EFSA says current sucralose uses remain safe, but high-heat bakery extension is unconfirmed

On 17 February 2026, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said sucralose, the sweetener known as E 955, remains safe for its currently authorised uses. At the same time, EFSA said it could not confirm the safety of proposed additional uses in fine bakery wares, where some industrial processes may involve prolonged high temperatures.

The distinction matters in an everyday kitchen. The announcement is not a blanket warning that all sucralose-containing food is unsafe, and it is not a new approval for home baking. It is an assessment with two separate conclusions: current authorised uses remain within the evidence EFSA reviewed, while the proposed extension could not be confirmed on the same basis.

What EFSA confirmed

EFSA’s experts confirmed an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 15 milligrams of sucralose per kilogram of body weight per day. The authority said current consumer exposure remains below that level. An ADI is a health-based exposure value used in the safety assessment; it is not a recipe instruction and does not tell a cook how much sweetener to add to a particular dish.

E 955 is authorised in a range of reduced-sugar and sugar-free foods and beverages. EFSA’s review also covers uses in fine bakery wares that were already authorised, including wafer paper, cones and wafers for ice cream. Those conclusions concern the uses and exposure patterns assessed by the authority. They should not be stretched into a claim that every possible heating process has been cleared.

Why the proposed bakery extension is different

EFSA also assessed a request to use sucralose in more fine bakery wares. The authority said a recent study found that, when E 955 is exposed to high temperatures for long periods, chlorine can migrate from sucralose and potentially form chlorinated compounds whose health effects are unknown.

That finding did not lead EFSA to say that all current uses are unsafe. Instead, it prevented the authority from reaching the same safety conclusion for the new proposed uses. EFSA noted that those uses may involve several industrial processes requiring prolonged high temperatures, which creates a different exposure question from the currently authorised uses.

Laurence Castle, chair of EFSA’s Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings, said the panel confirmed the safety of current uses but could not reach the same conclusion for the proposed extension. The wording is important: could not confirm is not the same as a finding that every product containing sucralose is hazardous.

What home bakers should take from the update

EFSA specifically cautioned that home kitchens are variable. Temperature, cooking time and the amount of sweetener used can differ widely. For that reason, the formation of chlorinated compounds during the preparation of homemade products requiring high heat, such as frying and baking with sucralose, cannot be excluded.

That is a limit on what the assessment can establish, not a precise home-cooking threshold. EFSA did not publish a new temperature, time or quantity that would make a sucralose recipe safe. Cooks should therefore avoid inventing one from the announcement.

A sensible reading routine is:

Identify the ingredient. Check the ingredient list for sucralose or E 955 rather than relying on a product’s front-of-pack description.
Separate authorised use from proposed use. EFSA’s conclusion applies to the uses it currently considers authorised and safe; it does not confirm every future or extended use in fine bakery wares.
Follow the product directions. Use the label and preparation instructions for the specific food in front of you. Do not assume that a recipe written for sugar, another sweetener or a different product transfers unchanged to sucralose without checking the instructions.
Do not treat the ADI as a baking formula. The 15 mg/kg body-weight figure describes exposure assessment, not a universal spoon measure for a cake, biscuit or fried food.
Recheck official guidance when the product or use changes. The question is not only whether sucralose is present, but how the food is authorised and how it is intended to be prepared.

These steps are deliberately cautious. They do not diagnose a health risk, estimate a person’s exposure or replace advice for a specific medical condition. They keep the practical decision tied to the information EFSA actually published.

What the announcement does not say

EFSA’s update does not announce a recall, a new consumer ban or a finding that sucralose must be removed from all foods. It also does not provide evidence that one brand, recipe or appliance performs better than another. The authority’s conclusion is narrower: current authorised uses remain safe within the assessment, while it could not confirm the safety of additional fine-bakery uses involving potentially prolonged high-temperature processing.

That nuance is especially important for headlines and social posts. Safe and unsafe are not the only possible outcomes in a scientific assessment. Here, EFSA kept its existing conclusion for authorised uses and declined to extend it where the available evidence and the proposed processing conditions did not support the same level of confidence.

Why this matters in the kitchen now

Sucralose is often discussed as a simple sugar substitute, but EFSA’s announcement shows why the use matters as much as the ingredient name. A sweetener in a drink, a sweetener in an already authorised food category and a sweetener used in a new high-heat bakery process are not automatically the same assessment question.

For cooks, the useful action is modest: read the label, follow the product’s instructions and avoid turning EFSA’s ADI or its high-temperature caveat into a home-made rule that the authority did not publish. The February 2026 announcement supports confidence in current authorised uses while leaving the proposed extension under a clear scientific question mark.