With Reckless FDA Approval in 1998, Sucralose Breaks Down DNA
Updated
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the no-calorie sugar substitute Sucralose as a general-purpose sweetener in 1998. Six-hundred times sweeter than sugar, the chemical concoction can be used as an ingredient in any food or beverage. It is often found in baked goods, milk, dairy products, ice cream, beverages, chewing gum, gelatins, frozen dairy desserts, Diet Coke, Gatorade’s Propel Water, and so on. Most commonly sold under the brand name Splenda, Sucralose is used in more than 6,000 food products. However, like so many products encouraged as safe by the FDA, it turns out that not only is sucralose consumption linked to illnesses like leukemia, weight gain, obesity, diabetes, liver inflammation, and metabolic dysfunction, but the fake sweetener is also genotoxic and breaks down human DNA.
A quick look back at the FDA’s approval of Sucralose reveals that the fraud-riddled agency first approved the toxin in 1998 in fifteen specific food categories. Then, a short year later, the agency approved it as a general-purpose sweetener. Similar to the careless approval of the gene-damaging mRNA COVID-19 jabs, Sucralose’s transition from specified usage to general-purpose approval as an artificial sweetener was the fastest ever in the FDA’s history, according to the nonprofit public health research group U.S. Right to Know (USRTK). And even worse, the studies reviewed by the FDA at the time were based strictly on animal studies. USRTK notes that of the over 100 studies the FDA examined prior to approval, none involved humans, only three lasted more than a year, and many were not even published for public scrutiny. Sound familiar?
Without question, the same FDA-Big Pharma ties and corruption that have come to light following the reckless approval of the hugely profitable billionaire making mRNA COVID jabs are also at play in the lucrative artificial sweetener market (incredibly, the market is projected to reach a revenue of $2.8 billion by 2032). Proposing reforms to “end these corrupt practices and take industry out of the FDA,” the Journal of Food Law Policy wrote in 2010:
“For more than a century, the Food and Drug Administration has claimed to protect the public health. During that time, it has actually been placing corporate profits above consumer safety. Nowhere is this corruption more evident than in the approval of artificial sweeteners. FDA leaders’ close ties to the very industry they were supposed to be regulating present a startling picture. Ignoring warnings from both independent scientists and their own review panels, FDA decision makers let greed guide their actions. They approved carcinogenic sweeteners such as saccharin, aspartame, and Sucralose while simultaneously banning the natural herb stevia because it would cut into industry profits.”
As referenced by the Journal of Food Law Policy, in 2006, a very telling survey conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that hundreds of FDA scientists documented significant agency interference with the FDA’s scientific work. For example, citing that agency leadership is more concerned with rushing products to market than ensuring consumer safety, the scientists reported that—with wealthy corporate backers in mind—FDA leaders “often pressured scientists to unethically change data or alter their conclusions.” The scientists rightly shared that these disturbing practices compromised the agency’s ability to fulfill its taxpayer-funded mission of protecting public health and safety.
Fast forward to today, and very little has changed within the FDA since the eye-opening 2006 survey. In fact, many frustrated medical professionals courageous enough to publicly speak against the dangerous and deadly COVID shots would undoubtedly say that corruption within the FDA and Big Pharma has only worsened.
So, what big corporation was tied to the careless approval of Sucralose? It was none other than Johnson & Johnson subsidiary McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, who, for its first decade, deceptively marketed Splenda as “made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar.” Besides manipulating the timeline of the agency’s approval decisions, the Journal of Food Law Policy emphasized the collusion between McNeil and the FDA, remarking that “Sucralose’s problems start with its name,” which closely resembles the natural product sucrose.
Advocacy groups alerted the FDA to the similarity between natural sucrose and Splenda’s main ingredient, the chemical Sucralose, intentionally worded by McNeil, to no avail. In response, the FDA “made the absurd argument” that because consumers had not confused aspartame (another artificial sweetener and Sucralose’s main rival) with sucrose, they would not confuse Sucralose with sucrose.
With a growing list of severe health risks related to Sucralose, which is now owned by Heartland Food Products Group, a 2016 study published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health found a significant link between Sucralose and leukemia. Before that, subsequent studies, including longitudinal ones involving human populations, linked Sucralose to various health problems. Yet, the FDA has not reevaluated its authorization with the current science.
Will the sinister agency finally put the health of Americans above profits now that there is confirmation that Sucralose breaks up DNA? Even the European Union has banned Sucralose and other artificial sweeteners in dietetic baking. Recently, the gut-brain connection and its relevancy to overall health have become more evident. Nevertheless, the FDA continues to ignore its significance. Yet, research teams at North Carolina State University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have definitively established that sucralose-6-acetate (a fat-soluble compound produced in the gut after sucralose ingestion) is genotoxic. The researchers also found trace amounts of sucralose-6-acetate in off-the-shelf Sucralose, even before it is consumed and metabolized. Researcher Susan Schiffman explained:
“Other studies have found that Sucralose can adversely affect gut health, so we wanted to see what might be happening there. When we exposed Sucralose and sucralose-6-acetate to gut epithelial tissues—the tissue that lines your gut wall—we found that both chemicals cause ‘leaky gut.’ Basically, they make the wall of the gut more permeable. The chemicals damage the ‘tight junctions,’ or interfaces, where cells in the gut wall connect to each other.
A leaky gut is problematic because it means that things that would normally be flushed out of the body in feces are instead leaking out of the gut and being absorbed into the bloodstream.
We found that gut cells exposed to sucralose-6-acetate had increased activity in genes related to oxidative stress, inflammation, and carcinogenicity.”