:Talk:Sucralose

I have not done so (yet), but both References 15 & 16 should very likely be removed/replaced for the direct and readily apparent conflicts of interest present.

It's possible this article should be flagged for "multiple problems" because of this as well (multiple lines of writing may need to be edited or removed entirely for their inclusion of and reliance upon Refs. 15 & 16), but I am uncertain, and also don't know how to do that so-

Ref. 15 : The Calorie Control Council are a trade group for artificial sweetener companies, they financed this study directly, and apparently they are also well-known for suspicious and underhanded conduct for the sake of propelling their products; for the sake of manipulating the public image of artificial sweeteners' safety profiles (please see here : https://usrtk.org/sweeteners/calorie-control-council/).

Here is a direct quote from Ref 15. itself, verbatim : "Financial support was provided by the Calorie Control Council, Atlanta GA, to the employers of the authors for the preparation and publication of this review."

Ref. 16 : McNeil Nutritionals, LLC is the seller & marketer of Splenda (Sucralose)(I kid you not... yes, it's really that on the nose), they financed this study directly, and to my surprise : they are referred to within the larger article as the seller and marketer of Splenda already ("Sucralose mixed with dextrose or maltodextrin (both made from corn) as bulking agents is sold internationally by McNeil Nutritionals under the Splenda brand name.").

Here is a direct quote from Ref. 16 itself, verbatim : "All authors contributed to the preparation and interpretation of the data and the writing, review, and approval of the manuscript. All authors were employees of, or consultants to, McNeil Nutritionals at the time the manuscript was prepared."

Both of these studies^ unsurprisingly paint a near-perfectly clean bill of health for Sucralose ingestion, even for excessive/high quantities of Sucralose ingestion. Suspicious and ominous.

Both of these studies are currently being referenced in the broader public as "proof" Sucralose is 100% "safe" and "well-studied" as well. Concerning to say the least; a high potential for misinformation disseminating.

Even if the science in both of these studies, and their conclusions by extension, ultimately prove to be sound by independent research one day, they are still fundamentally compromised sources as they were conducted by individuals operating in direct conflict of interest. Any honest analysis of their conclusions - any replications by other authors/researchers to determine if the results were actually accurate and unbiased - would need to be conducted by completely independent researchers with zero ties to the artificial sweetener industry, to Sucralose manufacturing and marketing in particular. -and right now, it's not clear if any such replication studies exist.

E.g., a study financed by the marketer of Philip Morris cigarettes which yields results painting moderate tobacco use with a clean bill of health cannot be considered an acceptable reference for scientifically accurate information regarding moderate tobacco use, nor can these two references above^ be considered scientifically sound for the information they're presenting regarding Sucralose. -the product which the financers of these two studies market and distribute, and which they have significant financial interests in protecting and "cleansing" in the public eye to say the least.

! - It'd similarly be worth it to investigate whether Reference #2 (the FDA's own conclusions) makes any direct references to the information presented in Refs. 15 & 16 as well, potentially rendering it too an incomplete or "corrupted" reference for this article. I would've dug in and done so myself tonight, but I must go to bed now please...

! - Please do not undo, nor attempt to swiftly explain away, this issue without providing a thorough and comprehensive explanation, and please respond before making any changes. It is critically important that members of the public seeking informed health decisions, especially surrounding the safety profiles of contemporary artificial sweeteners, not fall victim to incomplete due diligence in the proper vetting of this article's unexamined references/citations/sources.

(apologies, added signature 12 hrs. late) --THE Rustin Black (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Focus on the safety of sucralose comes from the national agencies responsible for assessing ingredient toxicology studies and the overall effect of additives in manufactured foods for each country.

:Since the 1990s, sucralose has been thoroughly studied and monitored continuously over decades for its safety in [https://open.efsa.europa.eu/substance/Sucralose Europe,] [https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2015L00442/2017-04-13/text Australia,] [https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/food-safety/food-additives/sugar-substitutes.html Canada,] and [https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/aspartame-and-other-sweeteners-food the US,] as examples.

:Government food safety organizations do the literature search and their independent testing to assure the safety of ingredients in foods. As of 2025, there is no good toxicology evidence to indicate a concern about sucralose in the amounts used for food manufacturing.

:See WP:MEDASSESS and WP:MEDORG for choosing sources on organizations that publish guidelines concerning public health. Zefr (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::"Even if the science in both of these studies, and their conclusions by extension, ultimately prove to be sound by independent research one day, they are still fundamentally compromised sources as they were conducted by individuals operating in direct conflict of interest."

::I did not see an effective refutation of this^ position. Regardless of the actual status of Sucralose's safety, the argument holds fast that these two references should be excluded, in principle, from consideration and inclusion in a fair and unbiased resource for information.

::-let alone the notion that more contemporary research appears to be pointing to health issues with sucralose metabolites (sucralose-6-acetate as a low-hanging example); not with sucralose itself, but with it's inevitable by-product once ingested. -tomato, tomahto. It'd similarly be in these compromised/biased studies' best interest to focus solely on the safety profile of Sucralose in isolation, and to exclude consideration of the metabolites produced in the body once sucralose begins to break down.

::Similar contemporary studies raising red flags are also concluding that the process of manufacturing Sucralose mayn't in itself remove contamination from sucralose-6-acetate either, meaning the safety profile of Sucralose in isolation may be "clean", but in practice it is being manufactured with measurable but "acceptable" levels of these contaminants as a matter of business as usual. -alongside the aforementioned conclusions being drawn that genotoxic metabolites are being formed the moment Sucralose is digested. THE Rustin Black (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Reference numbers can change as text moves around. To clarify for posterity, ref 15 was "Critical review of the current literature on the safety of sucralose" and ref 16 was "Sucralose Non-Carcinogenicity: A Review of the Scientific and Regulatory Rationale". Many of the claims cited to these sources are simply restatements of government regulations. Presumably those could be replaced with more direct references. Other facts are simply about how much is metabolized in various ways, which seems unrelated to safety. The last citations in support of "As of 2024, reviews of numerous safety and toxicology studies..." is also cited to the FDA, so those two others could presumably be dropped from that claim? A note could be added to the footnotes about the source of funding; that does seem relevant to readers. -- Beland (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::"A note could be added to the footnotes about the source of funding; that does seem relevant to readers." Agreed wholeheartedly.

::::Some diligence and clarity regarding the FDA's own conclusions could be pursued and expanded upon as well, e.g. making sure the FDA's claims are not based on citations/references to studies which themselves just refer back to the FDA. My mind goes to the phrase "Circular Logic" due to my particular education, but with some minor research I suspect "Circular Reporting" is what I'm really talking about, or at least something very alike it, see : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reporting

::::Basically the evidence for the logical or scientific soundness of a conclusion/claim sort of just "bounces" back and forth between entities referencing only the conclusions of one another, each trying to affirm and reinforce the same desired end result through this relationship, e.g. if Study #1 references the safety profile determinations demonstrated in a Study #2, and upon digging into that Study #2 we come to find that it too simply refers back to the source of Study #1 in some fundamental way as to compromise it's conclusions. THE Rustin Black (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Were you planning to make any of the suggested changes? -- Beland (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

There are several different sources claiming possible adverse effects or changes on gut biome. This information should be added to the page to deliver a more accurate picture of the possible effects on the human body.

For example:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6363527/ 81.109.135.173 (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:The gut biome is a subject of primary research which does not satisfy WP:MEDRS. The source you provided is 6 years out of date for such lab studies. Read the topic sections above. The first sign of any change in science or policy on sweeteners like sucralose will be statements by EFSA or the FDA, neither of which has shown any concerns about the safety of sucralose in the public food supply. Zefr (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

::the WHO advised against them in 2023. Is the WHO not a good enough authority to warrant a reference in a Wikipedia article?

::https://www.who.int/news/item/15-05-2023-who-advises-not-to-use-non-sugar-sweeteners-for-weight-control-in-newly-released-guideline

::"Results of the review also suggest that there may be potential undesirable effects from long-term use of NSS, such as an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and mortality in adults." Novous (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::There is no evidence that sucralose or any non-nutritive sweetener causes diseases in typical amounts used by consumers. The quoted sentence from WHO is about the choice of foods that are artificially sweetened, further stating that "People need to consider other ways to reduce free sugars intake, such as consuming food with naturally occurring sugars, like fruit, or unsweetened food and beverages."

:::This article section sufficiently addresses the issue concerning sucralose and absence of health effects. Zefr (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)