[Kerrmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell in Texas

Hey Kerrmudgeon!
That's why I use Splenda....because it's not an aspartame sweetener. I don't like the aftertaste that aspartame products leave.

Just checked under side effects of Spenda, of which one is below. Another is that the filler used to equal a measure equal to sugar is maltodexrin, which has a higher glycemic index than straight sugar, very bad for diabetics.
I think in the end we just have to get rid of our sweet tooth altogether....K

Splenda is different from other sweeteners in that it claims to be ‘made from sugar,’ and ‘natural,’ because Splenda is the trade name for sucralose. Sucralose is a synthetic compound, which — without going into too much scientific detail –is basically sugar modified by adding chlorine atoms. Sucralose, incidentally, was discovered in the 1970s by researchers looking to create a new pesticide. Chlorine is added to many products – drinking water, for example – and does not necessarily render the product dangerous. On the other hand, you are ingesting chlorine, which is not advised in large amounts.

The reason Splenda produces no calories, is that the majority passes through the body without being digested. Most studies show that only around 15% of Splenda is actually digested. The worrisome fact for some researchers is that people with healthier GI systems, will absorb more of the Splenda, and thus more of the dangerous chlorine.

The results of the tests done by Splenda’s manufacturers, McNeil Nutritionals, are also quite worrisome. Their studies revealed that test rodents suffered from dangerous side effects such as shrunken thymus glands, and enlarged livers and kidneys … and there were only short term studies. No long term studies were performed before Splenda was approved by the FDA. One could say that the long-term study is being conducted in households and supermarkets across America, with consumers as the test rodents.