The absence of genotoxicity of sucralose

Brusick, David; Grotz, V. Lee; Slesinski, R.S.; Krüger, Caroline; Hayes, A. Wallace

doi:10.1016/j.fct.2010.07.047

Cited by 41 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2008, a study carried out with rats fed with sucralose pointed out various adverse effects, including reduction in beneficial fecal microflora, increased fecal pH, and enhanced expression levels of P‐glycoprotein and cytochrome P450 (Abou‐Donia and others ), although this study was highly contested by an expert panel (Brusick and others ). Recent research has corroborated the previous findings of nontoxicity or carcinogenicity (Brusick and others ; Viberg and Fredriksson ). The subgroup of sweeteners offers many conflicting results and different points of view, but have led to several research articles assuring the safety of some artificial sweeteners and pointing out others still demanding further research (Weihrauch and Diehl ; Kroger and others ; Brown and others ; Swithers and others ; Tandel ; Shankar and others ).…”

Section: Types Of Additivessupporting

confidence: 80%

Adding Molecules to Food, Pros and Cons: A Review on Synthetic and Natural Food Additives

Carocho

Barreiro

Morales

et al. 2014

Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safe

615

382

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The pressing issue to feed the increasing world population has created a demand to enhance food production, which has to be cheaper, but at the same time must meet high quality standards. Taste, appearance, texture, and microbiological safety are required to be preserved within a foodstuff for the longest period of time. Although considerable improvements have been achieved in terms of food additives, some are still enveloped in controversy. The lack of uniformity in worldwide laws regarding additives, along with conflicting results of many studies help foster this controversy. In this report, the most important preservatives, nutritional additives, coloring, flavoring, texturizing, and miscellaneous agents are analyzed in terms of safety and toxicity. Natural additives and extracts, which are gaining interest due to changes in consumer habits are also evaluated in terms of their benefits to health and combined effects. Technologies, like edible coatings and films, which have helped overcome some drawbacks of additives, but still pose some disadvantages, are briefly addressed.Future trends like nanoencapsulation and the development of "smart" additives and packages, specific vaccines for intolerance to additives, use of fungi to produce additives, and DNA recombinant technologies are summarized.

show abstract

Section: Types Of Additivessupporting

confidence: 80%

Adding Molecules to Food, Pros and Cons: A Review on Synthetic and Natural Food Additives

Carocho

Barreiro

Morales

et al. 2014

Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safe

615

382

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has no adverse effects on the central nervous system [16], immune system, reproductive performance [17,18], and red blood cells constituents and morphology [19]. Conversely, some reports suggest sucralose is a possible trigger for some migraine patients [20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological Effect of Sucralose in Diabetic Rats

Saada¹,

Mekky²,

Eldawy³

et al. 2013

FNS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among people that might take a large amount of sucralose, are diabetic people who are attempting to modify their carbohydrate intake. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of sucralose; an artificial sweetener derived from sucrose, at a dose approximately twice the ADI on hyperglycemia, hyperlipidemia and oxidative stress in diabetic rats. Diabetes was induced in male albino rats after an intraperitoneal streptozotocin injection (65 mg/kg body weight). Animals with fasting blood glucose levels ≥250 mg/dl were considered diabetics. Sucralose was dissolved in water and administered to rats daily by oral gavages during a period of 6 weeks at a dose of 11 mg/kg body weight. Animals were divided into 4 groups and treated in parallel for 6 weeks. Control: rats received distilled water, Sucralose: rats received sucralose, Diabetic: diabetic rats received distilled water, Diabeticrats + Sucralose: diabetic rats received sucralose. The administration of sucralose to diabetic rats provoked a significant decrease (P < 0.05) of serum glucose and triglyceride levels, a significant increase (P < 0.05) of total cholesterol, low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C), and high density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C), while has no effect (P > 0.05) on insulin, compared to their respective values in diabetic rats receiving distilled water. Biochemical analysis in brain and testis tissues showed that sucralose has no effect (P > 0.05) on superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase, glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px), and glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G-6-PDH) activities, and glutathione content (GSH), while reduced thiobarbituric acid reactive substances level (TBARS) (P < 0.05), compared to their respective values in diabetic rats receiving distilled water. It could be concluded that consumption of sucralose didn't induce oxidative stress, has no effect on insulin, reduce glucose absorption and intensify hypercholesterolemia in STZ-induced diabetic rats. Accordingly it is advised that diabetic people consuming high amount of sucralose must check their lipid profile to avoid diabetic complications.

show abstract

“…Sensory studies show that sucralose has no bitter taste attributed to other non-caloric sweeteners and it is approximately 600 times sweeter than sucrose (Brusick, Grotz, Slesinski, Kruger, & Hayes, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acerola nectar sweetened with different sweeteners: ideal and equivalent sweetness

Dutra

Bolini

2013

CyTA - Journal of Food

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study of sweeteners for replacing sucrose is increasingly important for the food industry. The ideal sweetness as sucrose and the equivalent sweetness of acerola nectar with different sweeteners (neotame, sucralose, stevia with 40%, 60%, 80% and 95% rebaudioside A) were measured. The ideal sweetness of the samples sweetened with sucrose at 50 g/L, 75 g/L, 100 g/L, 125 g/L and 150 g/L was assessed by means of a test with 50 consumers using a just-about-right scale. The magnitude estimation method for determining the equivalent sweetness was carried out with 20 assessors. The concentration of sucrose ideal in acerola nectar was 80 g/L, with equivalent concentrations of sweeteners of 0.017 g/L neotame, 0.16 g/L sucralose, 1 g/L stevia with 40 % rebaudioside A, 0.99 g/L stevia with 60 % rebaudioside A, 1 g/L stevia with 80 % rebaudioside A and 1 g/L stevia with 95 % rebaudioside A.Keywords: sensory analysis; tropical fruit; food additives; sucralose; neotame; Stevia rebaudiana El estudio de edulcorantes que puedan reemplazar a la sacarosa se ha vuelto cada vez más importante para la industria alimentaria. En el presente estudio, se midieron la dulzura ideal de sacarosa y la dulzura equivalente del néctar de acerola en distintos edulcorantes (neotame, sucralosa, stevia con 40%, 60%, 80% y 95% de rebaudiósido A). A través de una prueba aplicada a 50 consumidores utilizando una escala 'está casi bien', se evaluó la dulzura ideal de las muestras endulzadas con sacarosa a 50 g/L, a 75 g/L, a 100 g/L, a 125 g/L y a 150 g/L. Con 20 evaluadores se aplicó el método de estimación de magnitud para determinar la dulzura equivalente. La concentración ideal de sacarosa en el néctar de acerola fue 80 g/L, con las concentraciones equivalentes de dulzura de 0,017 g/L neotame, 0,16 g/L sucralosa, 1 g/L stevia con 40% de rebaudiósido A, 0,99 g/L stevia con 60% de rebaudiósido A, 1 g/L stevia con 80% de rebaudiósido A y1 g/L stevia con 95% de rebaudiósido A.

show abstract

The absence of genotoxicity of sucralose

Cited by 41 publications

References 18 publications

Adding Molecules to Food, Pros and Cons: A Review on Synthetic and Natural Food Additives

Adding Molecules to Food, Pros and Cons: A Review on Synthetic and Natural Food Additives

Biological Effect of Sucralose in Diabetic Rats

Acerola nectar sweetened with different sweeteners: ideal and equivalent sweetness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About