Sucralose: little effect on blood sugar in short trials, one notable exception

A 2026 meta-analysis of 10 short randomized trials in healthy adults found that sucralose did not change fasting glucose (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.56), insulin resistance or the diversity of gut bacteria. The trials were small, and they compared sucralose with different things. A network meta-analysis of 36 single-drink trials in 472 mostly healthy people agrees that sweetened drinks behaved like water on glucose and insulin over the next two hours, with low to moderate confidence. One well-known trial does not fit. In 120 healthy adults who did not normally use sweeteners, two weeks of sucralose sachets below the acceptable daily intake impaired glucose responses as a group and changed the gut microbiome, with responses that differed from person to person. Those sachets carried glucose as a filler, and the trial lasted two weeks. We found no long-term trial of sucralose on diabetes, heart disease or cancer, so the question stays open.

Every statement here is tied to a source. The badge says what kind of evidence stands behind it: A is a meta-analysis or systematic review, E is the position of an expert body without its own analysis. How we verify →

We have no USDA entry for sucralose itself in this cohort. The evidence below stands on published studies rather than on a composition table, and we would rather say that than show you a number for something else.

What a real portion looks like

In the ROLO trial of 571 pregnant women in Ireland, one third ate or drank low-calorie sweeteners in each trimester. — pregnant women randomized to low-GI dietary advice or usual antenatal care; 3-day food diary each trimester (n = 571) Evidence C source
About one third consumers each trimester
In a survey of 601 pregnant women in Chile, 95.6 percent consumed sucralose and none exceeded the acceptable daily intake of any sweetener. — pregnant women in the two main cities of Chile (n = 601) Evidence C source
Sucralose consumers 95.6%; no woman above ADI; averages under 5% of ADI except stevia
In the USDA survey database one individual packet of sucralose sweetener powder weighs about 1 g. — US dietary survey portion weights Evidence C source
1 individual packet 1 g

What your body absorbs

In a crossover RCT on 23 cyclists, sucralose drunk before exercise did not raise uptake and use of carbohydrate from a sports drink (difference 0.015 g/min). — twenty-three healthy male cyclists, 8 x 3.4 tbsp (50 ml) of 1 mM sucralose over 120 min before exercise (n = 23) Evidence B source
Exogenous CHO oxidation 0.226 vs 0.212 g/min, delta 0.015 (95% CI -0.008, 0.038), p = .178

What cooking and storage change

EFSA reports that sucralose heated to about 120-250 C can lose chlorine and may form chlorinated compounds, so it could not clear its use in baked goods. — heat processing and home cooking conditions (BfR 2019 review cited by EFSA) Evidence E source
Dechlorination at approx. 120-250 C; safety of fine bakery use not concluded

What it does to your health

In a Chilean cohort of 1,472 pregnant women, sucralose use was linked to 44 percent higher odds of gestational diabetes. — pregnant women in primary care, Puente Alto, Chile (CHiMINCs-II); 24-h recalls (n = 1472) Evidence C source
Sucralose OR 1.44 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.95); any NNS OR 1.58 (1.10 to 2.26)
In the Canadian CHILD cohort of 3,033 mother-infant pairs, daily artificially sweetened drinks in pregnancy were linked to twice the odds of infant overweight at 1 year. — healthy pregnant women, CHILD Study, Canada 2009-2012; infant BMI measured at 1 year (n = 3033) Evidence C source
Adjusted OR 2.19 (95% CI 1.23 to 3.88); BMI z +0.20 (0.02 to 0.38)
A 2026 meta-analysis of 10 short-term RCTs in healthy adults found sucralose did not change gut microbiota diversity, fasting glucose (SMD -0.04) or HOMA-IR. — healthy adults in 10 randomized controlled trials, 8-61 participants per study, 7 pooled Evidence A source
Shannon SMD -0.00 (95% CI -1.16 to 1.15); fasting glucose SMD -0.04 (-0.63 to 0.56); HOMA-IR SMD -0.13 (-0.36 to 0.10)
A network meta-analysis of 36 acute trials (472 people) found drinks sweetened with sucralose or other non-nutritive sweeteners had no effect on post-meal glucose or insulin, similar to water. — 36 acute single-exposure trials, 472 predominantly healthy participants (n = 472) Evidence B source
No postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, GIP effect vs water (low to moderate confidence)
In a crossover RCT on healthy young adults, a sucrose drink raised blood endotoxin levels while an equally sweet sucralose drink did not. — healthy normal-weight men and women after 2-day diet standardization (11 completed) (n = 11) Evidence B source
Endotoxin increased after sucrose, unchanged after sucralose
In a small trial on 8 young women, sucralose in water acted like plain water on hunger hormones, insulin and glucose. — Eight female volunteers, BMI 22, age about 22 (n = 8) Evidence C source
Differences only between sucrose and non-sucrose treatments, regardless of sucralose
Laboratory, animal and plaque-pH studies suggest sucralose itself does not cause tooth decay, while bulked granular sucralose products carry some cariogenic potential. — oral bacteria, animal caries models, human plaque pH in situ Evidence D source
Non-cariogenic; bulked products less cariogenic than sugar

Safety, limits and interactions

EFSA's 2026 re-evaluation kept the acceptable daily intake for sucralose at 15 mg/kg body weight and found intakes from current uses below it. — EU population exposure estimates, all age groups Evidence E source
ADI 15 mg/kg bw per day unchanged; mean and P95 exposure below ADI

What people believe that the data does not support

EFSA's 2026 re-evaluation kept the acceptable daily intake for sucralose at 15 mg/kg body weight a day. — EU population, all age groups Evidence E source
ADI 15 mg/kg bw per day unchanged
According to the US FDA, its review of sucralose covered more than 110 studies, including studies on the reproductive and nervous systems. — general population Evidence E source
Review of more than 110 studies, including reproductive and nervous system studies
According to the US FDA, sweeteners it has authorized, including sucralose, are safe for the general population under the approved conditions of use. — general population Evidence E source
Safe under conditions of use; no pregnancy-specific statement
In a 6-month RCT on 180 adults, eating more or fewer sweet foods (from sugars or low-calorie sweeteners) did not change liking for sweet taste or body weight. — 180 healthy adults, low, regular or high sweet taste exposure for 6 months (n = 180) Evidence B source
Sweet taste liking P = 0.56; body weight P = 0.16; no between-group difference
In a double-blind crossover RCT on 20 adults, drinks paired with sucralose became as liked and wanted as those paired with sugar or erythritol. — 20 healthy participants (10 women, 10 men), age 25.8 (n = 20) Evidence B source
Wanting and liking increased with no differences between sweeteners
A systematic review of 90 observational studies found no consistent link between sucralose or other non-sugar sweeteners and any cancer. — 90 epidemiology studies of acesulfame K, aspartame, cyclamate, saccharin, sucralose or NSS in aggregate, 17 cancer types Evidence C source
No consistent associations, no dose-response
US labels may state that sucralose, unlike sugars, does not promote tooth decay, under an FDA-authorized health claim. — US food labeling Evidence E source
Authorized health claim
The EU authorizes a claim that foods with sweeteners such as sucralose instead of sugar help maintain tooth mineralisation. — EU Register on nutrition and health claims Evidence E source
Authorized
The EU did not authorize a claim that a sucralose table-top sweetener helps with slimming as part of a calorie-controlled diet. — EU Register on nutrition and health claims Evidence E source
Non-authorized

Who this works differently for

In a Mexican study of 292 newborns, babies of mothers who took more than 36 mg of sucralose a day in pregnancy were heavier at birth than babies of light users (7.1 vs 6.2 lb / 3.2 vs 2.8 kg). — mother-newborn pairs, Mexico; heavy users >36 mg sucralose/day (more than 3 packets) vs light users <60 mg/week; intake by FFQ, confirmed by serum HPLC (n = 292) Evidence C source
Birth weight 3.2 +/- 0.6 vs 2.8 +/- 0.1 kg (p = 0.0005); cord insulin higher; sucralose undetectable in cord blood
In a breast milk study of 34 nursing mothers who drank one diet soda, sucralose passed into milk with a median peak of 8.1 ng/mL. — lactating mothers, normal weight (14) and obese (20), milk sampled over 6 hours after a diet soda (n = 34) Evidence C source
Peak milk sucralose 4.0 to 7,387.9 ng/mL (median 8.1 ng/mL); 21% had sucralose in milk before the drink
In 20 breastfeeding women, saccharin, sucralose or acesulfame-potassium were found in breast milk of 65 percent. — lactating women recruited irrespective of sweetener use, USA (NIH) (n = 20) Evidence C source
NNS detected in 65% of milk samples; aspartame not detected
In an RCT on 120 healthy adults, 2 weeks of sucralose sachets below the ADI altered gut microbiome and impaired glucose responses, with effects differing person to person. — 120 healthy adults, sachets for 2 weeks in doses lower than the acceptable daily intake (n = 120) Evidence B source
Sucralose and saccharin significantly impaired glycemic responses (group level); person-specific
In a crossover RCT on 74 young adults, women ate more at a buffet after a sucralose drink than after a sugar drink, while men did not. — 74 adults, 43 women, mean age 23.4, BMI 19.18-40.27, 10 fl oz (300 mL) drinks (n = 74) Evidence B source
Women: +1.73 (95% CI 0.38 to 3.08) total calories index after sucralose vs sucrose; men no difference
Observational data in 157 cancer patients on immunotherapy link sucralose intake above 0.16 mg/kg a day with shorter progression-free survival (8.0 vs 13.0 months in melanoma). — 91 advanced melanoma, 41 advanced NSCLC and 25 high-risk resectable melanoma patients on anti-PD-1 therapy, FFQ before treatment (n = 157) Evidence C source
Median PFS 13.0 vs 8.0 months melanoma (P = 0.037); 18.0 vs 7.0 months NSCLC (P = 0.034)
Observational data in 450 Chilean 3-year-olds found 63% had consumed sucralose on the recall day, mostly from beverages, without lower sugar intake. — N = 450 toddlers aged 3 years, Chilean Infant Nutrition RCT cohort, single 24-h recall (n = 450) Evidence C source
76% any NNS; 63% sucralose; NNS not associated with total sugars
In hereditary fructose intolerance, Italian metabolic centers disagree on sucralose: 33.3% prohibit it, 20% permit and 20% restrict it. — 27 dietitians across 15 Italian inherited metabolic disease centers (n = 15) Evidence C source
Sucralose prohibited 33.3%, permitted 20.0%, restricted 20.0%, unspecified 26.7%

What is still unknown

A 2019 systematic review with meta-analyses of 56 studies in healthy adults and children found no differences for most health outcomes between people who used non-sugar sweeteners and those who did not. — generally healthy or overweight/obese adults and children; NSS within the acceptable daily intake for at least 7 days (n = 56 studies (35 observational)) Evidence A source
Most outcomes no difference between NSS exposed and unexposed; very low to moderate certainty
In a Danish study of 28 women having a cesarean section, sucralose from a sweetened drink crossed the placenta, with fetal blood levels rising with maternal levels (coefficient 0.44). — pregnant women before planned cesarean section, Denmark; intervention group drank an artificially sweetened drink, controls avoided sweeteners (n = 28 (19 intervention, 9 controls)) Evidence C source
Fetal vs maternal plasma sucralose adjusted coefficient 0.44 (0.33 to 0.55); fetal/maternal ratio 0.57 (0.42 to 0.73)
In the Danish National Birth Cohort, children of mothers who drank at least one artificially sweetened drink a day in pregnancy had 26 percent higher odds of overweight at 18 years. — Danish National Birth Cohort 1996-2002; maternal FFQ in pregnancy; offspring followed to 18 years (n = 72,821 women with FFQ) Evidence C source
Adjusted OR 1.26 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.42) at 18 years for >=1 ASB/day vs none
Animal data suggest that sucralose given to pregnant mice at a dose close to the human ADI in early pregnancy raised the share of litters with heart defects (71.4 vs 14.3 percent). — pregnant mice, sucralose in drinking water in early pregnancy (about 181.6 mg/kg/day, roughly 14.7 mg/kg/day human-equivalent) (n = 14 vs 14 pregnant mice) Evidence D source
Dams with affected offspring 71.4% (10/14) vs 14.3% (2/14)
In its 2026 re-evaluation of sucralose, EFSA had only animal data on reproductive and developmental toxicity and treated human data for these outcomes as missing. — EFSA hazard assessment, reproductive and maternal/developmental toxicity Evidence E source
Human evidence stream for reproductive and developmental toxicity: missing data

The bottom line

The idea that sweeteners train you to crave sweet food was tested for six months in 180 adults. Eating more or fewer sweet foods did not change liking for sweet taste (P = 0.56) or body weight, though sweetness came from sugars and sweeteners together. In 20 adults, drinks paired with sucralose became as liked and wanted as those paired with sugar. After a single 10 fl oz (300 mL) drink, 74 young adults showed one difference by sex, since women ate more at a buffet after sucralose than after sugar and men did not. In 23 male cyclists, sucralose before exercise did not change how much carbohydrate they burned from a sports drink. In 11 healthy adults, a sugar drink raised blood endotoxin and a sucralose drink did not, though 7 of 18 recruits dropped out. A packet weighs about 1 g, and most of that is carrier powder. On teeth, US labels may say that sucralose does not promote tooth decay, and the EU allows a claim that sweeteners used instead of sugar help keep teeth mineralised. The EU refused a claim that a sucralose table-top sweetener helps with slimming. On safety, EFSA reviewed sucralose again in 2026 and kept the acceptable daily intake at 15 mg per kg of body weight, with average and high intakes below it. EFSA also cites a German review finding that sucralose heated to about 120 to 250 C loses chlorine and may form chlorinated compounds with potential health risk, in amounts nobody has pinned down in real food, and EFSA could not conclude that its use in baked goods is safe. A review of 90 observational studies found no consistent link between sucralose or other sweeteners and any cancer. In 157 people with cancer on immunotherapy, intake above 0.16 mg per kg a day went with shorter time before the disease progressed (8.0 against 13.0 months in melanoma). That is an observational finding with a cutoff chosen from the data and a mechanism shown only in mice. Among Chilean 3-year-olds, 63% had sucralose on the day recorded, mostly from drinks. Italian clinics for hereditary fructose intolerance disagree on it, with 33% banning it and 20% allowing it. We have no card on pregnancy or on interactions with medicines.

Questions about sucralose, answered from the trials

Is sucralose safe during pregnancy?

Sources

ev-sucg-02 · RCT
One-third of all pregnant women consumed LCS across each trimester of pregnancy.
Eur J Clin Nutr, 2022 · checked 2026-10-07
ev-sucg-08 · cross-sectional
The most consumed sweetener was sucralose (95.6%), followed by acesulfame k (80.6%), stevia (78.3%), aspartame (75.1%), saccharin (14.8%), and cyclamate (10%). ... No pregnant woman in the sample exceeded the acceptable daily intake and there were no differences in sweetener consumption by trimester of pregnancy or by socioeconomic level.
Nutr Hosp, 2019 · checked 2026-10-07
sclr-daily-r8-20 · dataset
1 individual packet: 1 g
USDA FNDDS 2021-2023, food code 91107000, Sugar substitute, sucralose, powder (fdc 2710263) · checked 2026-09-29
sclr-daily-r8-09 · RCT, crossover
Average CHOexog during the first hour of exercise did not differ between SUCRA and CON conditions (0.226 ± 0.081 g/min vs. 0.212 ± 0.076 g/min, Δ =0.015 g/min, 95% CI -0.008 g/min, 0.038 g/min, p = .178).
Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab, 2013 · checked 2026-09-29
sclr-daily-r8-12 · agency opinion
The BfR concluded that the results of the reviewed studies indicated that, when heated to temperatures of approx. 120°C–250°C, sucralose (E 955) is dechlorinated, possibly leading to the generation of chlorinated organic compounds exhibiting potential health risk (e.g. polychlorinated dibenzo‐p‐dioxins (PCDDs), dibenzofurans (PCDFs) or chloropropanols).
EFSA Journal 2026, Re-evaluation of sucralose (E 955) as a food additive · checked 2026-09-29
ev-sucg-03 · prospective cohort
The adjusted model showed a significant association between the consumption of any NNS and sucralose and the risk of GDM (OR for any NNS = 1.58; 95% CI: 1.10-2.26; P = 0.014; OR sucralose = 1.44; 95% CI 1.06-1.95; P = 0.020).
Nutrition, 2024 · checked 2026-10-07
ev-sucg-10 · prospective cohort
Compared with no consumption, daily consumption of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with a 0.20-unit increase in infant BMI z score (adjusted 95% CI, 0.02-0.38) and a 2-fold higher risk of infant overweight at 1 year of age (adjusted odds ratio, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.23-3.88).
JAMA Pediatr, 2016 · checked 2026-10-07
sclr-daily-r8-01 · meta-analysis of RCTs
Sucralose did not significantly alter alpha diversity (Shannon index: SMD = -0.00; 95% CI -1.16 to 1.15; p = 0.99; I2 = 25.67%), fasting blood glucose (SMD = -0.04; 95% CI = -0.63 to 0.56; p = 0.88; I2 = 69.61%), and HOMA-IR (SMD = -0.13; 95% CI = -0.36 to 0.10; p = 0.212; I2 = 0.00%).
Int J Mol Sci, 2026 · checked 2026-09-29
sclr-daily-r8-02 · network meta-analysis
In uncoupling interventions, NNS beverages (single or blends) had no effect on postprandial glucose, insulin, GLP-1, GIP, PYY, ghrelin, and glucagon responses similar to water controls (generally, low to moderate confidence)
Nutrients, 2023 · checked 2026-09-29
sclr-daily-r8-04 · RCT, crossover
The intake of the sucrose-sweetened beverage resulted in a significant increase in plasma endotoxin levels while being unchanged after the intake of sucralose-sweetened beverages.
Nutrients, 2023 · checked 2026-09-29
sclr-daily-r8-05 · clinical trial
Significant differences were observed in insulin, glucose, and acylated ghrelin concentrations over time only between sucrose-containing treatments and non-sucrose-containing treatments regardless of sucralose consumption.
Nutr Res, 2011 · checked 2026-09-29
sclr-daily-r8-14 · review
The sum of these studies demonstrates that sucralose is non-cariogenic.
J Clin Dent, 2002 · checked 2026-09-29
sclr-daily-r8-11 · agency opinion
Taking into account the available dataset, the Panel concluded that there is no need to change the current ADI of 15 mg/kg bw per day of sucralose (E 955).
EFSA Journal 2026, Re-evaluation of sucralose (E 955) as a food additive · checked 2026-09-29
ev-sucg-12 · agency opinion
Taking into account the available dataset, the Panel concluded that there is no need to change the current ADI of 15 mg/kg bw per day of sucralose (E 955).
EFSA Journal 2026, Re-evaluation of sucralose (E 955) as a food additive · checked 2026-10-07
ev-sucg-14 · agency position
To determine the safety of sucralose, the FDA reviewed more than 110 studies designed to identify possible toxic effects, including studies on the reproductive and nervous systems, carcinogenicity, and metabolism.
US FDA, Aspartame and Other Sweeteners in Food · checked 2026-10-07
ev-sucg-15 · agency position
Based on the available scientific evidence, sweeteners authorized by the FDA are safe for the general population under certain conditions of use.
US FDA, Aspartame and Other Sweeteners in Food · checked 2026-10-07
sclr-daily-r8-07 · RCT
However, from baseline to month 6, no differences between groups were found in sweet taste liking ( χ2(40) = 37.9, P = 0.56)
Am J Clin Nutr, 2026 · checked 2026-09-29
sclr-daily-r8-08 · RCT, crossover
After conditioning, explicit wanting and liking ratings increased, with no differences between the sweeteners.
Physiol Behav, 2026 · checked 2026-09-29
sclr-daily-r8-13 · systematic review
We found no consistent associations between any NSS or NSSs in aggregate and any cancer overall, and no evidence for dose-response.
Adv Nutr, 2025 · checked 2026-09-29
sclr-daily-r8-15 · regulation
Sucralose, the sweetening ingredient used to sweeten this food, unlike sugars, does not promote tooth decay.
21 CFR 101.80, Health claims: dietary noncariogenic carbohydrate sweeteners and dental caries · checked 2026-09-29
sclr-daily-r8-16 · regulatory decision
POL-HC-6466 Sugar replacers, i.e. intense sweeteners; xylitol, sorbitol, mannitol, maltitol, lactitol, isomalt, erythritol, sucralose and polydextrose; D-tagatose and isomaltulose Consumption of foods/drinks containing instead of sugar* contributes to the maintenance of tooth mineralisation * In the case of D-tagatose and isomaltulose this should read ""other sugars"" Authorised
EU Register on nutrition and health claims, claim POL-HC-6466, snapshot 2026-09-21 · checked 2026-09-29
sclr-daily-r8-17 · regulatory decision
POL-HC-7623 Name of Food product: Low Calorie Sweetener / Table-top Sweetener (Granular & tablets - sucralose based) Description of food in terms of food legislation categories: food not covered by specific food legislation Was food on Irish market before 1st July 20 Exact wording of claim as it appears on product: Splenda can help with slimming as part of a calorie controlled diet. Splenda is also suitable for those following a low carbohydrate diet. In France, 'peut contributer a une reduction de l'apport calorique quotidien' Examples of any alternative wording that may be used in relation to claim: Splenda low calorie sweetener can help to maintain a healthy body weight as part of a calorie-controlled diet. Splenda low calorie sweetener helps to control calorie intake as part of a calorie controlled diet. Is claim a picture: No Non-authorised
EU Register on nutrition and health claims, claim POL-HC-7623, snapshot 2026-09-21 · checked 2026-09-29
ev-sucg-04 · cross-sectional
Conversely, infants born from mothers who heavily consumed sucralose displayed a significant increase in birth weight compared to that found in newborns from mothers who lightly ingested sucralose (3.2 ± 0.6 vs. 2.8 ± 0.1, p = 0.0005) (Table 1).
Biomedicines, 2023, Newborns from Mothers Who Intensely Consumed Sucralose during Pregnancy Are Heavier · checked 2026-10-07
ev-sucg-06 · clinical study
Due to one mother having extremely high concentrations, peak sucralose concentrations following ingestion of diet soda ranged from 4.0–7,387.9 ng/mL (median peak 8.1 ng/mL) and the AUC ranged from 526.1 – 2,337,351 ng/mL (median AUC 1244.2 ng/mL).
Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, 2018, Pharmacokinetics of Sucralose and Acesulfame-Potassium in Breast Milk Following Ingestion of Diet Soda · checked 2026-10-07
ev-sucg-07 · cross-sectional
Saccharin, sucralose, and acesulfame-potassium were present in breast milk of 65% of participants, most of whom reported NNS intake during the day prior to donating a breast milk sample.
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A, 2015, Nonnutritive Sweeteners in Breast Milk · checked 2026-10-07
sclr-daily-r8-03 · RCT
As groups, each administered NNS distinctly altered stool and oral microbiome and plasma metabolome, whereas saccharin and sucralose significantly impaired glycemic responses.
Cell, 2022 · checked 2026-09-29
sclr-daily-r8-06 · RCT, crossover
Female participants consumed greater total calories (β, 1.73; 95% CI, 0.38 to 3.08; P = .01), whereas caloric intake did not differ in male participants (β, 0.68; 95% CI, -0.99 to 2.35; P = .42) after sucralose vs sucrose ingestion.
JAMA Netw Open, 2021 · checked 2026-09-29
sclr-daily-r8-10 · cohort
Commensurately, high sucralose intake (>0.16 mg/kg/day) was significantly associated with poorer PFS in both ICI-treated advanced cutaneous melanoma (median 13.0 vs. 8.0 months, log-rank P = 0.037) and NSCLC (median 18.0 vs. 7.0 months, log-rank P = 0.034; Fig. 1D and E).
Cancer Discovery, 2025, Sucralose Consumption Ablates Cancer Immunotherapy Response through Microbiome Disruption · checked 2026-09-29
sclr-daily-r8-18 · cross-sectional
Seventy-six percent of the toddlers consumed at least one NNS: 63% sucralose, 35% acesulfame-K, 32% aspartame, 27% steviol, < 1% saccharin and < 1% cyclamate.
Pediatr Obes, 2025 · checked 2026-09-29
sclr-daily-r8-19 · survey
sucralose (prohibited 33.3%, permitted 20.0%, restricted 20.0%, unspecified 26.7%)
Nutrients, 2026 · checked 2026-09-29
ev-sucg-01 · meta-analysis
Most health outcomes did not seem to have differences between the NSS exposed and unexposed groups.
BMJ, 2019 · checked 2026-10-07
ev-sucg-05 · clinical study
We found that fetal plasma concentrations had a significant, positive, linear dependency on the maternal plasma concentrations of all four artificial sweeteners, with adjusted coefficients of 0.49 (CI: 0.28–0.70) for acesulfame, 0.72 (CI: 0.48–0.95) for cyclamate, 0.51 (CI: 0.38–0.67) for saccharin, and 0.44 (0.33–0.55) for sucralose (Figure 2 and Table 3).
Nutrients, 2023, Transplacental Transport of Artificial Sweeteners · checked 2026-10-07
ev-sucg-09 · prospective cohort
We found increased odds of overweight in 7-, 11-, 14- and 18-year-old offspring whose mothers reported drinking ≥ 1 artificially sweetened beverage daily during pregnancy compared with no consumption (18 years: adjusted OR 1·26 (95 % CI 1·12, 1·42)).
Br J Nutr, 2025 · checked 2026-10-07
ev-sucg-11 · animal study
It was found that the proportion of pregnant mice bearing offspring with heart defects was much higher in the sucralose group (71.4%, 10 out of 14) than that in the control group (14.3%, 2 out of 14) (Figures 1A and 1B).
iScience, 2026, High sucralose exposure in early pregnancy increases the susceptibility of heart defects in mice offspring · checked 2026-10-07
ev-sucg-13 · agency opinion
In the case of the HOCs with data available only from animal studies (namely ‘haematotoxicity’, ‘reproductive toxicity’, ‘maternal and developmental toxicity’ and ‘neurotoxicity’) the integration of evidence was done considering the option ‘missing data’
EFSA Journal 2026, Re-evaluation of sucralose (E 955) as a food additive · checked 2026-10-07

Review. Reviewed on 2026-09-29 for evidence level, dose and population context, and claims a reader could misread. Bioma Learn has no human medical reviewer at this time, and we say so rather than invent one. Methodology. This is information, not medical advice.