But… but… it’s a plant! It’s natural!! It can’t be bad for you!!! :dubious:
alternative-health nuts everywhere spontaneously combust
I would join you except for the rapidity with which this sort of misinformation is typically corrected, which is why this board deserves not tears but applause. And fourteen ninety-five in American greenbacks, of course. 
Isn’t Splenda the inverse sugar without the calories but supposedly tastes like real sugar?
If it IS it DOESN’T! At least in my estimation & taste reaction.
One of the best non/low caloric sweetner substitutes was taken off the market in the 70’s or 80’s because tests of feeding MASSIVE amounts to lab rats resulted in death. Our nanny gov’t decided it wasn’t suitable for human consumption. They left saccharin, a known carcinogen, still available for diabetics.
Splenda is the brand name for sucralose. It passes through the body undigested and hence has no nutritional value, no calories, and no side effects. It’s a chemically altered sugar. Unlike Olestra, it does not promote diarrhea or cause vitamin loss.
Saccharin was shown to be a carcinogen in lab rats after they were fed massive amounts. The reason why massive amounts are given to lab animals is that the testers are trying to reproduce what can happen to humans over a period of many years. Since it is not practical to test animals for many years, they use massive amounts as a substitute for time.
Please reread Post #17 again. You are confirming my point regarding saccharin. However feeding test animals massive amounts of salt and many other things would also do them in.
My main point, however, was that another and better tasting product was taken off the market and saccharin was allowed to remain. “What fools these mortals be.” Puck
Cyclamates *did * tast better than sacharine.