Heartland Food Products, manufacturer of the popular sweetener Splenda, is suing the lead scientist of a new study on sucralose for actual and punitive damages, accusing the scientist of making false and misleading statements about the product.
Filed Aug. 10 in the U.S. District Court Middle District of North Carolina, the complaint alleges that Susan Schiffman harmed the company by committing slander, libel, trade libel that impugns the quality of Splenda products, and violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The civil suit alleges that “real and urgent health needs are ill-served by Dr. Schiffman’s falsehoods” about Splenda, which it states is the No. 1 recommended sweetener brand by doctors and dietitians.
“We have brought this case to set the record straight because Dr. Schiffman’s false statements about Splenda harmed not just our brand, but the millions of consumers who enjoy and rely on Splenda to help achieve their health goals. Consumers deserve accurate information supported by sound science, not falsehoods and fearmongering [sic] from researchers looking to generate headlines,” a Heartland spokesperson said in an emailed statement to The Epoch Times.
Ms. Schiffman, an adjunct professor in the joint department of biomedical engineering at North Carolina State University and the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill, told The Epoch Times she’s been advised by lawyers not to comment.
About the Research
Her latest study was published May 29 in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Research was conducted in vitro, revealing that when human cells were exposed to the metabolic output of sucralose—called sucralose-6-acetate—DNA would break apart, meaning it’s genotoxic and can potentially lead to cancer. In some instances the study found sucralose itself contained sucralose-6-acetate (S6A).
Sucralose was put through 110 safety studies prior to its U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval in 1998. Among them were specific genotoxicity evaluations that “showed weakly genotoxic responses.” However, the FDA reported there was no evidence of carcinogenic activity, which its permit stated would supersede genotoxicity tests anyway.
Contentious Claims
Following Schiffman’s latest study, the FDA told The Epoch Times in a lengthy email response in June it would be reviewing sucralose and that it would be able to do more post-market reviews of products if it had a bigger budget. A spokesperson for the agency told The Epoch Times it had no updates and “as a matter of agency policy the FDA does not comment on possible, pending or ongoing litigation.”
One issue of contention in the lawsuit is that the sucralose Ms. Schiffman used for experiments was not Splenda but a product made by a different manufacturer. Heartland also questioned the validity of S6A.
In an email to The Epoch Times on July 18 email, a company spokesperson shared the link to a new website it created defending itself against the study and sent these claims specifically:
- Sucralose has been extensively studied, and there is no published study demonstrating that S6A is formed when humans consume sucralose or Splenda brand sucralose.
- The May 2023 article on S6A did not study whether S6A is formed when humans consume sucralose or Splenda.
- Instead, Dr. Schiffman improperly relies on her 2018 study asserting that two metabolites are formed when sucralose is ingested by rats. That study did not identify either metabolite as S6A. Schiffman claims that she has data showing one of the two metabolites is S6A, but the data are unpublished, not publicly available and not vetted through the professional peer review process that is required by scientific journals.
- The existing, large body of detailed scientific metabolism studies, which has been conducted in various animal species and in humans, has shown that absorbed sucralose undergoes minimal metabolism.
The Metabolite in Question
Ms. Schiffman and other researchers took issue in the 2018 study with claims that sucralose passes through the intestine without effect. They described S6A as a fat-soluble compound that stayed in the tissues of rats two weeks after they last consumed sucralose, even when it was no longer detected in urine and feces. This study was published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health.
In the latest study, researchers performed eight different tests on both sucralose and S6A. In addition to breaks in DNA, it found impairment of integrity of intestinal barrier function and also found gene expression in the intestinal epithelium associated with inflammation, oxidative stress, and cancer.
Both the study and the news release—in which Heartland accuses Ms. Schiffman of making defamatory and false statements—call for regulatory review. Ms. Schiffman has said previously that sucralose ought to have a warning label on it.
Sucralose, derived from a multistep process to change the chemical structure of sugar molecules, is about 600 times sweeter. The original FDA approval was for use in 15 products, but the following year, its permit was expanded as a general-use sweetener that allowed it to be used in everything from beverages to toothpaste and baking products to mints.
Heartland claims in the lawsuit that Schiffman “embarked on this press tour to promote” the study with false claims about Splenda, even using “the Splenda name to garner more attention in the media and from the public, thus generating notoriety for herself and her research.”
“To be clear, Schiffman’s paper comes nowhere close to proving that S6A is dangerous to humans. The paper’s methodology is shoddy and repeatedly ignores scientific protocols, while the factual statements Schiffman makes about S6A are not supported by the paper and are completely unreliable,” the lawsuit says.
Claims of Financial and Reputational Harm
Heartland claims sales of Splenda products in the United States fell “well over $1 million, largely attributable to the frenzy stirred up by Schiffman’s false statements,” in the eight-week period after Ms. Schiffman’s “press tour.” The company said it incurred additional losses due to “fighting back against the lies.”
Among the costs it cited was a website Heartland created that features, news releases, a link to the full lawsuit, as well as links to online articles and even a Tik Tok video by various professionals who refute the study.
On the other hand, various organizations and reputable sources have been cautioning about use and overuse of artificial sweeteners, including sucralose, well before the latest research. The World Health Organization sparked debate just before the new study with a recommendation against artificial sweeteners for those who are trying to lose weight.
And shortly after Heartland filed its lawsuit, a class action complaint was filed against the company in U.S. District Court Northern District of California. Steven Prescott and others are seeking restitution under false advertising claims, among others, that Splenda is recommended for diabetes care.
The company has sold products specifically for managing blood sugar and has advertising specifically for diabetics on packaging. The lawsuit claims the WHO and various studies indicate the product is specifically questionable for those at risk of diabetes and other diseases, and that it may cause or worsen diabetes.