Your Basket
Oops! Your basket is empty
Your Basket
Oops! Your basket is empty
Over the past couple of years, there has been frequent media coverage of non-sugar sweeteners (NSS), commonly known as artificial, low-calorie, or non-nutritive sweeteners.
Among these, sucralose stands out as a widely used artificial sweetener, licensed for use in the EU since 2004 under the E number E955. It provides no nutritional value and is approximately 600 times sweeter than table sugar. Despite its prevalent use in a variety of manufactured foods and beverages, sucralose has often been the subject of debate.
In this article, our nutrition team will focus exclusively on sucralose, breaking down the facts and picking apart the evidence.
When you consume sucralose, most of it isn't absorbed by your body. Instead, it passes through your digestive system and is excreted in your feces. Only a small portion—about 5 to 20%—enters your bloodstream. This small amount is then removed through urine, still mostly unchanged [1]. Since sucralose isn't stored in your tissues, it's only present in your body for a short time after you eat or drink it.
While sucralose itself doesn't have direct health benefits, using it as a sugar substitute can offer indirect benefits:
Dental Health Benefits:
Eating sugar is a major cause of tooth decay and gum disease. By using sucralose instead of sugar, you can lower your risk of these dental issues. Sucralose doesn't contribute to cavities, making it a tooth-friendly alternative [2].
Weight Management and Associated Diseases:
Since sucralose is a non-nutritive sweetener, it's commonly found in low-calorie products. This makes it a great option for people trying to lose weight, with added benefits for conditions linked to obesity, such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and some cancers [3].
As well as contributing to obesity, sugar consumption has also been identified as a risk factor for CVD through its effects on serum triglycerides (a risk factor for CVD). Therefore consuming sucralose in place of sugar has positive implications in the reduction of risk of heart disease, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease.
Also, sucralose has been shown to have no effect on hunger signaling and does not initiate an insulin response[4]. It's also suitable for both type 1 and type 2 diabetics, as it doesn't affect blood glucose or serum insulin levels [3, 4].
Health concerns about Sucralose
An area of interest surrounding sweeteners is their impact on gut health. Here are some headlines:
’Sweeteners and gut health: No calories does not mean no health effects’
‘Bittersweet: artificial sweeteners and the gut microbiome’
Impact on Gut Microbiota: Initial Findings
Some people claim that sucralose alters the amount and quality of the good bacteria in our gut. Most of the research into artificial sweeteners and gut bacteria has focused on laboratory and animal studies. This claim was shown in the 2008 study by Abou-Donia et al[5] who found that after 12 weeks, the rats had fewer beneficial gut bacteria.
However, this paper has been debunked by many including an Expert Panel who found that the study was deficient in several critical areas and stated that its results could be interpreted as implicative that there are any problems with sucralose ingestion[6].
It’s hard to draw conclusions as these findings were on rats, not humans, and these rats were fed large amounts based on their body weight[5].
Indeed, they were actually fed the brand of sucralose Splenda which contains maltodextrin and dextrose as fillers alongside sucralose, so any ill effect could have been due to these high glycaemic index carbohydrates and not the sucralose.
Impact on Gut Microbiota: More Recent Evidence
Concern has risen but other studies have indicated that there is no change in gut function including in gut microflora following sucralose consumption[6, 7]. When looking at 11.25mg/kg bw/day, over twice the US ADI, in humans it appears sucralose does not affect the gut microbiome [ 7].
A randomised, double-blinded crossover study conducted in 2020, showed that daily repeated consumption of pure sucralose or aspartame for 2 weeks did not affect glucose metabolism. Moreover, the study observed no alterations in microbiota composition or diversity over the given timeframe or between the groups examined [8, 9].
A more recent study, conducted in 2022, highlighted the need for further research on how sweeteners affect the gut microbiota and their potential impact on human health [ 10]. It found that sucralose and saccharin supplementation resulted in significant effects on microbiome composition when comparing gut microbiome to baseline. Additionally, impacts on the microbiome are individualised and may be causally linked to elevated glycemic response [10].
Impact on Gut Microbiota: Current status
It may be that sucralose has a negative effect on the gut microbiome, however, the current research is inconclusive, with varying findings across studies, and limited human evidence.
Furthermore, such studies have not looked at the impact when ingested with other compounds such as prebiotic fibres which may negate any minimal effect sucralose may have.
Impact on Insulin Response
One claim is that consuming sucralose alters insulin response, blood sugar levels, and, in turn, appetite.
This is thought to be a learned sensory response where the body associates the sweet taste of sucralose with sugar, triggering an insulin response [6].
It's well known that high sugar intakes provide only short-term satiety, followed by an increase in appetite. Some claim that the same effect occurs with sucralose. However, this is not true. Appetite regulation is complex, involving several hormones and sensory input from the nervous system [11, 12].
Importantly, studies have shown that sucralose does not affect a person’s blood glucose response or appetite when studied for up to 12 weeks[3, 7, 11, 12].
What’s important to note is that sucralose has been demonstrated to be safe for consumption by humans by numerous studies and reports. As well as the EU, sucralose is licensed for use in the USA, Australia, and Canada; in fact over 80 countries in total.
The EU-safe level of sucralose is 15mg per kg body weight per day[13]
The US acceptable daily intake (ADI) is 5mg/kg/day[14]
This safe level has been made up with caution in mind and no effects have been reported in levels as much as 1,500mg/kg/day[4].
So, why the criticism?
The adverse press sucralose receives seems primarily to be due to the fact that it is artificial and this term is very much maligned in nutrition. It’s important to note that ‘artificial’ doesn’t always mean bad in the same way as ‘natural’ doesn’t always mean good.
A quick internet search will reveal several articles and blog posts demonising sucralose, these are really only based on poorly designed studies- most of which have since been discredited. Too often people latch onto a study and take its results as given ignoring the study design and conflicting factors. The sucralose debate is a clear demonstration of this.
Flavoured varieties of certain Huel products contain a small amount of sucralose: it’s what we feel is just enough to contribute to that particular flavour. Let’s break it down:
Powder v3.1- contains sucralose
Black Edition Powder- no sucralose, it is sweetened by stevia and a small amount of organic coconut sugar
Ready to Drink- v1.0 contains sucralose, v2.0 no sucralose, it is sweetened by stevia
Black Edition Ready to Drink- no sucralose, it is sweetened by stevia
Complete Protein- contains sucralose
Daily A-Z Vitamins- contains sucralose
Essential- contains sucralose
Complete Nutrition Bar- no sucralose
To note, we offer an Unflavoured & Unsweetened version of Huel Powder v3.1, Black Edition Powder, and Complete Protein which contain no sucralose or any other sweetener.
Why don’t you use monkfruit?
Monk fruit sweeteners are incredibly potent, being 100-250 times sweeter than sugar. This means only a tiny amount is needed to achieve the desired sweetness. While monk fruit sweeteners are considered safe in many countries, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has stated that there isn't enough data to definitively conclude their safety for use in food products[15].
A few points to remember
The sweeteners we consume are deemed safe by agencies such as the EFSA or FDA.
However, don’t just accept news headlines at face value, scutinise the evidence, and take time to consider the research, its limitations and conflicting factors.
Importantly, reducing free sugars in diets can be complex, so non-sugar sweeteners appear to be a useful alternative in reducing overall sugar intake.
References:
Sims J, et al. The metabolic fate of sucralose in rats. Food Chem Toxicol. 2000;38(2):115-21.
EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products N, et al. Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of health claims related to the sugar replacers xylitol, sorbitol, mannitol, maltitol, lactitol, isomalt, erythritol, D-tagatose, isomaltulose, sucralose and polydextrose and maintenance of tooth mineralisation by decreasing tooth demineralisation (ID 463, 464, 563, 618, 647, 1182, 1591, 2907, 2921, 4300), and reduction of post-prandial glycaemic responses (ID 617, 619, 669, 1590, 1762, 2903, 2908, 2920) pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. EFSA Journal. 2011; 9(4):2076.
Brown AW, et al. Short-term consumption of sucralose, a nonnutritive sweetener, is similar to water with regard to select markers of hunger signaling and short-term glucose homeostasis in women. Nutr Res. 2011;31(12):882-8.
Baird IM, et al. Repeated dose study of sucralose tolerance in human subjects. Food Chem Toxicol. 2000;38(2):123–9.
Abou-Donia MB, et al. Splenda alters gut microflora and increases intestinal p-glycoprotein and cytochrome p-450 in male rats. J Tox Environ Health. 2008;71(21):1415-29.
Brusick D, et al. Expert panel report on a study of Splenda in male rats. Reg Toxicol Pharm. 2009;55(1):6-12.
Thomson P, et al. Short-term impact of sucralose consumption on the metabolic response and gut microbiome of healthy adults. British Journal of Nutrition. 2019; 122(8):856-62.
Ahmad S, et al. The effect of the artificial sweeteners on glucose metabolism in healthy adults: a randomized, double-blinded, crossover clinical trial. Applied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism. 2020; 45(6):606-612
Ahmad S, et al. The Effects of Non-Nutritive Artificial Sweeteners, Aspartame and Sucralose, on the Gut Microbiome in Healthy Adults: Secondary Outcomes of a Randomized Double-Blinded Crossover Clinical Trial. Nutrients. 2020;12(11):3408
Suez J el al. Personalized microbiome-driven effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on human glucose tolerance. Cell. 2022; 1;185(18):3307-3328.
Jing Ma, et al. Effect of the artificial sweetener, sucralose, on gastric emptying and incretin hormone release in healthy subjects. Am J Physiol. 2009;296(4):735-739.
Ford HE, et al. Effects of oral ingestion of sucralose on gut hormone response and appetite in healthy normal-weight subjects. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2011;65:508–513.
European Commission. Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Food on sucralose. 2000.
FDA. Food Substances for Direct Addition to Food for Human Consumption. 2018; 21(3).
EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF)). Safety of use of Monk fruit extract as a food additive in different food categories. EFSA Journal European Food Safety Authority, 2019 17(12), e05921.
Get the scoop on exclusive offers and product launches.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. You can unsubscribe at any time. Huel Privacy Policy.
