Sucralose - My Second Artificial Sweetener. Expecting the best

Sucralose Structure (by wikipedia.en)

It has been a complication for elaborating about artificial sweetener like aspartame and sucralose, since a lot of rejection and deviation in further experiment and study against this two substances by newly emerging expertise.  So that, i decide to hang on to a legitimate study or journal released by neutral and non-profit body.   

Tate and Lyle registered their patent of sucralose in 1976 and followed by its approval in Canada (1991), Australia (1993), New Zealand (1996), USA (1998), and Europe (2004).  After that, 80 countries have been followed to approve sucralose until 2008. Jurong - Singapore and McIntosh - Alabama are where Tate & Lyle produce sucralose nowadays.

Three times sweeter than aspartame, sucralose is a very stable against heat, so that it is fit to replace sugar/sucrose in a cuisine.  Sucralose is also known as zero calorie sweetener, zero cavity developer on your teeth, and safe for diabetic patients. MacDonald and Starbucks are two fast food restaurant and cafe (in USA and Canada) that already have start using the mixture of sucralose and dextrose, to replace the high calorie stand alone corn syrup sweetener. 

Sucralose has been recognized and accepted by several international body of food safety, including:

1. FDA
2. The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee Report on Food Additives
3.  FSANZ (Food Standards Australia New Zealand)
4.  European Union Scientific Committee on Food
5. Health Protection Branch of Health & Welfare - Canada

Dosage for daily use

1.1 - 11 mg/kg of body weight per day is a very safe amount for lifetime consuming by diabetic patients, while the highest limit number is 1500 mg/kg/day.  It is a very safety margin, because the margin is very wide.  In human digestion system, only 11 - 27 % of sucralose is absorbed into blood stream, while the rest is excreted along with the feces.  From the amount of sucralose absorbed, only  20 - 30 % is being metabolized completely.  

Controversy

There are so many articles or unrecognized researches by the higher legitimate authority, that have been published in the internet as a free source of information to public. One of them is a research by Ramazzini Institute that hasn't been officially published yet.  As a director of the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna, Italy, Dr. Morando Soffritti lead a team who fed 843 mice with variant doses of sucralose from the day they were born until the day they died.  He draw a conclusion from the post mortems reports, that sucralose increases the risk of getting leukemia. He also said that children and pregnant women should avoid any  of artificial sweetener, until a descent research clearly shows that it will not develop any risk of cancers.   

It's quite an absurd methodology of thinking as a researcher, who set up the results first in order to start a research.  Regardless any other equal researches by scientists, there are still no adequate evidence to judge the bad effect of sucralose.  It is obviously revealed that some protocols have been deviated in the research process.  That is also why the 5 biggest bodies in the world don't have any revision of what they have been approved about sucralose.   Logically, they have the biggest responsibility of 6 billions of human in their hands, while cancers is not a simple disease to be neglected for any of further study.

It is also very unfortunate, that Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), has already mentioned that  artificial sweeteners will be down-graded as follows:

1. Splenda (sucralose mixed with dextrose) = Caution
2. Saccharin = avoid
3. Aspartame = avoid
4. Acesulfame potassium = avoid
5. Rebiana = safe

I wonder why stevia is off the table.  For healthy people, perhaps natural sweeteners like sugar cane or corn syrups could be one of energy source for human body,  but in my article, the concern is more to Diabetics Patients.   As a diabetic type 2 patient, I definitely need sweetener that is not affecting my blood sugar level or insulin sensitivity.  That is why i become so curious about the final result of this sucralose and aspartame controversy.  I hope sucralose is truly good with no bad side effect, so that one problem of my condition might be solved in high satisfaction.   
Sometimes it crosses my mind, that if these arguments are only the ice berg of Industrial war.  The regular sugar producers might feel threatened by the developed artificial sweetener industry or whatever.  Cane and Corn farmer may get the impact as well.  It is understandable because sugar industries have a huge number of customers all around the globe, billions of people. 

Well, lets think the positive way only.