The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
There are many of us who indulge in artificial sweeteners once in a while—a can of diet soda now and then, perhaps a "guiltless" binge of sugar-free pudding packs—even though we know they may not be so great for us. But, hey, neither is sugar, so how bad can Splenda be?
The scientific community has been in favor of or officially "inconclusive," on sucralose, aka Splenda, for years, even amid the growing anti-artificial chatter. The American Heart Association even stated in 2011 that, with moderate use, artificial sweeteners could assist with weight loss and have a positive effect on the metabolism. However, recent research has caused some of the scientific community to officially turn their backs on Splenda. Specifically, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has formally recommended that consumers avoid sucralose altogether.
What caused the CSPI to downgrade Splenda from "caution" to "avoid?" A study published in January in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health proved the final nail in Splenda’s coffin. Swiss mice who were fed significant amounts of sucralose throughout their lives developed malignant blood cancers like leukemia. Those not fed sucralose didn’t.
While the quantities of sucralose studied were comparable to drinking a whopping 10 cans of diet soda every day, small quantities of carcinogens can do damage over the long term as well. According to CSPI scientist Lisa Lefferts, “When something causes cancer at high doses, it generally causes cancer at lower doses, the risk is just smaller.”
While this study dealt with mice, not humans, it shows that Splenda is not as "biologically inert" as previously thought. Along with other damning data—increased obesity risk, increased insulin resistance and with numerous nasty side effects—the science is now clearly showing that Splenda is something unlikely to be fit for human consumption. The Center for Science in the Public Interest rated sucralose as "safe" until as recently as 2013. This is the first time they have urged consumers to avoid the sweetener altogether.
If your health isn’t reason enough to ditch the yellow packets, consider the consequences Splenda has on the environment. Due to its unique structure, the artificial sweetener is not broken down in wastewater treatment plants, meaning it is slowly accumulating in our surface and groundwater. While sucralose is resistant to degradation, meaning it is unlikely that it will start releasing the toxic by-products often formed by pollutants, no one knows for sure what impact its accumulation while have on our environment over time. The best case scenario for the environment is that it just sits there, but do we really want sucralose sitting, perpetually intact, in our water supply?
Does the idea of zero calorie sweeteners ever entice you? If you’re a regular consumer of Splenda, perhaps stevia or cinnamon could do the trick. As the evidence piles up, it is becoming clear that it’s better to indulge in real, whole foods treat than risk the harms of artificial sweeteners.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
It was early in the morning last Thursday, and Jonathan Butler was standing on the Fred Hartman Bridge, helping 11 fellow Greenpeace activists rappel down and suspend themselves over the Houston Ship Channel. The protesters dangled in the air most of the day, shutting down a part of one of the country's largest ports for oil.
By C.J. Polychroniou
Climate change is by far the most serious crisis facing the world today. At stake is the future of civilization as we know it. Yet, both public awareness and government action lag way behind what's needed to avert a climate change catastrophe. In the interview below, Noam Chomsky and Robert Pollin discuss the challenges ahead and what needs to be done.
Food manufacturer General Mills issued a voluntary recall of more than 600,000 pounds, or about 120,000 bags, of Gold Medal Unbleached All Purpose Flour this week after a sample tested positive for a bacteria strain known to cause illness.
Extreme weather events supercharged by climate change in 2012 led to nearly 1,000 more deaths, more than 20,000 additional hospitalizations, and cost the U.S. healthcare system $10 billion, a new report finds.
A Bay Area conservation group struck a deal to buy and to protect the world's largest remaining privately owned sequoia forest for $15.6 million. Now it needs to raise the money, according to CNN.
The Rugby World Cup starts Friday in Japan where Pacific Island teams from Samoa, Fiji and Tonga will face off against teams from industrialized nations. However, a new report from a UK-based NGO says that when the teams gather for the opening ceremony on Friday night and listen to the theme song "World In Union," the hypocrisy of climate injustice will take center stage.
By Wudan Yan
In June, New York Times journalist Andy Newman wrote an article titled, "If seeing the world helps ruin it, should we stay home?" In it, he raised the question of whether or not travel by plane, boat, or car—all of which contribute to climate change, rising sea levels, and melting glaciers—might pose a moral challenge to the responsibility that each of us has to not exacerbate the already catastrophic consequences of climate change. The premise of Newman's piece rests on his assertion that traveling "somewhere far away… is the biggest single action a private citizen can take to worsen climate change."