"A rose by any other name, would smell as sw-(don't say it!)"

I trust CSPI, where this info came from. Just cause it's natural doesn't mean it's safe. And the vast conspiracy thing makes everyone a crook to be believed. I talked to the chief pharmacist for Great Earth vitamins about sucralose and he feels it is unquetionably safe. 2 cents a pack at wherehouse stores. Tastes like sugar to me.

Just curious, but is this the same CSPI that is suing KFC and Starbucks?

Mark

Sugar alcohol affects me the same way if I eat too much at one sitting.

I found out the hard way (by eating some Atkins candybars) that anyone with GI problems (IBD, colitus, crohns disease) should AVOID sugar alcohols! I guess it's probably OK if you don't have anything planned for the next day or so.

Mark

The sugar alcohols are immediate problems. But Splenda is cumulative for me. The first few days of having soda or yogurt with Splenda are fine, then the trouble begins. It took a while for me to figure out. Then someone told me you could "tough it out" and your body would get used to it. So I tried Splenda again last spring and ended up with IBS and gastric distress symptoms serious enough for my doctor to send me to a specialist for a gamut of tests.

The good news is, my sister told me about aloe juice and after a few weeks of taking that all my problems were gone, including my normally touchy digestive system issues. It was crazy! I could actually eat onions without suffering. So now whenever I get something with Splenda in it by accident or carelessness, I just make sure I take the aloe.

Three common artificial sweeteners, namely saccharin, aspartame, and acesulfame, are now in the public domain, patents long expired. Big Sugar can do nothing to stop them. How could stevia make things any worse for Big Sugar, especially if it has a problem with aftertaste? This is like the way the dairy business got margarine advertisements banned from saying anything about butter.

Have you forgotten the "cancer" label they had slapped on saccharin for decades that only recently got removed? Or the numerous aspartame lawsuits (I had a friend who was a lawer who did nothing but work on Nutrasweet cases) that resulted in a warning label on their product? Ace-K (Sunette) was usually used in conjunction with other sweeteners and seemed to be a minor player- maybe because of limited physical properties?

There is big sugar/food industry, then there is big chemical industry, like Monsanto (NutraSweet), who are in the sweetener biz. Since Splenda is manufactured from sucrose/fructose it is not a "chemical sweetener" per se. It's a big profit-maker for the sugar/food industry.

Stevia is a problem because it is natural and renewable, and cannot be patented like a man-made sweetener. The lack of access keeps the price high, but if it were approved the price would plummet and it would be very competitive. You can't turn your garden corn into fructose, but you can grow stevia and pluck the leaves for direct use.

As far as the taste, there are a few brands that are already perfected to the point of virtually no aftertase.

I found out the hard way (by eating some Atkins candybars) that anyone with GI problems (IBD, colitus, crohns disease) should AVOID sugar alcohols! I guess it's probably OK if you don't have anything planned for the next day or so.

I had about 10 pieces of Russell Stover. Funny thing was left to go to the pistol range right after I ate them.

Felt a little quesy on the way, and then the rumbling started after I got there.

I was lucky to finish and make my way home before the "problems" started.

I was trying to figure out what was wrong with me later than evening when I remembered the candies. Looked at the ingrediants then looked on the net. Sure enough...

The key is moderation ;-)

Aloe? I'll have to try some of that.

The only warning on any aspartame I have ever seen is "Phenylketonurics: contains phenylalanine." Checking a fairly new box of no-name aspartame sweetener in my kitchen right now, I see that has not changed. Too bad Nutra Sweet got picked on, the other aspartame guys don't care. I've found nothing better for most uncooked recipes. (Not even Splenda, which has an "empty" taste.)

The saccharin warning harks back to a law that if there was any evidence linking the substance to cancer it had to bear such a warning. The dosage fed to the rats required before a higher cancer rate was seen was equivalent to humans drinking a hundred diet sodas daily. Saccharin is great in lemonade.

Acesulfame is commercially used with aspartame to improve the flavor, but I have used it by itself. It will work in aspartame recipes without worrying about minimizing cooking time or losing sweetness.

As for stevia, I'd have to be a hard case before I would bother growing it in a garden to get a non sugar sweetener. It's just too easy to get others.

Actually if you are diabetic you should avoid sugar alcohols as well. It spikes your blood sugar the same as the real stuff does. There are no calories because your body doesn't absorb it (this also causes the laxative effect) but it is close enough to sugar that it causes the same reaction.

"...Do you use any other natural low-glycemic sweeteners? Lo Haun? Agave Nectar? Brown Rice Syrup?..."

I think the problem we are having is similar to the problems in other areas of contention today.

It seems that when anyone puts together a light advocacy piece about something like stevia, it is too easy to assume that claims are being made that stevia is the be-all, and end-all universal answer to human affliction.

As you point out, stevia should be available for those who wish to try it, unless some compelling, scientifically based problem with its use can be demonstrated.

Some folks may find that other sweeteners are less trouble; some may reject an aftertaste (though high grade stevia from Paraguay is normally regarded as a quite pleasant sweetener).

In short, no one advocates stevia (other than those with a vested financial interest more compelling than my single little 18 inch high plant nestled near my leek and green onion plants!), as the only sweetener that should be used.

We operate in a market economy where consumers can compare and decide.

This system breaks down, however, when political might can be flexed to prevent competition from any products.

It is not stevia which is at risk, here. It is the fair play and supposed (and critical) inability to "fix" the marketplace which has elevated capitalism, consumer choice, and competition to a level where Americans enjoy the highest standard of living in the world.

We can lose this if vested interests learn that they can tell you what you are going to eat, what you are allowed to say silently with your hands folded in school, and what you must think.

I had hoped that by injecting the silly parody at the end that a gentle point might be made about those persons who "educate" viewers without any knowledge of subjects at hand whatsoever, and who enforce information embargoes with the powers of entrenched, and ruthless bureaucracies. Often if you make fun of yourself, you can disarm those ready to defend the walls to the death. No joy.

Recently we heard radio reports that holding a cellphone to your head in a thunderstorm increases your chance of being struck by lightning. One can only shake one's head. A bolt of lightning involves millions of volts, with currents in the hundreds of amps. The idea that a cell phone could "increase the conductivity to your skin", is so utterly stupid, so monumentally preposterous, that career electronic technicians like me feel the need for a "pitchforks and torches" moment. It is somewhat like holding up a front page of the Boston globe to stop a charging rhino. "Well... at least it's one more thickness of paper to save me..."

Is the ability to examine fact, weigh options and debate pros and cons to be confined to Freerepublic only, or will we someday watch science break out on network television?

I'll try those sweeteners you recommended. Thanks.

Here is a bit about Splenda from SweetSaavy.com, a website I enjoy for the information on sweeteners as well as recipes using them:

"Sucralose (Splenda) is the newcomer to the artificial sweeteners market. Though it sounds good when advertisements say it is "made from sugar," what they don't tell you is that parts of the natural sugar molecule are replaced with chlorine. In 1998, the FDA granted approval for sucralose to be used in a variety of food products. It is not yet approved for use in most European countries, where it is still under review.
There are very few studies on the safety of sucralose. In comparison to the 2374 studies done on saccharin, sucralose has only 19. There are no studies on long-term use. One small study of diabetic patients showed a statistically significant increase in hemoglobin a1C, a marker of long-term blood glucose levels used to assess the condition of diabetic patients. According to the FDA, "increases in glycosolation in hemoglobin imply lessening of control of diabetes."
Consumers Research magazine said, "Some concern was raised about sucralose being a chlorinated molecule. Some chlorinated molecules serve as the basis for pesticides such as D.D.T., and accumulate in body fat." The manufacturer responded that sucralose passes through the body unabsorbed, but the FDA disagrees. According to their "Final Rule" report, 11% to 27% of sucralose is absorbed in humans, and the rest is excreted unchanged. The manufacturer also claims that the chlorine added to sucralose is similar to the chlorine atom in the salt (NaCl) molecule, but others say sucralose may be more like ingesting tiny amounts of chlorinated pesticides. By the time we find out, consumers may already be harmed. "

BTW, I don't jump all over the first alarmist study I read, knowing full well how biased and agenda-motivated scientific studies often are. But I do take the time to look for both pro & con information, then make my decision using a wide range of data sources.

Don't forget to take that cell phone out of your pocket before you pump gas, LOL!