't harmful. Anyone eat this stuff more than 4 days? Of course, that is only the human trials. We can extrapolate based on animal studies too, can't we? I think so. Consider these problems in test animals:
- Decreased red blood cells -- sign of anemia -- at levels above 1,500 mg/kg/day.
- Increased male infertility by interfering with sperm production and vitality, as well as brain lesions at higher doses.
- Enlarged and calcified kidneys (McNeil stated this is often seen with poorly absorbed substances and was of no toxicological significance. The FDA Final Rule agreed that these are findings that are common in aged female rats and are not significant.)
- 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.
I got this information from Mercola's site. The article goes on to recommend safe alternatives (stevia) and includes a member-discussion. One member posted about Splenda getting rid of cockroaches that came home with him from a retreat (Splenda was created accidentally while attempting to manufacture an insecticide).