Artificial Sweeteners versus Natural Sweeteners - A Mercola Article

What I like about this Mercola article is that it lists/discusses the main culprits in the sugar world. This includes the most common artificial sweeteners and natural sweeteners.

For the last few years I've really been excited about natural sweeteners, but after all I've researched and experienced I've concluded that the amount in which we consume them make the consumption of them not exactly natural.

My latest bottom line (funny how this is constantly evolving) is that the healthiest natural sweeteners are whole foods. These can be eaten in abundance--we are supposed to be eating several servings of fruits and vegetables daily. (It's pretty difficult to eat more than one apple at a time, so no real fear of over-doing it.) I include dried fruit as a healthy alternative, as well. For example, the sweet, wrinkly little prune adds iron, vitamin A, calcium, fiber and potassium to your diet. In fact, I love prunes so much I felt inspired just now...

Prune Haiku
Small, moist, sweet and soft
You satisfy my craving
Sweet lingers on lips

By eating whole foods you avoid having to measure out how much to eat of this and that, but how many of us are able to resist the processed junk we've grown up with and have learned to love?

Sugar Cane and Nevella: Unrelated Stories

Jeff and I enjoyed a 3-day weekend in small-town Virginia. In the little community we stayed in, there was a grocery store called Bloom. Underneath the store name was the phrase, "A different kind of grocery store". I didn't need anything there, but I was intrigued. What was so different?

Upon entering, we took a hard right into the produce section. Nothing looked too extraordinary, in fact I didn't even see an organic section, but I didn't look too hard because I immediately became distracted by a big brown barrel.....of giant stalks of sugar cane!



What?! Where did these come from and why would anyone want to buy a 7 or 8 foot stalk of sugar cane? I've seen short pieces of sugar cane packaged for sale before, but never sugar cane taller than me. Each stalk was for sale for $2.99. Jeff and I laughed and planned on stopping in to buy some (pure humor factor) on our way out of town, but forgot.

Bloom had a "natural foods" section, basically the same products you'd find at a Whole Foods, so I wandered around there for a minute before perusing the rest of the aisles of the grocery store. On an end cap I noticed a giant yellow bag of sweetener. I'd never heard of it before. "Nevella. No Calorie Sweetener." Hmmm. Of course I was skeptical. I picked up a bag (which weighed as much as a helium balloon) and looked at the ingredients, expecting sucralose, because so far, Splenda and its generic product sucralose, are the only sweeteners that don't weigh a thing.





As you can see, the ingredients are as follows: maltodextrin, sucralose, bacillus coagulans GBI-30-6086

I wouldn't touch this stuff. Why? All above ingredients are manufactured.

MALTODEXTRIN: Let's revisit maltodextrin. It's a product of corn (or wheat, in Europe). It's a food additive produced from corn starch by hydrolysis, into a white powder and is absorbed as quickly as glucose. Basically, it's a sugar you won't find anywhere in nature, and considered a "hidden" sugar. When you look for sugar in an ingredients label, it's easy to pass over this ingredient. (1)

SUCRALOSE: It's 600 times as sweet as table sugar. It is made by chlorinating sugar, and is made up of 50% phenylalanine, 40% aspartic acid, and 10% methyl alcohol. In 1998 it was approved by the US FDA. Then in 2000 safety concerns were raised, including lack of long-term studies. However, according to Wikipedia, "Sucralose is one of two artificial sweeteners ranked as 'safe' by the consumer advocacy group CSPI," not to mention other groups like the USDA, WHO, etc. Personally, I can do without anything artificial. (2)

bacillus coagulans GBI-30-6086: This ingredient was developed by Ganeden Biotech, Inc., who are focused on their probiotic technology. This patented bacteria strain can withstand high temperatures from baking and boiling.

It's interesting how many new sweetener products are on the shelves these days. I can't keep up with them all. However, it seems that most of them contain either sucralose or some product of stevia. Since consumers are demanding "sweet", but "no calories", the market (companies) is supplying that demand. I think artificial sweeteners will be around for a long time....


(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltodextrin
(2) Get The Sugar Out, p. 56-57

The Irony of Junk Food

Websites that promote apples do not disparage oranges or peaches or cherries. If you look at websites that sell whole grains, they do not disparage other healthy whole food products.

What I find interesting is that Junk Food "A" may talk very highly about their product, but have something terrible to say about Junk Food "B". The sugar people will go off about alternative sweeteners, and the alternative sweetener folks will go off about both HFCS and sugar. All the while, each company's product is touted to be quite superior. If each of the junk food companies has something legitimate to say about the other junk food company's products, isn't this a sure sign that it's all....JUNK?!

Here are some examples:

What the Sugar Association has to say: "HFCS does not exist in nature. It is a highly processed product that requires the ingenuity and efforts of man for its creation, and was unknown to the world until the 1970s. Sugar is all-natural and has been the primary sweetening ingredient worldwide for thousands of years and still is the predominate sweetener in every country, except the United States. Sugar exists naturally in almost every fruit and vegetable but most abundantly in sugar cane and sugar beets."

The Sugar Association has gone so far as to create a website called The Truth About Splenda which further disparages another competitor.

Here is what SPLENDA has to say: "SPLENDA® No Calorie Sweetener may be used as part of a healthy diet that includes a variety of nutritious foods in moderate portions. Because SPLENDA® No Calorie Sweetener tastes like sugar and can be used for cooking and baking, it helps meet consumer demand for good-tasting foods and beverages without all the empty calories of sugar."

and...

"Although sucralose (generic term for SPLENDA) is made from a process that begins with sugar, the body does not recognize it as sugar or a carbohydrate. It is not metabolized by the body for energy, so it is calorie-free.....it passes through the body without being broken down for energy, so it has no calories, and the body does not recognize it as a carbohydrate. " This is saying that SPLENDA is not recognized by the body as a food, which in my opinion means we have no business putting it in our bodies!!

The NutraSweet Company is proud of their product because of its lack of calories: "Aspartame has many benefits. Aspartame can reduce or replace the sugar and calories in foods and beverages while maintaining great taste. Thus, aspartame offers one simple step in helping people move closer to achieving a more healthful diet." That's funny.

Saccharin comes right out and says, "Although the totality of the available research indicates saccharin is safe for human consumption, there has been controversy over its safety. The basis for the controversy rests primarily on findings of bladder tumors in some male rats fed high doses of sodium saccharin." Oh, woops. Just bladder tumors. No worries. Then I wonder why convenient stores have saccharin warning signs in their store windows?

Again, healthy whole foods will never be controversial. We don't need science to tell us what our common sense leads us to believe about healthy foods....that an apple is good nutrition, for example. If there is any controversy about a food you are eating, I would suggest you consider eating something that has never been controversial.

You can't go wrong by eating whole foods, keeping in mind portion sizes. You might go wrong by eating JUNK. To me, it's not worth risking what I don't know.

Lastly, I include with the Corn Refiner's Association take on their product HFCS, because it is so funny to me: "Mention corn syrups and consumers think of the sweetness and energy they offer--outstanding characteristics--" More like mention corn syrup and watch people roll their eyes. The press, the commercials and the lobbying is just ridiculous. I can't imagine anyone going to such great lengths to lobby for steel cut oats or lima beans.

Here is an interesting article about HFCS, with quotes from the president of the Corn Refiner's Association, Audrae Erickson. HFCS or sugar? Sugar or HFCS?

The press on this right now is downright silly. We have companies responding to consumer demand by taking HFCS out of their products and going back to using sugar. Hooray? Really? To me this is the silliest battle between highly processed junk foods that we should eat less of altogether. I don't eat either one, and it's difficult to avoid because most packaged products have one or the other. I usually end up eating fruit, darnit.

My point is that no matter how ignorant we might want to feign to be, it's obvious what is healthy whole food and what is not. I don't believe that the "foods" created in the laboratories were made to improve our health, although many of the artificial sweetener producers would argue and say that they are providing a low-calorie sweetener alternative. What good does it do to put a low-calorie sweetener in a product that is loaded with junk and many other types of calories?

Sugar Versus Corn Syrup

It's funny to read an article about how sugar is making a major comeback into our food products. And how that is a good thing. People are excited about this. Really? Things of this nature truly depend on which way the wind blows. Today it's blowing in favor of sugar. Almost 30 years ago corn syrup was the more favorable of the sugary choices. To researchers and doctors, there is not much difference between the two when it comes to how it affects the body.

(Though there are many health-related problems arising from our consumption of sugars, I am going to focus on obesity for this article because it is a particularly alarming national epidemic.) 

Obviously, sugar has been studied longer than high fructose corn syrup, but so far, the research shows that both have a lot to do with obesity. Obesity has a lot to do with diabetes and heart disease. And we are supposed to be excited about our old friend sugar? 

Thank you to a reader who forwarded me this article from the New York Times. "Sugar, the nutritional pariah that dentists and dietitians have long reviled, is enjoying a second act, dressed up as a natural, healthful ingredient."

It made me giggle and cringe at the same time. I feel like the point is lost on people. There are those who have a vendetta against corn syrup, and those who have a vendetta against sugar. I started my blog because I had a vendetta against sugar. But, as I wrote about earlier, I realized that sugar is not evil. Read more about that here. Corn syrup is not evil. It is the food corporations and media and advertisers and people who push for sugar in our food products who are screwing with our minds and best intentions. Best case scenario is that no matter what is in our foods, we would eat in moderation. 

The problem is Americans have a very hard time with moderation. Moderation is not a motto we live by. (I just deleted an entire paragraph about restaurant buffets...)

Sugars are found in more food products today, I will speculate, than 50 years ago. I'm guessing because it is now so cheap to add to our food, why wouldn't a company add this simple, cheap sweetness, which will make a product stand apart from another. We like things that are sweet. We love a perfect balance between sweetness and saltiness. They know this and are preying upon our senses. The sugar industry folks and corn syrup folks have something in common. Neither of them care about our health individually, or the health of our nation as a whole. Rates of obesity are at an alarming, all time high. Not only are more people considered obese, but those once considered obese are now being considered morbidly obese. The money the United States spends on obesity and overweight issues is estimated to be about $90 billion annually. Billion.

The sugar industries: cane, beet and corn continue to market and sell their products because somehow we have been convinced that "in moderation" is okay. Really? I am an expert on one thing. Going without sugar for one year. It was one of the most challenging things I have ever done. Sugar/Corn syrup was in practically everything. How do those industries propose that we eat it in moderation, when they serve a disproportionate amount of sugar in their "suggested serving size?" 

Though the pendulum swings back towards an increase in sugar consumption instead of corn syrup, I believe that we still have the same problem on our hands. That is, our addiction to sweet things and our "need" for sweets in greater and greater amounts. Since going without sugar, I've come to realize that eating too much sugar and corn syrup is a problem, but so is eating too much honey and agave and brown rice syrup and dried fruit. They are all carbohydrates which our bodies turn into glucose and if we eat more calories than we burn in a day, our glucose is stored as fat. Our bodies don't care what the source of the carbohydrate is. If it's a carb, it turns into glucose (with the exception of some fiber). Obviously, if a type of natural sweetener is less likely to spike our blood sugar, it is probably better for us for that reason, but when it comes to carbs, calories and weight, we are pretty much comparing apples to apples. 

I don't typically make generalizations like this. However, I have to make the distinction between choosing something based on morals versus choosing something based on health. When it comes to white sugar and corn syrup, I don't eat either one because of health and moral reasons. Morally, I won't eat corn syrup because most corn is grown using GMO's and pesticides. I just don't support that kind of farming. Morally, I don't eat white refined sugar because I don't support the organizations selling it. It has no place in our food supply. It is empty calories, which means that it offers no essential nutrients but is extra calories in our diet that most of us don't need. I can't support the sugar and corn industries that are fattening us to death. 

Morally and for health reasons I don't eat artificial sweeteners or the new stevia products (I eat pure stevia, but not the new products of processed stevia.) Most of these products have not been around long enough to have long-term research studies done to determine their safety. I feel good about eating natural sweeteners, but I have to be careful not to overindulge. Yes, honey is natural, but to be completely grass roots and organic about it, if I were living out in nature, the fact is that I would probably only be able to swipe a finger full of honey from a bee hive before getting chased out of the area by a swarm of territorial bees. It would not be possible to eat a large amount of honey at one time. Yet, because of the industrialization of food, I can go buy a jar of honey and sit with a spoon and eat to my heart's content. But I have not evolved to eat honey in those kinds of proportions. 

I would not have the facilities to make agave or brown rice syrup or molasses in nature. I am currently questioning my consumption of these products, as well, in an effort to be eating how I was meant to be eating, not what the media or latest fad would have me believe. In my perfect world, I would dry my own fruit, squeeze my own juice by hand and collect honey in moderate amounts before the bees got to me. These sweet items would satisfy my sweet tooth, and because of all the whole foods I would be eating, only, I wouldn't have insane cravings. In my perfect world. I am working on making this a reality, but to participate in society, I am faced with difficult food choices--eating with friends, family and going out to eat. So, in my perfect world, everyone else figures out that eating healthy is the secret to happiness and longevity and we all thrive happily. One must dream...

Why Do You Eat THAT?

I am curious why you eat. Upon discovering that so much of our food supply is filled with non-foods, I started wondering why we eat them. Why are there non-foods in our food? Isn't the point of eating all foods, to digest and glean the nutrients from those foods so we can be healthy and stay alive? Why are there so many chemicals added to food? (Food colorings, artificial sweeteners, preservatives, etc.) None of these even claim to be a food. They are just added to food. Why? If your food is sweeter and brighter-colored than a competitor product, you will buy it. It's about money.

I have also reasoned that we no longer eat responsibly. To survive. We eat as a luxury and a form of entertainment. Food is entertaining. Because we have evolved so much (have we?) from the cave-people days, we don't look at food as a means of survival anymore. We eat for fun. There is so much food. Everywhere. Few people (I am generalizing, here. See *below.) think of food as their means to staying alive another day. Rather, people make their food choices based on an emotion, a social context, or for psychological reasons. I'm even going to postulate that most of us eat when we want to, instead of basing what and when we eat on hunger.

I am curious why people eat when and what they eat. Very recently I reread some facts about sucralose, otherwise known as Splenda. The truth about sucralose is that it is not a food. It is a powder made from sugar, but the body cannot digest it. I repeat, the body cannot and does not digest sucralose. Yes, Splenda. But we eat it. (Actually, I don't touch it, but it gets sneaked into the ingredients of some least likely items. My most recent discovery was sucralose in Airborne.)

This brings me back to why we eat. We are not eating Splenda because we are hoping to get nutrients into our bodies to help us live longer. We eat it as a luxury because we are addicted to sweetness and need our food and beverages to taste a certain way. We won't eat or drink something that isn't to our liking. Food corporations know this. Why else do all of these strange ingredients end up in our food? It is not because billion dollar food companies care about our nutrient intake. It is about selling a product that is more flavorful and colorful than its competitor. We eat chemicals disguised by the charming foods they are in.

Long ago (albeit still in some cultures), every drop of food counted. For survival. For health. For maximum nutritional caloric value. I can picture a cave person finding a yellow or green M&M laying around, and passing over it as something poisonous. Those bright colors and the crunchy outer shell with an "m" are not natural!

I am concerned because supposedly we have come so far, and yet we are using our brains and our intuition much less. We count on others doing the thinking for us. If something is sold at the grocery store, it must be okay. If a "food" is offered at a restaurant, it must be okay. After all, we are all so busy and caught up in other things, who has the time to consider whether a food is healthy or dangerous?

I believe that in an effort to survive, our cave-people ancestors used better judgment and more intuition in their hunting and gathering, than we use at the grocery store today.

What we can do:

• Read labels.
• Research strange words that you find on labels and ingredients lists.
• Write to food companies.
  
• Stop buying (endorsing) food products that you don't believe in.
• Spread the word. Be an advocate.
• Recognize advertising and marketing tactics.
  
• Use your intuition. If fat-free Oreos seem too good to be true, there is a reason.
  
• Eat more fresh, local, organic foods.
  

*Disclaimer: I acknowledge that hunger/starvation exists, both in and out of our country. I volunteer with and advocate for groups like Meals-on-Wheels who help provide needy people with nutritious meals. I generalized and stated the above for argument's sake.

Salt-Water Taffy and Pepto Bismol

Spent the last few days exploring the Olympic National Rain Forest. Visited little tiny beach towns in western Washington. I've never seen commercial crabbing boats before. I've never seen so many hardworking fishermen. At one of these tiny towns, Westport, WA, I visited a candy shoppe. Super cute. I used to buy little sacks of fresh-pulled taffy every time I visited Cannon Beach and Seaside. I got nostalgic. I found two flavors of sugar-free taffy. Not wanting to know what the secret ingredient was, I bought two pieces of watermelon taffy and four pieces of vanilla. Warm. Soft, like they had been in my pocket. I ate them right away and they were out-of-this world delicious. I savored the moment.

Two hours later my stomach began making extra-terrestrial noises. Jeff thought it was the truck. I popped two tablets of Pepto Bismol and then two more. I was fine. I felt totally irresponsible for eating something without checking the ingredients, but they were sugar-free! Oh, and then Jeff asks if I read the ingredients of the Pepto tablets. No, dang it. I looked later. The culprits for making the cherry Pepto tablets taste so good: saccharin sodium, mannitol and flavor, not to mention all of the other strange ingredients and the food coloring used to make the tablets so perfectly pink.

As well as the taffy being exceptional, my mini vacation was quite wonderful. I enjoyed the rain forest, Port Angeles, Port Townsend, the sunshine, and all of the sand dollars lying around the beach. The key to such a perfect, comfortable 3-day trip on the road was a bag of healthy food I kept in the truck and lots of fresh water. I was able to refresh my snacks at a great co-op in Port Townsend and I also visited a health food store in Port Angeles that has been in business for 34 years.

Artificial Sweeteners: Mayo Clinic Perspective

I still have a lot to learn about artificial sweeteners.

I am passionate about nutrition and the safety of food products. I aim to give a fair and honest look at all of the possibilities. There is much to keep up on. Research seems to give us all kinds of information. "Coffee is good for you!" one month, then, "Warning: Coffee may cause....!" I am not talking about media hype, here. Just research.

I have entire sets of ideas that I want to be right, but, I have to remember to give each and every credible source its voice. Even if I don't want to. Otherwise I am just another biased voice pushing an agenda.

In an effort to share ALL of the credible information I find in my research, I would like to share what I found at the Mayo Clinic website: "According to the National Cancer Institute, however, there's no scientific evidence that any of the artificial sweeteners approved for use in the United States cause cancer."

The Mayo Clinic article focuses on the four low/no calorie, sugar substitutes; Aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal), Saccharin (Sweet'NLow, SugarTwin), Acesulfame K (Sunett, Sweet One), and Sucralose (Splenda).

The best part of this article is where they touch upon those of us who completely gorge ourselves on sweets. They have a very classy way of saying, "You idiots! Stop eating crap!"

I love this: "Just removing sugar from cookies and chocolates doesn't make them low-calorie, low-fat foods. If you eat too many, you'll still get more calories than you may need, and you may not get enough nutritious foods."

The obvious can be so profound. This issue is exactly what I have been dealing with. Eating too much of something, even if it is "healthy and naturally sweetened." Sure, I'm sugar-free. But I am still wrestling with my inner imp on issues of moderation.

I have written a lot about the negative aspects of artificial sweeteners, because there is a LOT of hype about how dangerous they are, but even those claims, as much as we want to believe them, need to be questioned and researched just as thoroughly. It is extremely difficult to know, sometimes, which of the information out there is to be believed. Obviously, if we are already biased or just desperately wanting to believe something, it's easy to back up what you want to be true. You can find anything online. "They" don't call it the information superhighway for nothing. What makes a source credible? I am still trying to figure this out, especially in light of all of the networking, politics and incentives between giant organizations/corporations.

The cold, hard facts on artificial sweeteners? We may not know all of the facts for another 20 years. Many studies come to fruition after a certain amount of time has passed and researchers are able to talk "facts" in retrospect. In the meantime, I am considering going to school to become a clinical nutritionist or registered dietitian. Then when I get preachy to my friends and family, they'll have to listen.

-http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/artificial-sweeteners/MY00073

Sugar in Moderation?

If you are able to eat sugar in moderation, I would love to hear how you do it.

Most of the people that I have talked with tell me that moderating sugar consumption is nearly impossible. It's more practical to give it up completely than to try and ingest it in small doses. For many reasons. One of which is that it's in everything. Just because the ingredients on the packaged food product may not say, "sugar" does not mean that sugar is not in there. Products that tout themselves as health food, and yet use a sneaky word actually meaning sugar, are just deceiving their customers. Write to companies that are using this marketing tactic. Email them, call them, send them mail. Tell them you don't appreciate their tricky marketing. Ask them to use natural sweeteners. Here are a few examples of tricky gimmick words used to perpetuate the idea that sugar is not in the ingredients, when indeed it is.

List of ingredients meaning sugar: "Saccharose, Sucanat, Sugar, Granulated Sugar, Refined Sugar, Brown Sugar, Cane Juice, Evaporated Cane Juice, Evaporated Cane Sugar, Cane Sugar, Raw Cane Sugar, Demerera, Muscovado, Turbinado, Cane syrup, Beet syrup, Baker's Sugar, Bar Sugar, Barbados Sugar, Berry Sugar, Chinese Rock Sugar , Confectioners Sugar, Gemsugar, Polincillo, Rock sugar, Wasanbon" to name a few.
(This list was compiled by Methuselah on the great, "Pay Now Live Later" blog.)

Take charge of how much sugar to eat, if at all. I understand that for some of us, cutting down on something is easier than cutting it out completely. Some of you "avoid" as best you can, but don't get down on yourself when you have some. I guess I am an example of someone who takes things to extremes--with sugar for sure. Either give me two pints of ice cream, brownies and hot fudge or give me an apple. If I'm going to be bad, I make it count. If I'm going to be good, I make it holy. This extremism isn't exactly a healthy, balanced take on eating, I realize. Honestly, though, for those of you who balance your sugar consumption, how do you do it?

My Greedy Little Taste Buds

Here is a drawing of my greedy little taste buds. Not pretty. I wonder if this represents how they look when they are excited by sweetness, or when they are just hanging out?
Sweetness
"Sweet is one of the five basic tastes and is almost universally regarded as a pleasurable experience. Foods rich in simple carbohydrates such as sugar are those most commonly associated with sweetness, although there are other natural and artificial compounds that are much sweeter, some of which have been used as sugar substitutes for those with a sweet tooth. Other compounds may alter perception of sweetness itself.

The chemosensory basis for detecting sweetness, which varies among both individuals and species, has only been teased apart in recent years. The current theoretical model is the multipoint attachment theory, which involves multiple binding sites between sweetness receptor and the sweet substance itself.

Examples of sweet substances
A great diversity of chemical compounds, such as aldehydes and ketones are sweet. Among common biological substances, all of the simple carbohydrates are sweet to at least some degree. Sucrose (table sugar) is the prototypical example of a sweet substance, although another sugar, fructose, is somewhat sweeter. Some of the amino acids are mildly sweet: alanine, glycine, and serine are the sweetest. Some other amino acids are perceived as both sweet and bitter.

A number of plant species produce glycosides that are many times sweeter than sugar. The most well-known example is glycyrrhizin, the sweet component of licorice root, which is about 30 times sweeter than sucrose. Another commercially important example is stevioside, from the South American shrub Stevia rebaudiana. It is roughly 250 times sweeter than sucrose. Another class of potent natural sweeteners are the sweet proteins such as thaumatin, found in the West African katemfe fruit. Hen egg lysozyme, an antibiotic protein found in chicken eggs, is also sweet.

Interesting facts about the sweetness receptor
Sweetness perception may differ between species significantly. For example, even amongst the primates sweetness is quite variable. New World monkeys do not find aspartame sweet, while Old World monkeys, apes and humans all do.[8] Felidae like cats cannot perceive sweetness at all."
-(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweetness)

My Resolution
I'm afraid that I may have to go another year, at least, without sugar. No more donut dreams for this girl! I simply can not justify going back onto sugar. If I did, it would be for all of the wrong reasons.

Pepsi Co. & Coca-Cola Listen and Are Changing Their Ingredients!

Just kidding, kind of. I found an interesting article today about Montagne (owner of both PepsiCo. and Coca-Cola) looking into changing their formula from artificial sweeteners to stevia. I am very interested to see where this is going to go. I would like to think that they paid some of their marketing and PR staff to cruise my blog thoroughly to see what they should do. Of course they would read about Splenda, Aspartame, and other highly informative articles and report back immediately that it's urgent they change their formula!

We'll see if they credit me at all in their big switch.

As excited as I first was when I read the article, I fear that the soda companies may be coming full circle as far as switching ingredients to meet the demand of the consumer. What I mean is that if all they are going to do is refine the hell out of stevia, then they might as well go back to using sugar cane. The only reason they can never go back to using sugar is that consumers are savvier today and want a sugar alternative. A lot of people have heard about how wonderful stevia is, and it is, if it is not refined down to another cocaine-like substance of white powdered crystals.

Here is an interesting piece of the article....Merisant Co., the maker of Equal and other artificial sweeteners, is the company responsible for working to obtain FDA clearance for rebaudioside A, a compound of stevia. Stevia has been used for centuries but there is already controversy about the breakdown of stevia at a scientific level. Check out Wikipedia for more information on this.

I'll play the waiting game for now, and know in my heart that going a year without sugar had the power to influence a multi-billion dollar soft drink industry!

How to Cut Out Sugar and Why

You've got to read this incredible article. Mike O'Donnell talks about the 3 steps to cutting out sugar from your diet, reminds us why sugar is so incredibly detrimental to our health, and what we gain health-wise when we do cut it out of our diet.

You may be thinking, "Oh, I know sugar causes cavities and makes me sleepy sometimes, but I can live with that..." Surprise! There are some more very serious health concerns related to eating sugar and here they are:

• "Sugar increases fat storing"
• "Sugar disrupts normal brain function"
• "Sugar decreases your overall health and makes you age quicker"(1)
  

O'Donnell expands on each of these health concerns with compelling reasons to give up sugar. It is very well-written and he offers some easy steps to cutting out that white stuff.

The sugar revolution rages on!

(1) http://zenhabits.net/2008/10/beat-the-sugar-habit-3-steps-to-cut-sweets-mostly-out-of-your-life/

Coca-Cola's New Stevia Product: "Truvia"

You won't believe this. The Coca-Cola Company has come out with a "healthy" sweetener that is now available to consumers. It is a stevia-derived sweetener that has no calories, and is now being marketed as "Truvia: A healthy alternative to artificial sweeteners." "Rebiana" is the trade name for this sweetener, probably named after the compound Rebaudioside A, which they isolated from the stevia plant. The reason they have isolated this compound is because it is apparently the sweet part of the plant separated from its usual bitter aftertaste. I do not know how much processing is involved in turning the stevia leaf into "Truvia", but I am guessing from the tiny, pure white granules that there is quite a bit of processing involved. Could we be looking at the same sort of processing that goes on with sugar cane and sugar beets? These are healthy plants--until they have been processed to death!

What I find highly amusing is that stevia has been used as a sweetener for years (for centuries in some countries) and has health benefits including: treating obesity, high-blood pressure, glucose intolerance and diabetes, to name a few. The amusing part is that despite stevia's health benefits and ability to be used as an alternative sweetener, in 1991 it was ousted by the FDA. The FDA labeled stevia "unsafe" and banned it until 1994 when the Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act got the FDA to revise their stance. Even then, however, it was only considered safe to be used as a dietary supplement, not a food additive!

Here is what has happened over the years: Coca-Cola comes out with soda in the late 1800's. It is loaded with sugar and two main ingredients: cocaine and caffeine. They reconfigure the ingredients after 1904. The company is under the constant watch of nutritionists because of the links between its soda and diabetes, obesity, caffeine addiction and other health issues. In 1985 Coca-Cola switches its formula again. They now no longer use white refined sugar. It is now cheaper to use high fructose corn syrup. They are still under careful watch because corn syrup has its own list of negative side effects. The company is still under careful watch for using other controversial ingredients like sodium benzoate. In 2005 they come out with a soda containing Splenda and aspartame. Artificial sweeteners. Coca-Cola is currently working on phasing out the ingredient sodium benzoate, which has been linked directly to DNA damage and hyperactivity in children. They say they will phase it out as soon as they find an alternative ingredient to use in its place. Now, it's 2008 and they have produced Truvia, which sounds like a nice, natural sweetener to get the health nuts out there to lay off. But, not so fast! How is this processed? What are the effects of consuming this product, short term and long term? Is it still capable of being a health tool and treating obesity and diabetes? Or have those constiuents been left out because of the mildly bitter aftertaste?

What has happened is that Coca-Cola can not last without revamping their product model. It is common knowledge that their ingredients are less than desirable, have been studied to show health risks, and they don't want to be sued! They are going to jump on the "natural sweetener" gravy train, if you will, and offer a product to people who will believe they now have unprecedented rights to consume all they want without any risk. Imagine the FDA banning stevia now. It's never going to happen now that the giant, multi-billion dollar Coke company has begun using it. How they have been using it is still in question.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia -http://truvia.com/

Dr. Andrew Weil's Take on Splenda

"Splenda (sucralose) is the best selling artificial sweetener. It is made by substituting three chlorine molecules for three hydrogen-oxygen groups on the sugar molecule. This changes sugar into an artificial sweetener that can't be metabolized, meaning our bodies can't digest it or derive energy from it.

The safety of Splenda has been controversial for some time. Citizens for Health, a nonprofit group, maintains that adverse effects ranging from stomach pains to headaches and skin rashes have been reported by users. In April 2007, the group petitioned the FDA to withdraw approval until more is known about the sweetener's safety. To the best of my knowledge, studies on Splenda – those attesting to its safety and those warning of dangers – have all been done in animals. I can find no human data demonstrating that Splenda can cause any health problems; nor can I find human data proving its safety. I would follow the precautionary principle here and avoid it.

If you use artificial sweeteners, there's no proof that I've been able to locate that these products will actually help you lose weight. In fact, circumstantial evidence suggests that they may make matters worse: the number of Americans consuming artificially sweetened food and drink rose from 70 million in 1987 to 160 million in 2000. During that same period, obesity rates rose dramatically."
-http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400414/Sweet-and-Natural.html

Artificial Sugar Sweeteners: Part 2: Aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal)

"Aspartame is 160-200 times as sweet as sugar.

• In 1965 James M. Schlatter synthesized aspartame while producing an antiulcer drug candidate. In fact, the compound was considered as a potential sweetener only after Schlatter happened to lick his finger, which had accidentally been contaminated with the compound.
• When ingested, aspartame breaks down into several constituent chemicals, including aspartic acid, phenylalanine, methanol, and further breakdown products including formaldehyde and formic acid.
• It is unstable under heat and changing pH conditions.
• Initial safety testing suggested that this caused brain tumors in rats.
• In 1980 the FDA's Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) recommended against approving aspartame at that time, citing 'unanswered questions about cancer in laboratory rats.'
• In 1981 newly appointed FDA commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes, citing data from a Japanese study that had not been available to the PBOI, approved aspartame for use in dry foods. Hayes had confirmed ties with the artificial sweetener industry; most notably, he was close friends with Donald Rumsfeld, at the time CEO of the company that manufactured NutraSweet (aspartame).
• In 1983 the FDA approved aspartame for use in carbonated beverages, other beverages, baked goods, and confections.
• In 1995, the FDA Epidemiology Branch chief reported that aspartame complaints represented 75 percent of all reports of adverse reactions to substances in the food supply from 1981 to 1995. Consumers and physicians reported approximately ninety-two different symptoms and health conditions.
• In 1996 the FDA removed all restrictions on use.
• Individuals with the previously mentioned condition PKU should not consume this product.
• Aspartame is available in approximately 6,000 consumer foods and beverages sold worldwide."

-Get The Sugar Out, by Ann Louise Gittleman, pgs. 55-56

here's more:

"STOP EATING AND DRINKING PRODUCTS THAT CONTAIN ASPARTAME! This includes diet sodas and sugar-free foods that have NutraSweet or Equal.
When aspartame was put before the FDA for approval, it was denied eight times. G.D. Searle, founder of aspartame, tried to get FDA approval in 1973. Clearly, he wasn't bothered by reports from neuroscientist Dr. John Olney and researcher Ann Reynolds (hired by Searle himself) that aspartame was dangerous. Dr. Martha Freeman, a scientist from the FDA Division of Metabolic and Endocrine Drug Products, declared, 'The information submitted for review is inadequate to permit a scientific evaluation of clinical safety.' Freeman recommended that until the safety of aspartame was proven, marketing the product should not be permitted. Alas, her recommendations were ignored. Somehow, in 1974, Searle got approval to use aspartame in dry foods. However, it wasn't smooth sailing from there. In 1975, the FDA put together a task force to review Searle's testing methods. Task force team leader Phillip Brodsky said he 'had never seen anything as bad as Searle's testing' and called test results 'manipulated'. Before aspartame actually made it into dry foods, Olney and attorney and consumer advocate Jim Turner filed objections against the approval.
In 1977, the FDA asked the U.S. attorney's office to start grand jury proceedings against Searle for 'knowingly misrepresenting findings and concealing material facts and making false statements in aspartame safety tests.' Shortly after, the US attorney leading the investigation against Searle was offered a job by the law firm that was representing Searle. Later that same year, he resigned as US attorney and withdrew from the case delaying the grand jury's investigation. This caused the statute of limitations on the charges to run out, and the investigation was dropped. And he accepted the job with Searle's law firm....
In 1980, a review by the Public Board of Inquiry set up by the FDA determined that aspartame should not be approved. The board said it had 'not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive.' In 1981, new FDA Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes was appointed. Despite the fact that three out of six scientists advised against approval, Hayes decided to overrule the scientific review panel and allow aspartame into limited dry goods. In 1983, he got it approved for beverages, even though the National Soft Drink Association urged the FDA to delay approval until further testing could be done. That same year, Hayes left the FDA amid charges of impropriety. The Internal Department of Health and Human Services was investigating Hayes for accepting gratuities from FDA-regulated companies. He went to work as a consultant for Searle's public relations firm. Interesting. The FDA finally urged Congress to prosecute Searle for giving the government false or incomplete test results on aspartame. However, the two government attorneys assigned to the case decided not to prosecute. Later, they went to work for the law firm that represented Searle. Fascinating. Despite recognizing ninety-two different symptoms that result from ingesting aspartame, the FDA approved it for use, without restriction, in 1996...
Aspartame is a $1 billion industry. The National Justice League has filed a series of lawsuits against food companies using aspartame, claiming they are poisoning the public. In September 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed for $350 million against NutraSweet and the American Diabetics Assocation."

"Skinny Bitch," by Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin, pgs. 32-35

Artificial Sugar Sweeteners: Part 1: "Splenda"

"SUCRALOSE (aka Splenda) is 600 times as sweet as table sugar. It has overtaken Equal as the most popular artificial sweetener.

• It was discovered in 1976. Put simply, it is made by chlorinating sugar! Yes, it's manufacture involves the same chemical found in swimming pools. How could this be? It was discovered through a misunderstanding. Two Tate & Lyle scientists were looking for a way to test chlorinated sugars as chemical intermediates when there was a gross misunderstanding. Leslie Hough asked his young Indian colleague Shashikant Phadnis to test the powder. Phadnis thought Hough said "taste," and he did--it was very sweet! A final sweetener formula was developed within a year.
• Sucralose is composed of 50 percent phenylalaline, 40 percent aspartic acid, and 10 percent methyl alcohol.
• Sucralose mixed with maltodextrin and dextrose (both made from corn) as bulking agents is sold internationally as Splenda.
• In 1998 it was approved by the U.S. FDA; as of 2006 it has been approved in more than sixty countries.
• In 2000 concerns over safety surfaced, including lack of long-term studies.
• Whole Foods Market took an official stand that it will not carry any products containing sucralose because, as the company points out, most of the studies were commissioned by organizations that had a financial interest in the approval of sucralose.
• Reported symptoms of sensitivity to this compound include headaches, dizziness/balance problems, mood swings, vomiting and nausea, abdominal pain and cramps, seizures and convulsions, and changes in vision. Concerns have also been raised regarding its effect on the thymus gland, crucial to proper immune system functioning.
• Sucralose can be found in more than 4,500 food and beverage products.
• Marketed in the United States as a "no-calorie sweetener," Splenda does contain 96 calories a cup, approximately eight times fewer than sugar by volume."

-"Get the Sugar Out" by Ann Louise Gittlleman, pgs. 56-57

"Skinny Bitch"

SKINNY BITCH

Tonight I went to a book signing and met Rory Freedman who wrote "http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/imageviewer.asp?ean=9780762424931", and "Skinny Bitch in the Kitch"--a great recipe book. She is a great speaker and there was a good-sized crowd of people there for the signing. She answered a question that I have had and that a lot of people have asked me when I show them the book Skinny Bitch: "Why would they call their book that?" Rory answered that question tonight. They gave it that title because it was a cheap and easy marketing tool to grab people's attention--and it's working. They have already sold over 850,000 books and it has been on the New York Times best-seller list for 28 weeks. I love the chapter called "Sugar is the Devil". It is enlightening, political, and inspirational. The chapter talks about the refining process of the sugar cane, health dangers caused by sugar, and healthy substitutes for cooking with sugar. They also go into detail about the dangers of artificial sweeteners and Splenda. My favorite part of the chapter, however, is the politics behind sugar. It is unbelievable, yet it makes sense when you think about it. You will have to pick up a copy of Skinny Bitch and see for yourself. But be forewarned, if you are easily offended by four-letter words, this is not the book for you. Rory addressed this at the book signing, also. She grew up in New Jersey in a household that used that language so that is how she wrote the book--she didn't edit herself as she wrote. I waded through the language and the book is worth it. It's a fun read and so interesting, you'll read it in a day or two!

Aspartame

"In 1995, FDA Epidemiology Branch Chief Thomas Wilcox reported that aspartame complaints represented 75% of all reports of adverse reactions to substances in the food supply from 1981 to 1995.^[6] Concerns about aspartame frequently revolve around symptoms and health conditions that are allegedly caused by the sweetener. A total of 92 different symptoms and health conditions were reported by physicians and consumers."
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy