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
Oil rigs around the world keep pulling crude oil out of the ground, but the global pandemic has sent shockwaves into the market. The supply is up, but demand has plummeted now that industry has ground to a halt, highways are empty, and airplanes are parked in hangars.
Under an agreement negotiated by community groups — represented by NRDC and the Pennsylvania Utility Law Project — the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority (PWSA) will remove thousands of lead water pipes by 2026 in order to address the chronically high lead levels in the city's drinking water and protect residents' health.
By Dave Cooke
So, they finally went and did it — the Trump administration just finalized a rule to undo requirements on manufacturers to improve fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new passenger cars and trucks. Even with the economy at the brink of a recession, they went forward with a policy they know is bad for consumers — their own analysis shows that American drivers are going to spend hundreds of dollars more in fuel as a result of this stupid policy — but they went ahead and did it anyway.
By Richard Connor
A blood test that screens for more than 50 types of cancer could help doctors treat patients at an earlier stage than previously possible, a new study shows. The method was used to screen for more than 50 types of cancer — including particularly deadly variants such as pancreatic, ovarian, bowel and brain.
Preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control showed a larger number of young people coming down with COVID-19 than first expected, with patients under the age of 45 comprising more than a third of all cases, and one in five of those patients requiring hospitalization. That also tends to be the group most likely to use e-cigarettes.