Talk:Sucralose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sucralose article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Sucralose in soft drinks

  • Removed "Additionally, Coca-Cola and Pepsi released new versions of their colas (Coke C2 and Pepsi EDGE) replacing half of the traditional high fructose corn syrup with sucralose."

This isn't true. They just removed the real sugar.

Actually, you're wrong. Sucralose is included in the list of ingredients of C2. Jrkarp 02:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

on May 23, 2005 Diet 7UP will become the first leading diet lemon-lime carbonated soft drink to be reformulated with Splenda - rather a lot of qualifications there! 81.158.204.67 04:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Added links in the 7-UP information and added the Shasta information with links.

Coca-Cola hasn't had any real sugar (except for the Kosher variety) since the "return" of Classic Coke after the New Coke mess. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.136.146.33 (talk • contribs). 5 July 2005

[edit] Flavor?

What about flavor? Saccharin and other sweeteners have unpleasant after-tastes, does this affect sucralose as well (considering its close chemical relationship with sucrose - perhaps this isn't an issue)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.119.131.73 (talk • contribs). 23 August 2005

I just tasted sucralose in Minute Maid Light. It's the same awful taste, very similar to aspartame and it lingers for a good while. I don't get how people drink this. 72.139.78.26 02:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Medically, drinks containing added sugar aren't an option for some people. That's how people drink this.68.43.25.206 11:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Many (most?) Splenda products also use acesulfame K, which has an awful aftertaste. I find that things with Ace-K taste much much worse than things without it.Orbicular 13:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
We need to fix the current article. It doesn't mention that primary flavor (not aftertaste) is still a big issue for Splenda. It might be one of the best sugar substitutes, but it unanimously fails direct taste tests with plain, old sugar. Until we get a proper citation, you can test this for yourself. Cook two batches of the same recipe (e.g., cranberry sauce) at the same time and have people who don't even know that one is made with Splenda taste them both. 216.231.42.53 13:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The lack of significant bad aftertaste (relative to saccharin) is one of the reasons for this products substantial commercial success. Mjb10000 15:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a taste test (sponsored by Splenda/McNeil) that supported people liked blueberry muffins made with Splenda better. However, mine get soggy after a few days, so I either use the sugar blend or all sugar. --Moop stick | (Talk) 23:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have always suspected, personally, that *some people* will always taste the difference between this and sugar... but others don't. My mother quite happily puts Splenda in everything; I had to stop eating most of her desserts because they taste so chemical to me. It's like cilantro; to me it tastes like dish soap, but many people look at me like I'm crazy when I say that. It would be interesting to see if there's anything scientific out there about this. I really though that the 'Made from sugar so it tastes like sugar!' was a scam until I found out that my mother thought it tasted fine. 131.123.56.235 20:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, splenda tastes indistinguishable from sugar to me. But I find other artificial sweeteners completely distasteful. We all have different taste buds, I guess. Deli nk 20:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I find that Splenda tastes quite good. There is definitely a bit of an aftertaste, but the delicious 0 calorie cream soda I'm drinking right now says it's worth it. I do find that the taste is nowhere near as bad as that of other fake sugars. !jim 04:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chlorine

The above claim that "the body has mechanisms for dealing with...chlorine" is misleading, especially when compared with the "chlorine" in table salt. Table salt contains "chloride", not chlorine, and definitely not primary alkyl chlorides such as sucralose. As a doctor, I can assure you that any basic Organic Chemistry textbook will tell you that primary alkyl chlorides such as sucralose are indeed reactive substrates and are not dealt with in customary fashion on a regular basis in metabolism. (preceding unsigned comment by 128.193.93.179 20:43, August 11, 2005 (UTC))

I removed this remark from the article since it's an editorial comment. Rhobite 20:43, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Before seeing this comment, I had the exact same reaction (minus the assertion of an MD degree), and changed the article to reflect the simple facts of chemistry. I happened to learn this fact from Neal Stephenson's Zodiac, rather than from Any Basic Organic Chemistry Textbook (had trouble even finding the author of that particular book...someone should really fix that link!), but it really is an important point that should be emphasized.--Joel 03:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The diagram shows the methoxy groups being substituted, not the hydrogen. Is this correct? Mark Saler 15:47, February 2006

The chemical structure image in this article is correct. Hydroxyl groups of sucrose are replaced with chlorine atoms (which in this case are less reactive as alkylating agents than a typical alkyl chloride). Edgar181 22:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relative Risk

Is it worth comparing to other risks, e.g. mentioning that other food additives such as Olestra are considered greater health risks? Perhaps a diet food additive category would be appropriate. Ah, there already is one: [The food additives category] that includes Olestra. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elvey (talk • contribs). 5 October 2005

I needed to edit your comment because the Talk page of Sucralose was getting automatically listed in the category instead of the article! Whoops! :) Applekid 22:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] INCOMPLETE QUOTATIONS

  • Added

Moreover, the rats so fed were only 7-20% underweight Vs the average for the control group.

In this particular study rats who were severely starved to the point of 30% weight loss, but not fed Sucralose only had their thymus shrink by an average of 7%. Versus the 40% average thymus shrinkage for the rats that were fed 3% sucralose, and not starved. "The net conclusion from all this is, that both the Thymus shrinkage and the growth retardation caused by sucralose were enough to in each case disqualify sucralose from the marketplace."

Honestly guys, whether you are for, or against something, this is an encyclopedia, and should be treated as one. If an article is to be cited, then list ALL OF ITS FINDINGS. That study found a 40% shrinkage with it's highest dose sucralose group vs the 7% shrinkage with its starvation group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.43.237.183 (talk • contribs). 11 January 2006

[edit] Popularity?

Could someone please provide information regarding Splenda's popularity vs the other alt sweeteners?

Thanks!

-Z —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.183.203.184 (talk • contribs). 20 February 2006

Sucralose has been highly successful. The product is widely approved by regulatory authorities and used to sweeten over 4000 foods. Mjb10000 21:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propel?

Why is propel listed under branded uses, when it doesn't contain sucralose? Is it a typo in the description (which says sucrose) or an error to contain it? Długosz 7 April 2006

All the bottles of Propel I've seen have sucralose on the list of ingredients. Perhaps Propel didn't initially contain sucralose and you were looking at old bottles? Or perhaps you were confused by the fact that Propel also contains "sucrose syrup" much earlier in the ingredients list, with sucralose embedded in the list of additives? 198.184.20.94 13:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the KIWI-STRAWBERRY only lists sucrose syrup not sucralose and is nowhere on the label, and it was bought on 4-05-07.

This whole portion of the paragraph below does not make any sense and does not add anything to the entry. "This is because sucralose is a chlorocarbon. It has been said that the chlorine in sucralose is safe, because chlorine is normally present in nature. However, the most common form of chlorine in nature (as in table salt, sodium chloride) is as chloride ions (Cl-). On the other hand, the three chlorine atoms in sucralose are covalently bound to carbon."

Why mention this stupid comment about "chlorine...is safe because it is present in nature". Arsneic, mercury, strychnine and countless other toxic substances are present in nature, it does not mean they are safe. Sodium chloride has no chemical relationship to sucralos, so it is like comparing a rock to a battleship.

[edit] Safety

The example showing how animal studies can produce different results when compared to human trials was not balanced, showing only an example where animals can be poisoned by consuming a food item that is harmless to humans. I added the opposite situation, using Thalidomide as the example, which has no harmful effects in rat fetuses but causes deformities in human fetuses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.101.177 (talk • contribs). 4 May 2006


How about discussion of the symptoms that some people see using this product? I don't see any mention of that. Many people get very bad diarrhea using products that have this...


"The acceptable daily intake for sucralose is 5 mg / kg of body weight per day."

I don't see how that's possible. This section of the article seems to suggest that most people should not even have one packet of Splenda per day. Nanten 23:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

thats because splenda packets are mostly dextrose or maltodextrin, so as to bulk up the packets. thats why you can use it 'cup for cup' when cooking, even though sucralose is 600x sweeter.--Skp2y F thorax 01:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that none of the statements made in the fourth paragraph (beginning with "Chlorine atoms are covalently bonded...") of the Safety section are supported by the reference given at the end of it ([10]). Even if one assumes the reference was given in support of the last statement made ("...sucralose does not break down or dechlorinate.") the statement is wrong based on the studies and conclusions I have seen, even in the article referenced. In humans (according to one study), at least, 2.6% of the ingested sucralose was found in metabolites in the urine, and 7.2% never passed out of the body in a measurable form (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10882816). Note the author lists are substantially similar. In light of this I think the paragraph should be removed, or at least the last sentence and misleading reference. In addition, the claim is directly refuted in the following paragraph. (168.253.135.250 18:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] More studies to mention

Several studies are mentioned and commented on here: http://tsudonimh.livejournal.com/71327.html …The article would do well to have the studies mentioned, I think.—mjb 00:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Sucralose danger" link

The "Sucralose danger" link under the "Criticism" heading of the "External links" section takes you to a page with a huge "Enter your email address" thing blocking the top part of the article. It's annoying and spammey with no close option. Is it really worth linking to it?

Commented out, page not available in UK. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sucralose in Non-Diet foods

Could somebody enlighten me as to why anyone would put sucralose in non-diet foods (many of which contain other sweeteners, ie sugar)? 172.193.41.99 05:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Think of Coca-cola C2. It was a mix of high fructose corn syrup and Splenda. It was marketed to people who wanted to reduce their calorie intake but didnt like the diet aftertaste that was associated with aspartame. --Moop stick | (Talk) 02:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Does anyone know about the effect of Splenda on diabetics? I'm having some trouble finding any info on this. I've read several places that it is safe for diabetics. Here is one place; http://www.ific.org/publications/brochures/sucralosebroch.cfm Techefnet 12:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure = Slant in Final Paragraph?

The structure of the final paragraph leads to a probably unintentional tone of bias:

"Critics of sucralose often favor natural alternatives, including Xylitol (Birch sugar widely used during World War II), Malitol, Maltitol, Thaumatin, Isomalt (popular in some European countries), and the unapproved sweetener Stevia (widely used in Japan), which is sold on many sites claiming that sucralose is unsafe. In the US, Stevia can only be sold as a dietary supplement, not a sweetener, and it may not be sold at all in the UK."

I'm noticing particularly the conjunction of the facts that the "unapproved sweetener Stevia" is "sold on many sites claiming that sucralose is unsafe." While this may be true, it tends to malign poor Stevia (nothing to do with this article) and marginalize critics of Sucralose as peddlers of possibly dangerous "dietary supplements" entirely unavailable in other countries (I'm not sure what the final sentence contributes at all to this article except to bolster that argument.) It may very well be true that critics of sucralose are marginal, but there should be better evidence of it than selling Stevia (which not all of them do, I think?)

Again, my feeling is that this is largely a problem of structure, of trying to talk about two topics (critics and other substitutes) at once.

Thanks, Grammargal 11:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

i agree that thematically its kind of all over. the information about substitutes used by its critics is a nice addition, however. id suggest removing everything past "the unapproved sweetener Stevia (widely used in japan)." if we want to know more about stevia and its legality of sale, we can look it up ourselves. --Skp2y F thorax 01:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advocacy/critiscm external links

I'm wondering why there are so many links to advocacy and critism sites on this article. The debate does not seem to have been deemed worthy of significant content in the article itself. I've just removed one link that was placed there by the website marketing firm that created it. I'd like to get rid all of them since the links on their own seem to add little in the way of encycloedic value to the article. Other thoughts? --Siobhan Hansa 12:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

personally, i agree. after looking at the advocacy and criticism links, i found no cited, factual information other than what was already in this entry. the rest is all anecdotal. the premise behind the all splenda cookbook was interesting, but it failed even to talk about the differences between sugar and splenda in cooking in depth. beyond the difference in volume, its lack of carmelization, and it's volume, the article presents nothing. this is unfortunate because i think the cooking section needs work, but thats not exactly on topic. --Skp2y F thorax 11:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accepted Daily Intake? BS

"The acceptable daily intake for sucralose is 5 mg / kg of body weight per day."

There's no way to find out how much sucralose is in a bottle of soda. Do you know why? It isn't listed on the bottles. Millions of people are drinking beverages, or eating foods that have more than that amount of sucralose per serving size. It doesn't make any sense and doesn't belong in the article. But if people are dumb enough to eat that stuff, I guess they might as well go over what's "accepted" for something that's detrimental to your health.

The Sucrose (sugar article indicates sugar weighs 1.59 grams/ml. 5 ml equals one teaspoon. The little yellow Splenda package shown in this article contains the sweetness equivalent of one teaspoon of sugar -- in other words, the yellow package is equal in sweetness to about 3 grams of sugar. The article states that sucralose is 600 times sweeter than sugar, so that yellow package contains about mg of sucralose. A 20 kg child would have to consume 20 packages to meet its limit. A 70 kg adult would need to consume 70. --A. B. 04:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You aren't getting the picture. Bottles of juice or soda, or cups of yogurt do not show the amount of mg of sucralose that they contain. They don't have tiny pictures of yellow packets saying, "Okay, boys and girls, this contains five packets of Splenda, so you can have 15 more today until you've reached your limit." That's my point. Also, some of us use pounds instead of kilograms, though I guess I should start carrying the formula and a calculator around with me.

70 packets = 3 cups of Splenda. Nobody should consume that much of any sweetner in a day. Really all you would need to do is compare how much sugar is in the regular product. In addition to that, most diet products that contain sucralose are usually mixed with Ace K or aspartame to reduce the cost of the product, so your not getting pure sucralose. I really wouldnt worry about how much sucralose you've consumed, as you probally wouldnt meet that limit most of the time. --Moop stick | (Talk) 16:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop this conversation. This talk page is not a forum for discussing the pros and cons of sucralose. It's for discussion related to improving this article. Please keep the conversation on track by focusing on the verifiable, published, significant opinions of experts in the subject, and how that information should be incorporated into the article. Your own ideas on what is healthy, appropriate, or possible to calculate are not appropriate subject matter for discussion on this page. Find another website if you are interested in pursuing this discussion. --Siobhan Hansa 18:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I think something should be added to the article to the effect of, "There isn't really a way to find out how much mg of Splenda is in a product, but you shouldn't worry since a 20 kg child won't reach its limit of 4/5 of a cup of Splenda. 4/5 a cup of Splenda has Xmg of Splenda.(And then have a table giving average mg amounts of things with Splenda in them: yogurt, soda, etc.)" Or just remove the part about the daily limit. Did I do my calculations right? And, what does "UTC" mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.38.242.66 (talk)

We're an encyclopedia and our articles are supposed to summarize the opinions of experts in the field, not our own thoughts or research. To get something like this in the article you need at least one citation saying basically the same thing from an expert in the field that has been published in a reliable source. Otherwise it's considered original research and not suitable for an article on Wikipedia. It's not something I've read a lot of experts being concerned about so I can't help you with finding a citation, though if you have heard similar and can provide more context I might have some ideas about appropriate places to search. UTC - Coordinated Universal Time, because editors can be from different time zones, publishing time in UTC is supposed to help you work out the relative time in your own timezone. For most every day purposes UTC is equivalent to Greenwich Mean Time. --Siobhan Hansa 21:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dental Effects

I was curious to know whether or not any studies on sucralose's effect on teeth had been published; it would make for a useful addition to the safety section. Chubbles1212 08:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are studies at[1]. Splenda does not support bacterial growth, and rats fed sucralose vs sucrose had 10-20 fold lower levels of S. mutans. --Moop stick | (Talk) 20:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whole Foods Market advertisement

I can't understand why the Wikipedia community allowed a clearly blatant advertisement for Whole Foods Market to reside here for so long masquarading as encyclopedic information. Here's what was in the article:

The food retailer Whole Foods Market has made an official policy statement of not carrying products containing sucralose in any of its stores. Their main argument for the decision is safety. They point out that most of the studies were commissioned by organizations that had a financial interest in the approval of sucralose. They note that few negative studies and media coverage of sucralose exists but don’t think that the absence of negative information means that sucralose is safe. Other arguments from Whole Foods is that sucralose is a highly processed molecule and an artificial sweetener. Therefore it does not fit with the Whole Foods philosophy of promoting “real” food.[13]

References

13. ^ "Sucralose" Whole Foods Market, reference library

If this information really has to be included, this paragraph should be rewritten in a way that refers to Whole Food Market in a completely anonymous, non-commercial fashion. As it was, this paragraph was effectively just a commercial advertisement telling health-conscious consumers “You Can Trust Us!™®SM” when buying health food. This is against Wikipedia policy. In my opinion, a much better source of information for the Criticisms and controversy section is The Sugar Association’s The Truth About Spenda Web site. It's a hard-hitting site and, at least, is paid for by a consortium of companies. Greg L 06:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I later added the following to replace the above "advertisement":
“ The Sugar Association’s health-related concerns revolve around three essential points: 1) sucralose is a chlorocarbon, 2) up to 27% of sucralose that is ingested is absorbed into the body by the digestive system, and 3) long-term human studies with sucralose have not been performed. ”
Greg L 23:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Not much of a debate with one person participating. I removed some text that could be viewed as commercial and restored the section. It is notable when the market leading retailer of "health food" decides not to carry products with a certain food additive. Mentioning the company name is necessary to establish its notability. I can hardly see how that is a "blatant advertisement for Whole Foods Market". MaxPont 15:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • MaxPont: There's not much support for a blatant advertisement if there's just one person (you) putting it back in;-) Fine. Seeing that you really insist on having information of dubious encyclopedic value, I revised it so its overpowering comercial aspect is toned down. In part, I accomplished this by putting their position in the past-tense form. The associated reference discloses the necessary citation and notability (Whole Foods Market) and also links to their policy statement. This is solidly where detailed information like this belongs. P.S. I also redirected the outdated, broken link to Whole Foods Market's position-statement to their current one. Doesn't anyone give a crap about details anymore? >return to Criticisms and controversy<
    Greg L (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well Greg, that's how it works on Wikipedia. Two editors are involved, have differing opinions, and discuss the matter. MaxPont 14:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to stir things up, but is it really necessary to even have a paragraph explaining why a natural food retailer chooses not to sell food that contains this artificial additive? This paragraph never came across as advertising to me, but it does appear quite superfluous. --Ed (Edgar181) 21:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree; I don't think the article belongs. I deleted the original version for the reasons originally stated above but MaxPont felt it added something to the article and put a revised version back in. I further revised it to make it even less commercial and a bit more encyclopedic. However, I agree with you as regards its current form. I don't know what the standard is for removing something, but I would propose that the standard used for deleting Featured Pictures be used: two-thirds consensus to delete is required. Greg L / (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote Issue: Whole Foods Market paragraph

The issue being discussed is whether the “Whole Foods Market” paragraph at the bottom of Criticisms and controversy should stay in the article.

[edit] Parties

Support, the paragraph should stay: Please sign with # ~~~~

Oppose, the paragraph should be deleted: Please sign with # ~~~~

  1. Greg L 03:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Reason: It lacks sufficient noteability to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. It smacks more of the sort of news item that would appear in a health food industry trade rag.

[edit] Debate

I think it should stay. That is factual information which highlights a current companies decision to not stock anything with sucralose. Whole Foods has researched the studies and made it's decision, but the reason this has significance is based on Whole Foods business model, which is to stock only natural, healthy products. Splenda's slogan, "tastes like sugar because it's made from sugar" challenges Whole Food's model of what natural and healthy is. The fact that Whole Foods (rather than Joe's Groceries or Kroger's) made the decision IS a criticism and could be considered controversial.Lordoftheroach2000 14:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • As regards my oppose vote, even as revised, the entry still lacks sufficient noteability to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. It smacks more of the sort of news item that would appear in a health food industry trade rag. Greg L 03:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • This is not the normal Wikipedia way to handle differences in opinion. The reason is that the arguments are considered more important than head-counts. In a controversy over edits, all sides should argue their case and try to convince in order to reach a consensus. MaxPont 11:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Well… obviously. That’s what this “Debate” section is for. It’s a forum where, as you said two lines above “…all sides should argue their case and try to convince [the others] in order to reach a consensus.” This is a big improvement on the “old-fashioned way” where two authors engage in an endless steam of deleting and reverting text. People who vote here can change their votes any time they want to. This is precisely the way Featured picture candidates are nominated and adopted (see this example) and it works very well. Votes are made. Arguments and debate goes on. Votes are revised. If no consensus (two-thirds vote to adopt the picture) develops, the nomination goes down in flames. If a “support” consensus does develop, the picture graduates to Featured pictures status. The major difference here is that my proposed standard for deleting the paragraph is the same as for delisting pictures: a two-thirds consensus is required to remove the text. If the process was done they way you seem to be fond of, people would just add any old picture to the Featured pictures pages and then “delete & revert” wars would endlessly rage. This forum gives others an opportunity to weigh in. Now… I completely re-wrote the paragraph that’s the focus of this debate in order to make it palatable and I still don’t like it. Frankly though, my “oppose” vote is a weak one because the paragraph on Whole Foods Market provides a succinct list of all the key arguments that detractors of sucralose cite. But I simultaneously believe as Edgar181 does: “…is it really necessary to even have a paragraph explaining why a natural food retailer chooses not to sell food that contains this artificial additive?”  To me, it’s not at all encyclopedic. Now we can find out how other Wikipedians feel about it. This is just what would happen in a conference room full of editors at a regular, paper-based encyclopedia: debate and vote. Greg L 19:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC) (P.S. Or mabye it will be like that Vietnam War slogan: “What if they had a war and nobody came?” Greg L 20:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Other Proposals

[edit] Safety

Two recent case studies report migraine attacks,in people subject to migraine, triggered by sucralose.[1] and [2]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goughsp (talk • contribs) 15:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] error in article

The last three lines of the section "Safety" state

SPLENDA usually contains 95% dextrose, which the body metabolism transforms into glucose (Synonym for D-glucose). Apart from use of chlorine, the safety information many specialists and the media give to consumers, is that it's safe to ingest as a Diabetic "free of problem" sugar-supplement

Dextrose is a synonym for glucose so "transforms into glucose" is nonsensical, also it does not appear in the listed ingredients on Splenda packages: did we mean to say "Dextrins"?

Also the significance of "Apart from the use of chlorine" is unclear. The presence of chlorine in food and additives is not of itself a hazard and in fact is an essential. Presumably we are referring to chlorine covalently bonded to carbon which could be hazardous in a lipid-soluble substance, which sucralose is not.

GraemeLeggett 17:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] criticisms and Controversy information should be put in a seperate article

To remain fair and balanced, I feel that the criticisms and Controversy information should be put in a seperate article. Just like Aspartame and Aspartame controversy are in seperate articles. The article for Sucralose should just explain what Sucralose is. If someone wants to read about the controversy, they should go to a new article titled Sucralose controversy or something like that. User:Antmusic

So long as a reasonable overview of controversy and criticism remains, i hav eno issue with th ebulk beinbg shifted to a new article - but that would be for presnetation needs and I don't see whay retaining it completely is a issue of fairness and balance. GraemeLeggett 17:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Resounding No. Splitting articles should only be done if one section grows in length and makes the whole article to long. Look at: WP:SUMMARY. Moving the Aspartame Controversy section was justified because it became to long. The "sucralose controversy" section is short. There is also a clear Wikipedia Policy against splitting articles in order for each side to argue their case in controversial issues: this: Look at WP:POVFORK for more details. MaxPont 09:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

there's a reference to this page http://www.diabetes.ca/cpg2003/chapters.aspx?table1acceptabledailyintakeofsweeteners.htm noted in the article as diabetes.ca

The page says 2003 clinical practice guidelines. i don't know how often the scientific community updates their guidelines. But is there no newer information than this? And even if there is, is this information still reliable as a whole? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.137.75.31 (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC).(24.137.75.31 19:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] citation needed

under history there's a 'Citation needed' marker next to the names of the people who 'discovered' Splenda. i have an article that states the same names and goes into more detail of their status. it's a full essay actually, but I don't know how to make sure it isn't infringing on any copy write laws of any sort. or if the website is indeed authentic.

so here's the link http://www.kon.org/urc/frank.html and hopefully this was of some help. (24.137.75.31 19:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/c/Talk%7ESucralose_69ae.html"