>That stuff doesn't sweeten very much
Are you kidding? Sucralose is 600 times sweeter than sugar.
>What is needed is a study of sucralose in humans in real conditions over a period of at least 6 months. And then check their kidneys for kidney stones.
How about this one published in "Food and Chemical Toxicology"?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10882825
Granted, it was over 13 weeks (3 months rather than 6) but come on, 3 months is a long time to consistently consume something every single day, and should be adequate to see if there are any adverse effects or not.
Here are the key parts of the study that I've copied and pasted out of the article.
Urine was collected daily in 24-hr aliquots during
the 9-day period and was examined for pH,
ketones, blood, glucose, bilirubin, protein, urobili-
nogen, specific gravity, white cells, red cells, squa-
mous cells, crystals and organisms.
Urine was tested for crystals. That's the same thing as checking for kidney stones. If there is mineralization in the kidney, then there will be crystals in the urine.
There were no changes between initial and final
physical examinations in those completing the
study, and there was no evidence of weight loss.
The levels of sucralose used in these two studies
were in excess of expected human intakes.
Please note this. Humans consuming levels of sucralose greater than what would be expected for a normal daily intake, every day, for a period of 3 months, experienced no physical changes duing that 3 month period.
In order to assess the safety of a new food addi-
tive, long-term animal studies are conducted to
determine the highest daily dose that can be given
to test animals without adverse effects. In the sucra-
lose safety studies, no adverse effects were seen in
rodents given up to approximately 1500 mg/kg/day
for 104 wk (Goldsmith et al., 2000; Mann et al.,
2000a,b)
This is very important. Animals were given 1500 mg/kg/day for 104 weeks, with no adverse effects.
In their analysis, the researchers assumed
that sucralose would replace virtually all sweeteners
including sugar in all the food and beverage cat-
egories in which it would be approved for use. As it
is extremely unlikely that this would ever be the
case, the EDI provides an excessive estimate of how
much sucralose might be consumed. Despite this
very exaggerated set of assumptions, the mean estimated
daily intake of sucralose for people of all ages is 1.1
mg/kg/day (McNeil, 1987).
Compare this with the earlier paragraph. Animals tested can withstand 1500mg/kg/day with no adverse effects. The most sucralose that a human would conceivably consume, assuming that it replaced all sugar in every food and drink he consumed, is only 1.1mg/kg/day.
In terms of human consumption, a 160-lb (73 kg)
adult would have to drink *1500 12-oz (360 ml) soft*
drinks sweetened with sucralose every day to con-
sume an amount comparable to the highest
no-adverse-affect level.
Similarly, a 50-lb (23 kg) child would have to drink
480 12-oz (360 ml) sucralose-sweetened soft drinks
daily to reach the HNEL.
This is important too. For an adult human to even approach the limit of having adverse effects, he would have to consume 1500 12 ounce soft drinks sweetend with sucralose per day.
Both of the human studies show that sucralose is
well tolerated in healthy volunteers, even when
dosed subchronically at levels greater than would
be consumed during normal patterns of use.
And of course this last paragraph pretty much sums it up.