Not to mention that while it’s OP’s money, at least in the US, natural and artificial sweeteners (or flavors) can be chemically-identical. I remember a bit…might have been from NPR Planet Money…on a substance that literally could be obtained either way, but some people thought that artificial flavors were bad, so there was a market for companies to go out and (more-expensively) extract the thing so that they could make the food they made say “natural flavor” rather than “artificial flavor”. The designation is just a function of whether you synthesize or extract the thing, the manufacturing process. It doesn’t say anything about the actual content.
EDIT: Not the article I was thinking of, but same idea:
All three experts say that ultimately, natural and artificial flavors are not that different. While chemists make natural flavors by extracting chemicals from natural ingredients, artificial flavors are made by creating the same chemicals synthetically.
Platkin says the reason companies bother to use natural flavors rather than artificial flavors is simple: marketing.
“Many of these products have health halos, and that’s what concerns me typically,” says Platkin. Consumers may believe products with natural flavors are healthier, though they’re nutritionally no different from those with artificial flavors.
I love how you say this, offer zero explanation as to why and just drop the mic.
I’m not here to defend Stevia, and I could give two shits about it; I’m here because I don’t believe you, unless you please provide us all something to read, because we are done taking things people say at face value.
It is marketed as somehow healthy when the reality is drinking anything with strong sweeteners is problematic. It offers a false sense of security. Instead of actually cutting back on Soda and junk food people switch to the low and zero sugar products.
It is like switching from smoking to vaping. Sure it might be better but the problem still persists.
You can drink a zero sugar saccharine drink every day for the rest of your life and experience no problems from it whatsoever. It’s the most tested artificial sweetener in history and has been used commercially since the 1890s.
People switching to the low and zero sugar products is a good thing. It is much healthier than people drinking sugary beverages - which is the alternative that that they replace. They do not replace water.
Switching from smoking to vaping is an improvement, but not a fair comparison as vaping has been shown to have significant negative health impacts.
I’m fucking done reading shit on the internet where people say things and expect us to believe them at face value. You made this statement, and it isn’t my burden to provide evidence to prove you correct, you will.
Please provide everyone here a link for us to read and change our minds.
A quick glance on google about Stevia might lead you to this link, but the preview shows “Results showed that stevia might lead to microbial imbalance, disrupting the communication between Gram-negative bacteria in the gut via either the LasR or RhlR …” which seems bad, until you read the rest of the good things that Stevia is supposedly doing.
Plus, the text behind that ellipses is “However, even if stevia inhibits these pathways, it cannot kill off the bacteria.”
So this might just be some good old misinformation on google’s part.
Edit: I mean to say that google is intentionally misleading people about Stevia.
Stevia is not artificial you silly duck. And it’s more sustainable to grow than the fucking sugar you hypocritically enjoy every day. Get over it.
Not to mention that while it’s OP’s money, at least in the US, natural and artificial sweeteners (or flavors) can be chemically-identical. I remember a bit…might have been from NPR Planet Money…on a substance that literally could be obtained either way, but some people thought that artificial flavors were bad, so there was a market for companies to go out and (more-expensively) extract the thing so that they could make the food they made say “natural flavor” rather than “artificial flavor”. The designation is just a function of whether you synthesize or extract the thing, the manufacturing process. It doesn’t say anything about the actual content.
EDIT: Not the article I was thinking of, but same idea:
https://health.wusf.usf.edu/npr-health/2017-11-03/is-natural-flavor-healthier-than-artificial-flavor
These are great reads. Thank you for the links!
Also, thank you for paraphrasing one of them, because they helped pique my interest further.
Appreciate you!
Stevia is incredibly misleading as a product
You’re wrong.
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I love how you say this, offer zero explanation as to why and just drop the mic.
I’m not here to defend Stevia, and I could give two shits about it; I’m here because I don’t believe you, unless you please provide us all something to read, because we are done taking things people say at face value.
It is marketed as somehow healthy when the reality is drinking anything with strong sweeteners is problematic. It offers a false sense of security. Instead of actually cutting back on Soda and junk food people switch to the low and zero sugar products.
It is like switching from smoking to vaping. Sure it might be better but the problem still persists.
You can drink a zero sugar saccharine drink every day for the rest of your life and experience no problems from it whatsoever. It’s the most tested artificial sweetener in history and has been used commercially since the 1890s.
People switching to the low and zero sugar products is a good thing. It is much healthier than people drinking sugary beverages - which is the alternative that that they replace. They do not replace water.
Switching from smoking to vaping is an improvement, but not a fair comparison as vaping has been shown to have significant negative health impacts.
To clarify I don’t necessarily have an issue with stevia itself it’s the fact that it is usually mixed with erythritol which is bad for you.
Your photo shows no evidence of this.
I’m fucking done reading shit on the internet where people say things and expect us to believe them at face value. You made this statement, and it isn’t my burden to provide evidence to prove you correct, you will.
Please provide everyone here a link for us to read and change our minds.
Not the guy, but https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9028423/ was an interesting read.
A quick glance on google about Stevia might lead you to this link, but the preview shows “Results showed that stevia might lead to microbial imbalance, disrupting the communication between Gram-negative bacteria in the gut via either the LasR or RhlR …” which seems bad, until you read the rest of the good things that Stevia is supposedly doing.
Plus, the text behind that ellipses is “However, even if stevia inhibits these pathways, it cannot kill off the bacteria.”
So this might just be some good old misinformation on google’s part.
Edit: I mean to say that google is intentionally misleading people about Stevia.
Do you have any actual data showing that reasonable amounts of erythritol is worse for you than any alternatives?
Shouldn’t that be on the label if it was in there too? How can you assume it is when it’s not labelled?
IDK what shitty country this is from, but it’s for sure an illegal label here (EU), on at least 2 counts.
You’re cooked
Weh, this got heated real quick.