All about Splenda (página 2)

• Other adverse
  effects reported in pre-approval research
  included:

• 1. Shrunken thymus glands (up to 40% shrinkage)
     (EO56)
  3. Enlarged liver and kidneys. (EO57 &
     E161)
  4. Atrophy of lymph follicles in the spleen and
     thymus (EO51, EO56, EO151)
  5. Increased cecal weight (E151)
  6. Reduced growth rate (EO57)
  7. Decreased red blood
     cell count (EO55)
  8. Hyperplasia of the pelvis (EO57)
  9. Extension of the pregnancy period
  10. Aborted pregnancy (E134)
  11. Decreased fetal body weights and placental
      weights (EO32)
  12. Diarrhea
• Recent Research
  a possible problem with
  caecal enlargement and renal mineralization has been seen in
  post approval animal research.
• Sucralose Breaks Down
  Despite the
  manufacturer's misstatements, sucralose does break down into
  small amounts of 1, 6-dichlorofructose, a chemical that has not
  been adequately tested in humans.
• Independent, Long-Term Human Research
  
  None. Manufacturer's "100's of studies" (some of which show
  hazards) were clearly inadequate and do not demonstrate safety
  in long-term use.
• Chlorinated Pesticides
  the manufacturer
  claims that the chlorine added to sucralose is similar to the
  chlorine atom in the salt (NaCl) molecule. That is not the
  case. Sucralose may be more like ingesting tiny amounts of
  chlorinated pesticides, but we will never know without
  long-term, independent human research.
• Conclusion
  While it is unlikely that
  sucralose is as toxic as the poisoning people are experiencing
  from Monsanto's ,
  it is clear from the hazards seen in pre-approval research and
  from its chemical structure that years or decades of use may
  contribute to serious chronic immunological or neurological
  disorders.
• Addendum (October 2, 2006)
  occasionally,
  persons emailing ask questions about sucralose research. What
  follows is a copy of a response one such question.

The answer starts by summarizing the aspartame
(NutraSweet) issue and then addresses the sucralose
issue.

Let me start by saying that, as you may know, there
is a quickly growing body of evidence demonstrating the
toxicity of aspartame.
This includes:

• Recent European research showing that ingesting
  aspartame leads to the accumulation of formaldehyde in the
  brain, other organs and tissues (Formaldehyde has been shown
  to damage the nervous system, immune system, and cause
  irreversible genetic damage in humans.)
• An extremely large number of toxicity reactions
  reported to the FDA and other organizations
• A recent report showing that nearly 100% of
  independent research has found problems with
  aspartame.

Why is this relevant to the sucralose question? Similar to the
aspartame situation 15 years ago:

• Pre-approval test
  indicated potential toxicity of sucralose.
• There are no *independent* controlled human studies
  on sucralose (similar to 15 years ago for
  aspartame).
• There are no long-term (12-24 months) human studies
  of sucralose's effects.
• There is no monitoring of health effects. It took
  government agencies decades to agree that there were
  countless thousands of deaths from tobacco. Why? Simply
  because there had been no monitoring or epidemiological
  studies. Without such monitoring and studies, huge effects
  can easily go unnoticed.

So, without even addressing the
pre-approval research showing potential toxicity, it is clear
that sucralose has a) no long history (e.g., decades) of safe
use, b) no independent monitoring of health effects, c) no
long-term human studies, and d) no independent human studies. I
would hope that the Precautionary Principle, now commonly used
in Europe, would be a guiding force for people who are
interested in health. Otherwise, we might as well just use any
poorly tested, artificial (lab-created) chemical that has shown
potential for long-term toxicity.

As far as the pre-approval research related to
sucralose…. As you probably know, pre-approval research is
rarely published. It is only available from the FDA by filing a
Freedom of Information Act request. However, you can see a very
short summary regarding sucralose and shrunken thymus glands in
the "New Scientist" (23 November 1991, page 13).

It is very important that people who have any interest
in their health stay aware from
the highly toxic sweetener, aspartame
and other dangerous sweeteners such as sucralose (Splenda),
and acesulfame-k (Sunette, Sweet & Safe, Sweet One). Instead,
please see the extensive resources for sweeteners on the
Healthier Sweetener Resource
List.

Sources:

Available on request.

Dr. Félix E. F. Larocca