A journal has issued an expression of concern for a 2008 paper suggesting artificial sweetener Splenda could disrupt the gut microbiome and cause other havoc with the gastrointestinal system – and which is cited by a paper at the center of a lawsuit against one of its authors by the maker of the sugar substitute.
The article, “Splenda Alters Gut Microflora and Increases Intestinal P-Glycoprotein and Cytochrome P-450 in Male Rats,” appeared in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, a Taylor & Francis title. The journal has a Part B, too, which also is part of this story.
The paper, which has been cited more than 200 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science, caught the attention of Elisabeth Bik, who last year commented on the article on PubPeer, noting potential problems with four of the figures, including Western blots and missing error bars.
Susan Schiffman, the last author of the paper and a psychologist then at Duke University in Durham, N.C., but who has since moved to North Carolina State University in Raleigh, responded to Bik’s post. She said a researcher named in the acknowledgements of the paper had been asked to perform the Western blots “because she is highly skilled and very accurate,” and some of the others figures had included error bars but they made the figure “too busy.” She said she did not have access to the original data.
According to the expression of concern:
After publication of this article, questions about the scientific integrity of the article were brought to the Editor’s and Publisher’s attention. We contacted the authors, but have not yet received the required data or supporting materials necessary to complete the investigation. As this investigation may take some time to resolve, we advise readers to interpret the information presented in the article with due caution. The authors have been notified about this Expression of Concern.
Last May, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B published a review by Schiffman and several of her colleagues that argued sucralose is “genotoxic” and its presence in the food supply should be the focus of “a regulatory status review.” It also cites the paper that is now subject to an expression of concern.
The May 2023 paper – which has been cited four times – did not please TC Heartland, the maker of Splenda, which has sued Schiffman for defamation. Heartland, which brought the case in the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, claims Schiffman:
chose to chase headlines rather than tell the truth. Dr. Schiffman spread falsehoods about Splenda, and in doing so she harmed Heartland and the millions of consumers who rely on Splenda as an important part of achieving their health goals.
The paper, the company claims, is “dishonest and deeply flawed for numerous reasons,” and “Schiffman’s subsequent claims about Splenda on her press tour were plainly false: Her paper expressly confirms that the sucralose Schiffman claimed to have studied for it was not the sucralose used in Splenda.”
Schiffman and Duke did not respond to requests for comment.
One more note: The lead author of the article was Mohamed B Abou-Donia, of Duke. That name might be familiar to readers of Retraction Watch from this 2021 post about an investigation at the institution involving three papers on which he was the second of two authors. Abou-Donia died in 2023 of complications of COVID-19, according to Schiffman’s comments on PubPeer.
Those articles have all since been retracted with the same notice:
Following an institutional investigation, the journal is retracting this article. The institution determined there is insufficient source documentation to verify either the reliability of the published results or the origins of the samples used. The institution also determined that the first co-author should not have been named as co-author of the article.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly update, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, or add us to your RSS reader. If you find a retraction that’s not in The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
If only this would happen to all those scaremongering articles about “ultraprocessed” foods.
Interesting that the study is funded by Sugar Association, Inc., Washington, DC. I wonder if the authors, any of them, have any external associations with this company or have ties to other sugar companies. Also wonder how much gov’t funding a paper like this led to.
that’s not just interesting, it’s a conflict of interest. Splenda isn’t perfect, but the company that makes it doesn’t deserve criticism funded by the sugar industry.
surely a direct comparison of the two by an independent or government funded research group is warranted.
in fact, as a doctor one of my pet peeves was that there are always several me-too drugs for the same indication and no study compares them directly. how to choose the best drug out of a half-dozen similar ones with no actual comparative data between them? it may come down to which drug rep has the best pitch.
[by the way, good job on the checkbox— i can see it on my iphone now.]