> it's natural like sugar,

Why is that relevant? That's orthogonal to whether it is healthy or unhealthy. There's no reason, based on that information, that I should expect it to be any more or less toxic than Splenda. I mean, the wrong 100% natural mushroom will kill you pretty dead.

It's relevant because being able to say you use a natural sweetener will greatly increase your potential customer base. Regardless of the actual merits of "natural," a whole lot of people believe in the merits.

Most things can be toxic in high doses. Yes, being natural doesn't say much but I wasn't trying to relate that it's healthy for you just because it's natural.

Sure, I'm just wary of the term 'natural' when it comes to food. As far as I know it confers no benefit on the food item except making consumers feel good about it; i.e., as a descriptor it has little beyond marketing value.

This. The term "natural" when it comes to food doesn't even necessarily mean it's not synthetic! Just that it is "derived" from something natural. [1]

[1] http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrs...

To stay on topic, I'm calling Stevia natural as a comparison to sugar coming from sugar cane, which grows in nature and not in a lab. No marketing speak here.

I updated my original comment to describe what I was talking about when saying "natural"

You still didn't give any reason why something that is natural should be preferred over something that is synthetic or lab grown.

Honestly, other than fear of 'teh chemicals,' I can't think of a reason.

I'm not a chemophobe by any means. I'm also not anti-lab grown products. Providing for a world with 7+ billion population requires some of this. However, we have decades of studies proving what natural food does to the bodies and we're still learning what synthetic and lab-grown foods do. And yes, I realize this statement can't really apply to Stevia considering the lack of studies into its health on the human body. But I'm responding to your general idea, not specifically to Stevia.

> we have decades of studies proving what natural food does to the bodies

You are making the false assumption "natural" foods are a correlated group as far as health goes. This is empirically false (ignoring the fact that natural has no scientific definition to begin with). Studying sucrose won't inform you of the dangers of cyanide though both are "natural".

To stay on topic, I'm not talking about anything other than stevia coming from leaves of Stevia rebaudiana whereas sugar comes from sugarcane. The process by which these two plants grow is natural and not synthetic. I'm not getting into the pointless debate about food being "natural", which I think is complete marketing hype.

The point is that research on sugarcane has little to no bearing on what research on stevia would uncover. The fact we think sugarcane is safe is not evidence in favor of stevia. Just because both happened to evolve with little human interference doesn't correlate their effects on the body in any way.

The exception is if we can prove the two operate under the same fundamental mechanisms within the body. But there's nothing different about natural growing plants and man made substances under this sort of research. A molecule is a molecule.

I disagree. Natural doesn't mean healthy, but all else being equal I would prefer to eat something that wasn't synthesized and consider a non-synthetic option to be "healthier" by my definition of what is healthy. And what makes something healthy is more than just the effects of consuming it.

Well that's not true. Saying it's natural suggests that we have atleast evolved with it in the environment, likely interacted with it at times and have developed biological means of interacting and dealing with it. If something is not natural (i.e. doesn't normally exist in nature), then we would not have developed a biological response to it yet, which means it frankly more dangerous because the body does not know how to deal with it.

> Saying it's natural suggests that we have atleast evolved with it in the environment, likely interacted with it at times and have developed biological means of interacting and dealing with it.

The post you replied to has already refuted your argument. We evolved with poisonous mushrooms in our environment and our body's "means of dealing with it" are to die. That's hardly the gold standard for biological responses, don't you think?

Well that's definitely not true. Many of the most potent toxins known to us are produced by living organisms – for an example, actually read the comment you replied to. You can find examples of substances that are spectacularly lethal to us from all of the five major kingdoms of life. Merely saying something is natural does not imply we co-evolved with it at all, and even if we had, it doesn't automatically follow that selection always gives us the means to "deal with it" in the way you suppose.

I get your point, but as the above poster said, often the body's way of dealing with things is to suffer and/or die. So...how is having an existing way to "deal with it" terribly helpful?

(Not trolling, seeking honest clarification)

Yeah. I think the "natural" people aren't saying all natural things are better than all man-made things. e.g. Poison ivy tea isn't better for you than Pepsi.

But, looking at what generations of long-lived people tend to eat[1] is probably a reasonable guide to nutrition and health. Manufactured/artificial stuff simply isn't on that list since that stuff hasn't been around long enough to be part of a multi-generational study.

[1] https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100...

Actually, zero calorie stuff is pretty much by definition stuff we haven't decided to "deal with". It doesn't get absorbed directly, and we never created a means to break it down into something that could be absorbed. The goal for a non-caloric sweetener is to be noticed by receptors on the tongue by chance while the rest of your body explicitly ignores it. Biological response is the "problem".

You can make the same argument for poisonous mushrooms, but I wouldn't recommend consuming them.

> There's no reason, based on that information, that I should expect it to be any more or less toxic than Splenda.

The fact that it's present in large quantities in at least one living organism shows that it's not fundamentally incompatible with life. And that's especially true in this case, where (according to Wikipedia) there is a 1,500 year history of human use. So all else being equal, I would expect it to be more likely to be safe than some random chemical with no basis in nature.

Out of the 2,000 species of mushrooms in North America, there are maybe 10 that are deadly poisonous. You think your chances of dying after randomly mixing up some unknown chemicals in a lab are really less than 1 in 200?

> but I agree that it tastes icky.

You should consider getting some liquid sucralose. I agree that splenda is yucky, but that's largely because of the fillers that make the volume measurement manageable. Pure liquid sucralose, which is nothing but sucralose and water, tastes exactly like sugar to me. Seriously, put both in some lemonade and I'd never be able to tell the difference.

That doesn't sound right to me. Pure sucralose does not taste like sucrose. Splenda bulks up their dry packets with dextrose and maltodextrin, both glucose-based compounds that don't have any of the artificial flavour of sucralose. There are also a lot of sodas containing sucralose, all of which have that artificial sucralose flavour.

What can I say? They taste identical to me. Splenda tastes nasty to me, but I can't identify any flavor differences between sucrose and sucralose. Perhaps it's a genetic thing, like cilantro tasting like soap to some people.

Stevia (the plant) naturally has kind of a slight bitter-ish anise aftertaste in the background. Not something I mind personally, but I'm sure others do.

Personally I don't know how much this taste is in the purified compounds themselves. I know many of the early "stevia packets" also exhibited these same sort of characteristics, but it seems to have lessened over time. (Then again, some of this may be due to reformulation. For instance, Truvia switched away from pure stevia-compounds to stevia-compounds-plus-erythritol several years ago if I recall.)

You beat me to the punch on the mention of anise (licorice) aftertaste.

IME, the liquid stevia preparations produce better results than any of the powder forms. I use it in my coffee exclusively and have tried 'em all.

WRT the question, then, about stevia's relative lack of popularity: I think it comes from the aforementioned anise-like note, which seems to operate below a threshold in smaller amounts (such as to sweeten coffee), but at larger amounts (such as soda (pop)) this secondary flavor presents clearly.

Since, for example, one 12oz (355ml) Coca-Cola has 39 grams of sugars (!), the amount of stevia required to equal this level of sweetness goes well into the range where the undesirable anise note becomes present.

I've tried a couple of different stevia sodas and, yeah, they just aren't that great. (Since I rarely drink soda, when I do partake I usually go "full leaded," as they say. Life's too short, and all that...)

That's just my working hypothesis as a stevia fan. YMMV.

(Disclaimer: IANA chemist|biologist|nutrition scientist|&c).

I wonder if that would make it a good choice for something like Moxie, that already has a sort of licorice-y flavor from the gentian root it's flavored with.

>it's natural like sugar

cyanide is also natural

I'm not trying to state its health compared to sugar, just that it's not synthetic

So what's the point of saying it's not synthetic then?

Cyanide is a very good case in point; bitter almonds will kill you in a relatively nasty way (confusion -> vertigo -> seizures -> apnea -> cardiac arrest) if you eat 30-50 of them. At lower doses, chronic exposure causes paralysis, hypothyroidism and liver and kidney damage.

Even ground nutmeg is poisonous (in doses of 2+ tbsp)

Please just be cautious not to fall into the trap of the 'vital principle'[1]. If you had a bottle of L-ascorbic acid ("vitamin C") in your right hand synthesized in a laboratory and a bottle of L-ascorbic acid in your left extracted from rose hips, you'd agree that except for making arguments about impurities (certainly as likely in the 'natural' extract) that the molecules are identical in every sense in both cases..?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism

Is vitalism actually discredited though? Sure, urea & synthetic urea are chemically the same and behave identically in a chemical sense — but wouldn't a vitalist argue that there's more than just chemistry at play?

The problem with vitalism is that it's unfalsifiable; that doesn't mean that it's wrong, simply that science doesn't have the ability to refute it.

This reminds me of a student's comment: "oh but that's only true within the confines of logic". That is, i'm sure a 'vitalist' would argue: "oh that's just chemistry, what of beyond chemistry?" to which i'd be forced to ask: are we talking about concepts where science isn't accepted? isn't that the realm of spiritualism? ("this protein is imbued with an ineffable living essence; whereas the one you synthesized must necessarily lack it") There are certainly folks who believe that things go on in a living system's metabolism which transcend chemistry, but on that point we part ways and i wish you well. and/or for me vitalism was forever falsified when a synthetic molecule and a 'natural' molecule co-crystallized.

I've always taken the "natural is better" argument to be based on what else is in the product. The drug industry has a long history of taking a complex natural product and isolating out specific chemicals, then patenting a manufacturing process for those chemicals to sell them as drugs. Sometimes that's fine, but there are many cases where the drugs have side-effects that the natural product doesn't have and that's due to the other stuff in the natural product.

So your analogy really should be between lab-synthesized vitamin C and a piece of citrus fruit. The fruit is going to be better for your overall health because it's got more in it than just L-ascorbic acid. For example, it's got fiber, which is likely to slow down the passage of the vitamin through your digestive system, which will help you absorb more of it for an equal dose.

no... my analogy would be fundamentally a different analogy if i compared a bottle of vitamin C to a whole piece of fruit (quite "apples and oranges" in fact). I wanted to underscore that two pure substances, one synthetic and one extracted from nature are indistinguishable. When i teach biochemistry i'm always struck by the resistance to the pivotal biochemical scientific experiment of Friedrich Wöhler who synthesized urea and showed that it's identical in every sense to the urea extracted from urine. Thereby ending the notion that there is a vital principle. One may always quibble about contamination, but carbon atoms linked to other carbon atoms are the same whether made in a cell or made in the laboratory.

I agree with you that the two chemicals are indistinguishable; I just think that that's not really the issue when people prefer 'natural' products. Now, most people also don't get the distinction you're making, because they're not chemists. What they see, and what they're reacting to, goes more like this:

Joe Public> I have a headache.

Folk Medicine Dr> Here, drink some willowbark tea.

DrugCo Chemist> No, take this aspirin. It's chemically identical to the active substance in willowbark tea, but much more convenient!

Joe Public> My headache is better, but now my stomach hurts. That never happened with the tea.

DrugCo Chemist> Oh, you have an ulcer. You're a sick person. Take this antacid medicine!

Joe Public> My stomach feels better, but now I'm constipated.

DrugCo Chemist> Wow, you're really sick... here, take this laxative!

Folk Medicine Dr> All these unnatural drugs are killing you. You should really just take the tea.

Joe Public> Yeah, I think you're right. Natural is better.

yes, and the relative merits of well defined substances versus macerated hot water plant extracts will be discussed to the end of time. just don't ascribe magical 'vital' properties to either one. by the bye, drink enough willowbark "tea" and you might succumb to salicin poisoning. it's said to have shortened Beethoven's life. (next up: homeopathy doesn't cause any side effects)

You seem to think I'm arguing with you. I'm not. I'm trying to explain why people claim that "natural is better", even if they understand that the active components are the same.

Also, you're the one talking about magical vital properties, not me. It's a well-established fact that substances in combination can have a different overall effect than they do in isolation. There's nothing magical about it.

Homeopathy is an absolute scam. And yes, there are scammers who take advantage of the 'natural is better' idea to sell useless products.

Up until 2008, it was banned in the US for food use.

Wouldn't be surprised if sugar companies had something to do with that.

To me, it tastes extremely icky. It immediately and unpleasantly overpowers anything I put it in, even though I'm fine with every other sweetener I've ever found. It's probably one of those weird genetic things, like how some people can taste PTC or PROP and others can't.

I've always assumed Stevia hasn't taken off yet because that means companies have to spend money on trying to rework "flavor profiles" to work with Stevia.

I long for a Stevia-powered Coke Zero...until they realize Stevia also causes horrible things in humans :-/

Stevia is HUGE. It's biggest benefit is that it can be marketed as "natural" allowing you to put "no artificial sweeteners" on the package. Pretty much everything sugar-free or reduced-sugar in Whole Foods has stevia in it. One of the reasons why you don't see it EVERYWHERE is that it's much more expensive compared to Ace-K and aspartame.

It's not 0 calorie, but Coke does have a stevia drink called Coke Life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_Life)

Because it also contains cane sugar.

They do have Stevia Coke and Pepsi but I've never had them.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/02/news/companies/coke-pepsi-st...

They have Coca Cola Life. Stevia + Sugar. Not particularly great though.

As said, differences and all. To me Splenda tastes like sugar. No aftertastes at all. Stevia on the other hand is awful with a bitter taste that I can't even take.

For what it's worth, stevia drinks still taste icky to me, though they are not as bad as sucralose or aspartame based drinks.

Zevia has a whole product line of stevia sweetened soft drinks.

In the Bay Area, they're available at Sprouts and probably Whole Foods as well.

You can actually buy Stevia-sweetened drinks and sodas at Whole Foods (I believe they're Zevia brand or something like that).

Because you're wrong. Stevia tastes nasty, like some kind of nasty unsweetened licorice or something.

And they do use it to sweeten drinks. Go to any higher-end grocery store and you'll find weird-brand drinks with it, for weirdos like you who apparently can't taste the ick.

What does cilantro taste like to you? To some people, it tastes like soap, to others it doesn't. There's a gene which controls this.

I wonder if the same can be said about sugar, where some people taste it as nice and others think it's too sweet or gross.

There are various mixes and types of stevia out there. You should find the varieties.

I've tried several, as my ex-wife was into that kind of thing. They all taste terrible to me. Some other things that taste terrible to me that other people claim are sweet: aspartame and saccharin. They don't taste sweet to me at all, just nasty. Sucralose tastes bad too, though it at least tastes sweet, just in a really nasty way. Stevia tastes sweet too, just in a nasty way.

I wonder how much of this is how much people are used to: if you keep drinking diet soda for years and years and "acquire" a taste for it, maybe then real sugar will taste weird to you.

Yes, it tastes icky. Maybe just to me, though.

opium (for heroine) and coca (used for cocaine) are also natural. Being natural != being healthy.

In strict moderation and control, both of these can be used to treat various problems with our bodies without severe side effects. I wasn't arguing that it's necessarily healthy because it's natural.

But opium and cocaine have strong medicinal qualities.

Sure is inconvenient when facts disagree:

www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/11/481641640/more-than-ever-americans-are-dying-by-accident

The fact that people overuse those drugs does not negate their medicinal qualities.

I'm kind of baffled at this comment.