Sucralose and why Natural is Important

First of all, is "sucralose" just a made-up word? I know scientific words are technically made up whether for natural things or synthetic.

Sucralose as it is branded and sold as a 0-calorie sweetener is NOT really a sugar (despite the sugar-sounding name ending in -ose).

Instead it's a chlorocarbon. Three OH ions in the sugar molecule are replaced with three Cl¯ ions. The resulting chlorocarbon is in the same family as carbon tetrachloride (carbon tet used to be used in dry cleaning but wasn't safe) and DDT. The current PERC (perchloroethylene) C2Cl4 would also be a chlorocarbon. This family of chemicals are known to be carcinogens.

I don't know which is worse, aspartame or sucralose.

There is a sweetener from a plant called stevia. The sweetener comes from the leaves and is processed similar to making tea with leaves.

I don't know the extraction process. I'm hoping it is nothing like the high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) process which reused fungi until they stop "processing." HFCS starts as mostly glucose and is concentrated into fructose. I wonder if this causes much more incidence of diabetes than sucralose ("table sugar").

Even natural things in excess can be bad, but when you start messing with nature, you just have to wait and see what happens, and disturbance is usually not karmically so good.