artificial sweetener-sucralose does not seem to break down in the environment

[StarsInHerHair]

http://news.discovery.com/earth/artificial-sweetener-not-removed-by-sewage-treatment-110623.html#mkcpgn=twnws1

..."The chemical passes right through the body, then through sewage treatment systems and out into surface and ground waters looking the same as it did when it was stirred into a cup of coffee."...

..."Samples of wastewater were taken from seven wastewater-processing plants in Arizona. For at least 48 days, the water was run through both anaerobic and aerobic biological batch reactors, systems designed to use natural processes to break down wastes. None of the samples showed a significant decrease in the amount of sucralose present."...

[pnwmom]

1. Ew. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

2. Ew, indeed. n/t

[Sirveri]

3. damnit... I actually like that one too.

Would be interesting to see what the long term effects of this are however.

[Kablooie]

4. Doesn't that mean it's recyclable? Yum!

[marions ghost]

5. interesting

Europeans didn't even have sugar until the 1400's.

Those artificial sweeteners are nasty.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

6. Luckily my refined palate has not allowed me to consume artificial sweetners.

:P They all taste... artificial.

[Brickbat]

7. Gack. I'll stick with sugar, thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuZNSGdg2ms

[Jim Lane]

8. This might not be all bad.

From the linked article:

The resilience of sucralose may be a good thing in some ways. The researchers note that its resistance to degradation keeps it from breaking down into highly toxic chlorinated compounds.

Also, if it "passes right through the body" then presumably doesn't interact with anything in the body. If some gets into my drinking water and I ingest it, do I suffer any harm?

These issues are touched on in the article. I gather that sucralose hasn't been studied all that much, so scientists don't know the answers to a lot of important questions about it. This doesn't mean we should be complacent, but let's not just assume that its chemical properties are a problem.

[eShirl]

9. glad I switched to pure stevia extract powder for my homemade ice tea

(the kind with no fillers)
1/8 teaspoon sweetens 2 quarts, no joke

[Taverner]

10. Aw man, I knew there was a catch

[WatsonT]

11. Well, that's the point isn't it?

We wanted a sugar that couldn't be broken down and used for energy.

Then we're amazed when it isn't broken down.

[eShirl]

12. We wanted something sweet that couldn't be used for energy. Nobody said it had to be sugar.

[WatsonT]

13. Does it really matter?

The point of it was that we couldn't break it down and use it for energy. Whatever that something was by definition would not be broken down and used for energy.

This is an entirely predictable outcome.

[eShirl]

17. I would think that it might matter a great deal.

Looks like we're going to find out.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Now this is what we need for carbon capture and storage!

A solid (but soluble, if you need to transport it by pipeline) compound with significant carbon content that isn't metabolised by anything. It does need chloride compounds to make, but there's plenty in the sea. I wonder how much energy it takes to makes it?

[yawnmaster]

15. There are micro-organisms that break it down. Apparently, though, not in the waste treatment ...

systems. On the good side, it doesn't appear to affect biological systems (that's why it goes through your body untouched). Waste treatment bacteria treat it the same way. I'm fairly confident that as its concentration goes up in nature, so will the population of bacteria that are able to digest it.

I like the stuff. My diet Coke has the yellow band of Splenda.

[MorningGlow]

16. Urk

I knew that stuff was teh evil. :scared: