Splenda Causes Blood Cancers In Mice. How About Humans?

Views 19

A concerning study published earlier this year in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health titled, “Sucralose administered in feed, beginning prenatally through lifespan, induces hematopoietic neoplasias in male swiss mice,” has found that one of the most popular artificial sweeteners in the world, sucralose (aka Splenda), has carcinogenic effects in male mice.

A team of Italian researchers from the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, Ramazzini Institute, Bologna Italy, treated five groups of male and five groups of female Swiss mice from 12 days of gestation through the lifespan with sucralose in their feed concentrations of 0, 500, 2,000, 8,000 and 16,000 parts per million (ppm). They observed:

A significant dose-related increased incidence of males bearing malignant tumors (p < 0.05) and a significant dose-related increased incidence (p < 0.01) of hematopoietic neoplasias in males, in particular at the dose levels of 2,000 ppm (p < 0.01) and 16,000 ppm (p < 0.01).”

They concluded:

 “These findings do not support previous data that sucralose is biologically inert. More studies are necessary to show the safety of sucralose, including new and more adequate carcinogenic bioassay on rats. Considering that millions of people are likely exposed, follow-up studies are urgent.”

The report detailed that the type of cancer most observed in males exposed to 2,000 and 16,000 ppm sucralose were leukemias, or so-called blood cancers (hematopoeitic neoplasias):

The majority of these neoplasias were grossly visible during necropsy and involved multiple organs such as thymus, spleen, liver, and lymph nodes. Microscopically, most of the neoplasias among males treated with sucralose at 2,000–16,000 ppm were leu- kemias involving lungs, liver, spleen, lymph nodes, and bone marrow with diffuse permeation of vessels (Fig. 8) and extensive infiltration of adjacent tissues (Figs. 9 and 10). Sparse cases of histiocytic sarcomas in males were observed among the groups.  At an advanced stage of the neoplasias, the spleen was markedly enlarged with loss of the normal architecture. The liver was infiltrated by large neoplastic cells sometimes associated with degenerative changes, which were accompanied by nodular regenerative hyperplastic lesions. Other organs such as brain and adrenal glands were sometimes also involved."       

Since the study was published, there has been a wide range of criticism, as would be expected for a sweetener that is now integrated into thousands of consumer products, and sells over a billion dollars worldwide, annually.  For instance, what are companies like Starbucks to do with this information, after having served billions of servings of a potentially carcinogenic sweetener to billions of customers? While honesty is the best policy, who would like to admit that they have poisoned their customer base?  

The primary criticism thus far, and a common one, is that "the dose makes poison," and since the concentration of sucralose used in this study is far higher than any amount that a human would be reasonably exposed to if they followed the FDA's Allowable Daily Intake, it is not applicable to human experience. 

 

 

Critics of this study make the argument that the doses used in the study are far higher than humans would be exposed to, due to the FDA’s recommended allowable intake being 5 times lower. This argument, however, is part of the outdated toxicological risk assessment model where “the dose makes the poison,” and which assumes that animal studies like this form the basis for determining a so-called “acceptable level of harm” to humans. Is there really such a thing? What level of harm is acceptable when the option of not consuming a synthetic chemical is always available?

What makes this point all the more clear is the fact that sucralose has also been found to produce dioxin when heated (which is a common occurrence since it is used in baked foods and during the production of many other sucralose sweetened consumer products).  According to the World Health Organization, “Dioxins are highly toxic and can cause reproductive and developmental problems, damage the immune system, interfere with hormones and also cause cancer.” Nowhere, at present, do products containing sucralose or Splenda contain a warning on the label discussing the potential adverse effects of dioxin exposure related to their consumption. To learn more about this underreported topic, read our report on the topic:


Sucralose's (Splenda) Harms Vastly Underestimated: Baking Releases Dioxin



http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/sucraloses-splenda-harms-vastly-underestimated-baking-releases-dioxin       

Keep in mind that 2,000 ppm is equivalent to 240 mg/kg or 19.5 mg/kg in humans. While this is 4 times more than the so-called Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) set by the FDA of 5 milligram per killogram body weight per day (mg/kg bw/d),.


This study flies in the face of long-term carcinogenicity tests on rats and mice conducted on behalf of the manufacturer which failed to show evidence of carcinogenicity and which were used to obtain regulatory approval. Amazing, the 1958 Food Additive Amendment holds the manufacturer responsible for demonstrating product safety, a clear conflict of interest, considering data can easily be manipulated or null or negative findings can easily be buried.

                   

               

           

       

                   

               

           

       

(


Background: Sucralose is an organochlorine artificial sweetener approximately 600 times sweeter than sucrose and used in over 4,500 products. Long-term carcinogenicity bioassays on rats and mice conducted on behalf of the manufacturer have failed to show the evidence of carcinogenic effects.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the carcinogenic effect of sucralose in mice, using a sensitive experimental design.

Methods: Five groups of male (total n = 457) and five groups female (total n = 396) Swiss mice were treated from 12 days of gestation through the lifespan with sucralose in their feed at concentrations of 0, 500, 2,000, 8,000, and 16,000 ppm.

Results: We found a significant dose-related increased incidence of males bearing malignant tumors (p < 0.05) and a significant dose-related increased incidence (p < 0.01) of hematopoietic neoplasias in males, in particular at the dose levels of 2,000 ppm (p < 0.01) and 16,000 ppm (p < 0.01).

Conclusions: These findings do not support previous data that sucralose is biologically inert. More studies are necessary to show the safety of sucralose, including new and more adequate carcinogenic bioassay on rats. Considering that millions of people are likely exposed, follow-up studies are urgent.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.
Sayer Ji
Founder of GreenMedInfo.com

Subscribe to our informative Newsletter & get Nature's Evidence-Based Pharmacy

Our newsletter serves 500,000 with essential news, research & healthy tips, daily.

Download Now

500+ pages of Natural Medicine Alternatives and Information.

This website is for information purposes only. By providing the information contained herein we are not diagnosing, treating, curing, mitigating, or preventing any type of disease or medical condition. Before beginning any type of natural, integrative or conventional treatment regimen, it is advisable to seek the advice of a licensed healthcare professional.

© Copyright 2008-2022 GreenMedInfo.com, Journal Articles copyright of original owners, MeSH copyright NLM.