A common artificial sweetener may have more complex biological effects than previously thought.
A widely used artificial sweetener may not be as biologically “inert” as once believed. Research has raised concerns that a little-known chemical linked to sucralose, the main ingredient in Splenda, can damage DNA and interfere with key processes in the body.
Splenda is one of the most common sugar substitutes worldwide. It is found in diet sodas, sugar-free desserts, protein products, and many low-calorie or “no sugar added” foods. It is also sold in small packets for sweetening coffee and tea. Sucralose itself is hundreds of times sweeter than table sugar, so only very small amounts are needed.
A Byproduct with Potential Risks
The research centers on a compound called sucralose-6-acetate. This substance is not only formed when the body processes sucralose, but is also present in small amounts in the sweetener as a byproduct of manufacturing. Analyses have found it can make up as much as 0.67% of some commercial sucralose products, and levels may increase further after digestion.
“Our new work establishes that sucralose-6-acetate is genotoxic,” says Susan Schiffman, a biomedical engineering researcher at North Carolina State University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “We also found that trace amounts of sucralose-6-acetate can be found in off-the-shelf sucralose, even before it is consumed and metabolized.”
Earlier research by the same team showed that consuming sucralose leads to the production of several fat-soluble compounds in the gut.
Genotoxic substances are a concern because they can damage DNA, which may increase the risk of mutations linked to diseases such as cancer. In laboratory experiments using human cells, sucralose-6-acetate caused DNA strand breaks, a type of damage known as clastogenicity.
Researchers confirmed this effect using multiple approaches, including a high-throughput DNA damage screening system and a micronucleus test that detects chromosomal damage. Both methods showed that the compound can disrupt genetic material in exposed cells.
Exposure levels may also exceed safety benchmarks. The European Food Safety Authority sets a threshold of toxicological concern for genotoxic substances at 0.15 micrograms per person per day (about 0.000000005 ounces). According to the findings, a single sucralose-sweetened drink could surpass that limit, even before considering additional amounts formed in the body or repeated daily intake.
Rethinking Sucralose Metabolism
Earlier safety assessments of sucralose described it as passing through the body unchanged, with minimal biological impact. However, more recent evidence suggests it can be metabolized into compounds like sucralose-6-acetate and may interact with the body in more complex ways.
The study also examined how the compound affects the gut. In experiments using lab-grown human intestinal tissue, both sucralose and sucralose-6-acetate weakened the protective barrier of the digestive tract.
“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,’” Schiffman says. “Basically, they make the wall of the gut more permeable.”
This occurs when “tight junctions,” the structures that hold intestinal cells together, are disrupted. As a result, substances that would normally be eliminated can pass into the bloodstream.
Changes in Gene Activity and Enzyme Function
The researchers also analyzed changes in gene activity. Cells exposed to sucralose-6-acetate showed increased activity in genes associated with inflammation, oxidative stress, and cancer-related pathways. One gene, MT1G, showed especially large changes and is commonly linked to cellular stress responses.
In addition, the compound appeared to interfere with enzymes that help the body process chemicals. Laboratory tests found that sucralose-6-acetate inhibited CYP1A2 and CYP2C19, which are involved in breaking down many medications and naturally occurring compounds. If similar effects occur in humans, this could influence how certain drugs are metabolized.
The findings suggest that consuming sucralose may involve more than exposure to a single sweetener. People may also be ingesting a biologically active impurity, along with additional amounts formed during digestion.
“This work raises a host of concerns about the potential health effects associated with sucralose and its metabolites,” Schiffman says. “It’s time to revisit the safety and regulatory status of sucralose, because the evidence is mounting that it carries significant risks. If nothing else, I encourage people to avoid products containing sucralose. It’s something you should not be eating.”
References:
“Toxicological and pharmacokinetic properties of sucralose-6-acetate and its parent sucralose: in vitro screening assays” by Susan S. Schiffman, Elizabeth H. Scholl, Terrence S. Furey and H. Troy Nagle, 29 May 2023, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B.
DOI: 10.1080/10937404.2023.2213903
“Intestinal Metabolism and Bioaccumulation of Sucralose In Adipose Tissue In The Rat” by Volker Bornemann, Stephen C. Werness, Lauren Buslinger and Susan S. Schiffman, 21 August 2018, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A.
DOI: 10.1080/15287394.2018.1502560
The research was done with support from the Engineering Foundation at NC State.
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
37 Comments
And yet it’s still on the shelf. Gotta love that logic.
Ok so which sweetener is better according to this research
If you are going to argue points of logic, why does it have to be according to this research? I stopped using Sucralose when I started to get a blister in my tongue from using it, years ago. Recently, I stopped or greatly reduced Aspartame because I was having issues with my nerves. And AI said Aspartame could be why. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But drinking 2 liters of diet soda a day is out, for me.
I am just using Stevia, but still working on making something as enjoyable to drink. If it isn’t, I forget to drink anything, and have just 2 glasses of liquid a day.
Try not using any sweeteners for at least 3 days and eat only natural. Then your tonge buds become so sensitive to sweet, that you don’t need any extra sweets but enjoy the taste rich flavor of natural fruits and other plants. It is just a habit, sweetening everything. For chocolate you can use “luo han guo”.
I would guess something that organisms evolved with, like glucose and fructose, that we have had time to develop a tolerance for, or have weeded out the individuals who have a negative sensitivity to.
Awww f**k. I’ve been drinking water energy drink mixes with it on a daily basis for at least a month now.
Sugar. Duh.
Stevia. Research which stevia is best. I believe stevia with Erythritol is bad for you.
Pyure Organic Stevia Extract Powder is one of the best.
Erythritol was recommended by my dentist and by my doctor many, many years ago. It’s bad enough that drs. apologize for taking us of HRT and causing us to live through hell and now this!😬
None….. typical
You dolt, it’s an in vitro study and a rat study. Are you a test tube or a rat? No you’re not.
You’re Not Intelligent Enough To Have Logic. LOL!
The study from the bad university was debunked years ago due to contamination in the test samples.
Do you have a link to that information?
More and more articles here have to be taken from the standpoint of the wise phrase: “Follow the money” to make any sense.
And Most Modern Terms and Phrases Only Exist To Out The Retarded. Like “Follow The Money”. LOL!
This is ANCIENT news. What is it doing here? And has ANYONE other than Susan Schiffman ever reproduced these results? I don’t think so!
Your article is extremely misleading. The study you cite did not show that sucralose damages DNA in humans, it showed that sucralose-6-acetate, a minor impurity and potential degradation product, produced genotoxic signals in in vitro assays at concentrations that are not representative of typical dietary exposure. Conflating a lab signal from a related compound with real-world harm from sucralose consumption is a stretch beyond belief.
EFSA’s 2026 review of the same evidence concluded that no safety concern for genotoxicity was identified at current intake levels, yet your headline implies established danger without presenting any human biomarker evidence, epidemiologic signal, or dose-response data demonstrating clinically relevant DNA damage.
By this logic, you could write similar alarmist headlines about grilled vegetables, sunlight exposure, or endogenous oxidative metabolism, all of which produce measurable DNA damage markers under experimental conditions.
If your goal is science communication rather than click generation, the accurate conclusion would be:
A mechanistic signal in a related compound justifies further study, but current evidence does not demonstrate real-world genotoxic risk from typical sucralose consumption.
Overselling preliminary mechanistic findings erodes public trust in legitimate nutrition research and makes it harder for people to distinguish meaningful risks from speculative ones.
yeah, but industry studies claimed for years that it was inert and not metabolized in the body. so what, how does that make it safe. IDK what tox studies were conducted, but in my chemists mind, consuming synthetic halogenated or fluorinated organic compounds cannot be considered “safe” at any level. Who really wants to eat more PFAs these days?
Smoking was once “healthy”,
Various other substances and chemicals have now seen to have toxic effects, even talcum powder after a few hundred years of use ovarian cancer concerns…
NOTHING is truly safe for the human body in excess, somethings don’t ever need to be touched…
We are all going to die of something. Don’t count on Doctors, researchers, or other “professionals” to KNOW exactly the best answer to your ailment they are just an educated Human like yourself with limited to best knowledge available
Holy Chat GPT!
LLMs don’t output that way.
Thanks. I came to the comments for refutation or secondary verification. Appreciate you taking the time.
Do we all remember Cyclomates? Yeah, that was bad. Luckally, I hated the stuff, and never consummed much at all. Diet sodas now to me are putrid. I can’t drink them. However I do find Stevia to be OK.Hmmmm…. That’s a natural compound. Can’t beat nature. Agave surrip is OK too.
Smoking was once “healthy”,
Various other substances and chemicals have now seen to have toxic effects, even talcum powder after a few hundred years of use ovarian cancer concerns…
NOTHING is truly safe for the human body in excess, somethings don’t ever need to be touched…
We are all going to die of something. Don’t count on Doctors, researchers, or other “professionals” to KNOW exactly the best answer to your ailment they are just an educated Human like yourself with limited to best knowledge available
You Need Friends and Someone Intelligent To Slap You. LOL!
👏
Very old news is this. Easy to find old studies showing the same thing. But hey! Our constituents can not survive without their food poisons.
This article feels more alarmist than informative. The study it relies on is a 2023 in vitro/mechanistic paper focused heavily on sucralose-6-acetate — an impurity/degradation-related compound — but the headline and framing make it sound as though ordinary dietary sucralose has now been proven to damage human DNA. That is not what the evidence shows.
EFSA’s 2026 re-evaluation of sucralose reviewed this issue and still concluded that sucralose is safe for its currently authorized uses, with the existing ADI left unchanged. Where EFSA did express caution was not “sucralose is proven dangerous,” but rather that it could not confirm safety for expanded use in certain baked goods, because heating can create additional chlorinated breakdown products.
A fair summary would be: this line of research may justify continued scrutiny, especially around impurities and high-heat use, but it does not justify presenting sucralose as if consumer harm has already been established. Science communication gets worse when mechanistic signals are inflated into definitive public-health conclusions.
🧐 Imagine this:
SciTechDaily runs with the headline “Popular Sweetener Linked to DNA Damage – ‘It’s Something You Should Not Be Eating’.” The article cites a 2023 study suggesting sucralose produces a byproduct (sucralose-6-acetate) that can damage DNA in lab tests, weaken gut barriers, and affect gene expression, then quotes a researcher urging people to avoid it.
**Grade: D**
The piece accurately reports on the real 2023 study and its lab findings (DNA strand breaks in human cells, leaky gut effects). However, it turns those in-vitro results into strong consumer advice with alarmist language and minimal caveats about dose, real-world exposure, or the lack of direct human evidence of harm. The tone substitutes fear (“DNA damage”) for balanced risk communication, functioning more as clickbait health alarmism than careful science reporting.
The original 2023 study is publicly available (Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health). You can read it yourself and compare it to regulatory assessments from the FDA or EFSA.
So here’s the space for you:
When a science news site headlines a lab study on a common sweetener as “something you should not be eating,” is that responsible risk communication — or does it risk turning interesting preliminary findings into overstated consumer panic without clear context on actual human exposure levels?
What stands out to you when you compare the article’s urgency to the details in the underlying study?
Drop your thoughts below — I’m reading every one.
Jesus… How Much Free Time and Lack Of An ACTUAL Life Do You Have To Write All That? LOL!
Way To Prove Yourself NORMAL AND POINTLESS! LOL!
Read the research.
“There are always concerns that a genotoxic chemical may accumulate over time, the half-life of sucralose-6-acetate of roughly 38 minutes (The general rule of thumb is that 97% or more of the chemical will be gone after 4 to 5 half-lives; in the case of sucralose-6-acetate, that would be a little over 3 hours.)
Concerning the “persistence of this impurity in the body,” we need to note that the body was that of 10 rats force-fed an average dosage of 80.4 mg/kg/day for 40 days. Given the EU-regulated maximum dose of 300mg/liter of sucralose, a typical 70 kg human must ingest over 18 liters of sucralose-sweetened beverages daily to achieve comparable levels…”
Unlike The Averages Persons Body, That Eats Crap and Poison All On Their Own? LOL!
What Idiots Care About This and Then Happily Sit In Traffic, Inhaling Gas Fumes? LOL!
Nature has utilized addiction to facilitate human use of what is sweet, as a means to promote and sustain particular plants which colonize earth environments. The attraction to “the sweet” has motivated the progress of so-called “civilization.” It is easy, and too easy to see how manipulation came to depend upon this weakness, in order to “sell” behaviors and strategies, leading to rituals and religious practices, and present “advertising.” Mindless consumption of fat-producing products line supermarket isles, full of artificial and money-producing substances. Anyone with the wisdom to separate themselves from the “culture” realizes that “too sweet” is a poisonous effect, and rejects it, to include human “sweet” gestures. Just eat natural foods. Berries are sweet enough to satisfy yearning.
Wow… Does EVERY LIFELESS LOSER NEED TO SHOW IT BY WRITING A LONG WINDED COMMENT!? LOL!
Grow Up, Enter Reality and Get a Life. LOL!
Explains Why Women and Their Kids Have Turned Out To Be Complete Useless Idiots Now. LOL!