I'm not sure that stevia is an "artificial" sweetener.

Your body doesn't care whether something was made by humans or whether it was made by nature. It only cares about the particularities of the molecules involved.

Yeah, it appears that stevia would likely have similar effects, as it has been suggested that tasting sweetness causes an spike in insulin without a corresponding bump in blood glucose levels, leading to an excess of insulin[1].

What causes the difference in effect between glucose and artificial sweeteners appears to be the taste of sweetness without the carbohydrates that would go along with natural sources of sweet taste.

[1] Sucralose Affects Glycemic and Hormonal Responses to an Oral Glucose Load -http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2013/04/30/dc...

Right, the issue is not the thing, but the tests and reviews on said thing being made by humans.

But for 99% of human history everything put into human bodies was made by nature.

Technically I don't think its artificial. However, I notice that most Stevia products also contain dextrose. I don't think dextrose is considered artificial either but still, it begs the question why Stevia alone isn't enough and/or if dextrose is low or zero calorie then why not just use that?

Dextrose is a filler starch. Raw concentrated sweetener would be more than you could handle, so the dextrose is added to allow you to use the artificial sweetener like you would use table sugar, e.g. spooning it or baking with it.

If you buy liquids then you don't get filler starch like dextrose.

Hmm. I bought a small container of pure stevia powder from Whole Foods, and it has a little tiny spoon I'd say about 1/20th a teaspoon. Put even that small amount in a cup of tea and it is as sweet as a whole packet of sugar.

Thanks for clarifying that! That's been bugging me forever. :)

Friendly correction, "begs the question" doesn't mean what you say in your post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

It's too late, that ship has sailed.

I've seen the incorrect usage in very fancy printed reference books.

This is just one of those ways where language changes.

agree. it's a moot point ;)

Tragically, too many people are disinterested in the actual meaning of words and phrases.

It's natural, but there are doubts about its safety. In many countries it is still banned. And in countries like the USA it has only been available for a short period of time (after lots of lobbying).

There aren't doubts about its safety, and reading about it a lot, I am not convinced there ever were that were based on data - seems they all had to do with scare tactics.

In the USA it was available until 1991 with not a single medical case against it - and again since 1994 (simultaneously considered "safe" on its own but "not enough data to classify as safe" as an additive).

Not to mention, it has more than a thousand year of use. See wikipedia[0] about history and also the part of "controversy".

Unlike the egg/cholesterol and salt intake recommendations, which appear to be grounded in scientific incompetence, any concerns about stevia seem to be strategically managed by a competitor.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia#History

The doubts about its safety are mine. I am skeptic about the safety of all artificial sweeteners - especially ones new to the market - given my personal experiences with Aspartame. From most American's points of view, Stevia is new and it is being promoted by big industry. It may have been around for a thousand years, but I seriously doubt any of my ancestors in the last 1000 years consumed much of it. I am fine with it being on the market... but until more people consume it routinely for a sufficient period of time, I am not going to rush out and incorporate it into my diet.

> Stevia is new and it is being promoted by big industry...

Stevia, the plant, is not new. Menacing industry in that equation is artificial sweetener interests that used government(s) to ban importation and ban the option to label stevia as a sweetener in the United States and elsewhere. It was still widely sold, bought, and consumed. Strains vary. Some have a bitter aftertaste. Some are bred to be mostly sweet with minimal aftertaste. Whether it's consumed as dried plant matter, ground, or as newer extracts, a wide sampling sifts out tasty, palatable strains.

> I am fine with it being on the market...

I'm fine with lettuce being on the market. It's smart to be skeptical about everything, especially on an individual level, and more so given your experience. I avoid artificial sweeteners, also. Not enjoying the taste helps.

>>I am skeptic about the safety of all artificial sweeteners - especially ones new to the market

Stevia is not artificial and has been used in Japan for decades. It is recognised as a mainstream sweetener. It's also used in Canada, for example, though not so widespread yet.

You're right its not artificial... my mistake. It is however rather new to the market in the USA and Canada. It has been around for a long time, but in small markets.