On Jun 3, 2:35*pm, "cybercat" > wrote:
> It's good stuff. Anyone read that Spenda is causing any serious problems ....
> yet?

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.