Posted by Larry Hoover on May 12, 2006, at 8:47:17
In reply to Is sucralose or it's metabolites (if any)absorbed?, posted by saturn on May 11, 2006, at 19:55:59
I was going to say:
"No. There are no metabolites, essentially. That's why they call it a non-caloric sweetener. It doesn't break down, so it does not produce energy." That's what I was going to say. Then I looked at the literature.Sucralose is 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructo-furanosyl 4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside. The Wiki site contains the following quotation, from an Australian government safety analysis: "When administered orally, between 11% and 27% of sucralose is absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract in male humans. The remaining sucralose is excreted in feces. Following gastrointestinal absorption, between 20% and 30% of the sucralose is broken down into two metabolites. The remaining sucralose is excreted in urine."
One of those metabolites, 1,6-dichlorofructose, has never been tested for human safety.
When I look at the published literature, some unabashedly from the in-house laboratories of the manufacturer, and I find stuff like: "There were statistically significant increases in the incidence of several non-neoplastic findings, but these were not considered to be related to sucralose administration." and "adrenal cortical haemorrhagic degeneration....were of no toxicological significance...", I am apalled. They weren't testing a friggin' pesticide here, this is a food ingredient!
Your question has revealed to me just how much propaganda is out there. I almost gave you the propaganda answer.
I would not eat any sucralose if I knew it was in the food. Period.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:642789
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/health/20060330/msgs/642938.html