The road to a better artificial sweetener has been a long, and somewhat convoluted story in chemical research.  The first were the cyclamates, banned because of carcinogenicity.  Saccharin followed, but has a bitter aftertaste to some, and was later found to also be carcingenic.  So, the chemistry world began looking at some molecules with better biocompatibility.   The answer was aspartame, which just the backwards version of a normal amino acid, phenylalanine.  However, some people cannot digest phenylalanine, and it causes allergic reactions in these people, even fatal reactions.  Finally, someone came up with the idea of trying to make derivatives of sucrose, common table sugar.  And so, Sucralose was born.  Sucralose is made by chlorinating ordinary sugar:

So we finally have something to tickle you taste buds, without messing up the rest of you. 

Enter marketing:  the big push becomes the fact that sucralose is made from sugar (which is why it tastes like sugar--it activates the same receptors in you mouth as sugar does).

Enter the lawyers:  now the Sugar industry is suing the makers of Sucralose claiming false advertising.  Their claim that since Sucralose advertises it is from sugar, it implys that sucralose is natural.  

So, here is what you can think of:

(1)   It is a fact that sucralose is derived from sucrose, ordinary table sugar.  Does this make it "natural"  or does it imply that it is "natural"

(2)   Why is the sugar industry upset by the sale of sucralose?  After all the more sucralose that sells, the more sucrose is needed for its production?

(3)   The overuse of raw sucrose has been implicated in diabetes and other digestive disorders.  Could sucralose actually be better for you since it is indigestible?