Stevia as a sugar alternative

[Phi for All]

I have been using stevia as alternative to artificial sweeteners for a few years now. It was blocked from import to the US until fairly recently, and it's still not in widespread use here.

 

It takes a bit of getting used to. It's level of sweetening doesn't increase the more you use like sugar does (at least to me - if I use more than one packet it has a bad aftertaste to me). I use it mostly in teas and find it gives a longer lasting sweet flavor than sugar and has none of the chemicals that artificial sweeteners rely on.

 

I suspect that early studies that claimed it acted as a mutagen were attempts by the heavily subsidized US sugar industry to associate stevia with artificial sweeteners like cyclamate and saccharin. Has anyone used it and found any adverse health effects?

[John Cuthber]

" has none of the chemicals that artificial sweeteners rely on."

No, it has other chemicals instead. But since they are natural we know that they are all perfectly healthy.

Seriously, why even mention the "artificial vs natural" bit?

If there are adverse effects then that's independent of the origins of the material.

[Genecks]

@ Phi for All

 

How does it taste with some kool-aid? I rate how decent a sugar substitute is based on how a glass of kool-aid tastes with the sugar substitute in it.

 

@ John

What are you saying, John Cuthber?

Are you implying that you believe it has toxic effects?

 

--

 

In general, I haven't tried stevia as of yet. I've been using splenda for a few years, but I'm willing to try something else if it makes a glass of grape kool-aid taste much better and similar to the level of a glass of grape kool-aid with regular sugar.

[Mr Skeptic]

For centuries, the Guaraní tribes of Paraguay, Bolivia and Brazil used stevia, which they called ka'a he'ê ("sweet herb"), as a sweetener in yerba mate and medicinal teas for treating heartburn and other ailments.

 

I may have had some then, but I don't remember it. I think I have heard of this plant before though.

 

Historical use => no patent.

 

In December 2008, the FDA gave a "no objection" approval for GRAS status to Truvia (developed by Cargill and The Coca-Cola Company) and PureVia (developed by PepsiCo and the Whole Earth Sweetener Company, a subsidiary of Merisant), both of which are wholly-derived from the Stevia plant.

 

It is safe now that it is patented.

[Phi for All]

Seriously, why even mention the "artificial vs natural" bit?

If there are adverse effects then that's independent of the origins of the material.

I was quite careful not to use the word "natural" with regard to stevia, and I only used the word "artificial" to denote the synthetic blend of chemicals used in other types of sweeteners. I pointedly didn't want to imply that stevia was better because it was a plant (after all, some plants are poisonous).

 

They are all non-nutritive sweeteners, and while I can appreciate you pointing out the controversial issues I thought I was careful to omit (though I rarely appreciate your signature uber-arrogant style), I just wanted some feedback on how others felt about its impact on their health.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

@ Phi for All

 

How does it taste with some kool-aid? I rate how decent a sugar substitute is based on how a glass of kool-aid tastes with the sugar substitute in it.

Gah, I will never know. I will leave that experiment up to you.

 

As with most sugar substitutes, stevia is actually much sweeter than sucrose, and a small amount goes a long way. I've tried putting more than one packet in my tea to increase the sweetness and found that I got a metallic, unpleasant aftertaste, which is very different from when I double the amount of sugar in a drink.

 

In general, I haven't tried stevia as of yet. I've been using splenda for a few years, but I'm willing to try something else if it makes a glass of grape kool-aid taste much better and similar to the level of a glass of grape kool-aid with regular sugar.

I have some gastric troubles with sucralose, sugar alcohols and aspertame. Perhaps it's because I like to drink tea throughout the day, switching to water in the evening. I may have 4 or 5 10-12 oz cups a day, and I don't have the gastric troubles with stevia. Edited December 10, 2009 by Phi for All
Consecutive posts merged.

[CharonY]

Most research point out that the effects on health of stevia is less pronounced than e.g. use of fructose sweeteners.

[John Cuthber]

OK, so you didn't say it was natural; you just said it wasn't like the artificial ones.

 

I still wonder why you make the distinction.

[Baby Astronaut]

Man, that was one prediction I made spot on.

 

It unfolded a bit at a time, first as I saw the Phi for All mention chemicals in a "negative" sense (all matter in existence is technically a chemical, far as elements are described), then as I saw the first response was by a chemistry expert, and finally the prediction was cemented just by reading the opening of that response.

 

I have been using stevia as alternative to artificial sweeteners for a few years now. It was blocked from import to the US until fairly recently...

Where's you get that info?

 

It takes a bit of getting used to. It's level of sweetening doesn't increase the more you use like sugar does (at least to me - if I use more than one packet it has a bad aftertaste to me).

Yeah, I thought the same. "Yuck" was my first impression. So naturally I hadn't tried it again, but later I realized maybe the aftertaste was because I tasted it straight and a little too much of it.

 

However, this year I planted a stevia in my garden and tried a leaf: once again staight but then it was good, no aftertaste.

 

 

" has none of the chemicals that artificial sweeteners rely on."

No, it has other chemicals instead. But since they are natural we know that they are all perfectly healthy.

Seriously, why even mention the "artificial vs natural" bit?

If there are adverse effects then that's independent of the origins of the material.

I realize that as a chemist you're probably annoyed by news and scare tactics portrayal of chemicals as dangerous. If you work for a company in developing new product, it can make that job extra difficult. Naturally you might respond a bit scoffingly.

 

But if so, you're missing a crucial point.

 

Here's a translation of "chemical" by many people who use it negatively: "a cheaper yet harmful alternative slipped into production by unscrupulous money-grubbers who's idea of business competition is to royally eff us in the A if that's what brings costs down and profits up, and who camoflauge their ill behavior among the good scientist and business leaders who do great things"

 

Agreed, chemical isn't the best word to use. Yet it doesn't make all concerns totally bunk. And what steps have you taken to check if both sides have legitimate and illegitamate concerns as well?

 

I do prefer natural even though I dismiss a great number of claims by advertisers. It's easy to dismiss a lot of such claims, as what's enticing also tends to draw the false adverstisements. But it's easy to support the other parts, as I do my research, and it's easy to see why people readily support natural food and edibles, as we're intimately familiar with putting natural things directly into our bodies -- for millenia no less. Plus it's stuff we can grow and see for ourselves, rather than depend on the word of a business (hidden away from scrutiny) that might only care about how green its pockets are stuffed.

 

But it doesn't mean lab-produced things are inherently worse, it just means there's a (psychologically) legitimate reason to distrust what's behind the curtain more that what's been (also grown) in front of us the entire time....after you factor in the large way some businesses have abused the public's trust.

 

And your concerns are legitimate as well. I support the use of dihydrogen monoxide as a lesson for people to investigate claims they hear and/or read before jumping the gun.

 

Not to mention, it's essential for people to recognize how much chemistry's improved the world.

 

But part of their concerns are legitimate as well.

 

Also if you look below, Phi for All wasn't speaking about chemicals in general. Just the ones specifically relied on by the artificial sweeteners.

 

I use it mostly in teas and find it gives a longer lasting sweet flavor than sugar and has none of the chemicals that artificial sweeteners rely on.

[Phi for All]

OK, so you didn't say it was natural; you just said it wasn't like the artificial ones.

 

I still wonder why you make the distinction.

Perhaps I should have used the word synthetic. Even stevia is, by definition, a non-nutritive *artificial* sweetener. But it isn't a synthetic one that converts to methanol/formaldehyde like aspartame does, or is a suspected carcinogen like cyclamate. Sucralose may be OK, but as a brand name sweetener, Splenda uses a bulking agent that is mostly corn syrup solids, something else I'm trying to avoid.

 

Where's you get that info?

The Wikipedia article I linked to in the OP:

However, health and political controversies have limited stevia's availability in many countries; for example, the United States banned it in the early 1990s unless labeled as a supplement, although in 2008 it became commercially available as a sweetener.

[melanie tan]

I've never tried that one as an alternative for sugar. But I have read lots about it, stevia is a good alternative for sugar it natural sweet herbs is perfect for cooking.

[John Cuthber]

Labeling it "synthetic" doesn't clear things up for me. I still don't understand why the fact that it was synthesised in a plant is materially different from it being synthesised in a factory.

It may be horribly bad; it may be the best thing since sliced bread I don't know. But I do know that you can't pre-judge anything about that from its origins.

Incidentally, plenty of things that are natural convert to methanol, then formaldehyde in the body. My favorite is whiskey though I'm also quite partial to marmalade.

For what it's worth the whiskey isn't a suspect carcinogen; it's a known one. It's not the only food in that category.

This is an indication of the sensitivity of our tests for carcinogenicity, rather than an indication of any real hazard.

It makes sense to educate yourself of the pros and cons, not only of the food you eat, but of other things you do like exercise and smoking. For a lot of people the non nutritive sweetners are a boon.

 

What doesn't make any sense is to discriminate on the basis of something's suposed "natural" origin.

[Mr Skeptic]

I still don't understand why the fact that it was synthesised in a plant is materially different from it being synthesised in a factory.

...

What doesn't make any sense is to discriminate on the basis of something's suposed "natural" origin.

 

Being naturally synthesized by a plant suggests that the chemical has had an evolutionary history. So it could have been part of our environment, or of the environment of our ancestors. Also, we share a common ancestor with the plant and the chemical does not kill the plant. In the absence of proper knowledge about a chemical, its occurring in nature does have significance.

[Baby Astronaut]

Being naturally synthesized by a plant suggests that the chemical has had an evolutionary history.

A good point.

 

Our ancestors likely went through the natural selection dance with the plant or natural substance. Could be that at one point Vitamin __ was deadly to many people, but the survivors not only evolved to ingest it more safely, it's become essential for health (to us, their descendants).

 

What's important to keep in mind is any truly new synthesized formula hasn't withstood the evolutionary trial and error process happening in nature over long stretches of time.

 

I do agree with John Cuthber though it doesn't automatically become a rationale to simply pre-judge anything by its origins. Just be reasonably careful is what I'd like.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Baby Astronaut

[Phi for All]

I still don't understand why the fact that it was synthesised in a plant is materially different from it being synthesised in a factory.

Also suspect is the fact that products containing chemicals synthesized in a lab often do so for reasons that favor the manufacturing, sales and storage process over my health.