Sucralose: A Case Study

426 Words2 Pages
I have selected to discuss Sucralose ( Splenda). I will provide evidence to support Sucraloses toxicological safety for consumer use. I am submitting the following evidence to support my position: The director of communications of Tate & Lyle PLC makes a statement on those opposing the safety of Sucralose “Sucralose is a chlorinated carbohydrate. Yes, if is made with chlorine; but, no, it is not a chlorinated hydrocarbon like DDT, as critics often suggest.It is a chemical fact that not all compounds containing chlorine are identical. DDT is dangerous to living organisms because it is a fat soluble compound and so bio-accumulates in fatty tissue. Sucralose, on the other hand, is a water soluble compound. This means that it passes through tissue freely and does not accumulate in the body” He gives this statement to show that he is in fact agreeing with where sucralose is produced but gives valuable evidence to how they know it is safe for human consumption. "Chlorine is one of the most abundant chemical elements on the planet occurring in both inorganic and organic forms. It is, in fact, naturally ubiquitous in soil, seas, minerals, plants and animals. Scientists…show more content…
This article was a response by Rowan Adams the director of communications of Tate & Lyle PLC which is a manufacture of Splenda which is made of Sucralose, about the safety of the product. In the article that he was responding to it was made clear that Splenda was a product unsafe for the public without clear facts to support the claims. Adams response was very clear and made justifications that Splenda was safe even though it is made with chlorine. As well as it being safe for our environment because it is found in so many natural materials. There is also no official tests on humans that notice short or long term effects, which is why there is no complete evidence to show that Splenda is unsafe to the

More about Sucralose: A Case Study

Open Document