Any apple you prefer can be used for applesauce. Firm-ripe apples of any variety can be processed for sauce sans sugar and/or lemon, so you can certainly can it without any additions and then he can stir in Stevia upon opening and you can stir in sugar and lemon. That's probably the most versatile option. Flavors of sugar alternatives often change during processing and with shelf storage and since they don't improve the preservative effect either, I can't see there's an advantage (aside from a bit of convenience) in adding them before the sauce is jarred up. You could also do an apple-cranberry sauce or an apple-cranberry jam. Again, both are acid products, so the level of sweetener is up to you, regardless of the kind you use. An apple-cranberry preserve can be made with your sweetener of choice and Pomona Pectin, which will gel at any level of sweetening. Neither of these present safety concerns of any sort. Green apples of any variety (as in underripe) are more acidic. Ripe green varieties like Granny Smith are still an acidic fruit, so no problem either way. Basically use whatever variety of apple you want, though green underripe apples will gel better in a preserve. Underripe fruit (berries or apples) also have a higher level of natural pectin. Tomatillos are generally more acid than tomatoes and can be used in any compatible ripe tomato recipe, again with no concerns. So check out sauces and salsas. Poor kid. He must be going nuts with all the restrictions. Carol

For those of you who think Splenda is so awesome you may want to know more about it. People may think Johnson & Johnsons Splenda®, made from sucralose, has "come to the rescue" as the newest chemical sugar replacement "made from real sugar." People donÂt want to hear that it may be just as dangerous as aspartame, and this "white knight" of sweeteners is no improvement. So, what exactly is Splenda? Splenda is the trade name for sucralose. Johnson & Johnson bought the rights in 1998 to sell sucralose in the United States as Splenda. Its basic characteristics are: * Its taste is nearly identical to sugar because itÂs made from sugar * Its "trademark" inability to break down in processing or in storage But Splenda is potentially harmful because it contains chlorine, which is a carcinogen. The Splenda marketers insist the chlorine is chemically "bound" so it cannot be "released" in the body during digestion. I question that, and wonder if this artificial chemical can safely pass through the human body. Wait until you discover what chlorine can do to the body. Then, you decide if you want to ingest this chemical. Splenda (sucralose) is created in the lab, using a complex process involving dozens of chemicals you and I can barely pronounce - let alone consume. Basically, the chemists force chlorine into an unnatural chemical bond with a sugar molecule, resulting in a sweeter product, but at a price: a huge amount of artificial chemicals must be added to keep sucralose from digesting in our bodies. These toxic substances prevent (hopefully) the dangerous chlorine molecules from detaching from the sugar molecule inside the digestive system, which would be a carcinogenic hazard. To illustrate the alarming "chemical soup" required to create sucralose, I have listed here the actual process for producing this sweetener. I highlighted the chemicals in bold type for emphasis. According to the Splenda International Patent A23L001-236 and PEP Review #90-1-4 (July 1991), sucralose is synthesized by this five-step process: 1. sucrose is tritylated with trityl chloride in the presence of dimethylformamide and 4-methylmorpholine and the tritylated sucrose is then acetylated with acetic anhydride, 2. the resulting TRISPA (6,1',6'-tri-O-trityl-penta-O-acetylsucrose) is chlorinated with hydrogen chloride in the presence of toluene, 3. the resulting 4-PAS (sucrose 2,3,4,3',4'-pentaacetate) is heated in the presence of methyl isobutyl ketone and acetic acid, 4. the resulting 6-PAS (sucrose 2,3,6,3',4'-pentaacetate) is chlorinated with thionyl chloride in the presence of toluene and benzyltriethylammonium chloride, and 5. the resulting TOSPA (sucralose pentaacetate) is treated with methanol (wood alcohol, a poison) in the presence of sodium methoxide to produce sucralose. The Splenda marketers stress that sucralose is "made from sugar but is derived from this sugar through a process that selectively substitutes three atoms of chlorine for three hydrogen-oxygen groups on the sucrose molecule." While this is true, it is a deceptively simple description, implying that sucralose is just a benign sugar with a touch of chlorine, and thereby, safe for consumption. According to research on the hydrolysis of sugars, just the process of inserting chlorine into the sugar molecule (hydrolysis means breaking it into smaller molecules) ultimately allows these chemicals to penetrate the intestinal wall. So sucralose becomes a "low-calorie" sugar with a complicated process that results in SplendaÂs chemical formula: 1,6-dichloro-1, 6-dideoxy-BETA-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside. This is Splenda. They say it is a perfectly safe sugar molecule. Sucralose is patented as a manmade "chlorinated sucrose sweetener" and it is registered as "chlorinated sucrose." Chlorinated sucrose is not found anywhere in nature, like real sugar (sucrose) that is extracted from sugar cane and sugar beets. Chlorinated sucrose exists because of man. The FDA states in their Final Report on Splenda that sucralose is "produced at an approximate purity of ninety-eight percent." The other two percent does not have to be reported to the FDA, nor listed as added ingredients. So whatÂs in the other two percent? The chemicals used to synthesize sucralose in the five-step process: 1. Acetone 2. Acetic acid 3. Acetyl alcohol 4. Acetic anhydride 5. Ammonium chloride 6. Benzene 7. Chlorinated sulfates 8. Ethyl alcohol 9. Isobutyl ketones 10. Formaldehyde 11. Hydrogen chloride 12. Lithium chloride 13. Methanol 14. Sodium methoxide 15. Sulfuryl chloride 16. Trityl chloride 17. Toluene 18. Thionyl chloride Although manufacturing guidelines specify limits on these veiled substances, there are no assurances these limits have been met since they do not have to be reported. In addition, the FDA does not presently require an Environmental Impact Statement for sucralose, so itÂs open season for the rules, at present. Now you can see why I do not recommend sucralose for pregnancy or for children, especially after reading this list. ItÂs time to admit that there is no free ticket to eating all the sugar-free products you desire without paying the high price of harming your body in the long run. The "technology of foods" (artificial sweeteners and manmade foods) has gone too far, and will not secure eternal health, beauty, slimness, or youth. Laboratory chemicals are not the answer. ____________________________________ This information is based on research from Dr. Janet Starr Hull. For more information on Splenda, see Dr. HullÂs newly released book SplendaÃ: Is It Safe Or Not? at http://www.issplendasafe.com. Posted on November 9, 2005 in Splenda Toxicity : Link To This Entry : Comments (17) Comments

We have discussed Blue Ribbon Preserves before and, in fact, I emailed the author about her instructions for canning curds. I really like her book, but I don't assume all her recipes are safe. I consider the book a valuable resource but I think you have to have a pretty good knowledge-base in food preservation to assess which recipes are OK as is and which should NOT be canned, but could be refrigerated or frozen. I'd recommend you ask about particular recipes from that book before you can them. Several of us have copies and should be able to give a "thumbs-up" or "thumbs-down" on specific recipes. And as mentioned, do forget about the pumpkin butter. It doesn't matter how much sugar it has. You could freeze it, however. Carol

I would agree that teaching classes is not a guarantee of credentials. I did look at Marisa McClellan's blog and what I've seen so far is very solid. She's definitely drawing upon Extension, NCHFP and USDA information in her posts and is totally up-to-date in her canned pumpkin, pumpkin butter and disposing of questionable product information. So on the whole I think she looks pretty good. My only argument is on her list of resources where she includes Pickyourown.org. We have noticed some inaccuracies and questionable (sometimes out-of-date) information. It's about 90% good but the other 10% can bite you. I am going to take another look at her book when it comes out and have bookmarked her blog. I am a huge fan of Ellie Topp and really promoted her on this forum. Canadians have regarded her as a foundational source far longer than we in the U.S. have. AFAIK, Ellie Topp only has one canning and preserving book out; titles differ depending upon edition and publication date. Some of her recipes don't suit my taste, but I've gotten a lot of wonderful ones from her too. The nice thing is you can try something out in a small batch without wasting a lot of product. Carol