2

Possible Duplicate:
Long term effects of sucralose

Is it true that sucralose is the only chlorinated hydrocarbon we eat and that chlorinated hydrocarbons are inherently toxic? (I realize the source of these claims is the pro-sugar brigade)

Community
  • 1
Rebecca
  • 21
  • 1
  • 1
    Could you please link to some relevan claim you are skeptical of (and explain why you are)? – nico Aug 04 '12 at 16:31
  • [Welcome to Skeptics](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1505/welcome-to-new-users)! We want to focus our attention on doubtful claims that are widely held or are made by notable people. Please [provide some references](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/882/what-are-the-attributes-of-a-good-question/883#883) to places where this claim is being made. I hope the references will show if simply demonstrating that edible fish contains contains chlorinated hydrocarbons (presumably as contaminants) and hence sucralose isn't the only source, will refute the claim. – Oddthinking Aug 04 '12 at 17:56
  • Technically, *everything* is toxic in sufficiently high doses (and pretty much everything is nontoxic in sufficiently low doses). – Ben Barden Jul 13 '17 at 15:28

0 Answers0