Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Splenda Stevia Extract, non GMO
jgnatca
Posts: 14,464 Member
in Debate Club
I WISH I was making this up. A commercial just flew by offering this natural product, made from the sweetest tips of the Stevia plant, non-GMO.
I blame rampant public opinion, driving the companies to change their game.
Gosh, there’s nothing wrong with saccharine other than a round of bad publicity.
I weep for the virgin tips of Stevia plants everywhere.
I blame rampant public opinion, driving the companies to change their game.
Gosh, there’s nothing wrong with saccharine other than a round of bad publicity.
I weep for the virgin tips of Stevia plants everywhere.
5
Replies
-
Seriously? Saccharin has been linked to cancer20
-
Bad study, never replicated.9
-
Remember when Jojoba oil was all the rage? It takes Jojoba five years to mature. Weep for the enterprising farmer who invested whole hog in Jojoba. Five years to profit, and by the time the plants start maturing, the market dries up.
Everyone wants Argan oil instead.
I just found out that the Argan tree takes 50 years to maturity.
*sigh*
What trend survives 50 years?4 -
<sigh>6
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »<sigh>
Right???5 -
2
-
Artificial sweeteners are all different and affect people differently. And I'd have to disagree about saccharine just getting a bad rap. I don't need a lab test to tell me that. My mom had me on that crap since I was a kid and it definitely has side affects. It took me years to realize it was making me sick and when I quit using it I started feeling so much better. I'm not prone to headaches but even now I can guarantee you if I use it I'm only 20 minutes away from a killer migraine. I've tried stevia and it's just disgusting, takes over whatever I put it in for taste. I kicked my soda habit by using iced tea instead. I've been using Splenda since it's actually sugar with an added chlorine atom so I feel it's the least of all evils. But honestly I'd like to get away from using any of that as well. I just don't like drinking tea straight. Time for the next step of drinking more water lol.16
-
Oh and jgnatca, I'll have to try that since they seem to have changed the taste.0
-
I don’t want anyone complaining about big business driving trends. Most of the time they are frantically trying to monetize the latest fads.
Who ever thinks about the producers and how many YEARS it takes for them to gear up?2 -
0
-
But there is something wrong with saccharine. It tastes absolutely horrible. Primarily that is what is in Sweet n low. I know dinners still put it out with their sugar packets but the sweetness is off the charts. Same thing with many of the stevia sweetners. Some companies can make a mild form, but most are just way too strong. Splenda came out and it was more mild than saccharine, less artificial than aspartame, and people enjoyed it. Then more came out like Truvia and monk fruit which tastes very much like sugar. It's not that any of them are "unsafe", but flavor profiles are much better these days than the sweeteners of the past.
7 -
I don't care about the tiny chance of getting cancer from saccharine. I like to gamble. It's just that saccharine tastes fkn disgusting. I'd rather drink Windex.
Stevia also has a nasty aftertaste. Equal is better but still not perfect, but Splenda is the only one that actually tastes like sugar. Saccharine<Stevia<Equal<Splenda
And don't even get me started on agave syrup. That crap barely sweetens.1 -
The “classic” Splenda is made up of dextrose, maltose, and sucralose. Where would you rate aspartame on your preference rating?
[Edited to add] I see that Equal uses Aspartame.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splenda
Being T2 diabetic for so long, I’m a sweetener “lady of the night”. I take them all. I reserve my disgust for sugar and honey that threaten my blood sugar numbers.
I relate the tingle from Stevia to cinnamon so I mask the aftertaste in baked goods and teas that have cinnamon in them.
By the way I am in remission from the diabetes but old habits die hard. Diet sodas give me sensory pleasure without the calories.1 -
I looked up how Agave syrup is made. The Agave plant, just like the Jojoba and the Argan mentioned upthread do better on dry unproductive land. It can take up to ten years for the Agave to flower (from which the syrup is extracted) and then it dies. But it propogates through suckers so a lifecycle can be set up over a decade.
It looks like a fairly low risk investment because the same nectar is fermented for Tequila. If the vast grape orchards along the west coast of the USA is any indication, liquor is a lucrative and stable market.
http://tropical.theferns.info/viewtropical.php?id=Agave+tequilana0 -
YvetteK2015 wrote: »But there is something wrong with saccharine. It tastes absolutely horrible. Primarily that is what is in Sweet n low. I know dinners still put it out with their sugar packets but the sweetness is off the charts. Same thing with many of the stevia sweetners. Some companies can make a mild form, but most are just way too strong. Splenda came out and it was more mild than saccharine, less artificial than aspartame, and people enjoyed it. Then more came out like Truvia and monk fruit which tastes very much like sugar. It's not that any of them are "unsafe", but flavor profiles are much better these days than the sweeteners of the past.
How is sucralose less artificial than aspartame? Sucralose is a chloro-substituted sucrose while aspartame is a methyl substituted dipeptide of phenylalanine and aspartate. Aspartame is a mono-substitution of a nautural product while sucralose has several substitutions. If anything sucrlaose (Splenda) is more artificial because it cannot be digested while aspartame can.10 -
Cultivation of Stevia. India is getting in to cultivation big time. I suspect the US is growing much of it’s own. Paraguay has been cultivating Stevia for some time and it supplies 45% to the EU and only 1% to the US.
We couldn’t grow Stevia in Canada. It needs subtropical growing conditions, steady moisture and low nitrogen fertilizer. Proponents gush that this is a great cash crop for smallholders as not a lot of acreage is required. Harvesting can start within months of planting and under ideal conditions leaves can be harvested three times a year, for three years.
http://www.agrifarming.in/stevia-plant-farming/0 -
TeaRexParty wrote: »Artificial sweeteners are all different and affect people differently. And I'd have to disagree about saccharine just getting a bad rap. I don't need a lab test to tell me that. My mom had me on that crap since I was a kid and it definitely has side affects. It took me years to realize it was making me sick and when I quit using it I started feeling so much better. I'm not prone to headaches but even now I can guarantee you if I use it I'm only 20 minutes away from a killer migraine. I've tried stevia and it's just disgusting, takes over whatever I put it in for taste. I kicked my soda habit by using iced tea instead. I've been using Splenda since it's actually sugar with an added chlorine atom so I feel it's the least of all evils. But honestly I'd like to get away from using any of that as well. I just don't like drinking tea straight. Time for the next step of drinking more water lol.
The bold part of your statement I agree with; its the line right after it that negates the former. I can't personally take saccharine or aspertame either, but that's because I personally don't handle those very well and they upset my stomach. But that's just me and my own n-1; doesn't mean its bad or evil for everyone. I have a friend who can't digest walnuts very well, and my uncle has an issue with tomatoes, but that's just how their own bodies react to those substances and doesn't make either inherently bad for the human population at large.
Most of the artificial sweeteners have been on the market for a very long time, and most have been studied to death. I personally think that the longevity of the products being discussed has a lot to say about their safety for human consumption; we've had 2 whole generations raised with the stuff. Cancer rates seem to be up, but there have been many, many factors suggested for that well beyond artificial sweeteners or even "processed", ready foods, and I personally wonder if its really that cancer rates themselves have increased or if medical knowledge and technology has led to better detection. I love how people peddling "clean eating" want to point to the high cancer rates these days as evidence that their way of eating is safer and far superior to modern eating, yet don't seem to pay attention to the horrible diseases that our ancestors dealt with (rickets or scurvy or iodine deficiency anyone?) or the fact that life spans and quality of life has increased steadily in the last century......
As a side issue: has something changed in how splenda is made these days? When it first came out, I didn't like the taste of it at all and it upset my stomach just like equal and sweet n low, especially in liquid form. but I recently gave it another try and found that it doesn't bother me like it used to and I can't really taste that much of a difference anymore. I recently gave sweet n low another try and found I still don't tolerate it well, especially in liquid form - I can handle the new diet pepsi without aspertame just fine, but diet coke still leaves me queasy. Or is it just me?
I don't mind stevia, but it does leave an aftertaste. The cheaper knock-offs don't sweeten as well as they claim, either; I've found I need more than the 1:1 ratio replacement for sugar claimed on the packaging. When baking, I prefer splenda over stevia. I like erythritol very well, but don't want to pay the ridiculous price for it online, so I use splenda mostly as its much cheaper and more readily available.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »YvetteK2015 wrote: »But there is something wrong with saccharine. It tastes absolutely horrible. Primarily that is what is in Sweet n low. I know dinners still put it out with their sugar packets but the sweetness is off the charts. Same thing with many of the stevia sweetners. Some companies can make a mild form, but most are just way too strong. Splenda came out and it was more mild than saccharine, less artificial than aspartame, and people enjoyed it. Then more came out like Truvia and monk fruit which tastes very much like sugar. It's not that any of them are "unsafe", but flavor profiles are much better these days than the sweeteners of the past.
How is sucralose less artificial than aspartame? Sucralose is a chloro-substituted sucrose while aspartame is a methyl substituted dipeptide of phenylalanine and aspartate. Aspartame is a mono-substitution of a nautural product while sucralose has several substitutions. If anything sucrlaose (Splenda) is more artificial because it cannot be digested while aspartame can.
I'm saying the flavor profile is different. Splenda has less of an after taste then aspertame. I don't know why, but at least for me it does. Moving along on the scale, Truvia has even less than an after taste then Splenda. Actually, it has no after taste. So it's not a matter of one being more or less artificial, it's a matter of the flavor profile.
ETA: My choice of wording was bad. When I said less artificial, I meant less artificial "tasting", meaning tasting closer to sugar, say in a cup of coffee.2 -
YvetteK2015 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »YvetteK2015 wrote: »But there is something wrong with saccharine. It tastes absolutely horrible. Primarily that is what is in Sweet n low. I know dinners still put it out with their sugar packets but the sweetness is off the charts. Same thing with many of the stevia sweetners. Some companies can make a mild form, but most are just way too strong. Splenda came out and it was more mild than saccharine, less artificial than aspartame, and people enjoyed it. Then more came out like Truvia and monk fruit which tastes very much like sugar. It's not that any of them are "unsafe", but flavor profiles are much better these days than the sweeteners of the past.
How is sucralose less artificial than aspartame? Sucralose is a chloro-substituted sucrose while aspartame is a methyl substituted dipeptide of phenylalanine and aspartate. Aspartame is a mono-substitution of a nautural product while sucralose has several substitutions. If anything sucrlaose (Splenda) is more artificial because it cannot be digested while aspartame can.
I'm saying the flavor profile is different. Splenda has less of an after taste then aspertame. I don't know why, but at least for me it does. Moving along on the scale, Truvia has even less than an after taste then Splenda. Actually, it has no after taste. So it's not a matter of one being more or less artificial, it's a matter of the flavor profile.
ETA: My choice of wording was bad. When I said less artificial, I meant less artificial "tasting", meaning tasting closer to sugar, say in a cup of coffee.
Ah okay, totally fine then I misunderstood what you were saying.0 -
Stevia makes my mouth burn and my tongue go numb. (True story: the first and only time I tried powdered Stevia in my coffee, I thought that the cleaning people had used some kind of cleanser in the coffee pot and forgotten to rinse it out afterward. I thought I was drinking coffee + industrial cleanser). I haven't visited an allergist to confirm whether I'm actually allergic or if it's just an irritant for me, but I feel pretty comfortable saying that it's a less-healthy choice for me than any of the other artificial sweeteners that don't cause side effects for me.0
-
Thanks all for your contributions. I am concerned that societal trends are forcing marketers and producers to change their game. Depending on the plant origin, it. Can take years to adjust.
Looking up the Stevia husbandry, I notice that there are plant variants developed for India. How can a Stevia variant not be GMO?0 -
Thanks all for your contributions. I am concerned that societal trends are forcing marketers and producers to change their game. Depending on the plant origin, it. Can take years to adjust.
Looking up the Stevia husbandry, I notice that there are plant variants developed for India. How can a Stevia variant not be GMO?
"GMO" in colloquial usage is basically any organism, or really any product derived from an organism, that was modified using modern genetic engineering techniques. Genetic modificiation through selection or through hybridization or even chemical or radiation based mutagenesis would not be considered "GMO" in this parlance.
It is confusing because the terminology is being misused. Rather than call it products produced utilizing genetic engineering they call it "GMO" even if what they are talking about is something like corn starch from a genetically modified corn plant despite the starch itself being unchanged. It also means that if you modify a plant with genetic engineering techniques it is "GMO" but if you do the exact same changes through hybridization or chemical mutagenesis then it is not "GMO".2 -
Hah. I guess all the random mutations from irradiation from the sun are perfectly fine.0
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Thanks all for your contributions. I am concerned that societal trends are forcing marketers and producers to change their game. Depending on the plant origin, it. Can take years to adjust.
Looking up the Stevia husbandry, I notice that there are plant variants developed for India. How can a Stevia variant not be GMO?
"GMO" in colloquial usage is basically any organism, or really any product derived from an organism, that was modified using modern genetic engineering techniques. Genetic modificiation through selection or through hybridization or even chemical or radiation based mutagenesis would not be considered "GMO" in this parlance.
It is confusing because the terminology is being misused. Rather than call it products produced utilizing genetic engineering they call it "GMO" even if what they are talking about is something like corn starch from a genetically modified corn plant despite the starch itself being unchanged. It also means that if you modify a plant with genetic engineering techniques it is "GMO" but if you do the exact same changes through hybridization or chemical mutagenesis then it is not "GMO".
4 -
Oooooooooh. Look at the purty pictures.
I remember when genetic engineering was first proposed and the yuck factor of fish antifreeze in our food was speculated.
Now that gene mapping is so far along I think the astounding thing is how little difference there is between man and mouse.
There’s no Frankenstein mixing going on. We’re all cousins anyways!0
https://youtu.be/LnZnSumfIlE
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions