Splenda

Products

Splenda is available in a variety of products:

• Splenda Original Sweeteners (based on sucralose)
• Splenda Stevia Sweeteners
• Splenda Monk Fruit Sweeteners
• Splenda Allulose Sweeteners
• Splenda Liquid Sweeteners
• Splenda Coffee Creamers
• Splenda Diabetes Care Shakes
• Splenda Premium Sweet Teas

Energy (caloric) content

The energy content of a single-serving (1 g packet) of Splenda is 3.36 kcal, which is 31% of a single-serving (2.8 g packet) of granulated sugar (10.8 kcal). U.S. FDA regulations allow this "if the food contains less than 5 Calories per reference amount customarily consumed and per labeled serving". Splenda powder consists of predominantly fillers as bulking agents – dextrose and maltodextrin. Sucralose content is about 1.1% and remainder is bulking agents.

Cooking

Unlike other artificial sweeteners, sucralose is heat-stable up to 450 °F (232 °C), so Splenda can be used as a replacement for table sugar in cooking and baking, and there are Splenda products packaged specifically for this purpose. In product testing by Cook's Illustrated, the major drawback to cooking with Splenda was found to be that it does not produce the browning or caramelization the way table sugar does. However, Cook's Illustrated also found that desserts baked with Splenda were "lacking the artificial flavors that just about every other sugar substitute brings with it."

Health and safety regulation

Splenda usually contains 95% dextrose (D-glucose) and maltodextrin (by volume) which the body readily metabolizes, combined with a small amount of mostly indigestible sucralose. Sucralose is made by replacing three select hydrogen-oxygen groups on sucrose (table sugar) molecules with three chlorine atoms. The tightly bound chlorine atoms create a molecular structure that is stable under intense conditions. Sucralose itself is recognized as safe to ingest as a diabetic sugar substitute, but the sugars or other carbohydrates used as bulking agents in Splenda products should be evaluated individually. The recommended amount of sucralose that can be consumed on a daily basis over a person's lifetime without any adverse effects is 900 mg/kg BW/day, or about 60 g for a 70 kg (150 lb) person. 1 g for a 70 kg person is equivalent to about 75 packets of Splenda or the sweetness of 612 g or 2500 kcal of sugar. Calculation is as follows using GNU units (technically this is original research, but allowable per WP:CALC): (15 mg/kg) * (150 lb) = 1.0205828 g (15 mg/kg) * (150 lb) / (8 g / 600) = 76.543712 (15 mg/kg) * (150 lb) * 600 = 612.3497 g (15 mg/kg) * (150 lb) * 600 * (4 kcal/g) = 2449.3988 kcal

A repeated dose study of sucralose in human subjects concluded that "there is no indication that adverse effects on human health would occur from frequent or long-term exposure to sucralose at the maximum anticipated levels of intake". Conversely, a Duke University animal study funded by the Sugar Association found evidence that doses of Splenda between 100 and 1000 mg/kg BW/day, containing sucralose at 1.1 to 11 mg/kg BW/day, fed to rats reduced fecal microflora, increased the pH level in the intestines, contributed to increases in body weight, and increased levels of P-glycoprotein (P-gp). These effects have not been reported in humans. The other ingredients in Splenda—dextrose and maltodextrin—are listed as generally recognized as safe because of their long history of safe consumption.

Sucralose may not be completely biologically inert, and a study showed that cooking with sucralose at high temperatures could cause it to degrade into potentially toxic compounds. However, only a very small amount (approximately 2–8% of sucralose consumed) is metabolized by the body, on average.

Marketing controversy

In 2006, Merisant, the maker of Equal, filed suit against McNeil Nutritionals in U.S. District Court, Philadelphia, alleging that Splenda's tagline; "made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar" is misleading. McNeil argued during the trial that it had never deceived consumers or set out to deceive them, since the product is in fact made from sugar. Merisant asked that McNeil be ordered to surrender profits and modify its advertising. The case ended with an agreement reached outside of court, with undisclosed settlement conditions. In 2004, Merisant filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau regarding McNeil's advertising. McNeil alleged that Merisant's complaint was in retaliation for a ruling in federal court in Puerto Rico, which forced Merisant to stop packaging Equal in packages resembling Splenda's. McNeil filed suit in Puerto Rico seeking a ruling which would declare its advertising to not be misleading. Following Merisant's lawsuit in Philadelphia, McNeil agreed to a jury trial and to the dismissal of its lawsuit in Puerto Rico. However, on May 11, 2007, the parties reached a settlement on the case, the terms of which were not disclosed.

In 2007, Merisant France prevailed in the Commercial Court of Paris against subsidiaries of McNeil Nutritionals LLC. The court awarded Merisant $54,000 in damages and ordered the defendants to cease advertising claims found to violate French consumer protection laws, including the slogans; "because it comes from sugar, sucralose tastes like sugar" and "With sucralose: comes from sugar and tastes like sugar".

A Sugar Association complaint to the Federal Trade Commission stated that "Splenda is not a natural product. It is not cultivated or grown and it does not occur in nature." McNeil Nutritionals, the manufacturer of Splenda, has responded that its "advertising represents the products in an accurate and informative manner and complies with applicable advertising rules in the countries where Splenda brand products are marketed."

References

References

1. Bilger, Burkhard. (2006-05-14). "The Search for Sweet". The New Yorker.
2. Thompson, Andrea. (2008-09-25). "Sweet Nothings". The New Yorker.
3. "Tate and Lyle history".
4. (April 1, 1998). "FDA Approves Sucralose". U.S. [[Food and Drug Administration]].
5. Browning, Lynnley (April 6, 2007), [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/business/media/06sweet.html Makers of Artificial Sweeteners Go to Court], ''[[The New York Times]]'' Business section
6. Johnson,Avery (April 6, 2007), [https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB117582405851161797 How Sweet It Isn't], ''The Wall Street Journal'', Marketplace Section, p.B1
7. Christopher Adams (Aug 28, 2012), [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10829886 US launch sweet news for kiwi supplier], ''[[The New Zealand Herald]]''
8. (2017-02-06). "Legally Sweet".
9. "Demand Patterns in Reduced-calorie Sweetener Market: Projections to 2033".
10. "SPLENDA Products {{!}} SPLENDA Brand".
11. "USDA FoodData Central".
12. [https://web.archive.org/web/20030914050654/http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?FR=101.60 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Volume 2, Pg. 95 – 101.60] U.S. Food and Drug Administration
13. (2008). "Splenda alters gut microflora and increases intestinal p-glycoprotein and cytochrome p-450 in male rats". Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Part A.
14. (2004). "Cooking Healthy with Splenda". Perigee Trade.
15. "Cooking and Baking Tips". Splenda.com.
16. (January 1, 2004). "Splenda".
17. (26 November 2018). "Everything You Need to Know About Sucralose". [[International Food Information Council]].
18. (2003). "Lack of effect of sucralose on glucose homeostasis in subjects with type 2 diabetes". Journal of the American Dietetic Association.
19. Roberts, Ashley. (1999). "Sucralose and diabetes". Foods & Food Ingredients Journal of Japan.
20. Goldsmith, L. A.. (2000). "Acute and subchronic toxicity of sucralose". Food and Chemical Toxicology.
21. (2000). "Repeated dose study of sucralose tolerance in human subjects". [[Food and Chemical Toxicology]].
22. Browning, Lynnley. (2008-09-02). "New Salvo in Splenda Skirmish". The New York Times.
23. (2008). "Splenda alters gut microflora and increases intestinal p-glycoprotein and cytochrome p-450 in male rats". J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A.
24. Daniells, Stephen. (2009-09-02). "Sucralose safety 'scientifically sound': Expert panel".
25. {{CodeFedReg. 21. 184. 1444
26. {{CodeFedReg. 21. 184. 1857
27. Susan S. Schiffman. (2013). "Sucralose, A Synthetic Organochlorine Sweetener: Overview Of Biological Issues". Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B: Critical Reviews.
28. Michael A. Friedman, Lead Deputy Commissioner for the FDA, [https://web.archive.org/web/20050507212527/http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/98fr/040398a.pdf Food Additives Permitted for Direct Addition to Food for Human Consumption; Sucralose] Federal Register: 21 CFR Part 172, Docket No. 87F-0086, April 3, 1998
29. Browning, Lynnley (May 12, 2007) [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/12/business/media/12splenda.html?ex=1336622400&en=8f48609f972bc31d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss Artificial Sweetener Makers Reach Settlement on Slogan], ''[[The New York Times]]''
30. Heller, Lorraine (May 14, 2007) [http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/Splenda-ad-slogans-banned-in-France Splenda ad slogans banned in France], ''[[Food Navigator]]''
31. [http://www.truthaboutsplenda.com/news/11-02-06-splenda_ads_condemned.html Splenda Ads Condemned as Misleading to Consumers by International Advertising Boards, Sugar Farmers and Processors], Sugar Association Press Release, November 2, 2006
32. [https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna15533454 Sugar industry files complaint over Splenda], [[Reuters]] (''[[NBC News]]''), Nov. 2, 2006