Close
today i learned (til)

Sucrose V.S. Sucralose

May 14, 2022

Sucrose vs Sucralose

Sucrose is the sugar we use in baking, but sucralose is an artificially made sugar. Some artificial sweeteners like Splenda come from sucralose. It enhances the sweet taste of sugar, but without the added calories (heath Cleveland). Sucralose in drinks and food may seem better for you than sucrose because of the lesser calories. Low calories and higher sweetness sounds amazing, but how does sucralose affect the body in comparison to sucrose?

Sucrose is made up of both glucose and fructose and can be found in nature. Sucrose is a carbohydrate, therefore it must break down the sucrose into smaller sugars, glucose and fructose (Libretext). From those sugars: they break down even more, get into the blood stream, and energy goes to all the cells! The body needs carbohydrates to survive because they provide calories. Sugar tastes wonderful and the body needs it, however eating a lot of sugar is not very healthy. Using calories as a measuring tool helps keep the body healthy. When eating a lot of sucrose, the body could have “higher blood pressure, inflammation, weight gain, diabetes, and fatty liver disease” (The Sweet Danger of Sugar). The body absorbs sucrose, but in excess serious side effects show.

Sucralose provides no calories because it can’t be broken down for energy due to its manipulated structure. Of the sucrose that is ingested, 15 percent is absorbed then excreted through the urine and 85 percent goes through the digestive tract (Everything You Need to Know about Sucralose). Even though sucralose passes through the body, It still has an effect on the body.  A study published in the journal Nutrition, Obesity, and Exercise “indicated sucralose, when compared to sucrose, may increase appetite and cravings in women and those considered obese” (29). Sucralose in moderation has no side effects, but when sucralose becomes a  habit there becomes a problem. The body rejects sucralose and it has a sweeter taste, but may cause cravings. 

This diagram shows more than just sucrose and sucralose’s relative sweetness. It also shows that sucralose has 600 times the relative sweetness than sucrose (Brownlee).

Sucrose helped make sucralose and share a similar chemical structure, however they have many differences. Sucrose is a natural sugar that our body can process, but sucralose gives more of a sweet taste with less calories. The sugar sucrose in excess provides many long term issues, however sucralose in excess has minimal long term issues. To keep the body most healthy, tend towards sucrose, but sucralose in moderation is fine.

 

Bibliography

Brownlee, Christen. “The Skinny on Sweetners.” Acs, Oct. 2011, https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/education/resources/highschool/chemmatters/archive/chemmatters-oct2007-percyjulian-brownlee.pdf. 

“Everything You Need to Know about Sucralose.” Food Insight, 10 Feb. 2022, https://foodinsight.org/everything-you-need-to-know-about-sucralose/.

Libretexts. “3.3: Digestion and Absorption of Carbohydrates.” Medicine LibreTexts, Libretexts, 14 Aug. 2020, https://med.libretexts.org/Courses/American_Public_University/APUS%3A_An_Introduction_to_Nutrition_(Byerley)/APUS%3A_An_Introduction_to_Nutrition_1st_Edition/03%3A_Carbohydrates/3.03%3A_Digestion_and_Absorption_of_Carbohydrates#:~:text=Carbohydrates%20are%20not%20chemically%20broken,and%20delivered%20to%20the%20liver.

“The Sweet Danger of Sugar.” Harvard Health, Harvard Health Publishing, 6 Jan. 2022, https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/the-sweet-danger-of-sugar#:~:text=%22The%20effects%20of%20added%20sugar,Hu.

29, Alex Smolokoff | Sep. “Artificial Sweetener Linked to Increased Appetite, Cravings.” Food Beverage Insider, 29 Sept. 2021, https://www.foodbeverageinsider.com/sweeteners/artificial-sweetener-linked-increased-appetite-cravings. 
0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
Taste of Science: Spicy Science
Field Notes, today i learned (til)
Electric Vehicles: Will EVs make our climate better?
today i learned (til)
Matcha Magic
today i learned (til)
How Nature can Influence Innovation and Design

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.