E955 / Glazing agents, gases & sweeteners
Sucralose
Safety in brief
Safe
Recorded EatMatrix rating, not a new clinical review. The amount, your sensitivities and country rules still matter.
- Watch for
- No allergen or sensitivity is recorded for this ingredient here. Check the whole product label; this is not an allergen-free guarantee.
- Our advice
- The glucose and microbiome findings justify further study, but they are not proof that a usual serving causes diabetes or gut damage. Replacing sugar and adding sucralose can happen together; compare the entire food and the alternative you would actually eat.
What it is
Sucralose is a zero-calorie artificial sweetener made from sugar, about 600 times sweeter than sucrose. It is heat-stable, so it's widely used in baking, beverages, and diet products, and it passes through the body largely unabsorbed. Regulatory bodies including the FDA and EFSA consider it safe within acceptable daily intake limits, though some newer research is examining its effects on gut bacteria and blood sugar response in certain individuals.
Also appears on labels as: Sucralose, E955, E 955, E-955, Trichlorogalactosucrose, TGS, Artificial sweetener Sucralose, Low-calorie sweetener Sucralose, Additive E955, Splenda, Chlorinated sucrose, Sweetener Sucralose.
Dietary information
- Vegan
- Yes
- Halal
- Yes
- Gluten-free
- Yes
- Allergens
- None recorded
Recorded ingredient information. Check the product label or certification: sources, other ingredients and cross-contact can vary.
Research & body effects
What human studies mean for E955
Blood sugar and gut bacteria: a short experiment
A 2022 randomized study assigned 120 healthy adults to two weeks of saccharin, sucralose, aspartame or stevia sachets, a glucose-vehicle control, or no supplement. Saccharin and sucralose impaired measured glucose responses compared with controls; this finding was not uniform across all four sweeteners.
This ingredient was among the two with that glucose-response finding. The study did not measure new diabetes diagnoses or establish what years of ordinary food exposure would do.
Changes in gut bacteria are not automatically gut damage. Transferring participants’ microbes into mice supported a possible mechanism; it was not a second human trial or a validated test of your personal sensitivity.
Four sweeteners, gut microbes and glucose responses. Indexed abstract and selected publisher text read; complete methods and supplements pending. Indexed comments were identified, not fully appraised. Some authors disclose microbiome-company interests.
Another 2025 sucralose trial raises a metabolic question
The abstract of a 30-day randomized, placebo-controlled trial in healthy lean adults reports increased glucose and insulin responses and reduced insulin sensitivity after sucralose. The abstract does not provide all the between-group estimates needed for a complete appraisal. It does not establish new diabetes cases or a personal safe threshold.
Sucralose for 30 days: glucose and insulin responses. Abstract read. Full methods, complete between-group estimates and declarations remain pending.
Replacing sugar with sucralose: the starting health condition mattered
Two 12-week randomized microbiome substudies included 49 adults with type 2 diabetes and 48 with overweight or obesity without diabetes. Participants replaced sugar in tea or coffee with sucralose or continued using sugar. Some measures of gut-bacterial diversity fell in the diabetes group; similar community-level changes were not seen in the other group.
These were small, open-label substudies. Adding sucralose and removing sugar happened together, so the comparison cannot isolate both effects. A bacterial shift is not a diagnosis of gut damage. Medication, baseline health and exploratory analyses also matter.
Replacing sugar in tea or coffee: two sucralose microbiome substudies. Selected main-text methods, results and declarations read; supplements not fully appraised. Zydus Wellness funded the study and supplied the sweetener; NIH support is also reported. Authors report no conflicts.
Weight management: a drink comparison does not isolate this additive
In the SWITCH study, 493 adults started a weight-management programme using water or non-sugar-sweetened drinks; 220 completed 104 weeks. The 2026 report found no statistically significant difference in maintained weight loss between groups. Substantial dropout limits confidence in the estimate.
The drinks predominantly used aspartame, acesulfame K and sucralose. Participants could choose and change products, so this was not a test of one isolated ingredient. Earlier reports from the same programme are not independent replications. This weight outcome does not settle every health outcome.
Related beverage trial: water versus sweetened drinks over 104 weeks. Selected main-text methods, results, limitations and declarations read; supplements not fully appraised. Funded by the American Beverage Association; some authors disclose other industry relationships.
Related whole-diet evidence: a benefit and a trade-off
The 2025 SWEET trial compared low-sugar diets that allowed or excluded products with many sweeteners after an initial weight-loss phase. The analysis of 277 adults who reached the initial loss target favoured allowing these products by about 1.6 kg at one year. The difference was not statistically significant when only completers were analysed.
About 40% of recruited adults did not complete the study. The sweetener group reported more abdominal pain, loose stools and gas. Many products and ingredients varied together: neither the weight result nor the symptoms can be attributed to this one additive.
Related whole-diet SWEET trial: weight maintenance and gut symptoms. Selected main-text methods, results, limitations and declarations read; supplements not fully appraised. EU Horizon 2020 funding; several authors disclose food-industry relationships.
EatMatrix’s reading
The glucose and microbiome findings justify further study, but they are not proof that a usual serving causes diabetes or gut damage. Replacing sugar and adding sucralose can happen together; compare the entire food and the alternative you would actually eat.
A practical choice
Compare the whole food and your usual alternative, including free sugars, fibre and how often you eat it. Water or an unsweetened drink is a straightforward option. A sweetener name alone cannot tell you the dose in a serving or predict your personal response.
WHO’s 2023 recommendation against using non-sugar sweeteners for long-term weight control is conditional and excludes people with pre-existing diabetes. It is nutrition guidance, not a country ban or a replacement for an additive safety assessment. Read WHO’s scope and limits.
Selected sources checked . The reading scope is stated beside each source. These are selected findings, not an exhaustive clinical review or a personal diet prescription. Indexed notices were checked where accessible; missing notices do not prove that no correction or later version exists. The research does not by itself change recorded ratings or country permissions. Use the country section for the separate legal question.
Selected research on E955
How to read study types- Randomized trialRelated beverage trial: water versus sweetened drinks over 104 weeks
Related mixed-beverage trial: 220 of 493 starters completed 104 weeks. Maintained weight loss did not significantly differ from water. Drinks predominantly used aspartame, acesulfame K and sucralose; the study cannot isolate one additive.
- Regulator reviewEFSA re-evaluation of sucralose
Kept the safe daily limit of 15 mg per kg of body weight and found no safety concern at current uses. Could not conclude on a new use in baked goods, because baking may form chlorinated compounds.
- Randomized trialReplacing sugar in tea or coffee: two sucralose microbiome substudies
Two small 12-week microbiome substudies found different responses in people with and without diabetes. Replacing sugar and adding sucralose happened together. Bacterial changes alone do not diagnose gut damage.
- Randomized trialRelated whole-diet SWEET trial: weight maintenance and gut symptoms
Related whole-diet trial favoured sweetener-containing products for weight maintenance in one analysis, but not the completer analysis. Dropout was high and gut symptoms were more frequent. Many ingredients varied together; no individual-additive effect was isolated.
- Randomized trialSucralose for 30 days: glucose and insulin responses
The abstract reports altered glucose/insulin responses after 30 days of sucralose in healthy lean adults. Full between-group estimates and methods remain to be appraised. This was not a trial of new diabetes diagnoses.
- Randomized trialFour sweeteners, gut microbes and glucose responses
Two-week trial in 120 healthy adults: saccharin and sucralose impaired measured glucose responses; this was not uniform across all four sweeteners. Microbiome changes and mouse transfers do not establish future diabetes or a personal sensitivity test.
Earlier source summaries checked ; latest additions checked . See the detailed research section for what was read and the remaining limits. This is a selection of sources, not a complete literature review. Authority assessments apply to the uses and places they cover.
Health notes from our ingredient record
- Some studies suggest sucralose may alter gut microbiota composition with regular heavy use.
- A small number of studies report modest effects on insulin/glucose response in some people despite having no calories itself.
- Sucralose can break down into potentially harmful compounds when heated to very high temperatures for prolonged periods (e.g., in some baking applications), an area of ongoing research.
Other references from our ingredient record
These links come from the original ingredient record. They are separate from the source reviews above and have not all been checked for the exact ingredient, amount consumed or claim. Dates are shown newest first.
- Re‐evaluation of sucralose (E 955) as a food additive and evaluation of a new application on extension of use of sucralose (E 955) in fine bakery wares — EFSA Panel on Food Additives, EFSA Journal (2026). Official EFSA scientific opinion (bibliographic reference, imported 2026-10-13). It covers the additive as a group assessment and is not an individual human study; read the opinion for its findings.
Country rules
Country checks for E955
Permission depends on the market, type of food, amount and conditions. A scientific opinion or an E-number alone does not establish a legal use. These checks are separate from the stored EatMatrix rating.
Compare all eight markets and their sources
| Market | What is checked |
|---|---|
| European Union | Regulation (EC) 1333/2008, Annex II Part B, version , contains the exact code E955: Sucralose. Listing alone does not allow every food use. Part E food categories, limits, specifications and applicable later acts still need a product-specific check. Source read: . |
| Great Britain | The FSA register record for E955 (Sucralose) lists “Authorised” in England, Scotland and Wales. Register updated: 01 April 2025; record checked: . Food-specific conditions and specifications still need a separate legal check. |
| United States | Selected US conditions for Sucralose Official federal text current through ; read . Food uses, limits and exceptionsNamed preparation and use conditions The specified sucralose is permitted as a sweetener in foods generally under good manufacturing practice, at no more than the amount needed for the intended effect. Special-dietary-use foods must meet the additional labelling rules. This section does not establish a health benefit from replacing another ingredient. EatMatrix’s reading: a legal use condition answers where and how an ingredient may be used. It is not a test of your product, a personal safe intake or a claim that the ingredient benefits your body. Match the named substance, food and amount. Other federal provisions, food standards, state rules and later changes may also apply; this is a selected source review, not a complete product-compliance decision. |
| Northern Ireland | Review pending. Check the applicable EU rules and territory arrangements; the GB register alone does not establish this status. FSA guidance is a starting source, not a verified permission for this entry. |
| Canada | Named food-use records located. Health Canada lists the preparations below for specified foods and purposes. This is conditional permission for those uses, not approval of every product or a personal safety verdict. Only the named records and conditions below were located. Exact composition and specifications still need matching. Source tables captured . List publication dates are shown separately. Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) is a condition of use, not an unlimited amount or a recommended intake. Food and Drug Regulations B.16.003 requires the listed source, purpose, amount and other conditions to match. The official consolidation read was current to 21 September 2026; product specifications and applicable later changes still need checking. Read 20 listed food-use conditionsSucraloseHealth Canada: List of Permitted Sweeteners. List published ; item S.6.
EatMatrix reading: match the exact preparation and food first. A manufacturing limit is not an acceptable daily intake (ADI). A label without the amount cannot establish exposure, and an unlisted name here does not establish a ban. |
| Australia | Review pending. Food Standards Code permissions and conditions need an additive-specific check. FSANZ food-additive rules is a starting source, not a verified permission for this entry. |
| New Zealand | Review pending. Food Standards Code permissions and conditions need an additive-specific check. FSANZ food-additive rules is a starting source, not a verified permission for this entry. |
| Japan | Review pending. The relevant list, identity and use standards need an additive-specific check. CAA food-additive lists is a starting source, not a verified permission for this entry. |
Sources & review status
Check what each source covers: an authority’s conclusion, a research finding and a country’s legal permission answer different questions.
What this guide covers
- Selected research
- 6 source summaries, with publication dates and study types. Several publications may describe the same study population.
- Official assessment reference
- EFSA opinion located for E955. Identity and code coverage checked; full findings review pending.
- Original ingredient record
- 1 research link; newest recorded date: . Sources added separately to this guide are not included in this count.
This guide brings together our ingredient record and the dated sources shown here. Missing information describes a gap in this guide; it does not mean an ingredient is untested, safe or harmful. This is not a complete review of every study, preparation or current country rule. The amount in a product and how it is used still matter.
How to read the ratings, research and country checksAgency labels recorded by EatMatrix
These are imported database classifications, not verified current statements from each authority. Use the dated official sources below for their actual scope and conclusions.
| Authority | Database label |
|---|---|
| FDA | Safe |
| WHO | Safe |
| EFSA | Safe |
| FSANZ | Safe |
| Japan | Safe |
| UK FSA | Safe |
An official EFSA assessment for E955
An official scientific opinion covering E955 exists. A missing research link or rating in our database does not mean this additive has never been assessed. This reference identifies the document; it does not replace a review of its findings, later research or current food-use rules.
EFSA: Re-evaluation of sucralose (E955) and evaluation of a new application for extension of use in fine bakery wares
- Published
- Codes covered by this reference
- E955
- Source type
- EFSA scientific opinion, not an individual human trial
The title covers both existing uses and a proposed extension. These are separate questions; an assessment is not blanket permission for every use.
EatMatrix checked this reference’s identity and code coverage on . The full evidence review, an exhaustive check for subsequent publications and corrections, and market-specific permissions remain pending. This does not change the recorded EatMatrix rating above.
Database updated: . What does an E number mean on a food label?
Common questions
Frequently asked questions
What is EatMatrix's recorded rating for E955?
The recorded EatMatrix rating for E955 (Sucralose) is “Safe”. It is calculated from labels stored in our ingredient database. These labels are not verified current regulator decisions or country permissions. A database update date is not a scientific review date.
Is E955 vegan, halal or gluten-free?
According to our ingredient data for Sucralose — vegan: yes, vegetarian: yes, halal: yes, kosher: yes, gluten-free: yes, dairy-free: yes. Manufacturing sources can vary between products; check the label if it matters to you.
What is E955 and why is it used?
Sucralose is a zero-calorie artificial sweetener made from sugar, about 600 times sweeter than sucrose. It is heat-stable, so it's widely used in baking, beverages, and diet products, and it passes through the body largely unabsorbed. Regulatory bodies including the FDA and EFSA consider it safe within acceptable daily intake limits, though some newer research is examining its effects on gut bacteria and blood sugar response in certain individuals.
Does E955 contain allergens?
No known allergens are recorded for Sucralose.
Read the whole label.
Scan a food label with EatMatrix on iPhone to look up its ingredients in the app.
Ingredient research, by email
Join the list for food additive research updates. Unsubscribe any time.
This page shows information and classifications recorded in our ingredient database. Current scientific and market-specific verification remains pending as described above. It is general information, not medical advice.