I recently posted a news item on BevReview.com about the whole Sprite Green/Sobe LifeWater/Stevia sweetener buzz that has been making news here on BevNET and other places.

My article prompted some interesting reactions from folks on various websites. For example, take a look at the comments to the story or this post on another forum

There seems to be a contention that this new sweetener is considered "natural", while I made the claim in my article that it was "artificial".

Now, I don't claim to be the expert on such things, so I figured I'd open this up to folks who may know more than me. Reading what I've linked to and what you know about the new Truvia/PureVia sweeteners, etc., would you consider this new breed of sweeteners to be natural or artificial? Would you place it along side sugar, or would you group it with aspertame, Ace-K, and sucralose?

Originally Posted by Tannerman

I recently posted a news item on BevReview.com about the whole Sprite Green/Sobe LifeWater/Stevia sweetener buzz that has been making news here on BevNET and other places.

My article prompted some interesting reactions from folks on various websites. For example, take a look at the comments to the story or this post on another forum

There seems to be a contention that this new sweetener is considered "natural", while I made the claim in my article that it was "artificial".

Now, I don't claim to be the expert on such things, so I figured I'd open this up to folks who may know more than me. Reading what I've linked to and what you know about the new Truvia/PureVia sweeteners, etc., would you consider this new breed of sweeteners to be natural or artificial? Would you place it along side sugar, or would you group it with aspertame, Ace-K, and sucralose?

I have only smoked it, so I'm not sure how I feel about it.

it will never be "natural" enough for some people... and the rest of us won't care either way.

The whole "natural" vs. "artificial" argument is silly. Food and drink makers like to call their products "all-natural" because many people believe that anything produced naturally is good for you. That's the basis of the organic food craze.

Just because a chemical is man-made, however, does not mean that it's bad for you. Many drugs are artificial compounds, but they have huge benefits.

Likewise, just because something occurs in nature doesn't mean that it's good for you. Aflatoxins, for example, are all-natural:

Aflatoxin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

well said!!!

Originally Posted by CitrusCola

The whole "natural" vs. "artificial" argument is silly. Food and drink makers like to call their products "all-natural" because many people believe that anything produced naturally is good for you. That's the basis of the organic food craze.

Just because a chemical is man-made, however, does not mean that it's bad for you. Many drugs are artificial compounds, but they have huge benefits.

Likewise, just because something occurs in nature doesn't mean that it's good for you. Aflatoxins, for example, are all-natural:

Aflatoxin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have to agree with Popologist on this one. Just because it is man made does not mean it is bad for you.
IMO the man made ingredients can substitute for the flavor or sweetner while not having the negative impact on the body. For instance, when a pure cane sugar drink is ingested the body will be triggered to raise insulin levels and start to store the carbohydrates as fuel for later,,,,hence, fat accumaulation. When an artifical sweetner is used the mechanism that triggers responses on receptor sites are essentally void so no reaction takes place, therefore no fat accumulation.

With that being said there are exceptions, some artificial sweeteners, known as sugar alcohols, can allow for the same process to occur or not occur but will wreak havoc on the digestive system beause these will be attempted to be broken down as regular carbohydrates and absorbed through the intestines but the body will not be able to do so resulting in severe cramping. Uusally the sugar alcohols are found in low sugar or no sugar candies and just a few drinks.

I too agree with Poplogist and Greg.
Mater (atomic) is universal to all elements
maintained on the earth. Grown from the ground
up, mater is equal to mater created by man.

a simple view of atomic structure

Stevia typically undergoes a natural refining process. So you have a natural product that is rifined without chemicals. This is why stevia is considered a natural product. Im sure there are extraction techniques that could involve chems but I don't believe it's standard practice.

I agree too, a lot of mincing of words here depending on who you are talking to. There's the government's definition of whatever "natural" is supposed to be. Yet, how much refining does it take to make granulated sugar? Is the result "natural"? Of course not, it's not like picking a fruit off of the old Sugar Tree, squeezing the juice out of it and putting it in your cola!. However, the source was natural, even if the processing wasn't. I don't know how much processing it actually takes to produce a Stevia sweetener, but I think I'd lean more towards grouping it into the same category as sugar. (Uh, so what does, "natural refining process" mean then?)

Remember all the fuss over sucralose? That's a derivative of sugar, but chemically altered to make it undigestable, so to me that's more on the chemists/artificial side of the column.

-Andy

Originally Posted by Joey

Stevia typically undergoes a natural refining process. So you have a natural product that is refined without chemicals. This is why stevia is considered a natural product. Im sure there are extraction techniques that could involve chems but I don't believe it's standard practice.

What Joey said.

It is a plant extract, not something that Monsanto or Dow created in a lab. Not saying that makes it better or worse for you, just saying that is what it is & isn't.