Sucralose – a guide to artificial sweeteners

Made from sugar, tastes like sugar, says the advertisement about sucralose which is 600 times sweeter than sugar, calorie-free and heat-resistant. But does sucralose have any negative properties? What about the environmental impact, for example?

6 October 2020 •

In our arti­cle series ‘Guide to arti­fi­cial sweet­en­ers’, we have come to sucralose which is found in 4,000 foods and some lakes. It is a chem­i­cal sweet­en­er that nei­ther the body nor the treat­ment plants can break down. It’s sweet, of course, but does it have a bit­ter after­taste? We’ll find out.

What is sucralose?

Sucralose is a high-inten­si­ty sweet­en­er cre­at­ed chem­i­cal­ly with sug­ar (sucrose) as a raw mate­r­i­al. It was dis­cov­ered by chance in England in 1976 and was approved as a sweet­en­er by Canada as the first coun­try in 1993. In the EU it was approved in 2004.

Sucralose has E-num­ber 955. Its sys­tem­at­ic name is: 1,6-dichloro-1, 6-dideoxy-β-D-fructo­fu­ra­nosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-α-D-galac­topy­ra­noside. These chem­i­cal for­mu­las are: C12H19Cl3O8. It is a white, almost odour­less pow­der in a crys­tal­lized form that is 600 times sweet­er than sugar.

Sucralose is found in over 4,000 foods and is a pop­u­lar sweet­en­er in the sports indus­try because it basi­cal­ly doesn’t pro­vide any extra calo­ries. It pro­vides no calo­ries as the body has dif­fi­cul­ty break­ing down sucralose. You uri­nate 85.5 per cent and poop out 11 per cent of the sucralose intake with­in five days. Only 3 per cent is processed via the kidneys.

China has the most fac­to­ries for the pro­duc­tion of sucralose. They have 255 sup­pli­ers. The USA comes in sec­ond place with 28 sup­pli­ers, while England, which invent­ed sucralose, has 11 sup­pli­ers. It is sold under a num­ber of dif­fer­ent brand names. The most famous brand is Splenda.

Sucralose is cre­at­ed by replac­ing three hydrox­yl groups on a mol­e­cule with three chlo­rine atoms. Sucralose is there­fore called chlo­ri­nat­ed sucrose or organochlo­rine com­pound, just like DDT and PCBs which are now banned pes­ti­cides. This has cre­at­ed some con­tro­ver­sy that we will return to.

utrustning laboratorier

‘I just tasted, I didn’t swallow’

Sucralose was cre­at­ed by chemists at the British com­pa­ny Tate & Lyle in col­lab­o­ra­tion with researchers at Queen Elizabeth College in 1976.

That is the cor­rect and offi­cial sto­ry, but it would cer­tain­ly be excit­ing to know how it actu­al­ly was cre­at­ed. When we dig up the sto­ry behind sweet­en­ers in this arti­cle series, we often encounter the same sto­ry for dif­fer­ent sweet­en­ers. It may be dif­fi­cult to know who did what, but it always ends up with chemists lick­ing on com­plete­ly unknown chem­i­cal compounds.

In the inter­view book From Sugar to Splenda, we find the dis­cov­er­ers’ voic­es about what happened.

Dr Riaz Khan asked his col­league Leslie Hough if he could give him some tetra­chloro-m-xylene. Leslie was busy and asked her doc­tor­al stu­dent Shashikant Phadnis to give it instead.

Riaz him­self says that it was a hap­py coin­ci­dence that both he and Shashikant came from India and there­fore did not under­stand each oth­er very well. Shashikant acci­den­tal­ly heard ‘test’ instead of ‘taste’, after which he put some tetra­chloro-m-xylene on a spat­u­la and tast­ed it.

When Leslie heard this, he got angry and thought Shashikant was crazy, tast­ing unknown com­pounds. Shashikant calm­ly replied that he only tast­ed, he did not swal­low. Much like a juve­nile, smok­ing cig­a­rettes and say­ing he doesn’t inhale very deep.

Leslie didn’t want to be a cow­ard and poured some tetra­chloro-m-xylene into a cup of tea. When Shashikant point­ed out that it should also be con­sid­ered crazy, Leslie swept the whole cup with the com­ment: ‘Forget it, I survive!’

After 17 years and count­less stud­ies lat­er, sucralose was regard­ed as safe by Canada (as the first coun­try) in 1993. Shashikant and Leslie were final­ly able to breathe a sigh of relief.

Is sucralose safe?

The answer is the same for all approved sweet­en­ers: Yes, it is safe enough to be approved, as long as you stay below the accept­ed dai­ly intake (ADI).

According to the Swedish Food Agency, the ADI for sucralose was set at 15 mg per kilo­gram and day after tri­als were made on rats los­ing weight after receiv­ing very high dos­es of sucralose. (The ADI val­ue cor­re­sponds to the high­est amount of a sub­stance that a per­son can take dai­ly through­out their life with­out risk to health.)

An Israeli study on rats pub­lished in 2014 in the sci­en­tif­ic jour­nal Nature showed that sac­cha­rin, sucralose and aspar­tame could affect the intesti­nal flo­ra, which can raise blood glu­cose lev­els. If the result is the same in humans, no one yet knows.

What cre­ates the most ques­tions regard­ing sucralose is that it is an organochlo­rine com­pound, just like DDT and PCBs which are now banned pes­ti­cides. There are researchers who believe that sucralose must have the same harm­ful effects, but the stud­ies that have been done don’t sup­port this the­sis. Chlorine is also found in table salt, which is a com­pound of sodi­um and chlo­rine. And that is some­thing we eat every day.

Livboj på vägg

Is sucralose an environmental culprit?

The answer to that ques­tion is: maybe. In this area, Sweden and Norway seem to be at the fore­front of research. On behalf of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the Swedish Environmental Research Institute (IVL) and researchers at the Norwegian Air Research Institute (NILU) have stud­ied the envi­ron­men­tal impact of sucralose.

In the same way that the body can­not break down sucralose but dumps it in the toi­let seat, the treat­ment plants do not seem to be able to break them down either, so the sub­stance con­tin­ues straight out into lakes and streams, where it is enriched.

That it is enriched means that it is passed on in every stage: from small fish to larg­er fish that we catch, and then sucralose is back on our plate again.

That’s what’s going on right now, but is it dan­ger­ous? We don’t know for sure yet. Future research will deter­mine that. There is, how­ev­er, a con­cern about what will hap­pen to our water if the use of sucralose were to increase drastically.

Benefits of sucralose

  • It is cheap.
  • It is 600 times sweet­er than sugar.
  • It can with­stand heat.
  • It’s sta­ble. It doesn’t break down so eas­i­ly and there­fore has a long shelf life. However, it does not have the preser­v­a­tive prop­er­ties of sug­ar, so it is only sucralose itself that ‘lasts a long time’.
  • It is calo­rie-free or basi­cal­ly calo­rie-free because it pass­es unprocessed to 97 per cent through the body and leaves us via the stool after five days.
  • It is cre­at­ed with sug­ar as a raw mate­r­i­al, which can give it a ‘nat­ur­al’ connotation.

Disadvantages of sucralose

  • It is a pure­ly chem­i­cal product.
  • It is an organochlo­rine com­pound, just like DDT and PCBs which are now banned pes­ti­cides. Even if it is not dan­ger­ous in the right amounts (just as com­mon salt is not dan­ger­ous in the right amount), it increas­es the consumer’s feel­ing of an unnat­ur­al and poten­tial­ly dan­ger­ous product.
  • It is a com­plete­ly for­eign sub­stance to the body and the body doesn’t know what to do with it, so it cir­cu­lates in the blood for five days before it comes out via the stool.
  • Wastewater treat­ment plants can­not fil­ter it out or break it down, so sucralose goes straight into our lakes and streams and becomes part of the cycle.
  • It can affect the intesti­nal flo­ra in a neg­a­tive way.


All syn­thet­ic sweet­en­ers attract sus­pi­cion from both researchers and inter­net scep­tics, but sucralose seems to fly quite unno­ticed under the radar, unlike e.g. aspar­tame.

It doesn’t seem to affect blood sug­ar lev­els and is con­sid­ered calo­rie-free because the body can­not process it and we uri­nate most of it. This is pre­cise­ly what rais­es fears; sucralose may be an envi­ron­men­tal cul­prit because it goes straight into nature and is enriched in nature.

Sucralose is found in over 4,000 foods and is a pop­u­lar sweet­en­er in the sports indus­try because it basi­cal­ly doesn’t pro­vide any extra calories.

Why we like stevia

No sub­ject is com­plete­ly uncon­tro­ver­sial. Anything can be harm­ful in exces­sive amounts, even water. As a con­sumer, it’s not easy to know what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’.

There are pros and cons to both sug­ar and syn­thet­ic sweet­en­ers. We like ste­via which is a sweet­en­er of nat­ur­al ori­gin. The sweet­ness comes from ste­vi­ol gly­co­sides extract­ed from the sweet leaf plant.

In 2011, EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) approved ste­vi­ol gly­co­sides as sweet­en­ers after 20 years of research. The food and bev­er­age indus­try in Europe is increas­ing­ly using ste­via, the world mar­ket for ste­via is grow­ing annu­al­ly by more than eight per cent.

Curious about stevia?

Are you curi­ous about ste­via and ste­vi­ol gly­co­sides? We devel­op ste­via extracts for dif­fer­ent appli­ca­tions. Take a look at our range of ser­vices or con­tact us if you want to know more about how we can help you.

Please, share this article if you liked it.

Similar articles

Right now we have no more articles on the subject.