The makers of Splenda tell us that it is derived from sugar, so we think it must be safe, right? Wrong. The second part of the equation that was originally left out of the marketing discussions is that the makers took some of the natural properties out of sugar and replaced them with chlorine atoms, turning that sugar molecule into a chlorocarbon. What we are left with is something that may have started from sugar but is now more similar to the deadly pesticide DDT.
CBS Business network reports that Splenda, like all chlorocarbons, is not safe for human consumption:
In test animals Splenda produced swollen livers, (as do all chlorocarbon poisons) and also calcified the kidneys of test animals. The brain and nervous system are highly subject to metabolic toxicities and solvency damages. Their high solvency attacks the human nervous system and many other body systems including genetics and the immune function. Thus, chlorocarbon poisoning can cause cancer, birth defects and immune system destruction. These are also well-known effects of Dioxin and PCBs which are known deadly chlorocarbons.
The NIH states that “there is no clear evidence that the artificial sweeteners available commercially in the United States are associated with cancer risk in humans,” but I genuinely don’t care. When given the choice between a natural, organic substance and something that has been chemically altered to taste like a natural substance, I chose nature every time. Why risk finding out in 10 or 20 years that the NIH was wrong, because it simply didn’t have enough data?