In misc.health.alternative Jan Drew wrote:

As usual, Ms. Drew reposts factually incorrect material. . .

: "Sucralose is a molecule of sugar chemically manipulated to surrender three
: hydroxyl groups (hydrogen + oxygen) and replace them with three chlorine
: atoms. Natural sugar is a hydrocarbon built around 12 carbon atoms.

There is no such thing as "natural sugar"; "sugar" refers to a family of
many different compounds, which can contain any number of carbon atoms (well,
usually one thinks of the family starting with three-carbon fragments,
although Fischer's classic synthesis started with ethylene glycol, which
contains only two). For example, sucrose, common table sugar, contains
12 carbon atoms, while fructose and glucose, sugars found in sweeteners
such as honey and corn syrup, contain six. (Interesting digression: I
have read of "natural foods" advocates objecting to the use of corn syrup
because it's mostly the simple sugar fructose, the ingestion of which is
supposed to be bad for the body, but I have never seen one object to the
use of honey, which comprises mostly fructose and glucose.)

In addition, "natural" sugar is not a hydrocarbon -- it contains oxygen
and therefore cannot be a hydrocarbon by definition. Gasoline is an example
of a hydrocarbon mixture. Sugars are "carbohydrates" in which the hydrogen
to oxygen ratio is 2:1 just as it is in water: if you pour concentrated
sulfuric acid on sugar, it will liberate the hydrogen and oxygen as water
and leave behind a lump of carbon.

Note also the inflammatory language "chemically manipulated." Sugar itself
is "chemically manipulated" -- plants convert carbon dioxide and water
into simple sugars (releasing the excess oxygen along the way), and from
simple sugars into complex sugars and starches. When a person digests
sugar, his body is chemically manipulating it through a series of well-known
transformations.

: When turned into Splenda it becomes a chlorocarbon, in the family of
: Chlorodane, Lindane and DDT,

It is *not* in the family of chlordane (note the spelling), Lindane, and
DDT. All of those are chlorocarbons -- they contain carbon, chlorine,
and hydrogen; sucralose also contains oxygen. A very big difference
between chlorinated pesticides and sucralose is that the former are
fat-soluble and hence accumulate in the body, while sucralose is not.

: "It is logical to ask why table salt, which also contains chlorine, is safe
: while Splenda/sucralose is toxic? Because salt isn't a chlorocarbon. When
: molecular chemistry binds sodium to chlorine to make salt carbon isn't
: included. Sucralose and salt are as different as oil and water.

The difference has nothing to do with the lack of carbon in salt; in salt,
chlorine is present as the chloride ion, while in chlorine-containing
organic compounds, it is present as neutral chlorine.

: "Unlike sodium chloride, chlorocarbons are never nutritionally compatible
: with our metabolic processes and are wholly incompatible with normal human
: metabolic functioning.

If sodium chloride is "nutritionally compatible with our metabolic processes,"
why can't we drink seawater?

: "By this process chlorocarbons such as sucralose deliver chlorine directly
: into our cells through normal metabolization. This makes them effective
: insecticides and preservatives. Preservatives must kill anything alive to
: prevent bacterial decomposition."

I've already asked this, and gotten no response: how do you reconcile the
claims that preservatives "must kill anything alive" while natural salt
and sugar are compatible with metabolic processes with the historical use of
salt and sugar as food preservatives?

: Dr. Bowen believes ingested chlorocarbon damage continues with the formation
: of other toxins: "Any chlorocarbons not directly excreted from the body
: intact can cause immense damage to the processes of human metabolism and,
: eventually, our internal organs.

What evidence do you have that sucralose is *not* directly excreted from
the body?

: Dr. Bowen continues: "Just like aspartame, which achieved marketplace
: approval by the Food and Drug Administration when animal studies clearly
: demonstrated its toxicity, sucralose also failed in clinical trials with
: animals. Aspartame created brain tumors in rats. Sucralose has been found to
: shrink thymus glands (the biological seat of immunity) and produce liver
: inflammation in rats and mice.

This is the same argument that was used against saccharin, which certainly
does cause cancer in laboratory animals. The issue is one of public policy
involving two different questions: (1) Must we assume that if a chemical
shows toxicity at high doses, it must necessarily show toxicity at *any*
dose (i.e. we must assume that there is no threshold for toxicity)?
(2) What is the acceptable level of risk for any new technology?

In general, people have historically shown a willingness to tolerate a
certain level of risk if the perceived benefits outweigh the perceived
risks. Sometimes, this willingness is a bad thing (e.g. the large number
of supposedly "healthful" products containing radium that were sold in
the 1920's); sometimes it is not so obviously a bad thing (e.g. there is no
question that if cars were banned and everyone were required to walk, there
would be a lot fewer traffic fatalities, and a healthier populace; but no
one seems to be willing to give up cars, even though doing so would save tens
of thousands of lives per year in the U.S. alone, not to mention the long-term
health and environmental benefits).

These issues are not simple ones, and it could very well be that the risks
of sucralose use will be found to outweigh the benefits. But for there
to be any reasoned debate on the issue, people need to be informed of the
truth -- not of distortions and half-truths. That goes, of course, for
both the people who believe that sucralose is not dangerous as well as
for the people such as whoever penned the screed to which I am replying
who believe that it is.

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
They do not think whom they souse with spray.