Thanks to clever marketing, more and more Americans are using
Splenda and other artificial sweeteners in place of sugar. But are
the substitutes healthy?
With all its promises and self-proclaimed advantages, the popular sugar substitute Splenda seems to have a lot going for it. Its slogan says it tastes like sugar. It has fewer calories than sugar and can be used wherever sugar is used, including to sweeten coffee and in baking.
But the possible unhealthy side effects of Splenda have some people thinking twice and opting for sugar, despite the higher calorie count.
Marcia Byrd, a clinical health educator at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in Gilroy, said she recommends the artificial sweetener for patients who are struggling with their weight.
“There have been more than 110 studies done with humans and animals by the Food and Drug Administration and the American Heart Association, and there hasn’t been any sign of harm coming from this product,” she said.
Other medical experts, however, worry about the potential harm Splenda could have on the body in the long run.
Dr. Janet Starr Hull, author of “Splenda: Is it Safe or Not?” says the sweetener is a chlorocarbon, which is known to cause organ, genetic and reproductive damage.
In her book, Hull says sucralose – the chemical term for Splenda – can cause swelling of the liver and kidneys, calcification of the kidneys, fertility issues in males, and gastrointestinal problems in pregnant rats.
Splenda is made through a patented, multistep process that starts with sugar and converts it to a no-calorie, noncarbohydrate sweetener, according to the company’s Web site. Three hydrogen-oxygen groups on the sugar molecule are replaced with three atoms of chlorine, which naturally occurs in many commonly consumed foods and beverages.
In the case of sucralose, its addition converts sucrose to sucralose. After consumption, sucralose passes through the body without being broken down for energy. It has no calories, and the body does not recognize it as a sugar. One cup of Splenda has 96 calories, and one cup of refined sugar has 770 calories.
For Morgan Hill resident Mary Stromb, the calorie count alone is enough to use Splenda in place of sugar.
“To me, it tastes just as good as sugar in my coffee. So why not use it and take in less calories, right?” she said while adding the white stuff to her coffee at Starbucks last week.
Although Byrd recommends Splenda as an alternative to sugar, the key, she said, is moderation.
“Putting it in your coffee, fine. Baking cookies with it, fine,” she said. “The point where it comes to moderation is, are you going to eat two of the cookies or 25?”
Byrd also thinks the rumors that Splenda might lead to serious side effects are often exaggerated.
“People freak out when they read about these other sweeteners causing cancer in rats,” she said. “There is no research that shows that about Splenda. The problem is, too many people are going online and reading information that is not coming from medical sites, and then they’re getting worried and telling their friends it’s poison.”
Splenda has gained popularity since going on the market in 1998. It brought in more than $188 million this year, which is more than NutraSweet and Equal – two other brands of sugar substitutes – combined.
Diet versions of some soft drinks, such as Coca Cola, contain Splenda. Many “light” versions of several kinds of food also contain the substitute, such as Ben & Jerry’s low-calorie ice cream.
Those who are concerned about the potentially negative effects of Splenda can opt to use all-natural granulated sugar, but again, Byrd emphasized moderation.
“If you want to use real sugar, that’s perfectly fine, but your portions have to be even smaller,” she said. “I often tell my patients: Eat what you want, but eat less of it. Eighty percent of the time be good, and 20 percent of the time have a party. Because life is too short.”
