Artificial sweeteners have been around for many years now but none are without controversy, either from their possible carcinogenic properties or some terrible side effects.
In the main, these have been developed in the test tube, despite the fact that a wild South American plant called stevia, has been used by the South American Indians as a sweetener for both their yerba-mate and other medicinal teas for many centuries.
Although the original sweet tasting compounds were found in 1931, according to Wikipedia, it wasn't widely used outside of South America until the 70's, when the Japanese, wanting an alternative to the suspected carcinogenic saccharin and cyclamate, turned to the stevia plant as a source of 'artificial' sweetener in their food and drink manufacture.
Today it accounts for over 40% of the non-sugar sweetener market, in fact they are the worlds biggest consumers of stevia products.
Why is it that something over 250 times as sweet as sugar and made from plants has not been widely taken up? Cynics may say that it was the chemical industries who developed their own artificial sweeteners that kept stevia off the market, but a study in 1985, now mostly discredited, showed thata by-product could produce mutations in rats livers may also have had an influence.
Later studies have come up with mixed results, some finding no health risks, others that the by-product, steviol, does have a minor mutagenic effect.
However, it has to be noted that many things in life have a mutagenic effect, such as x-rays, ultraviolet light, bromine, to name a few.
Given that some studies have shown that nearly all of the artificial sweeteners in use have some serious health issues connected to them, it is puzzling why stevia is banned for use in food in so many countries.
The European Union, Hong Kong and Singapore ban it outright, the USA, New Zealand and Australia allow it as a dietary supplement but not as a food supplement.
This situation must be about to change, as the mighty Coca-Cola has filed over 20 patents in relation to stevia related sweeteners and are joining forces with Cargill, a major manufacturer of food ingredients to market rebiana, the working title of their new sweetener.
The present state of affairs in the USA are somewhat conflicting as the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) deem stevia safe for human consumption as a dietary supplement, yet unsafe for human consumption as a food additive.
With the combined lobbying power of Coca-Cola and Cargill, not to mention their research power, it wont be long before it will be allowed to be used in food manufacture.
They will also have the results from a 2006 study into stevia by the World Health Organization, which found that it was not toxic and that whilst stevias' by-product, steviol, showed some evidence of toxicity in the test tube but none in live animals, nor was it carcinogenic.
Indeed it found that stevia may have some beneficial effects for people with type 2 diabetes or hypertension.
Once the FDA has given its approval, then other countries will surely give stevia the go ahead.
This will be good news, as those in Europe have to import their supplies of stevia privately through the Internet, not a good idea if you have just run out and have to wait for the postman before you can have a cup of tea.
If any body were looking for proof of stevias' beneficial properties, they only have to look at the millions of Japanese who have been using it for the last thirty years or the masses of South Americans who have been using it for centuries, but perhaps that would be too easy.
With so many question marks against all the alternative sweeteners, perhaps stevia will be the one that is good for the majority of us.
In the main, these have been developed in the test tube, despite the fact that a wild South American plant called stevia, has been used by the South American Indians as a sweetener for both their yerba-mate and other medicinal teas for many centuries.
Although the original sweet tasting compounds were found in 1931, according to Wikipedia, it wasn't widely used outside of South America until the 70's, when the Japanese, wanting an alternative to the suspected carcinogenic saccharin and cyclamate, turned to the stevia plant as a source of 'artificial' sweetener in their food and drink manufacture.
Today it accounts for over 40% of the non-sugar sweetener market, in fact they are the worlds biggest consumers of stevia products.
Why is it that something over 250 times as sweet as sugar and made from plants has not been widely taken up? Cynics may say that it was the chemical industries who developed their own artificial sweeteners that kept stevia off the market, but a study in 1985, now mostly discredited, showed thata by-product could produce mutations in rats livers may also have had an influence.
Later studies have come up with mixed results, some finding no health risks, others that the by-product, steviol, does have a minor mutagenic effect.
However, it has to be noted that many things in life have a mutagenic effect, such as x-rays, ultraviolet light, bromine, to name a few.
Given that some studies have shown that nearly all of the artificial sweeteners in use have some serious health issues connected to them, it is puzzling why stevia is banned for use in food in so many countries.
The European Union, Hong Kong and Singapore ban it outright, the USA, New Zealand and Australia allow it as a dietary supplement but not as a food supplement.
This situation must be about to change, as the mighty Coca-Cola has filed over 20 patents in relation to stevia related sweeteners and are joining forces with Cargill, a major manufacturer of food ingredients to market rebiana, the working title of their new sweetener.
The present state of affairs in the USA are somewhat conflicting as the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) deem stevia safe for human consumption as a dietary supplement, yet unsafe for human consumption as a food additive.
With the combined lobbying power of Coca-Cola and Cargill, not to mention their research power, it wont be long before it will be allowed to be used in food manufacture.
They will also have the results from a 2006 study into stevia by the World Health Organization, which found that it was not toxic and that whilst stevias' by-product, steviol, showed some evidence of toxicity in the test tube but none in live animals, nor was it carcinogenic.
Indeed it found that stevia may have some beneficial effects for people with type 2 diabetes or hypertension.
Once the FDA has given its approval, then other countries will surely give stevia the go ahead.
This will be good news, as those in Europe have to import their supplies of stevia privately through the Internet, not a good idea if you have just run out and have to wait for the postman before you can have a cup of tea.
If any body were looking for proof of stevias' beneficial properties, they only have to look at the millions of Japanese who have been using it for the last thirty years or the masses of South Americans who have been using it for centuries, but perhaps that would be too easy.
With so many question marks against all the alternative sweeteners, perhaps stevia will be the one that is good for the majority of us.
SHARE
