Splenda Identified In Majority of Breast Milk Samples Tested


Splenda Identified In Majority of Breast Milk Samples Tested

An article soon to be published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health on  the presence of synthetic sweeteners in breast milk is bound to upset the apple cart when it comes to assessing the toxicological risk of these chemicals to infants.

In previous articles we have reported extensively on the dangers of artificial sweeteners, especially aspartame and sucralose (aka Splenda), whose presence in tens of thousands of consumer products make exposure to them commonplace.  Despite their present day low-risk regulatory status, we have found highly concerning research that these compounds contribute to the following diseases:

·      Obesity/Overweight

·      Cancer

·      Brain Damage

The new study titled, “Nonnutritive Sweeteners in Breast Milk”, was conducted by researchers from the National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda , Maryland , USA. The study abstract is available to read ahead of the study’s full publication later this month:



Nonnutritive sweeteners (NNS), including saccharin, sucralose, aspartame, and acesulfame-potassium, are commonly consumed in the general population, and all except for saccharin are considered safe for use during pregnancy and lactation. Sucralose (Splenda) currently holds the majority of the NNS market share and is often combined with acesulfame-potassium in a wide variety of foods and beverages. To date, saccharin is the only NNS reported to be found in human breast milk after maternal consumption, while there is no apparent information on the other NNS. Breast milk samples were collected from 20 lactating volunteers, irrespective of their habitual NNS intake. Saccharin, sucralose, and acesulfame-potassium were present in 65% of participants’ milk samples, whereas aspartame was not detected. These data indicate that NNS are frequently ingested by nursing infants, and thus prospective clinical studies are necessary to determine whether early NNS exposure via breast milk may have clinical implications.

This groundbreaking study has found for the first time that sucralose and acesulfame-potassium do survive maternal metabolism and enter into breast milk in the majority of the breast milk samples tested (65%).  As is the case for many chemicals released into the human food supply, adequate testing of the safety of these compounds in infants is not only non-available, but unethical to perform in human subjects. This is one justification for the use of proxy systems, such as the animal LD50 model, whereby a chemical is tested by determining the amount needed to kill 50% of rodents within a short time frame (1-3 days), and then deducing from that data an “acceptable level of harm” to humans by adjusting for body weight differences. This system, of course, is extremely primitive, and does not account for low-dose, chronic exposures; nor does it account for the synergistic toxicities of multiple exposures occurring simultaneously in real-world situations, i.e. toxicological risk assessments upon which the regulatory status/safety status of chemicals is determined do not require testing of simultaneous exposures to a multitude of chemicals.

Clearly, if these artificial sweeteners are being passed directly to newborns through breast milk, and there is no assurance of their safety, an immediate halt to their use by those wishing to conceive, are pregnant, or breastfeeding should be initiated by regulators. Anything less than obeisance to the precautionary principle could be considered a violation of informed consent, and reason for manufacturers and regulators to be culpable for harm done to exposed populations.

This new study will represent something of a litmus test as far as determining how effectively the media will keep this information buried or will report accurately on it once it is released. Given the high gravitas government soruce of the research, and the profound implications it has to the health of our most susceptible population: newborns and infants, if it goes unrreported it is our job to make sure it gets widespread xposure. Please share this information and relevant links below with relevant parties and stakeholders:

Article Source: GreenMedInfo

Related Post

Antineoplastons: A Cure for Cancer Ignored For 45 ...  A Cure for Cancer Ignored For 45 Years? Could a cure for advanced, chemotherapy and radiation resistant cancer have already been discovered as far b...
Stress, Cancer and Sexuality Stress, Cancer and Sexuality Anything that compromises your immune system dramatically reduces your chances for long term survival. It’s understan...
Uranium Contaminates Drinking Water Originally Published on DrSircus.com Uranium Contaminates Drinking Water In the western United States notices are springing up, Uranium, the notic...
Someone Has a (Real) Death Wish For My Cat, but Ms... Someone wants to take my cat out... and I don't mean on a date. I posted a few weeks ago on my Facebook Page that a friend of mine (Let's  just call h...