Wikipedia's text about Sucralose [1] starts:
Sucralose is an artificial sweetener and sugar substitute [...]
Is "sweet" not considered a flavor, due to some marketing double-speak?
Regulation on additives includes sweeteners alongside colours, emulsifiers, etc: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32...
Regulation on flavourings excludes sweeteners: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32... (2. This Regulation shall not apply to: (a) substances which have exclusively a sweet, sour or salty taste;)
Wikipedia's entry on Flavor [1] says:
A "flavorant" is defined as a substance that gives another substance flavor, altering the characteristics of the solute, causing it to become sweet, sour, tangy, etc. A flavor is a quality of something that affects the sense of taste.
So they claim that "sweet" is a flavor, which to me makes it obvious that Sucralose, being a sweetener, is acting as flavoring.
Approved artificial flavors: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFR...
Approved artificial sweeteners: https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/additional...