Stevia: The answer to the calorie-free conundrum?
Beth Cash
Issue date: 4/16/09 Section: Features
There are many sugar substitutes on the market right now, including aspartame
(Equal), sucralose (Splenda) and saccharin (Sweet'N Low). What makes stevia different from its sugar-like counterparts is that it is a natural, rather than artificial, product. Stevia is derived from the stevia rebaudiana plant indigenous to parts of South America. Although the sweetener is 30 times sweeter than table sugar, it has zero calories because the body does not metabolize the sweet glycosides found in the leaves. Additionally, stevia does not affect blood glucose levels, making it a good sugar alternative for diabetics.
While the natural sweetener has been available at specialty food stores for years, only recently has the FDA cleared its first form of stevia for use in food and beverages. This highly purified form of stevia is known as rebaudioside A; all other forms of the sweetener remain off-limits.
Why is this? One would think that stevia would be the solution to the lengthy search for a calorie-free sugar alternative. With the "alternative sweeteners - healthy or not?" debate causing diet soda sales to fall in recent years, Coca-Cola and other beverage companies have been anxiously awaiting the green light to begin adding stevia to their products. The problem, according to the FDA, is that natural does not necessarily mean healthy.
While Japan has been adding stevia to their products since the 1970s, the U.S., Canada and the European Union have all banned the sweetener's use in food products. No adverse side effects have been reported from Japan's 30-year use of stevia, but with the U.S.'s notoriously high sugar and artificial sweetener consumption, the FDA requires more testing to make sure that stevia is in fact safe.
In preliminary testing, toxicologists have found several potential problems with the product. Animal studies in Europe found that male rats who were fed high doses of stevia for 22 months exhibited lower sperm counts and in some cases, infertility. Female hamsters that were fed steviol, a derivative of stevia, had fewer and smaller offspring. Cancer may pose another threat to stevia users, as steviol can be converted into a mutagenic compound that could in turn promote cancer by mutating one's DNA. In addition, stevia was found to interfere with the conversion of food to energy within animal cells. Scientists do not know whether these adverse health effects would also be found in humans, or if they are simply due to the large dosage. These findings and others have led the FDA to mandate further testing before approving stevia's use in food products.
(Equal), sucralose (Splenda) and saccharin (Sweet'N Low). What makes stevia different from its sugar-like counterparts is that it is a natural, rather than artificial, product. Stevia is derived from the stevia rebaudiana plant indigenous to parts of South America. Although the sweetener is 30 times sweeter than table sugar, it has zero calories because the body does not metabolize the sweet glycosides found in the leaves. Additionally, stevia does not affect blood glucose levels, making it a good sugar alternative for diabetics.
While the natural sweetener has been available at specialty food stores for years, only recently has the FDA cleared its first form of stevia for use in food and beverages. This highly purified form of stevia is known as rebaudioside A; all other forms of the sweetener remain off-limits.
Why is this? One would think that stevia would be the solution to the lengthy search for a calorie-free sugar alternative. With the "alternative sweeteners - healthy or not?" debate causing diet soda sales to fall in recent years, Coca-Cola and other beverage companies have been anxiously awaiting the green light to begin adding stevia to their products. The problem, according to the FDA, is that natural does not necessarily mean healthy.
While Japan has been adding stevia to their products since the 1970s, the U.S., Canada and the European Union have all banned the sweetener's use in food products. No adverse side effects have been reported from Japan's 30-year use of stevia, but with the U.S.'s notoriously high sugar and artificial sweetener consumption, the FDA requires more testing to make sure that stevia is in fact safe.
In preliminary testing, toxicologists have found several potential problems with the product. Animal studies in Europe found that male rats who were fed high doses of stevia for 22 months exhibited lower sperm counts and in some cases, infertility. Female hamsters that were fed steviol, a derivative of stevia, had fewer and smaller offspring. Cancer may pose another threat to stevia users, as steviol can be converted into a mutagenic compound that could in turn promote cancer by mutating one's DNA. In addition, stevia was found to interfere with the conversion of food to energy within animal cells. Scientists do not know whether these adverse health effects would also be found in humans, or if they are simply due to the large dosage. These findings and others have led the FDA to mandate further testing before approving stevia's use in food products.
Be the first to comment on this story