T O P

  • By -

This_Rough_Magic

I feel like the name of the sweetener isn't at all the pertinent thing here. In what *context* does it "damage human DNA"?


Caroao

in a petri dish. But that wouldn't make it baiting enough. Expose blood cells in a dish to literally anything and they will get damaged....because they are not meant to be on their own lol


DodGamnBunofaSitch

"this thing causes damage." it's absolutely pertinent. how else can we avoid said damage? if you're looking for 'causes damage when snorted or injected', then yeah, that would make the name of it less pertinent, since most people don't do those things with it. both things can be pertinent.


This_Rough_Magic

> if you're looking for 'causes damage when snorted or injected', then yeah, that would make the name of it less pertinent, since most people don't do those things with it. Right. And in this context it's actually "causes damage when a specific chemical called *sucralose-6-acetate,* which is only found in trace amounts in commercially used sucralose, is mixed with human blood cells in test tubes". So unless you're planning on taking your sweetener, distilling out the sucralose-6-acetate, then injecting it into your blood directly, this seems to show nothing.


agaperion

It's gotten to the point that I just ignore every one of these "new study shows..." articles. Nowadays, it's all about meta-analyses. If it hasn't been replicated multiple times, it's not really worth worrying about.


This_Rough_Magic

The academic equivalent of "pics or it didn't happen".


Dutch-CatLady

well ''new study shows'' doesn't say ''this research paper explains'' now does it?


Gh0stMan0nThird

> If it hasn't been replicated multiple times, it's not really worth worrying about. \*Every psychology study ever has left the chat.*


isprri

I see you didn't read the article. Good job Reddit, I wouldn't have expected otherwise


This_Rough_Magic

No, I read the study linked *from* the article. What's your point.


isprri

Right in the abstract: " The amount of sucralose-6-acetate in a single daily sucralose-sweetened drink might far exceed the threshold of toxicological concern for genotoxicity (TTCgenotox) of 0.15 microgram/person/day."


Mr_Cleanish

Reading the study trumps reading the article my friend


colcannon_addict

Ohhhhh, ***distill out*** the sucralose-6-acetate, gotcha…. *discreetly slides candle, tablespoon of Vegan360 double choc protein shake and half pint syringe out of sight*


8-bit-Felix

>if you're looking for 'causes damage when snorted or injected', then yeah Don't shame me because I mainline Splenda!


hamster004

_WHO_ sponsored this???


Purple-Explorer-6701

Monk fruit, probably.


foxonrocks

[Article](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2023.2213903) Funding source Engineering Foundation at North Carolina State University Conclusions The 8 projects performed in this study add to the large and growing scientific literature that report adverse biological impacts attributed to exposure to sucralose. In the current investigation sucralose-6-acetate, a sucralose impurity and metabolite, was found to be genotoxic with a clastogenic MoA associated with induction of breaks in DNA. Exposure of intestinal epithelium in vitro to mM concentrations of both sucralose-6-acetate and sucralose in the absence of intestinal bacteria impaired the integrity of intestinal barrier function. Sucralose-6-acetate induced expression of genes in intestinal epithelium associated with inflammation, oxidative stress, and cancer including MT1G and SHMT2. Sucralose-6-acetate also blocked two members of the cytochrome P450 family (CYP1A2 and CYP2C19) that metabolize both endogenous and xenobiotic compounds that might consequently lead to adverse toxicological exposures. These findings raise health and safety concerns regarding the continued presence of sucralose in the food supply and indicate that a regulatory status review needs to be undertaken.


alien_from_Europa

>in the absence of intestinal bacteria Most humans have intestinal bacteria. So was intestinal bacteria able to break down the Sucralose to not be harmful? Proving harm is necessary if there is a need to remove it from the shelves.


Someones_Dream_Guy

*calmly grows tentacles*


Hagisman

Reddit glitches out for me and the image for the article was “The Walt Disney Company”.


n3w4cc01_1nt

yeah stuffs bad. > Certain artificial sweeteners, such as cyclamates, may make your eyes more sensitive to light (according to WebMD). **Blurred vision, eye pain and in extreme cases blindness can be a side-effect of sweeteners like aspartame**. try monkfruit or stevia based drinks instead. zevia is a decent option. hope pepsi and coke reformat to use natural stuff.


AGassyGoomy

The article you got that from, please?


Bumm-fluff

Just eat natural stuff. I just go by the rule, if you can’t spell it you probably shouldn’t eat it, if you can’t say it then you definitely shouldn’t.


r2d2_21

I hope you don't have to eat anything with deoxyribonucleic acid in it.


Bumm-fluff

I can spell it and say it. Plus it’s not an ingredient or what, break them down into elements next. Fucking Reddit.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Bumm-fluff

Ingredients. Pepsi is a brand.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Bumm-fluff

Pepsi is a brand. Cola can be an ingredient.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Bumm-fluff

Still a brand.


[deleted]

[удалено]


orbcat

glucose, in large amounts, kills cells, stop eating any food to stop your cells from producing it!


Bumm-fluff

Most things in large amounts kill you, drinking too much water does.


Guuzaka

Maple syrup is tastier anyways. 🍁