Stevia does seem worth checking out.

Ozzy

I really do like Stevia a lot. It tastes a lot better than the
artificial sweeteners. Although I imagine if you fed a metric ton of
it to a rat, the rat might die. I drink my tea straight though,
nothing but leaf, water, and an occasional flower petal.

___________
Mike Petro
http://www.pu-erh.net
Celebrating 3 years of sharing

Saying that stevia is a "real plant" is a poor testimonial to its
safety. Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it is
inherently safe. Arsenic is natural and is lethal, whereas water is a
chemical and is essential for life.

I have no idea whether stevia (or Splenda for that matter) is safe or
not and I'm not saying to use or not use it. But I'm guessing that it
falls into the same category as many herbs and "natural" supplements
and is probably not regulated by the FDA. I'm willing to bet that
there has been far more research on the safety of Splenda than there is
on the safety of stevia. I keep reading on the net about the alleged
dangers of artificial sweeteners but nobody ever seems to have any
evidence to back up these claims.

As for the original question that started this thread, most likely none
of these products -- Splenda, stevia or sugar (if you are not diabetic)
is harmful when used in moderation. If you truly wish to avoid the
calories in sugar and not use artificial sweeteners or stevia, then the
only thing I can recommend is to try and get used to drinking
unsweetened tea. Tea that is prepared properly and not allowed to
stew (overbrew) really doesn't require any sweetening to taste good.


On Jan 25, 1:24 pm, Karl Sprenger wrote:
Read about it, look it up, stevia is a real plant, Splenda is a chemical.

Don't take our word for it. Check it out.



Fran wrote:
Why are you assuming that stevia is safe and that Splenda is unsafe?
On what basis did you reach these conclusions?

On Jan 25, 9:22 am, Ozzy please.answer@NG wrote:
"taopants" wrote in news:1169731913.366442.189610
@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:

I just looked down and saw that karl rec'd stevia as well. So I
unintentionally repeat. avoid splenda-- To me it is just more of the
all too prevalent artifical evil. The Splenda compound is sugar
with a chlorine molecule attached to it. as told to me by a rep when I
was a waiter. Of course I could be wrong/heard it wrong. So research
it yourselvesYou're right. See http://www.holisticmed.com/splenda/. Every artificial
sweetner is medically worse than sugar, which has its problems too.
Splenda is relatively new, and so is assummed to be safe until proven
otherwise.

Stevia does seem worth checking out.

Ozzy- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Karl Sprenger wrote:
Read about it, look it up, stevia is a real plant, Splenda is a chemical.

Don't take our word for it. Check it out.

In reply to Fran who wrote:
Why are you assuming that stevia is safe and that Splenda is unsafe?
On what basis did you reach these conclusions?

This is a rant, a somewhat educated one and slightly on-topic to boot,
but a rant nonetheless. Your money won't be refunded.

Splenda is indeed a chemical, stevia is indeed extracted from a
"real plant", and of course the latter is also a mixture of chemicals
(notably stevioside). Karl, my friend (friends? or are you just using
the royal we?), what makes you think that this particular chemical is
safer than one concocted in the laboratories of McNeil Nutritionals?
Other real plants, eaten in large amounts whole or in extract form, have
been known to cause Parkinsonian-type and other neural disabilities, liver
damage, and an interesting variety of cancers (oh yeah, and lavender is
an estrogen mimic). There is a good reason why the FDA doesn't allow
stores to sell real root beer or adulterated Mexican vanilla, and I'm
grateful to them for this. But they aren't omniscient. To see what's
on the horizon, please read the attached abstract which is merely the
first result of a medline search on "stevia" (there are 114 others,
not all of which will contain bad news). I have no idea whether the
concentrations here are relevant to humans (and it is in general extremely
hard, sometimes impossibly so, to determine this relevance).

As another example, veering dangerously close to relevance, consider the
following excerpt from an article in _Lancet_ (2002, vol. 359, p. 1484):

"Tea is regarded a delicious, aromatic stimulant worldwide. However,
even tea may lead to health problems if flavoured and consumed in
extraordinarily high quantities. Bergamot essence in Earl Grey tea,
when consumed in excess, may induce muscle cramps, fasciculations,
paraesthesias and blurred vision."

In this case study the victim's symptoms disappeared when he limited
consumption to a liter per day.

I might suggest caution before consuming large amounts or high
concentrations of anything, herbal or not.

Best,

Rick.

******************

Food Chem Toxicol. 2006 Oct 27; [Epub ahead of print]

Analysis of genotoxic potentiality of stevioside by comet assay.

* Nunes AP,
* Ferreira-Machado SC,
* Nunes RM,
* Dantas FJ,
* De Mattos JC,
* Caldeira-de-Araujo A.

Departamento de Biofisica e Biometria, Universidade do Estado do
Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Biologia Roberto Alcantara Gomes,
Av. 28 de Setembro, 87, 20551-030 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.

Stevioside is a natural non-caloric sweetener extracted from
Stevia rebaudiana (Bertoni) leaves. It has been widely used in
many countries, including Japan, Korea, China, Brazil and Paraguay,
either as a substitute for sucrose in beverages and foods or as a
household sweetener. The aim of this work was to study its genotoxic
potentiality in eukaryotic cells. Wistar rats were treated with
stevioside solution (4mg/mL) through oral administration (ad libitum)
and the DNA-induced damage was evaluated using the single cell gel
electrophoresis (comet assay). The results showed that treatment
with stevioside generates lesions in peripheral blood, liver, brain
and spleen cells in different levels, the largest effect being in
liver. Therefore, these undesired effects must be better understood,
once the data present here point to possible stevioside mutagenic
properties.

Zarky Zork wrote:
I am looking to eliminate sugar from my diet but am not interested in an
artificial sweetener. Anyone else found a fully safe sweetener to use.

Many natives use cat semen

Harvesting would be a problem, I would think. My cat won't even stand still
to have eardrops put in.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Richard Chappell wrote:
Splenda is indeed a chemical, stevia is indeed extracted from a
"real plant", and of course the latter is also a mixture of chemicals
(notably stevioside). Karl, my friend (friends? or are you just using
the royal we?), what makes you think that this particular chemical is
safer than one concocted in the laboratories of McNeil Nutritionals?

All of these are true. BUT:

1. Neither one of them really tastes like sugar.

2. Sweeteners have no business in tea.

I might suggest caution before consuming large amounts or high
concentrations of anything, herbal or not.

Absolutely. Note that high concentrations of sugar aren't so good for
you either.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Jan 24, 11:36 pm, "alex" wrote:
I drink a lot of tea and need to sweeten with sugar.

I am looking to eliminate sugar from my diet but am not interested in an
artificial sweetener. Anyone else found a fully safe sweetener to use.
Glucose is brain food and sucrose will break down it to feed your
cell. So will do so with most foods consumed.
I found agave nectar to be a very good substitute.
Limiting glucose consumption is a contemporary concern for many
people. The introduction of this new sweetener is timely as it has a
relatively low glycemic index due to its higher proportion of fructose
and lower levels of glucose. This fact should prove attractive to
those with special diet considerations or who monitor glucose
intake. , Thart info came from a manufactuer of agave nectar (I like
the light one) and most of the agave sites I have read
although it is still what works for you, and not me
Jenn

On 29 Jan 2007 10:59:57 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Zarky Zork wrote:
I am looking to eliminate sugar from my diet but am not interested in an
artificial sweetener. Anyone else found a fully safe sweetener to use.

Many natives use cat semen

Harvesting would be a problem, I would think. My cat won't even stand still
to have eardrops put in.
--scott

Where I come from, they only harvest deer.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---