X-Message-Number: 30898
From: "Chris Manning" <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: sucralose
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:46:18 +1000

> "Chris Manning" <> wrote:
>
>> a 'no added sugar' version of 'Ocean Spray Cranberry Classic' and I
>> bought a
>> bottle of that. I'm not sure whether it was there on my earlier
>> visit as the
>> label is very similar. I noticed that the ingredients include
>> something
>> called 'sucralose' which I assumed would be a sugar. However I did
>> a Google
>> search and found that it is a chlorinated sugar:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucralose
>>
>> Alarm bells rang when I read that, despite the reassuring studies,
>> since I
>> know that organochlorine compounds are usually poisonous or
>> carcinogenic. No
>> point in drinking something for its anti-cancer properties if it
>> contains
>> additives that might *cause* cancer! I will finish the bottle but
>> I'll try
>> and get Lakewood again and steer clear of Ocean Spray.

Kennita replied:

> As you wish, but the article also says "... extremely insoluble in
> fat; it can
> not accumulate in fat like chlorinated hydrocarbons. In addition,
> sucralose
> does not break down or dechlorinate."
>
> When I think about getting upset because
> something belongs to a certain class of
> chemicals, I remember that the precise
> chemistry matters.  Sodium -- highly toxic.
> Chlorine -- highly toxic.  Sodium chloride
> -- necessary for life.  Sucralose seems to
> suffering from guilt by association.  But
> feel free to add stevia, or to just deal
> with the bitterness....

I am well aware of what you say about classes of chemicals and guilt by 
association. I am also familiar with the example you give, about sodium and 
chlorine. (About sodium, I would say it is not so much that it is 'highly 
toxic' as that it is highly reactive, snatching oxygen from wherever it can 
get it.)

But it isn't just whether it is safe. The label on the bottle said 'NO ADDED 
SUGAR' and then I found that it contained an artificial sweetener. This is 
not dishonest in the sense that they haven't said anything incorrect, but I 
find it somewhat sneaky or underhanded.

I didn't find the Lakewood (the pure juice) difficult to 'deal with'. Is 
bitterness a problem for most people? I am intrigued, as there are some 
things where bitterness is perceived as an advantage, e.g. beer. (A popular 
local brand of beer is called 'Victoria Bitter'.) A much bigger problem with 
the Lakewood is likely to be ensuring a consistent supply of it. 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30898