and Splenda are not the same formula. Sucralose is the base
sweetener added to Splenda, while Splenda is a blend of Sucralose
and high glycemic sugars.
alcohols, such as isomalt, xylitol, erythritol, mannitol,
and sorbitol, maltitol, isomalt, lactitol, and maltitol, are
viewed as alternatives to artificial sweeteners.
issue with sugar alcohols is their ability to disrupt glycemic
responses in humans and trigger gastrointestinal distress.
acknowledge that sugar alcohols can elevate blood glucose
and glycemic levels. According to Diabetes Spectrum 2004:
claims by many food manufacturers, sugar alcohols do affect
the postprandial blood glucose response in individuals both
with and without diabetes.”
Isomalt, in particular, has been proven to cause disruptions
in glycemic levels. In clinical trials, isomalt showed a marked
increase in blood glucose levels. In clinical trials, isomalt,
a sugar alcohol, was shown to cause moderate to profound gastric
distress, including diarrhea and flatulence. In children age
4 to 14, isomalt was shown to cause diarrhea in 25 % of the
In diabetics, the glycemic response to sugar alcohols can
be profound. Sorbitol has been known to elevate blood sugar
slower than high glycemic sugars, but rapidly enough to cause
postprandial blood sugar elevation. Significant blood sugar
elevation is evidenced hours after consuming foods containing
sugar alcohols and/or sugar alcohol syrups.
on sugar alcohols have raised health concerns in the scientific
community. These include adrenal medullary proliferative lesions,
and cytogenetic effects in humans.
S, Rencüzoğullari E (2006). "The cytogenetic effects
of food sweetener maltitol in human peripheral lymphocytes".
Drug Chem Toxicol 29 (3): 269–78
BS, Tischler AS, Capen C, Munro IC, McGirr LM, McClain
RM (1996). "Low digestible carbohydrates (polyols
and lactose): significance of adrenal medullary proliferative
lesions". Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 23 (3): 256–97.
doi:10.1006/rtph.1996.0055. PMID 8812969
THE LONG-TERM SAFETY OF SWEETENERS
sweeteners, such as Ace K (Acesulfame Potassium), are considered
potentially dangerous and not acceptable for use by humans
(Center for Science in the Public Interest, Wash. D.C.),
yet they can be found in hundreds of foods and beverages in
the grocery store. Sweeteners that are considered to be natural,
such as sugar alcohols, can possess side effects and long-term
health concerns. Natural licorice and licorice glycosides
can cause spontaneous abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy.
a natural product, has raised serious issues regarding safe
dosage, form of glycoside, and long-term use in humans. In
Vivo studies on Stevia have shown that it may increase insulin
secretion through stimulation of the beta cells in the pancreas
(Metabolism, 49,2:208-14, 2000). Just as cancer concerns
have dogged the artificial sweeteners aspartame and saccharin,
some researchers worry about the safety of Stevia. The FDA
rejected Stevia petitions in the 1990’s, after research linked
Stevia with infertility in rats, and cancer in a laboratory
setting. The FDA now says (2009) that one of the
currently marketed reformulations of Stevia, rebiana Reb A
glycoside, is Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS).
researcher John Pezzuto isn’t convinced. He cites a study
he conducted that suggests a certain strain of Stevia can
mutate DNA, a possible cancer risk. His findings are in tandum
with prior research involving Stevia. “Given that there’s
the potential for a mutagenic response, why take the risk
with Stevia?” asks Pezzuto, Dean of the University of Hawaii
at Hilo College of Pharmacy. “I will not be consuming any
In a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the
Center for Science in the Public Interest says the
agency should require additional tests, including a key animal
study, before accepting rebiana Reb A glycoside (Stevia) as
Generally Regarded as Safe, or GRAS.
Even natural table sugar (sucrose) has side-effects such as
elevation of blood glucose and insulin levels, increase in
fat-cell size, exacerbation of hyperactivity and ADD in children,
and cholesterol imbalance. Diligent monitoring of all available
studies involving synthetic sweeteners is mandatory for scientists
in the nutrition field. If any sweetener is found to possess
validated health dangers, it is the obligation of the formulator
and manufacturer to remove the offending ingredient from products
ingested by humans and/or animals.
AP, Ferreira-Machado SC, Nunes RM, Dantas FJ, De Mattos
JC, Caldeira-de-Araújo A (2007). "Analysis of genotoxic
potentiality of stevioside by comet assay". Food
Chem. Toxicol. 45 (4): 662–6
Incretin hormones, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent
insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), play an important role in
glucose homeostasis in both health and diabetes. Knowledge
of the effects of Sucralose, as well as all other sweeteners,
on gastric emptying and incretin hormone release is mandatory
in formulating any product that will be ingested by humans.
The most prominent issue related to formulating with Sucralose
and all other non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS), is the relationship
between the sweetener and its ability to promote fat-storage,
obesity, insulin resistance, and type 2 diabetes.
In order to formulate products which do not increase
risk of diabetes, insulin resistance, and obesity, the following
factors must be addressed:
Index & Load
Tissue Fat-Storing Properties
formulators and clinician’s are unaware that Sucralose and
all other non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) promote
hunger unless they are formulated with specific
Low Glycemic, Non-Cephalic caloric ingredients.
sweeteners (NNS) are chemosensory signaling compounds that
influence ingestive processes and behavior. Therefore, all
formulas and products made with artificial sweeteners and
non-caloric sweeteners have the ability to stimulate the Cephalic
Response and blood glucose excursions, leading to increased
fat-storage and risk of type 2 diabetes.
In 2009, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
published a meticulous study showing that:
addition of Non-Nutritive Sweeteners (NNS) to diets
poses no benefit for weight
loss or reduced weight gain without energy restriction.
are long-standing and recent concerns that inclusion
of NNS in the diet promotes energy intake
and contributes to obesity.
Given the fact that non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS)
can cause weight gain and stimulate insulin,
formulators are required to use discretionary applications
when selecting a sweetening system for orally ingested products.
Documented wide ranges of concentrations and multiple combinations
of non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) in products further complicate
the outcome of NNS, as each sweetener carries different metabolic
With a plethora of sweeteners and sugars to choose from, the
clinician and professional formulator need to possess an in-depth
knowledge of the metabolic responses related to the large
variety of sweeteners available for inclusion in orally ingested
a working knowledge of the metabolic response of sweeteners
and sugars used in formulas, the diabetic and obesity properties
of foods, beverages, Nutraceuticals and Pharmaceuticals, is
an unknown factor.
the public consumer was made aware of the fat-storing and
diabetic-properties of a specific product, they would be unlikely
to select a product that was fattening and/or increased risk
of diabetes and insulin resistance.
expose the public to products without revealing their underlying
metabolic properties is irresponsible on the part
of the formulator, manufacturer, and marketer.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-NUTRITIVE SWEETENERS (NNS)
Federal government law dictates what information must be provided
to consumers regarding sweeteners. Because all of the approved
NNS are regarded as GRAS, producers and manufacturers are
not required to provide content data on food labels
or to release this information to federal agencies.
Because of these federal laws, consumers are at the mercy
of the formulator and manufacturer to protect them from inappropriate
dosage and use of non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS).
SUCRALOSE & CEPHALIC RESPONSE
The 2007 journal NeuroImage published a study conducted
on Sucralose utilizing functional magnet resonance imaging,
which proved that non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) activate
different human taste pathways in the human brain than natural
sugars, such as sucrose.
results of the trial are indicative of many other similar
clinical trials that illustrate the significance of understanding
how non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) act on the human body.
trials showed that:
Both sucrose and Sucralose activate functionally connected
primary taste pathways;
Taste pleasantness predicts left insula response;
Sucrose elicits a stronger brain response in the anterior
insula, frontal operculum, striatum and anterior cingulate,
compared to sucralose;
sucrose, but not Sucralose, stimulation engages dopaminergic
midbrain areas in relation to the behavioral pleasantness
Thus, the brain response distinguishes the caloric from the
non-caloric sweeteners, although the conscious mind does not.
Using non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) in food, beverage, and
Nutraceutical and Pharmaceutical formulas requires an in-depth
understanding of the glycemic, insulinogenic, diabetic, and
adipose tissue fat-storing properties of non-natural as well
as natural sugars and sweeteners.
Without a clear metabolic-picture of the impact of sugars/sweeteners
on the human body, the outcome of formulating nutritional
supplements is not predictable.
the growing global obesity and diabetes epidemic, Nutraceuticals
and Pharmaceuticals should be required to conform to diet-friendly
and diabetic-friendly guidelines, or at a minimum, to reveal
to the public the obesity/diabetic properties of their products.
39, 15 February 2008, Pages 1559-1569. Sucrose activates
human taste pathways differently from artificial sweetener.
bottom line in formulating with Sucralose, and other non-nutritive
sweeteners (NNS) is that all non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS)
used in formulas must be combined with a Low Glycemic,
Non-Cephalic natural sweetener/sugar.
combinatorial equation is essential in preventing negative
metabolic excursions in humans, such as weight gain and
glycemic imbalance. The potential for non-nutritive sweeteners
(NNS) to promote weight gain was illustrated by the
American Cancer Society study which was conducted
over a one-year period and included 78,694 women. Those who
used non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) were significantly
more likely to gain weight than were non-users of NNS.
that contain NNS, with no calories/carbohydrates, or few calories
and carbohydrates, are particularly capable of causing weight
gain and imbalanced blood glucose levels, due to gastric emptying
sweeteners, such as Stevia, though considered natural,
are not acceptable for use in Non-Cephalic, Low Glycemic formulas.
beverages, Nutraceutical and Pharmaceutical products designed
by formulators that are unfamiliar with the metabolic responses
of the sweeteners and sugars they use in producing consumables,
are ultimately playing Russian Roulette with consumers
who expect that the products they ingest have been scrutinized
for their ability to instigate increased risk of type 2 diabetes,
insulin resistance, weight gain, and obesity.