I put some in tea a couple of weeks ago. Dunno, it tasted a little funny but its something I could get used to. I feel that the only reason I like splenda is because Im used to it at this point.
Stevia definitely doesn’t taste like sugar. It hits the tongue differently, with a much slower onset of sweet than sugar. It’s similar to aspartame in the sense that it’s a thinner, less full-bodied sweetness than sugar, but it has a much nicer, faintly licorice taste than aspartame. It’s also different in that it doesn’t leave an aftertaste, unlike both sugar and aspartame. I make my own pop with soda water, stevia, and lime juice, and I prefer that to any commercial stuff because it cures thirst rather than causes it.
The article from the Weston Price Foundation that Smash reproduces here, in addition to relying on vague undocumented charges and hearsay, with virtually no references to support its claims, presents a typical alt med fantasy of the FDA supposedly smashing (sorry) healthy alternative foods at the bidding of its Corporate Masters, including the fiction that the FDA was responsible for the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (under which stevia and many other supplements were allowed to be marketed without the need for proper safety testing).
In fact, DSHEA was a creation of Congress, written and largely pushed through by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), whose state is home to many supplement companies, and who has benefited from substantial contributions from those corporations (Hatch’s son also got a lucrative job in the industry). Hatch and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) have continued to benefit from their connection with the multibillion dollar supplement industry (Harkin has gotten big bucks from Herbalife).
The Weston Price Foundation’s reliability is suspect for other reasons. The WPF is best known for its virulent opposition to products containing soy protein (another “natural” food component used extensively for many years here and abroad) which the WPF has a ludicrous bias against, blaming it for all sorts of diseases. The WPF site includes an article blasting water fluoridation as “The Fraud Of The Century”. A WPF bigwig, Mary Enig, is a major promoter of high saturated fat coconut oil, and gets support from the coconut oil industry to do so (The WPF in general argues that a high saturated fat diet is great for you, and that attempts to lower cholesterol are harmful - advice that flies in the face of a vast array of well-documented studies). Other biggies on their agenda include the supposed wonders of consuming raw milk and poached animal brains. In other words, they promote health quackery.
It is legitimate to question whether the FDA was too slow to approve stevia, but the conspiracy theorizing and portrayals of stevia supporters as little guys pushed around by corporate interests are idiotic, given the actual history of stevia sales and the major interest of big corporations in using it to attract the natural foods market. And the evidence isn’t there to support the idea that stevia is some fantastic health food that heals wounds and fights infection - it’s a sweetener, folks.
And again, while the overall safety picture for stevia looks good right now, some questions remain and I think we’ll hear more about them in the future.
Typical flakey junk “science” from SmashTheState yet again.
/not surprised
Then he said:
Well, yeah. If it’s a natural substance, the FDA needs evidence of harm to ban it. That’s why they allowed it, but only as a supplement. If you wanted them to allow it as a sweetener, then you need positive evidence of safety (you know, like they spent years and years doing for aspartame). Sounds like you’re wanting to criticize them for following the law.
I believe this is called an ad hominem argument. It’s also a circular argument in which you are arguing from your desired conclusion: They’re wrong because they’re
quacks because they’re wrong. In any case, why not allow people to make up their own minds from the information and citations presented?
This belongs in the Pit, not GQ.
Not really. Saying WPF are wrong about because they are evil communist puppy abusers would be an ad hominem attack. Pointing out they make other, demonstrably false claims, on a related subject is a perfectly reasonable way of casting doubt on the validity of a cite.
SmashTheState has a valid complaint. There is no science demonstrating a positive link between stevia and any health concern. The FDA also disregarded their own regulations as to the use of naturally occurring sweeteners. There is no question that the FDA is susceptible to pressure from industry, whether directly or through political pressure.
Furthermore, Jackmaniii, your scientific criticisms are incorrect; you don’t need extra-long lifetimes to determine the RR of a substance.
A conspiracy of the man vs people who know what’s really healthy isn’t required to see that the FDA succumbed to pressure from industry. The profit motive is enough, as well as the fact that there were several industry lobbyist groups keeping up pressure to ban stevia. It’s also interesting to note that when market conditions increased the profitability of stevia extracts, the big guys were able to go right to it without serious testing hurdles.
These factors, combined with the FDA’s statements about “health concerns” without providing any scientific evidence, seem to be good evidence that there was more going on than the FDA simply protecting our interests through their biasless science.
Let’s see some cites from the naysayers rather than unsupported accusations of trollery, please.
What citations might those be? In sole support of the allegation that the FDA held up stevia approval to please Monsanto (or whatever corporate bogeyman you’d prefer), we’ve seen the opinions of 1) you and ivn1188 and 2) a foundation that’s known for promoting health quackery.
A charge like this leveled by the American Diabetes Association would carry a bit more weight, but solid evidence backing it up would still be required.
What you need to determine if a substance in the diet is hazardous is adequate research, possibly combined with skilled clinical appraisal - not the simplistic observation that “people in other cultures used this for x years without problems”. Check out the examples I gave you earlier of herbs previously trumpeted as safe that subsequently turned out to be associated with serious organ damage.
You expect us to disprove a conspiracy against stevia? Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. You make such an allegation, you provide the evidence to support it.
This is getting beyond the question of “Stevia, friend or foe?”, but I hope it can be kept out of Great Debates, as there is more than enough conspiracy theorizing cluttering up that forum now.
I’m not going to argue with you. I’ve presented the information, and people can judge for themselves. Your loaded language (“or whatever corporate bogeyman you’d prefer”) does you no great service. I don’t sell stevia, I have no particular agenda in reporting the facts as they exist. We all understand that you reject any non-mainstream view, resulting in tacit support of the status quo, whatever that happens to be. Which is fine. You can believe whatever you wish, you can even vociferously attack anyone who disagrees with your beliefs. What you can’t and won’t do is shut down divergent views. We have both presented arguments for differing views on the subject of stevia, and I am content to allow the data to speak for itself.
In other words, you won’t even consider any fact unless and until it becomes mainstream enough to enter the mouth of a large corporate body. As I happen to be a professional labour organizer and an activist, I have considerable experience in dealing with NGOs. The NGOs have consistently been our greatest enemies because they rely on industry and government for their funding – ie/ their jobs. If you expect the American Diabetes Association to speak out against Monsanto, they’d probably have to stop accepting money from Monsanto first.
You’re the one turning this into a debate. I’m content to allow my information to speak for itself. They don’t need the Speaker of the Oracle to tell them whether or not the citations are spoken ex cathedra. Evidentally you feel others aren’t smart enough to read the information and come to the same conclusions that you have.
I asked this question before, because the Stevia-sweetened soda that’s out there tastes hideous, IMHO.
So, does stevia taste terrible, or do these hippies just suck at making soda?
SmashTheState, I’ve edited the long quote from “Sugar Free Blues.” While I appreciate the effort you put into making the hyperlinks, I still think the excerpt was just too long. Sorry. No warning issued.
**
Gfactor**
General Questions Moderator
I see your rejection of the use of ad hominems only applies to other people. I’m fine with “non-mainstream views”, as long as they are backed by something other than nebulous charges and unsupported opinion.
I find it bizarre that you would quote me and not bother to read what you’re quoting. I in fact said that even from a group such as the American Diabetes Association (which carries the respect that a fringe bunch like the Weston Price Foundation does not), I’d require good documentation before believing charges of a corporate conspiracy against a food product.
I think Dopers are smart enough to weigh the quality of “evidence” provided, and make rational conclusions.
I’ve only tasted stevia a few times…I’ve found it to have a sweet but unpleasant taste, somewhat like the “mixed greens” on a cheap salad bar. However, plenty of people try it and say it has no taste at all, other than the sweetness.
EstroJen, since you say your problem with sugar is that it doesn’t dissolve well in iced tea, I infer this isn’t a dietary issue for you (weight, diabetes, etc.). Well, there are several solutions to that problem. The easiest one is to dissolve the sugar in the tea before adding ice. Use superfine sugar and it will dissolve even in iced tea (though you may have to stir a bit). Or you can make simple syrup (combine 2 parts sugar in one part water, heat until dissolved and cool) and add that to your tea.
No insight on the question asked. I tried stevia and didn’t like the flavor. I generally use sugar or Splenda (sucralose).
Me and artificial sweetners don’t get along, so I thought stevia wouldn’t make me sick. WRONG.
And I had such high hopes for it.