A client was asking about Splenda recently and I pulled a bit from my soon-to-be-released book "Sally Oh's Weight Loss and Health Detective Handbook" (April 2016).
The bottom line for me is that there's enough controversy about Splenda that I wouldn't eat it if I were starving. Which is fine because it has no nutritional value. Better to eat dirt.
And with such good natural alternatives available -- raw honey (local is best but if you can't get that, we buy this), Stevia (you can grow your own) and Xylitol (made from birch tree bark so really hard to grow :)) -- why would you go artificial?
Here's some info if ya'll are interested:
Janet Hull wrote the book: http://www.janethull.com/newsletter/0209/weird_science_how_splenda_was_discovered.php
One of my favorite foodie blogs: http://www.foodrenegade.com/the-dangers-of-splenda/
Huff Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/aspartame-health-risks_b_668692.html
WIKI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucralose -- Bear in mind that the "safety studies" were conducted by the companies manufacturing the product for sale.
A last "pet peeve": the Splenda package above states that it's "made from sugar so tastes like sugar." The number one food problem in the world today is that we are eating for taste rather than nutrition.
You can have both, no question! Just know which one you are relying on first.