Stevia shakes up the sweetener wars
Filed under: Company News, Coca-Cola Company, Pepsico
If the new TV commercials for Truvia and PureVia are any indication, stevia has made a sudden and astonishing leapfrog from hippie sprinkle to bonafide challenger to the decades-long dominance of the blue (Equal), pink (Sweet and Low), and yellow (Splenda) packets on the tables of diners and coffee shops everywhere. Is its use in mainstream soda brands far behind? Hard to say, but one thing is pretty clear: the days of chemical-derived sweeteners are waning as consumers become more suspicious of foodstuffs which, as the food writer Michael Pollan says, can't be imagined growing in nature.Stevia has been used by natives of South and Central America for centuries, and has long been highly-regarded for its intense sweetness, 30 times as sweet as sugar. It similarity to sugar is legendary: as Time magazine says of its key component, rebaudioside A, it has a "profile very similar to sugar with respect to onset, intensity and duration of sweetness."
Hold up though: wasn't there a problem with stevia? The sweet leaves of the ordinary-looking plant have long been banned for food use in the USA and European Union -- and in Singapore and Hong Kong -- due to concerns over a 1985 study that suggested steviol, a breakdown product from stevioside and rebaudioside, is a mutagen in the presence of a liver extract of pre-treated rats. In other words, it could create changes in the DNA of the liver, up to and including cancer. The study, however, was widely criticized by scientists who claimed the study was conducted in a way that would also find distilled water mutagenic, and largely discarded by health food aficionados, who continued to buy stevia powder in stores where it was marketed as a "dietary supplement" thanks to a ban by the U.S. FDA.
http://xml.channel.aol.com/xmlpublisher/fetch.v2.xml?option=expand_relative_urls&dataUrlNodes=uiConfig,feedConfig,localizationConfig,entry&id=726919&pid=726918&uts=1253569964
http://www.aolcdn.com/ke/media_gallery/v1/ke_media_gallery_wrapper.swf
Stevia Makes Sweet Waves
The Food and Drug administration has cleared the use of a natural, zero-calorie sweetener for beverages that's derived from an herb called stevia. The move paves the way for a flurry of new products featuring the sweetener, called rebaudioside A. The stevia shrub, shown above, is native to Paraguay.
Daniel Caselli, AFP / Getty Images
Daniel Caselli, AFP / Getty Images
Stevia was until very recently considered questionable by the FDA, but in December 2008 an FDA advisory prompted by Cargill's development of Truvia held that stevia with 95 percent or 97 percent rebaudioside A is safe and products containing that substance can be called foodstuffs (and not, as one soda company previously described its products, a "carbonated stevia supplement"). Truvia and PureVia are both formulated with reb A, leaving out the components of stevia leaf that provide a licorice-flavored aftertaste. It should be noted that powdered stevia is still not considered safe as a food additive; the FDA hasn't explained this distinction.
So, about that stevia-sweetened soda: there are already a few versions out there. One all-natural variety from Seattle is called Zevia (which I've tried and liked, in smallish quantities). Long-time craft soda maker Reed's, Inc. is marketing stevia-sweetened versions of its Virgil's colas, root beers, and cream sodas. But the big change is set to come from PepsiCo (PEP), who along with Whole Earth Sweetener Company (a subsidiary of the company that markets Equal) developed PureVia -- they've been making PureVia-sweetened SoBe since December 2008 -- and Coca-Cola Company (KO), which says a stevia-sweetened Sprite is on its way and has already announced a version of Odwalla sweetened with Truvia. No, I don't know why a 100 percent fruit juice needs additional sweetener, either, but I'm sure the marketers will explain it to us in due time. Given the funding behind these two new sweeteners, it seems inevitable that Nutrasweet and Sweet and Low will soon be but the cultural memory of our parents.
Truvia's television commercials and the additives branding veritably bleed the "from nature" story (a leaf dots the "i," if the green colors didn't already convince you), even though the substance is certainly highly processed and does contain other ingredients such as erythritol (a sugar alcohol derived from fruit also eagerly advertising its "natural"-ness). Many long-time proponents of stevia complain that the FDA banned the substance for decades, until food giant and deep-pocketed lobbyists Cargill, Pepsi and Coca-cola sought to use it. And health pundit Mark Sisson points us to the extremely short nature of the only study on Truvia done so far -- it was 16 weeks -- as rather too small to prove anything. Real dangers could take decades to become obvious.
Drinking four cans of Sprite a day, whether it's sweetened with pure cane sugar, high fructose corn syrup, Nutrasweet, PureVia, or some as-yet-to-be-marketed substance, is probably not entirely healthy. Truvia seems to be a positive step in the direction of whole foods: but it's a very, very small step and should not be considered a giddy slip-and-slide toward "healthy" soda. Is it terrible for you? Probably not. Is it going to improve your health? Almost certainly not. As always, moderation is the way to go.
Whether soda companies will market it this way, given the evidence so far, is unlikely.



























Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
9-21-2009 @ 6:38PM
ramazeutical said...
Well Hallelujah!
Wonder how long it will take our loving government to manufacture a health hazard and connect it to stevia.
Reply
9-21-2009 @ 9:25PM
undrgrndgirl said...
doesn't need a health hazard...the after taste is NASTY...
personally i use agave syrup it has a low glycemic index...
9-21-2009 @ 11:21PM
M.D. said...
I think ALL artificial sweeteners are bad and will cause some form of cancer. Nothing beats sugar! It's pure, natural and by far the best and only sweetener! My dad swears by the artificial stuff and constantly complains with his stomach. A little sugar won't hurt you!!! The main thing is to use it moderately.
9-21-2009 @ 11:33PM
bellered said...
Sugar isn't natural. That's (one of) the point(s) of the article.
9-21-2009 @ 6:54PM
George said...
I'm a rather satisfied Splenda user, and I found stevia much more difficult to dissolve in liquids, and the branded Truvia far worse than original stevia. I had to use two three times the envelopes of Truvia as compared with Splenda to achive desired sweetness, and found the Spenda sweetness much more satisfying.
Reply
9-21-2009 @ 7:11PM
Linda said...
I use Splenda. I did research it and what I read made me stop using it, but I came back because of my diabetes.
I tried a stevia brand named Sweet Leaf. It was way too sweet and it left a nasty after taste in my mouth.
Reply
9-21-2009 @ 7:09PM
pazuzuking said...
I rarther like Truvia. Never liked Splenda.
Reply
9-21-2009 @ 7:12PM
Anita said...
I have tried both and definitely prefer the pill type Splenda, but only because Truvia does not make the pill type. It's difficult to gauge one teaspoon sugar-equivalent in the packets of powder, so that's why I like Splenda's pill since it is sweet enough for me. I also use Splenda for baking. I use just a quarter cup of Splenda when the recipe asks for one cup of sugar.
Reply
9-21-2009 @ 7:20PM
Diane M said...
Interesting article, but what makes it stand out is that it is also GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT, and it makes sense! I'm so tired of reading tripe by "journalists" (and I use the word loosely) that don't know how to write English properly.
Thank you, Ms. Gilbert!!!!
Reply
9-21-2009 @ 11:58PM
alvin said...
wouldn't that be "journalists 'who' write correctly?" and i don't believe you write english ... you may write 'in' english ... but you don't write english.
9-22-2009 @ 6:11AM
Emma said...
Amen to that, sister!
9-21-2009 @ 7:29PM
yogazone said...
Better yet, try Stevia in the Raw put out by the same company that makes Sugar in the Raw. I find the price a far better deal for how much you use. I actually use half the amount of Stevia in the Raw as I do of Truvia. For some reason, I never liked Truvia, tried Stevia in the Raw and have been absolutely contented. I find Splenda and Truvia much too, too sweet. Stevia in the Raw hits it just right. Where I live, I cannot buy it here, so I buy it by the case online, for which I might add they charge no shipping if you order a case of 12. I order it from a company in Brooklyn, NY and have always had it within around three to five days after I place my order. It comes to a bit over $3 per package of 50 envelopes.
Reply
9-21-2009 @ 11:31PM
ROSA said...
I totally agree with your comments. I don't know however, if Stevia In The Raw (as much as I like it) is affected by: " It should be noted that powdered stevia is still not considered safe as a food additive ", mentioned on the article.
Comments?
9-21-2009 @ 8:23PM
Douglas said...
The article states that PepsiCo is coming out with a stevia-sweetened Sprite. Sprite is made by Coca Cola.
Reply
9-21-2009 @ 9:23PM
sarah gilbert said...
Douglas: you're right, I confused my soda companies for a minute there due to convoluted sentence structure. it's now correct.
9-21-2009 @ 11:43PM
trueskeptic said...
You may want to read the article again. It never said that sprite was a product of pepsico. It stated that, "and Cocacola Company (KO), which said a stevia sweetened sprite is on its way."
9-22-2009 @ 12:04AM
Douglas said...
trueskeptic: No need to read again. You probably noticed that comment #13 (the one in between my comment and yours) is from the article author stating that she corrected the article after getting my feedback. Thanks
9-24-2009 @ 6:24PM
Angela said...
These stevia based products like Truvia and PureVia are derived from chemically isolating the sweetening agents in Stevia. If you want a natural, low glycemic sweetener stick with real stevia or raw agave nectar.
Reply
9-21-2009 @ 8:18PM
liz said...
i'll eat anything. yum!
Reply
9-21-2009 @ 8:20PM
liz said...
i wont eat truvia tho... it has carbs.
Reply