4 ms·
While we wait for the inevitable news about how this sweetener is harmful, I can't help but think why we don't have a non-controversial sweetener yet. There are
by potamic 3y ago
While we wait for the inevitable news about how this sweetener is harmful, I can't help but think why we don't have a non-controversial sweetener yet. There are hundreds and hundreds of food additives available in the market which are used everywhere. Many of these are compounds not found naturally and new to the human diet. You would expect any safety concerns arising to be sort of uniformly distributed across different classes of additives, purely from a statistical point of view. And yet sweeteners seem to take the brunt of it. What gives?
- userbinator 3y agoThe sugar industry doesn't like competition?
- Roark66 3y agoIsn't stevia non controversial? It's essentially a plant extract. Personally my problem with sweeteners is twofold. First, they are massively overused (especially in drinks). Second sugar adds more than just sweetness. It thickens the texture a little. I've never encountered this being replicated properly in products that use sweeteners instead.
- theogravity 3y agoIt's non-controversial but it does not taste like cane sugar, although it is sweet. I wouldn't replace a recipe calling for cane sugar with stevia in most cases. The taste is not the same.
- lost_tourist 3y agoIt's also far less studied than sucralose, aspartame, ace-k, and saccharin
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ImHereToVote 3y agojust eat some Glycine and Inositol. Sweet like sugar.
- bigfudge 3y agoPerhaps these are larger volume additives so get better studied. Perhaps a similarly high fraction of all additives would be found harmful if they were more studied, or the studies were easier to run?