Our Research & Development staff are aware of the controversy surrounding this sweetener, and are monitoring this issue. 
 
Also, the idea that humans are 10 times more sensitive to substances than rats is ludicrous according to R&D, and is not supported by research.  This appears to be the opinion of the article's author only.
 
 
Meanwhile you may be assured that if this ingredient could not be used safely, Neways would not use it.
 
 

The following information has come from our Research & Development staff in regards to Neways use of sucralose.

Neways’ Decision to use Sucralose® as an Ingredient in Products

 

As with all ingredients Neways uses, the company has researched the research on Splenda®, a brand of artificial sweetener known technically as sucralose. Neways has concluded that the use of Splenda® is not only safe, but it is a real benefit to distributors by reducing caloric intake from sweetening in many Neways products.

 

First, it should be noted that Splenda is not the same as other artificial sweeteners, such as Nutrasweet™ (aspartame) or Saccharin. Making direct comparisons is not valid. Neways does not use these other artificial sweeteners.

 

Second, it should be noted that more than forty nations have done their own examinations of the product and found it to be safe even at higher levels of ingestion than normal. The United States approved Splenda® in 1998 after years of study comprising some 10,000 pages, and there has been further testing after this date. Literally thousands of individual experiments have been conducted and analyzed in laboratories on animals and humans.

 

Much of the public concern centers on fears related to other artificial sweeteners, or from certain individuals who claim to have had adverse reactions. Unfortunately, individual perceptions are not scientific evidence, and while certain results of use may be assumed to be caused by Splenda®, publishing opinions in multiple places on the internet does not make for real evidence. Perhaps some of these reactions do have Splenda® as a contributing factor, but the weight of confirmed evidence is much greater that they do not.

 

Equally unfortunate is the “sky is falling” way of writing negatively about such products. For instance, two websites mention that a certain gland could shrink up to 40%. The actual results of that study on rats shows a significantly lower average with rats being starved, an unusual condition under which to test any sweetener. The negative websites fail to mention the test conditions or the whole body of evidence that produced the supposedly negative results on rats, or the specific extension of that information to humans.

 

Even water consumption in great amounts has been shown to have negative effects in some people. There will always be some controversy over almost any ingredient used in manufacturing ingestible products, but Neways trusts the various government regulators and the multitude of scientific studies that conclude that Splenda® is a safe and even recommended alternative to other forms of sweeteners. Neways will monitor the results of future studies.


 

From Neways Research & Development:  Recently we have been studying the various noncaloric sweeteners that are on the market and approved by the FDA. Most recently included in this list is sucralose, a derivative of the sucrose molecule. We have pulled together many studies that relate to the safety of sucralose. These articles have been peer-reviewed by doctors and researchers. The FDA tends to be pretty conservative when it comes to approving sweeteners, and they have studied sucralose extensively and approved it (AND without a warning on the label such as aspartame and saccharin were required to have).

Even though the thought of an "artificial sweetener" may seem scary, people need to realize what these sweeteners have done in the fight against diabetes and obesity. Diabetics can use these sweeteners to replace sugar in their diets and keep their blood sugar down. Obese persons can use these sweeteners to help them reduce caloric intake.

The R&D department has been impressed with the safety profile of sucralose, and have found no legitimate health concerns.

Neways International is making a conscious effort to move away from artificial sweeteners where possible, however, our studies have shown this ingredient to be non-toxic, and better than many other possibilities (saccharin, acesulfame K, aspartame etc). In addition, sucralose is so delightfully sweet and has virtually no after-taste.  Consumer advocacy is a vital service; hysteria promotion is generally only profitable to those that produce it.   

Following is a summary of our sucralose research. We hope that you find it helpful. Thank you for your concern.

 


 

Sucralose

A non-caloric, non-cariogenic, great-tasting sweetener made from sugar

General Description:

Sucralose is a novel sweetener gaining widespread acclaim in the food industry. Trichlorogalactosucrose, as it is also called, is 600 times sweeter than sucrose (table sugar). Sucralose is made from the sucrose molecule in a five-step process that selectively substitutes three atoms of chlorine for three hydroxyl groups, conferring great stability to the compound. Because of this added stability, sucralose is non-nutritive and non-caloric, meaning that it is not broken down during the digestive process and will not be used for energy in the body or contribute calories to the diet. Sucralose was approved in April 1998 as a tabletop sweetener and for use in a number of desserts, confections, and nonalcoholic beverages. Marketed under the brand name SplendaÒ, sucralose is a great-tasting, non-caloric alternative to sugars such as glucose, fructose, and sucrose.

Sucralose has been proven to be safe in the course of more than 110 studies in human beings and animals in which the sweetener did not pose carcinogenic, reproductive, or neurologic risks.,,,, Sucralose has also been shown to be non-teratogenic and is presumed safe for pregnant and nursing women. Because sucralose is made from natural sugar (sucrose), the body appears to react more positively towards it than other sugar substitutes. Saccharin and aspartame (NutraSweet/Equal), two synthetic sweeteners approved for use more than 20 years ago, have sparked much controversy on the part of government agencies and consumer advocacy groups. In 1977, the FDA placed a ban on the use of saccharin because it was reported to be a carcinogen in rats. Congress required all saccharin-containing products to bear the following warning: "Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals." The mechanism by which saccharin caused bladder cancer in rats is now speculated to be inapplicable to humans, and the National Toxicology Program has removed saccharin from its list of carcinogens. The warning label has been repealed as well. However, many consumer advocacy groups, such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) continue to debate the issue, arguing that saccharin may still pose health risks. The sweetener aspartame, because of its possible association with increased incidences of seizures and headaches,, has been a source of controversy in the food additive industry as well. Aspartame is not the sweetener of choice for all people because, in addition to fears about its possible health risks, it partially metabolizes to phenylalanine, an amino acid that cannot be broken down by people with phenylketonuria ( PKU). Persons with PKU must avoid foods containing phenylalanine and are discouraged against foods sweetened with aspartame. Sucralose has been approved for use without any disclaimers or imposed warning labels, and is an appropriate sweetener for all groups of people.

The proven stability of the sucralose molecule implies its usefulness in the diets of persons with diabetes or those who seek low-calorie food and drink. Various diabetes journals have confirmed that sucralose consumption does not adversely affect blood glucose control, having no effect on insulin or blood sugar levels., This finding has triggered a worldwide launch of SplendaÒ sucralose-containing products marketed for diabetics, as well as the creation of a SpendaÒ granular compound that can be used to replace sugar teaspoon-for-teaspoon in baking. Sucralose offers a non-glycemic alternative to diabetics who seek to enjoy good-tasting food and drink without raising blood sugar levels or caloric intake.

In addition to providing benefits in blood sugar control and weight management, sucralose has also been proven to contribute to dental health. Unlike dietary glucose, fructose, and sucrose, sucralose is resistant to bacterial fermentation in the mouth and is non-cariogenic. Sucralose has also shown the capability of blunting the acidic nature of coffee and other liquids like fruit juices, thus neutralizing plaque pH and reducing risk of tooth and gum disease. By providing children and adults alike with a sugar alternative, sucralose may prove important in the reduction of dental cavities and gum disease.

Sucralose has not only set itself apart from other non-nutritive sweeteners by its good safety profile, but has also been recognized for its excellent taste. One study aimed at comparing the sensory characteristics of sucralose to other sweeteners found that the taste of sucralose was less bitter and contained less non-sweet aftertaste than both saccharin and acesulfame-K. The taste of sucralose was most comparable to natural sucrose.

Contraindications and Warnings:
 

Based on recommendations by the FDA, the acceptable daily intake for sucralose is 5mg/kg body weight. This ADI standard does not mean that higher levels necessarily pose a toxic threat, but it does mean that sufficient studies have not been conducted on levels higher that this. Consumption of any one product on a daily basis poses no threat to this ADI; however, if consuming high levels of food or drink containing sucralose throughout the day, it may be wise to monitor intake levels.

 

Grice HC, Goldsmith LA. Sucralose—An overview of the toxicity data. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2000; 29(suppl. 2): S1-S6.

Roberts A, Renwick AG, Sims J, Snodin DJ. Sucralose metabolism and pharmacokinetics in man. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2000; 29(suppl. 2): S31-S41.

Use of nutritive and nonnutritive sweeteners—Position of the ADA. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1998; 98: 580-587.

Use of nutritive and nonnutritive sweeteners—Position of the ADA. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1998; 98: 580-587.

Grice HC, Goldsmith LA. Sucralose—An overview of the toxicity data. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2000; 29(suppl. 2): S1-S6.

Mann SW, Yuschak MM, Amyes SJG, et al. A carcinogenicity study of sucralose in the CD-1 mouse. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2000; 29(suppl. 2): S91-S98.

Finn JP, Lord GH. Neurotoxicity studies on sucralose and its hydrolysis products with special reference to histopathologic and ultrastructural changes. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2000; 29(suppl. 2): S7-S17.

Kille JW, Ford WCL, McAnulty P, et al. Sucralose: lack of effects on sperm glycolysis and reproduction in the rat. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2000; 29(suppl. 2): S19-S29.

Kille JW, Tesh JM, McAnulty PA, et al. Sucralose: Assessment of teratogenic potential in the rat and rabbit. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2000; 29(suppl. 2):S43-S52.

Use of nutritive and nonnutritive sweeteners—Position of the ADA. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1998; 98: 580-587.

Pinto JM, Maher TJ. Administration of aspartame potentiates pentylenetetrazole-and fluorothyl-induced seizures in mice. Neuropharmacology 1988; 27(1): 51-5.

Van den Eeden SK, Koepsell TD, Longstreth WT Jr, et al. Aspartame ingestion and headaches: a randomized crossover trial. Neurology 1994; 44(10): 1787-93.

Use of nutritive and nonnutritive sweeteners—Position of the ADA. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1998; 98: 580-587.

Mezitis N, Koch P, Maggio C, et al. Response to Sucralose, a Novel Sweetener, in Subjects with Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes 1994; 43, S1(5): 261A.

Allison DB, Quddoos A, Mezitis N, et al. Glycemic Effect of a Single High Oral Dose of the Novel Sweetener Sucralose in Patients with Diabetes. Diabetes Care 1996; 19(9): 1004-5.

Young DA, Bowen WH. The influence of sucralose on bacterial metabolism. Journal of Dental Research 1990; August: 1480-1484.

Steinberg LM, Odusola F, Mandel ID. Effect of sucralose in coffee on plaque pH in human subjects. Caries Research 1996; 30: 138-142.

Wiet SG, Beyts PK. Sensory characteristics of sucralose and other high intensity sweeteners. J Food Sci 1992; 57(4): 1014-1019.


 
Neways Product Specialists
 
The information contained in this E-mail is intended for personal use only and these privileges are not waived by virtue of this having been sent via E-mail. If the person actually receiving this E-mail or any other reader is not the named recipient or agent responsible to deliver it, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (801) 418-2703 or return E-mail, delete any electronic copies and shred any printed copies.
 

 

From: Helthcom@aol.com [mailto:Helthcom@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 4:51 PM
To: Daniel Weight; injoy88@charter.net
Subject: writing to the product specialist to ask this question

 
 Why is sucralose in our Pro Thin:
 
Splenda, also known as sucralose, is artificial sweetener which is a chlorinated sucrose derivative. Facts about this artificial chemical follows:

 
It is very important that people who have any interest in their health stay aware from the highly toxic sweetener, aspartame and other dangerous sweeteners such as sucralose (Splenda), and acesulfame-k (Sunette, Sweet & Safe, Sweet One). Instead, please see the extensive resources for sweeteners on the Healthier Sweetener Resource List.