IMO the headline should probably read: Sucralose-6-acetate, an intermediate used in the synthesis of Sucralose, and potentially found in trace amounts in the sweetener, shown to be genotoxic in...
IMO the headline should probably read:
Sucralose-6-acetate, an intermediate used in the synthesis of Sucralose, and potentially found in trace amounts in the sweetener, shown to be genotoxic in human blood cells, in vitro study concludes
Or something to that effect. And considering the author is supposed to be a professional science communicator, I would have hoped they would be a bit more precise in their language in the headline, and a bit less clickbaity. This study (and the recent WHO advisory) is still more than enough to make me reconsider using the sweetener, which sucks because the meal replacement powder I regularly consume contains it, but the study is not quite as damning or conclusive as the headline suggests, IMO.
They mention that trace amounts are found in Sucralose off-the-shelf, and that Sucralose when digested and metabolized creates sucralose-6-acetate, which causes it to be well above the safe limit...
They mention that trace amounts are found in Sucralose off-the-shelf, and that Sucralose when digested and metabolized creates sucralose-6-acetate, which causes it to be well above the safe limit directed by the EU.
“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.”
They said that in the interview for the article, but AFAICT the only mention of trace amounts of it being found in the sweetener itself is this line from the actual study: With a citation that...
They said that in the interview for the article, but AFAICT the only mention of trace amounts of it being found in the sweetener itself is this line from the actual study:
The amount of sucralose-6-acetate retained as an impurity in recent commercial sucralose samples varied with levels up to 0.67% (Werness 2021)
With a citation that leads to a dead link on google scholar. And even searching for the author and partial title brings up nothing relevant except the very study being discussed in the submitted article, making the citation a bit circular. :P
And AFAICT the only evidence they have for it being produced as a metabolite is from a supposed rodent model study.
Studies in a rodent model found that sucralose-6-acetate is also present in fecal samples with levels up to 10% relative to sucralose which suggest that sucralose is also acetylated in the intestines
Which I don't see any citation for at all though. So again, I would still say this study isn't necessarily as conclusive as the headline suggests. But I am no scientist, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Edit: Stumbled upon what I assume to be the sucralose rat study they're referring to (since it's also from NC State, and has Stephen C Werness, and Susan Schiffman (the co-author of the study the article is referring to) as co-authors):
Analysis of the urine and fecal extracts by ultra-high performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC–MS/MS) revealed two new biotransformation products that have not previously been reported. These two metabolites are both acetylated forms of sucralose that are less polar and hence more lipophilic than sucralose itself. These metabolites were present in urine and feces throughout the sucralose dosing period and still detected at low levels in the urine 11 days after discontinuation of sucralose administration and 6 days after sucralose was no longer detected in the urine or feces.
I still can't find the "Chemical analysis of 18 food-grade commercial samples of sucralose" study by Werness anywhere though. They're clearly colleagues and have contributed to each others studies before though, so I suppose she would know about the results, even if I can't find them published anywhere accessible. So take all that for what you will.
IMO the headline should probably read:
Sucralose-6-acetate, an intermediate used in the synthesis of Sucralose, and potentially found in trace amounts in the sweetener, shown to be genotoxic in human blood cells, in vitro study concludes
Or something to that effect. And considering the author is supposed to be a professional science communicator, I would have hoped they would be a bit more precise in their language in the headline, and a bit less clickbaity. This study (and the recent WHO advisory) is still more than enough to make me reconsider using the sweetener, which sucks because the meal replacement powder I regularly consume contains it, but the study is not quite as damning or conclusive as the headline suggests, IMO.
They mention that trace amounts are found in Sucralose off-the-shelf, and that Sucralose when digested and metabolized creates sucralose-6-acetate, which causes it to be well above the safe limit directed by the EU.
They said that in the interview for the article, but AFAICT the only mention of trace amounts of it being found in the sweetener itself is this line from the actual study:
With a citation that leads to a dead link on google scholar. And even searching for the author and partial title brings up nothing relevant except the very study being discussed in the submitted article, making the citation a bit circular. :P
And AFAICT the only evidence they have for it being produced as a metabolite is from a supposed rodent model study.
Which I don't see any citation for at all though. So again, I would still say this study isn't necessarily as conclusive as the headline suggests. But I am no scientist, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Edit: Stumbled upon what I assume to be the sucralose rat study they're referring to (since it's also from NC State, and has Stephen C Werness, and Susan Schiffman (the co-author of the study the article is referring to) as co-authors):
Intestinal Metabolism and Bioaccumulation of Sucralose In Adipose Tissue In The Rat
Relevant part from the abstract:
I still can't find the "Chemical analysis of 18 food-grade commercial samples of sucralose" study by Werness anywhere though. They're clearly colleagues and have contributed to each others studies before though, so I suppose she would know about the results, even if I can't find them published anywhere accessible. So take all that for what you will.