Joystiq has you covered with all things Metal Gear Solid 4!

AOL Money & Finance

Features

Subscribe
Subscribe to feed
Add to My AOL
Sub with Bloglines

In The News

BloggingStocks bloggers (30 days)

#BloggerPostsCmts
1Douglas McIntyre1680
2Joseph Lazzaro1330
3Paul Foster970
4Tom Taulli830
5Eric Buscemi770
6Brent Archer650
7Zac Bissonnette620
8Melly Alazraki621
9Steven Mallas570
10Brian White501
11Steven Halpern490
12Larry Schutts460
13Richard Driver380
14Trey Thoelcke330
15Peter Cohan320
16Jon Ogg290
17Sheldon Liber290
18Jim Cramer230
19Laurie Pasternack230
20Jonathan Berr200
Powered by Blogsmith

Battle of the Brands: Sweet'N Low vs. Splenda

This post is part of our Battle of the Brands feature. Let us know which brand you prefer, and check out other Battle of the Brands posts.

Among the phrases that mystify me is "Too sweet" -- I was born with 28 sweet teeth. The sweetener holder in most restaurants today holds at least two different ersatz sugars; Sweet'N Low and Splenda. Which is better?

Sweet'N Low has the history. It first came on the market back in 1957 when the key ingredient, saccharin was packaged in the same single-serving sleeves used for sugar. It is still owned by the originators, privately held Cumberland Packing Group. Although the intensely sweet saccharin had been around since the start of the century, it took Sweet'N Low marketing and an increasing focus on the nation's waistline to popularize it.

The product's primary advantage is cost; a packet sells for slightly over a penny a serving. Downsides include bitterness that some users distinguish, and the inability to use it in baking and cooking, as it breaks down under heat.

Splenda, owned by a division of Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) is the brand name of another sweetener, sucralose, invented in the UK in 1976. It has become popular both for its flavor, which many deem more sugarlike, and its ability to withstand the heat of baking and cooking. Splenda is found not only in single-pack portions, but in a wide variety of prepared foods.

On the downside, Splenda is more than twice as expensive per serving, and some health concerns still remain, primarily about its effect on the thymus.

My take? Although Splenda is more expensive, it is still a reasonably priced alternative to sugar, and to my tongue a much closer flavor. In this battle, I find Splenda just splendid.

Vote in our poll for Splenda or Sweet'N Low as your preferred brand, and let us know in the comments why you love it.

Recent Posts

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

| 1 | 2 |

Add your comments

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.

When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.

To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.

New Users

Current Users

Symbol Lookup
IndexesChangePrice
DJIA+73.0311,288.54
NASDAQ-6.082,245.38
S&P 500+1.381,262.90

Last updated: July 03, 2008: 07:49 PM

Hot Stocks

%st.n% %st.p% %st.c% (%st.pc%%)

Competitors

Sponsored Links

BloggingStocks Partners

More from AOL Money & Finance

Weblogs, Inc. Network

Other Weblogs Inc. Network blogs you might be interested in: