study discovers chemical in common sweetener damages DNA, can cause cancer

[mathnerd]

This came across my news feed today:

NC study discovers chemical in common sweetener damages DNA, can cause cancer:

the chemical that forms when we digest Splenda, is "genotoxic," meaning it breaks up DNA

https://www.wral.com/story/nc-study-discovers-chemical-in-common-sweetener-damages-dna-can-cause-cancer/20888182/
 

 

[Katy]

Eeek.  That's a favorite of most of the low-carb people I know.

[Arcadia]

26 minutes ago, mathnerd said:

NC study discovers chemical in common sweetener damages DNA, can cause cancer

Toxicological and pharmacokinetic properties of sucralose-6-acetate and its parent sucralose: in vitro screening assays https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2023.2213903
Chemical Found in Common Sweetener Damages DNA https://news.ncsu.edu/2023/05/genotoxic-chemical-in-sweetener/

“A new study finds a chemical formed when we digest a widely used sweetener is “genotoxic,” meaning it breaks up DNA. The chemical is also found in trace amounts in the sweetener itself, and the finding raises questions about how the sweetener may contribute to health problems.

At issue is sucralose, a widely used artificial sweetener sold under the trade name Splenda®. Previous work by the same research team established that several fat-soluble compounds are produced in the gut after sucralose ingestion. One of these compounds is sucralose-6-acetate.

“Our new work establishes that sucralose-6-acetate is genotoxic,” says Susan Schiffman, corresponding author of the study and an adjunct professor in the joint department of biomedical engineering at North Carolina State University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “We also found that trace amounts of sucralose-6-acetate can be found in off-the-shelf sucralose, even before it is consumed and metabolized.

“To put this in context, the European Food Safety Authority has a threshold of toxicological concern for all genotoxic substances of 0.15 micrograms per person per day,” Schiffman says. “Our work suggests that the trace amounts of sucralose-6-acetate in a single, daily sucralose-sweetened drink exceed that threshold. And that’s not even accounting for the amount of sucralose-6-acetate produced as metabolites after people consume sucralose.”

For the study, researchers conducted a series of in vitro experiments exposing human blood cells to sucralose-6-acetate and monitoring for markers of genotoxicity.

“In short, we found that sucralose-6-acetate is genotoxic, and that it effectively broke up DNA in cells that were exposed to the chemical,” Schiffman says.

The researchers also conducted in vitro tests that exposed human gut tissues to sucralose-6-acetate.

“Other studies have found that sucralose can adversely affect gut health, so we wanted to see what might be happening there,” Schiffman says. “When we exposed sucralose and sucralose-6-acetate to gut epithelial tissues – the tissue that lines your gut wall – we found that both chemicals cause ‘leaky gut.’ Basically, they make the wall of the gut more permeable. The chemicals damage the ‘tight junctions,’ or interfaces, where cells in the gut wall connect to each other.”

 

[Grace Hopper]

I have never trusted artificial sweeteners!

[Kassia]

13 minutes ago, Grace Hopper said:

I have never trusted artificial sweeteners!

I've pretty much lived on them since I started drinking Diet Coke at around 12 or 13.  I consume an enormous amount.  😞 

[dirty ethel rackham]

Time to break my 3 pm Diet Dr. Pepper habit.  I rarely drink soda when I'm working because I have to pee so often afterwards.  But since I've been home for a few months, I've been relying on it to get through the afternoon doldrums.  Dh drinks 1 or 2 a day as his "morning coffee."  I've been trying to have him break that habit for ages.  

[mommyoffive]

Is this only in soda? 

[Arcadia]

1 minute ago, mommyoffive said:

Is this only in soda? 

Sucralose is in lots of food as well. I am sensitive to artificial sweeteners so have to read labels. 
https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/aspartame-and-other-sweeteners-food#:~:text=Sucralose is a general-purpose,sugar substitute in baked goods.

“Sweeteners are widely used in foods and beverages marketed as "sugar-free" or "diet," including baked goods, soft drinks, powdered drink mixes, candy, puddings, canned foods, jams and jellies, dairy products, and many other foods and beverages. Consumers can identify whether a product has a sweetener by looking for the sweetener’s name in the ingredient list on the product label.”

[mommyoffive]

3 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

Sucralose is in lots of food as well. I am sensitive to artificial sweeteners so have to read labels. 
https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/aspartame-and-other-sweeteners-food#:~:text=Sucralose is a general-purpose,sugar substitute in baked goods.

“Sweeteners are widely used in foods and beverages marketed as "sugar-free" or "diet," including baked goods, soft drinks, powdered drink mixes, candy, puddings, canned foods, jams and jellies, dairy products, and many other foods and beverages. Consumers can identify whether a product has a sweetener by looking for the sweetener’s name in the ingredient list on the product label.”

Wow, that seems hard to avoid.

[Grace Hopper]

27 minutes ago, Kassia said:

I've pretty much lived on them since I started drinking Diet Coke at around 12 or 13.  I consume an enormous amount.  😞 

An anecdotal story…when diet Coke came out with one of the new artificial sweeteners (aspartame in the 80s I think), an acquaintance of mine told me about a group of nurses that she knew. They all drank lots of Diet Coke, with saccharine, and continue to do so after the switch to aspartame. Within a few months to a year, three of them started having symptoms that their doctors indicated might be MS. Being in the medical field, they put their heads together and decided the odds were too great that three in such close company would have the same diagnosis at the same time and figured out that it could possibly be aspartame affecting them. They quit it and their symptoms faded. I never liked the taste of it and after hearing about that story, I never trusted it. 
 

eta sorry, fixed the voice text errors

Edited June 1, 2023 by Grace Hopper

[Clarita]

4 hours ago, mommyoffive said:

Wow, that seems hard to avoid.

If a food should be sweet just purchase the one that doesn't have claims to be sugar-free or less sugar. 

Usually soda in the US that aren't sugar-free have high frutose corn syrup also not good. They do market sodas that are made with real sugar or that is also why you see some places will advertise they have Coca Cola from other countries because other countries use sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup. 

[regentrude]

4 hours ago, mommyoffive said:

Wow, that seems hard to avoid.

No, why? It's declared on the label - and you can always opt not to consume products that claim to be "lite", "sugar-free", "diet" and any similar such terms that feature prominently on the package because it's a selling point.
Heck, you could even avoid highly processed foods altogether. 
 

[mommyoffive]

I think this was pushed on people to not consume so much sugar in your diet.  So, all these low sugar or sugar free foods were the thing to eat.  ARGH.  I definitely fell for that.

[mathnerd]

32 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

I think this was pushed on people to not consume so much sugar in your diet.  So, all these low sugar or sugar free foods were the thing to eat.  ARGH.  I definitely fell for that.

Generally, avoid the sugar-free option/diet version made with artificial sweeteners and choose the “regular” version  and consume it in moderation. I always read labels and avoid artificial sweeteners.
 

25 years ago, I consumed diet drinks with aspartame at my workplace because they provided it to us, for just 3 weeks without reading the label or being aware of its contents and ended up with a long battle with IBS. I am really careful about reading labels of any processed foods or packaged foods ever since.

Edited June 1, 2023 by mathnerd

[Ausmumof3]

My mum used it during her diet years and died young of cancer. I have always avoided artificial sweeteners for that reason. I don’t buy anything diet or sugar free.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Ausmumof3

[Arcadia]

1 hour ago, mommyoffive said:

I think this was pushed on people to not consume so much sugar in your diet.  So, all these low sugar or sugar free foods were the thing to eat.  ARGH.  I definitely fell for that.

Erythritol too. 

 

[mathnerd]

2 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

Erythritol too. 

 

I remember  reading a child nutrition  article a long time ago and it mentioned that if you see any sugar derivatives/substitutes that ended with the letters “…ol”, to avoid it for kids. That being said, some vitamin and mineral supplements that I give my son contain xylitol which I am slowly replacing.

[TechWife]

8 hours ago, mommyoffive said:

Is this only in soda? 

No. It's sold under the brand name Splenda. It is used by individuals (like me) and in a lot of products as a sugar substitute.

[TechWife]

I clearly remember my GI telling me years ago to forget about the substitutes and use sugar because it's "real food" as opposed to chemicals. He said white sugar is better than chemicals.

 

[kokotg]

I don't think the the message here is that sugar is better for you than artificial sweeteners, though. There are plenty of health risks from sugar; that's why people try to find alternatives in the first place. Sadly, the message is probably that we're not really meant to consume sweetened foods at all in huge quantities (i.e. we're not supposed to spend all day drinking it). https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/the-sweet-danger-of-sugar

[regentrude]

12 minutes ago, kokotg said:

Sadly, the message is probably that we're not really meant to consume sweetened foods at all in huge quantities (i.e. we're not supposed to spend all day drinking it). https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/the-sweet-danger-of-sugar

And according to the stats in the link, sugared beverages count for 42% of the added sugar. So simply not drinking them reduces the problem by almost half. That's the low-hanging fruit that's easy to achieve.

[TechWife]

1 hour ago, kokotg said:

I don't think the the message here is that sugar is better for you than artificial sweeteners, though. There are plenty of health risks from sugar; that's why people try to find alternatives in the first place. Sadly, the message is probably that we're not really meant to consume sweetened foods at all in huge quantities (i.e. we're not supposed to spend all day drinking it). https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/the-sweet-danger-of-sugar

My GI clearly communicates that sugar is better for us than artificial sweeteners. That is very intentionally his message. 

Like everything, there are always exceptions, such as medical conditions, when it shouldn’t be consumed. For the general public, adding two teaspoons of sugar, for a grand total of 32 calories, to a cup of coffee or tea a couple of times a day isn’t problematic. Likewise, eating reasonable amounts of fruits and vegetables with naturally occurring sugar is often a good nutritional choice.

It’s the overuse and misuse of sugar that causes problems. The same can be said for other foods as well. Sugar doesn’t provide any nutrients, and we all need to be aware of that as we consider our overall health. Just like not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic, not everyone who puts a couple of teaspoons of sugar in their coffee is consuming a huge amount of sugar.

When it comes down to it, we all need to get input  from our own physicians.

Edited June 2, 2023 by TechWife

[Clarita]

1 hour ago, kokotg said:

I don't think the the message here is that sugar is better for you than artificial sweeteners, though.

I disagree. Sugar is better for you than artificial sweeteners, because artificial sweeteners are bad. Doesn't mean sugar is healthy for you just artificial sweetener is bad. 

[Laura Corin]

5 hours ago, Clarita said:

I disagree. Sugar is better for you than artificial sweeteners, because artificial sweeteners are bad. Doesn't mean sugar is healthy for you just artificial sweetener is bad. 

This podcast (with transcript) is an interesting discussion of the issues.  It suggests that artificial sweeteners may not help with avoiding weight gain, and also that some may impair glucose control.

https://joinzoe.com/learn/podcast-artificial-sweeteners

Edited June 2, 2023 by Laura Corin

[DawnM]

6 hours ago, Clarita said:

I disagree. Sugar is better for you than artificial sweeteners, because artificial sweeteners are bad. Doesn't mean sugar is healthy for you just artificial sweetener is bad. 

I think you are correct if you are doing a side by side comparison.   I think the other point is that sugar isn't great for you either.   It is bad for your teeth and your weight and your overall health.

I remember years ago reading that the children in Hawaii would grab sugar cane and chew it and wouldn't get fat or have bad teeth, but once it is processed, it causes issues like weight gain, insulin spikes, and cavities.

So I would agree that we really weren't meant to have sugar in large quantities or at all.   It is indeed a processed food.

It is also addictive......I feel like I need some every day and I crave it.   I don't always have it in an external form like cake or cookies, but I am sure I consume a bit every day as it is in almost everything.

[1234]

I’ve always avoided the diet drinks because when I was pregnant with my first kid 24 years ago my OB was adamant that if I wanted a soda to drink a regular one. He told me to avoid all things labeled “diet” because the fake sugar was worse for my growing baby than just about anything else. It really stuck with me. 

[kokotg]

9 hours ago, Clarita said:

I disagree. Sugar is better for you than artificial sweeteners, because artificial sweeteners are bad. Doesn't mean sugar is healthy for you just artificial sweetener is bad. 

Well, I disagree with that 😆. I think we have a lot of new information coming out about some artificial sweeteners lately, but we've LONG known that sugar is bad. Did you see the link I posted? It's just one link, but there are plenty like it: there's an huge increase in heart disease with increased sugar consumption. Lots of sugar is just really terrible for your body in all sorts of ways--liver, heart, etc. etc. (and a whole lot more people die from heart disease than from artificial sweetener-linked cancer). 

I'm not sure we're all comparing apples to apples on this thread, though...if we're talking about the occasional dessert or sweetening your coffee a bit, sugar is fine for most people (I'm especially careful myself because of a strong family history of diabetes). The same occasional consumption of artificial sweeteners is probably fine, too, honestly. But plenty of people really do spend all day drinking sugary drinks....I think the big problem with these new studies about the dangers of artificial sweeteners is that we were assured it was a safe alternative to sugary drinks for so long. Most people already knew that the 96 oz convenience store Coke was not good for them (although a lot of people drink them anyway). But I'm not going to go tell my diabetic mom, who does indeed drink Diet Coke all day long, that she should switch to regular coke to avoid cancer. That would be worse for her. She should stop drinking sugary drinks, period, but she's not going to. 

[ScoutTN]

21 hours ago, Grace Hopper said:

I have never trusted artificial sweeteners!

This. They all taste weird.

[kokotg]

One thing I'd also point out is that the study linked to does not show an actual increase in cancer in people who consume Sucralose (although that could come later). There ARE lots of studies showing an increased risk of heart disease in people who consume a lot of sugar. 

[ocelotmom]

4 hours ago, kokotg said:

I'm not sure we're all comparing apples to apples on this thread, though...if we're talking about the occasional dessert or sweetening your coffee a bit, sugar is fine for most people (I'm especially careful myself because of a strong family history of diabetes). The same occasional consumption of artificial sweeteners is probably fine, too, honestly. But plenty of people really do spend all day drinking sugary drinks....I think the big problem with these new studies about the dangers of artificial sweeteners is that we were assured it was a safe alternative to sugary drinks for so long. Most people already knew that the 96 oz convenience store Coke was not good for them (although a lot of people drink them anyway). But I'm not going to go tell my diabetic mom, who does indeed drink Diet Coke all day long, that she should switch to regular coke to avoid cancer. That would be worse for her. She should stop drinking sugary drinks, period, but she's not going to. 

This is my view, too. Sugar is objectively harmful. Artificial sweeteners are not known to be harmless. I really do not think that having an *occasional*  soda, diet or regular, is going to have a significant negative health effect, but I don't feel I can drink it like water without potential adverse effects, as many people do. 

I experience compulsive eating issues with sugar, and carbs in general. Not so much with artificial sweeteners - I can eat a reasonable serving and be good with that. Therefore, I feel that, in the balance, using artificial sweeteners in extreme moderation is probably the better option for me than using sugar, even if neither is 100% ideal.

I prefer monk fruit and erythritol, but have stopped using them on a daily basis since the link to increased stroke risk with erythritol came out. I was using a spoonful or two a day in my coffee/tea, but I'm realistically just about as happy without.

Edited June 2, 2023 by ocelotmom