Talk:Sucralose/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Use of sucralose for weight management

Regarding the revert of my addition, I'm not clear on what the problem is. While reading the article, I found that the reference was seriously out of context. My addition was an attempt to give some perspective. The revert seems to have been done based on a quick read of the title. I have a PhD from Mayo Clinic in biochemistry and I have a lot of experience with the scientific literature. I'm really not clear on the editor's objections. Unless there's a good reason, I want to put this text back in the article.

19:10, 12 February 2018‎ Neffk (talk | contribs)‎ . . (30,556 bytes) (+2,641)‎ . . (→‎Body weight: added information about how non-nutritive sweeteners should be useful for weight management, regardless of the validity of the dietary-fat or anti-sugar hypothesis. Added notes on the cited review.) (undo)

neffk (talk)

This is unreferenced "In the USA, public health goals can be summarized as decreasing caloric intake and increasing caloric expenditures, especially exercise that increases heart rate. In light of these goals, sucralose and other non-nutritive sweeteners are widely considered health aid."

What would you consider a reasonable source for the public health goals (as they relate to diet) from the last 70 years? Seems obvious and non-controversial. Do you personally know of anyone who claims that the US public health goals (as they relate to diet) differ from my claim? neffk (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

This is also unreferenced "The cause of obesity is thought to be related to diet. In the USA, it was assumed that fat intake was the primary cause of cardiovascular disease and obesity."

I agree, it's not referenced. However, the cause of obesity is, in fact, thought to be diet. Many academic papers indicate that it is an assumption of scientists who are studying this issue. For example, in the study cited in this section (Azad, 2017), the first sentence of the introduction is "Obesity is a major public health challenge that contributes to type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Evidence that sugar consumption is fueling this epidemic has stimulated the increasing popularity of nonnutritive sweeteners, including aspartame, sucralose and stevioside" The idea that diet (whether composition or volume) is not related to obesity is... well, it's hard to imagine. Having studied the issue at some length, I am not aware of any research that indicated that obesity is unrelated to diet.

For the point about dietary fat intake, what source would you accept? The Nurse's Health Study? neffk (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Both of these are also someone off topic and use specific. The later is overly simplifed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Brief, not oversimplified. Obviously there are many decades regarding the chemistry and composition of dietary fats and how they effect health. But the point here is to show that there are 2 camps and to show how sucralose (and other non-nutritive sweeteners) play a role in either.

Non-nutritive sweeteners are, to my knowledge, used by diabetics and those wishing to reduce their energy intake. The latter is a very large category, especially in the USA. Body weight is an important issue and one of the driving forces behind the introduction of this weird chemical into the food supply (including my own). A few words about the history of the main scientific dietary theories is important because it frames sucralose as a way to reduce energy intake and reduce sugar intake. Also, I don't know what you mean by "use specific". neffk (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

"A 2017 review found that zero-calorie sweeteners such as sucralose may be associated with an increase rather than a decrease in weight."

"May be associated" is hardly hyping the conclusions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

From the paper "consumption of nonnutritive sweeteners is not consistently associated with decreases in body weight, BMI or waist circumference". I'd take that over "may be associated". Look, there's an idea out there that a non-caloric food in very low concentrations is CAUSING people to get fatter. It's hard to imagine that this is true and there is little in the way of conclusive evidence to support the idea. I don't think we should write "may be associated" because the association found was weak and not consistent. From the paper, " Overall, there was limited evidence for the effect of nonnutritive sweeteners on BMI, with 3 long-term cohort studies suggesting a modest increase in BMI that was not confirmed in 2 RCTs". "May be associated" with is weasling, for sure. neffk (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Heat Stability

A recent evaluation of the product by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessement (BfR) has found that the compound can become dechlorinated at 120C to 250C. This info comes from this articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadianChemist (talk • contribs) 12:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Long-term toxic effects?

The article dismisses carcinogenic and mutagenic effects for Sucralose but does not mention the more straightforward toxic effects so frequently seen in chlorine compounds (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/chlorine-compounds). I have yet to see adequate research on such possible long-term toxic effects in Sucralose. This may be a potential future area of controversy, depending on long-term experience with large numbers of people ingesting Sucralose regularly. David Spector (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Effects on oral hygiene

Can we add a section that talks about the molecule's effect on tooth decay, if any? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.224.125 (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Questionable source

Footnote 4, relating to the first sentence/claim is quoting the International Food Information Council. At first, this seems to be a valid, neutral, scientific source. However, it is anything but. It's a lobbying site for the food industry, see here: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/International_Food_Information_Council. How do we deal with this? Anyone concerned? ThisBetterBeGood 22:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you have an issue with the claim? I'm not sure the reasoning for choosing that source in this article, but the claim does not seem to be widely disagreed on. Claiming that the source is a lobbying site, according to their website they direct to a tax form with tax-exempt status 501(c)(3) which should limit lobbying (https://foodinsight.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2016-Foundation-Form-990-Public-Disclosure.pdf). Maybe we disagree on how your source actually discredits the organization? Your source seem to have a pretty harsh rhetoric, so I'd question the objectivity, without offering any clear evidence for a direct lobbying. Is the article source in question spreading misinformation? RobinEH (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The IFIC has a Wikipedia article itself, and the Wikipedia advisory that it reads like an advertisement is sufficient to call for its use as a reference for or agin any food product to be removed from any Wikipedia article on any food product. JohndanR (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Neutralization of Sweetness

I've noticed a curious property about the substance that I wished to cite, but can't find the slightest reference in any article about, including the medical/pharmacological literature. The sweetness of sucralose is largely negated by several common-enough items, including:

potassium chloride (No-Salt salt substitute, eg.)
Methylsulfonylmethane MSM, a moderately popular health supplement

The effect is hardly subjective, but seems confined to its use in citrus lime drinks. It could be the citric acid, or some obscure lime flavor component or other compound in lime juice. The stuff seems to flavor coffee normally, and a spoon of it certainly has the normal sucrose-impact, so it's not like I have some idiosyncratic sucralose anesthesia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohndanR (talk • contribs) 18:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Metabolism track

The article is missing a metabolism track in the human body. Like how is the compound excreted or what path does it take after ingestion. I couldn't find a reliable source, but I also don't have enough access to academic literature....

Ai.unit (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Effects on oral hygiene

Can we add a section that talks about the molecule's effect on tooth decay, if any? --109.186.243.96 (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Already stated under Uses and referenced to the FDA, PMID 16572525, as having no effect on teeth or susceptibility for caries. Zefr (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

thanks--109.186.243.96 (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Sucralose is available in small quantities

Section 'Packaging and storage' states 'Pure sucralose is sold in bulk, but not in quantities suitable for individual use.' While this has historically been true, for commercial reasons, it is not currently true. I was able to purchase a handful of the fine-grained pure powder through Amazon.com. It is obviously pure sucralose, since a tiny pinch is sufficient to sweeten one liter of water. It also dissolves quickly in water (unlike, for example, erythritol). If we can find a reliable reference, this error can be corrected. David Spector (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Explanation, please?

Earlier today, I added the following to the 'sucralose' page, with reference to the Tate & Lyle website URL:

"According to Tate & Lyle's website sucralose is 600 times sweeter than sucrose from which it is manufactured. Yet, Splenda is marketed as ono-to-one sweetness equivalency.

To get 600 grams Splenda 1 gram of sucralose is combined with 599 grams of flavorless maltodextrin, the only other listed ingredient of Splenda. For one kilogram, that is 998.3 grams maltodextrin and 1.7 grams of sucralose.Since maltodextrin readily metabolizes into glucose in the body, it carries the same calorie load as glucose = 4 kilocalories per gram. This means that Splenda has for all practical purposes the same calorie load as regular sugar, which explains why it does not result in weight-loss and why it has the same effect on a diabetic's blood sugar measurements as regular sugar.

Yet, because the manufacturer claims that 1 tsp.(0.5g) is one serving, which is less than the FDA 5 calories per-serving limit, FDA allows the product to be listed as zero-calorie. By the same reasoning, pure sugar could be marketed as a zero calorie product too."

All those statements are true. Yet less than 1 hour later, the text was deleted again.

Might I get an explanation why that was deleted? Is Tate & Lyle monitoring this page so no one can expose their no-calorie" marketing lie?

G. C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.107.79 (talk • contribs)

Hello. I'm not the editor that reverted you, but I agree with the revert. If you're going to add something like that, you need a citation to a reliable source (newspaper, book, academic journal) that states the conclusion (e.g. sucralose manufacturers often take advantage of an FDA guideline loophole in order to X). –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

According to my web research, sucralose really is free of calories (free of available energy). It is partially excreted in the feces and partially in the urine, with a small part absorbed but non-nutritive. Yes, it is true that public statements about a food or supplement in the USA are free to claim zero calories when there are less than a certain threshold actually present. But this loophole is not needed in the case of sucralose. It truly contributes zero carbohydrates to the body and has been well tested as free of carcinogenic action in rodents and humans. I use it daily and find that it only has a tiny aftertaste, smaller than most other artificial sweeteners, with no other unwanted side effects. David Spector (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: the information (released on June 1, 2023) that sucralose appears to be genotoxic. Source: https://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/news/20230601/sucralose-genotoxic-linked-leaky-gut-study 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

As the report says, these are lab studies - far too preliminary to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. A WP:MEDRS review or regulatory agency statement would be needed. The FDA position on its safe use as a food ingredient has not changed, as of May 2023. Zefr (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

This study is conducted 1) in-vitro only 2) using sucralose-6-acetat 3) taking doses not feasible (unless you drink tons of it within 120 minutes or so). --Julius Senegal (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The genotoxic claim aligns with older literature studies, see the 2013 review at: https://doi.org/10.1080%2F10937404.2013.842523 which summarised literature studies showing weak DNA damage from sucralose in vivo and DNA damage in the GIT of mice. The specific acetate metabolite was not known at that stage, but the presence of metabolites are also discussed. Hourahine (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

This comment is a great example of WP:SYNTH. Instead, we have to wait for an actual WP:MEDRS source to make that connection. DMacks (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Genotoxicity study info removed

Genotoxicity study information was wrongfully removed. 2601:243:CE7E:230:9468:5064:890E:BA09 (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC) Update: my references were a total mess. I was cannibalizing an earlier reference, and ended up screwing up a different reference rather than citing the information I added... its cleared up now. sorry about the confusion. and yes the references should be the medical journal (the study itself) and the NCSU website. 2601:243:CE7E:230:9468:5064:890E:BA09 (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)