[Rob van dam]

Hi,
I was wondering if anyone has used stevia within there household as a replacment for sugar.I am interested in intoducing it into my household with a diabetic because i have been told it does not raise glucose levels and is good for the cholosterol.Can anyone share any feedback as i have heard both positives and negatives in regards to it and have even heard the word "cancer" which is scaring me off a little bit.

[Mastrap]

http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_19.htm


In recent years, a sweetening product called stevia (stevioside or steviol) has received much public attention. It is 250 to 300 times sweeter than sugar. To date, the FDA has not approved it for use as a sweetener in the United States, but stevia may be sold as a dietary supplement. Researchers have found that the main chemical in stevia can be converted in the laboratory to a compound that causes changes in genes. More study is needed to learn whether the same changes, which might lead to cancer, could occur in people.

Additional Information

For more information on artificial sweeteners, contact the FDA. The FDA, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, regulates food, drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, biologics, and radiation-emitting products. The FDA can be contacted at:

Address:

5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857
Telephone:

1–888–INFO–FDA (1–888–463–6332)
Internet Web site:

http://www.fda.gov/

[Rob van dam]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_19.htm


In recent years, a sweetening product called stevia (stevioside or steviol) has received much public attention. It is 250 to 300 times sweeter than sugar. To date, the FDA has not approved it for use as a sweetener in the United States, but stevia may be sold as a dietary supplement. Researchers have found that the main chemical in stevia can be converted in the laboratory to a compound that causes changes in genes. More study is needed to learn whether the same changes, which might lead to cancer, could occur in people.

Additional Information

For more information on artificial sweeteners, contact the FDA. The FDA, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, regulates food, drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, biologics, and radiation-emitting products. The FDA can be contacted at:

Address:

5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857
Telephone:

1–888–INFO–FDA (1–888–463–6332)
Internet Web site:

http://www.fda.gov/

is houldve meantioned i actually came across the same article.It seems everything causes cancer stevia,aspartame(the stuff in equal) what a world we live in.

[mchladek]

If you're going to be using it in coffee, tea, or other drinks, I wouldn't recommend it. It has a very odd aftertaste, kinda bitter and grainy. If you use it for baking, it may be better. I've never tried it in baked goods. Good luck!

[Rob van dam]

Originally Posted by mchladek

If you're going to be using it in coffee, tea, or other drinks, I wouldn't recommend it. It has a very odd aftertaste, kinda bitter and grainy. If you use it for baking, it may be better. I've never tried it in baked goods. Good luck!

thanks for the feedback.It was just for tea cofee etc.Im to lazy to bake

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Rob van dam

is houldve meantioned i actually came across the same article.It seems everything causes cancer stevia,aspartame(the stuff in equal) what a world we live in.

Aspartame DOES NOT cause cancer. It is a sequence of two amino acids (the building blocks of protein), and if you go to the Snopes.com page on aspartame you will see that it's just an urban legend.

Do you have Splenda (sucralose) in Australia? It's made from sugar and tastes just like it, and can be substituted 1:1 for sugar in recipes, etc. (I think it's the chemical "mirror image" of sugar, which the body is unable to "deal with" and use for nutrients-- hence no calories).

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Person Man

Aspartame DOES NOT cause cancer. It is a sequence of two amino acids (the building blocks of protein), and if you go to the Snopes.com page on aspartame you will see that it's just an urban legend.

Everything causes cancer! The Experts™ say so!

There was actually a study published three or four years ago (in Sweden or Norway, I think? Perhaps?) that claimed that water, pure H2O could act as a carcinogen. I remember the ridicule it received, from both media and other Experts™.

I'm still anxiously awaiting the study that tells us that breathing causes cancer and should be avoided at all costs.

[Rob van dam]

well health specialists piss me off anything we do seems to cause cancer today

here are some links on the asparatame issue.I guess i will just stick to standard sugar.

http://www.befreetech.com/aspartame.htm

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/damage.txt

http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/aspartame.html

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Person Man

Do you have Splenda (sucralose) in Australia? It's made from sugar and tastes just like it, and can be substituted 1:1 for sugar in recipes, etc. (I think it's the chemical "mirror image" of sugar, which the body is unable to "deal with" and use for nutrients-- hence no calories).

Sucralose is NOT invert sugar (which is simply sucrose treated with an acid, such as citric acid from lemon juice, causing it to break it down into its fructose and glucose components). It's a substantially-processed artificial sugar, replacing hydroxyl groups with chlorine.

I certainly can taste Splenda -- it tastes bitter and awful to me, just like saccharine. Splenda is not pure sucralose: it's a mix of sucralose, dextrose [glucose], and maltodextrin. Since I have no way to taste sucralose or maltodextrin in isolation, I can't say which of them are responsible for the ghastly aftertaste; glucose does not have an aftertaste.

tooki

[AKcrab]

Can anyone else taste red food coloring? LIke red M&M's?

[wdlove]

No, I haven't. Don't even add sugar to food anyway.

[memento]

As was mentioned, Stevei is not approved by the FDA. While that in itself is not always of concern to me, what is of concern is that they applied with the FDA, were evaluated by the FDA, then DENIED. ouch. no thanks.

Tooki has splenda pinned. Not much more I can add. It is made from sugar in that they start with sugar, but it certainely does not taste just like sugar.

The only serious sugar substitute I have found is called whey-low. It's a sugar blend that supposedly does not readily digest. Nothing chemically altered. I just got some for myself and it does taste just like sugar. We will be doing some blood-sugar diabetic testing on it very soon.

Other than that I use fructose. Not perfect, but (IMHO) still better than any of the artificial sweeteners.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Rob van dam

well health specialists piss me off anything we do seems to cause cancer today

here are some links on the asparatame issue.I guess i will just stick to standard sugar.

http://www.befreetech.com/aspartame.htm

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/damage.txt

http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/aspartame.html

These are ALL WRONG!

Repeat after me: "Any a**hole with an opinion can get a website-- even a well-designed one."

I stake my reputation as a physician on this one.

Snopes.com page about Aspartame

[DeathToWindows]

I've tried Stevia a few years ago. Doesn't even taste sweet to me... maybe its a taster/non-taster issue.

Splenda is OK in drinks... I rather like it in tea.
Sugar/sweetner in coffee is just wrong (IMHO). I want my espresso black as pitch and hot as hell.

[residentEvil]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

Can anyone else taste red food coloring? LIke red M&M's?

Not only can I tell what color M&M i'm eating (from a normal standard bag), but I can also tell the difference between the dyes used in making colored frosting for cookies/cakes. On more than on occasion I've done blind taste tests...got them right every time.

[greenamp]

I use stevia for sweetening my coffee and cereal. It does have a different taste at first, but you do eventually get used to it. In fact I am so used to it that artificial sweeteners taste awful now.

Oh and btw, don't believe the hype about splenda. It is by far the most unhealthy of all the artificial sweeteners. Technically it is made from sugar, much in the same way that urine is made from water.

Do a google search for "splenda" and read up.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by greenamp

Do a google search for "splenda" and read up.

Again, FUD from the junk science crowd.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by Person Man

Again, FUD from the junk science crowd.

You're totally right. Eat more chlorine, it's harmless.

No way a major food and drug company would ever sell anything to the public that proved to be unhealthy, never! If the FDA approves it, it must be good!

[Rob van dam]

Originally Posted by greenamp

No way a major food and drug company would ever sell anything to the public that proved to be unhealthy, never! If the FDA approves it, it must be good!

That's funny i havent heard this statement in a while

[tooki]

Originally Posted by greenamp

You're totally right. Eat more chlorine, it's harmless.

This is a perfect example of a little knowledge being worse than none at all.

Premise on which you are operating: OMG chlorine is a toxic gas!!

I can think of some compounds that contain chlorine.

One is plain old salt -- sodium chloride. (Note that the other element in salt, sodium, is highly reactive -- air and water both cause it to react violently, so it must be stored in oil.) Other salts, like potassium chloride and calcium chloride, are also chlorine compounds. Salts are absolutely essential to human life -- salt is so essential, it's the only compound that has dedicated taste buds for it.

In other words, one of the weird things about chemistry is that elements can combine to create compounds that have no characteristics in common with their component elements.

Think of hydrogen gas. It's highly flammable. It's also one of the building blocks of all the sugars without which we could not live.

So yeah, Splenda may be artificial, but the whole chlorine thing really is FUD.

tooki

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by tooki

So yeah, Splenda may be artificial, but the whole chlorine thing really is FUD.

tooki

Just like the Aspartame (NutraSweet) claims.

Fact is, ever since saccharine was shown to increase the risk of cancer in lab rats, EVERY single artificial sweetener has come under fire by people looking to promote their own agendas.

I don't expect it to change, but I do my best to educate my own patients about the FACTS.

[tooki]

Well, the thing is, clearly these artificial sweeteners do cause problems, at least in some people.

I, for example, can't stand saccharine because of the bitter flavor, and aspartame makes my stomach hurt. Splenda also tastes foul to me -- just the same as saccharine.

So if someone says it's completely harmless, or with zero side effects, I have to say it's BS, because I experience effects myself. But I also am very loathe to believe many carcinogenicity tests -- you can prove that pretty much any compound is carcinogenic (or otherwise harmful) if you feed a rat 1000x the normal dose, for months or years at a time.

Perfect example: read www.dhmo.org. You can make anything sound ominous if you word it correctly and distort usage.

tooki

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by tooki

Well, the thing is, clearly these artificial sweeteners do cause problems, at least in some people.

Yes, they do cause problems, in some people.

But not what the FUD-mongers would have you believe.

[Kitschy]

I use Jaja Stevioside. It is one of the purest forms of stevia. The aftertaste comes from the stuff that's added. Jaja stevioside is over 95% pure stevia concentrate. Other brands I've tried are commonly between 80% and 90% stevia and have quite an aftertaste.

http://www.emperorsherbologist.com/s...stevioside.php

I really like it.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by tooki

This is a perfect example of a little knowledge being worse than none at all.

Premise on which you are operating: OMG chlorine is a toxic gas!!

I can think of some compounds that contain chlorine.

One is plain old salt -- sodium chloride. (Note that the other element in salt, sodium, is highly reactive -- air and water both cause it to react violently, so it must be stored in oil.) Other salts, like potassium chloride and calcium chloride, are also chlorine compounds. Salts are absolutely essential to human life -- salt is so essential, it's the only compound that has dedicated taste buds for it.

In other words, one of the weird things about chemistry is that elements can combine to create compounds that have no characteristics in common with their component elements.

Think of hydrogen gas. It's highly flammable. It's also one of the building blocks of all the sugars without which we could not live.

So yeah, Splenda may be artificial, but the whole chlorine thing really is FUD.

tooki

Sucralose is a a chlorocarbon. Sodium chloride is not a chlorocarbon. Sodium chloride is nothing like sucralose. Sucralose is actually closer in molecular structure to chloroform, DDT, and methylene than it is to salt.

Sucralose being a chlorocarbon, it is almost 100% incompatible with the human metabolic process. Almost all of the chlorine contained in the sucralose molecule is absorbed into the body rather than used or expelled.

You call it FUD, I call it common sense.

[tooki]

That's just not how chemistry works! One atom in a molecule, or the arrangement of the atoms in the molecule, can radically alter the effects of the compound. Think about Thalidomide: it has two forms of the molecule, mirror images of each other, and one had the antinausea effect, while the other had the awful teratogenic effect. And that's with no atoms different.

Comparing a molecule to "similar" molecules has only very limited usefulness. O2 gas is what we need in our air to breathe. O3 (ozone) is toxic. O2 is necessary, CO2 suffocates us. Get the idea?

As for the body "absorbing" the chlorine... that's not what metabolism does! We don't strip off individual atoms, we absorb compounds and pass the rest. What we absorb gets either passed out in urine or metabolized. Supposedly only 15-30% of sucralose is even absorbed. I haven't been able to find anything describing how much of it is passed in urine directly or what the rest metabolizes to.

Regardless, my point is that the anti-sucralose FUD-spreading is based on junk science and total non-understanding of chemistry. Am I personally convinced that sucralose is safe? No! I don't think it's been adequately tested. But I also refuse to listen to junk science.

tooki

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by tooki

That's just not how chemistry works! One atom in a molecule, or the arrangement of the atoms in the molecule, can radically alter the effects of the compound. Think about Thalidomide: it has two forms of the molecule, mirror images of each other, and one had the antinausea effect, while the other had the awful teratogenic effect. And that's with no atoms different.

Comparing a molecule to "similar" molecules has only very limited usefulness. O2 gas is what we need in our air to breathe. O3 (ozone) is toxic. O2 is necessary, CO2 suffocates us. Get the idea?

As for the body "absorbing" the chlorine... that's not what metabolism does! We don't strip off individual atoms, we absorb compounds and pass the rest. What we absorb gets either passed out in urine or metabolized. Supposedly only 15-30% of sucralose is even absorbed. I haven't been able to find anything describing how much of it is passed in urine directly or what the rest metabolizes to.

Regardless, my point is that the anti-sucralose FUD-spreading is based on junk science and total non-understanding of chemistry. Am I personally convinced that sucralose is safe? No! I don't think it's been adequately tested. But I also refuse to listen to junk science.

tooki

I understand the differences in molecular compounds.

I compared sucralose to those other poisonous chemicals to counter your comparison of the substance to sodium chloride. For the sake of comparison sucralose is much closer in structure to DDT, chloroform, and mehtlyne than it is to table salt. The "sucralose is just like table salt" idea is corporate propaganda.


Sucralose does in fact deliver pure chlorine atoms to your cells b/c of the way we metabolize molecules containing carbon. This is exactly why many have reservations about the long term safeties of sucralose, and is why I said it is incompatible with our metabolic process, b/c normally chlorine would not be absorbed like it is when it is attached to carbon.

Sure, there is plenty of FUD and junk science surrounding the product, but there are also many credible sources providing valid explanations as to the potential long term toxicity of sucralose.

[tooki]

I've never seen the makers of sucralose claim it's like salt. Nor did I say that. I didn't "compare" sucralose to salt. I simply used salt to illustrate that the presence of chlorine atoms in a molecule does not automatically make it toxic.

On the other hand, making claims of "long term potential toxicity" on the basis of being "much closer in structure to DDT", etc., is junk science, because a single atom (or even the same atoms arranged differently, as I gave an example of) can make a 100% different effect in toxicity and other effects.

I must emphasize, as I have done repeatedly in the thread, that I am not convinced of sucralose's safety. I merely refuse to subscribe to sensationalist propaganda.

tooki

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by tooki

I've never seen the makers of sucralose claim it's like salt. Nor did I say that. I didn't "compare" sucralose to salt. I simply used salt to illustrate that the presence of chlorine atoms in a molecule does not automatically make it toxic.

I never insinuated that the pressence of chlorine made it toxic in itself. I said the pressence of chlorine, combined with the way sucralose is made by stripping a sugar molecule of all but it's carbon atom, and attaching chlorine atoms in it stead, makes it a chlorocarbon (bad).
Our body basically tries to instantly metabolize anything containing carbon. Therefore, the chlorine atoms in the sucralose molecule are most likely not entirely passed as the maker of sucralose claims.
When the makers of sucralose were confronted with the question of it's safety based on the large quantities of chlorine in it's molecule and how our bodies react to molecules containing carbon, they responded by comparing the sweetener to table salt and other harmless foods containing chlorine atoms, which I think we've both established by now is trash logic.
It should be quite clear by now that I'm fully aware that different molecules can contain similar atoms and be vastly different. I've said that 3 times now.

On the other hand, making claims of "long term potential toxicity" on the basis of being "much closer in structure to DDT", etc., is junk science, because a single atom (or even the same atoms arranged differently, as I gave an example of) can make a 100% different effect in toxicity and other effects.

Wow, way to take my quotes out of context. I used "long term potential toxicity" and "much closer in structure to DDT" in two entirely different paragraphs with different points.
Fair enough, but I've explained to you that a) sucralose is a chlorocarbon , and that b) the fact that it is a chlorocarbon makes it potentially dangerous. I have also explained to you briefly why ingesting chlorocarbons is not safe, and I have explained why ingesting this particular chlorocarbon, sucralose, is not safe.
[/quote]

I must emphasize, as I have done repeatedly in the thread, that I am not convinced of sucralose's safety. I merely refuse to subscribe to sensationalist propaganda.

tooki

Since you're not convinced of sucralose's saftey, then I'm sure you will concede that not all of the concerns over the health risks of ingesting sucralose is sensationalist propaganda.
On the same note, I'm sure you do not regularly make a practice of eating things you're not sure are safe.
Why make an exception with sucralose?

[tooki]

Originally Posted by greenamp

I never insinuated that the pressence of chlorine made it toxic in itself.

No? You said sarcastically:

Eat more chlorine, it's harmless.

Of all the sites espousing the dangers of Splenda, few mention chlorocarbons, most just mention chlorine, unqualified. There is, in the Splenda FUD sites, a clear insinuation that chlorine is bad. Most people don't know chemistry, and don't understand that just because the elemental form of an element is harmful does not mean that molecules containing atoms of that element are also harmful.

Our body basically tries to instantly metabolize anything containing carbon. Therefore, the chlorine atoms in the sucralose molecule are most likely not entirely passed as the maker of sucralose claims.
When the makers of sucralose were confronted with the question of it's safety based on the large quantities of chlorine in it's molecule and how our bodies react to molecules containing carbon, they responded by comparing the sweetener to table salt and other harmless foods containing chlorine atoms, which I think we've both established by now is trash logic.

Our bodies don't instantly metabolize "anything" containing carbon. We don't digest activated charcoal, and that's largely elemental carbon.

I've not seen that supposed response. But I have seen the manufacturer's website, which says:

Q: SPLENDA® Brand Sweetener contains chlorine. Is that safe?
A: Yes, this is why every regulatory agency, that has considered sucralose has approved it for use as a food ingredient.

Chlorine is used to modify the structure of the sugar molecule and produce sucralose and is really how we intensify the sweetness of sugar. There is no cause for concern about the safety of sucralose due to the presence of chlorine. The addition of chlorine atoms converts sucrose to sucralose, which is inert. The chlorine in sucralose does not separate in the body, nor does sucralose accumulate in the body. In fact, it is the presence of these chlorine atoms that prevents sucralose from being broken down in the body for energy, thus making sucralose non-caloric.

Q: What other foods contain chlorine?
A: A number of foods contain quite complex naturally occurring molecules that contain chlorine. Chlorine is also an element naturally present in many of the foods and beverages that we eat and drink every day. It is added to most public water supplies and is found in foods such as lettuce, tomatoes, mushrooms, melons, peanut butter, and table salt.

Q: Is chlorine released in the body?
A: No. The chlorine in sucralose does not separate in the body, nor does sucralose accumulate in the body. In fact, it is the presence of these chlorine atoms that prevent sucralose from being broken down in the body for energy, thus making sucralose non-caloric.

The fact is, the presence of chlorine atoms does not necessarily make something harmful. That the presence of chlorine automatically makes it toxic is the premise of the anti-sucralose FUD, and it's patently false. Do the salt and vegetable examples prove that all chlorinated compounds are safe? Certainly not. Nor does anyone claim that they do. On the other hand, it does prove that being chlorinated does not necessarily make something toxic, which is precisely what the FUD sites want you to believe.

It should be quite clear by now that I'm fully aware that different molecules can contain similar atoms and be vastly different. I've said that 3 times now.

So you've said.

Wow, way to take my quotes out of context. I used "long term potential toxicity" and "much closer in structure to DDT" in two entirely different paragraphs with different points.
Fair enough, but I've explained to you that a) sucralose is a chlorocarbon , and that b) the fact that it is a chlorocarbon makes it potentially dangerous. I have also explained to you briefly why ingesting chlorocarbons is not safe, and I have explained why ingesting this particular chlorocarbon, sucralose, is not safe.

I've not been able to find anything substantiating your explanations. (I looked.) What I did find was that the definition of a chlorocarbon is a compound consisting only of chlorine, carbon, and hydrogen, or of chlorine and carbon only. Sucralose contains many oxygen atoms, so by definition it cannot be a chlorocarbon. (Nor can it "contain" a chlorocarbon, as a few FUD sites claim, though I suppose you could say it contains several chlorocarbon groups.)

Since you're not convinced of sucralose's saftey, then I'm sure you will concede that not all of the concerns over the health risks of ingesting sucralose is sensationalist propaganda.
On the same note, I'm sure you do not regularly make a practice of eating things you're not sure are safe.
Why make an exception with sucralose?

Sensationalist propaganda of junk science risks is not the same thing as showing due caution. When someone with an agenda posts junk science, they discredit themselves entirely. The only part that is sensible is the fact that sucralose's safety has not been proven adequately. It's the explanations, all relying on junk science, that are all nonsense.

You're right: I try and avoid artificial and unhealthy things. Where you got the idea that I make an exception for sucralose I don't know: I avoid it.

I am not a proponent of sucralose; I am simply an opponent of junk science and sensationalist FUD.

tooki