Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Diabetes Discussions
Artificial sweeteners, for and against
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="monkfruit" data-source="post: 2432012" data-attributes="member: 547613"><p>Not So Sweet For Your Health? Potential Pitfalls behind “Natural” Sweeteners - Monk Fruit Sweetener and Stevia</p><p></p><p></p><p>The search for guilt-free sweetness that spares waistlines has led to the rise of “natural” sweeteners: extracts from particular plants whose sweetness does not derive from sugar, and cannot be metabolized by the body. You might have heard of stevia, and the up-and-coming monk fruit sweetener, derived from mogrosides in the monk fruit, also called swingle fruit or luo han guo. However, what is marketed as “natural” does not necessarily equal “healthy” for consumers, nor is “natural” necessarily environmentally-friendly in production.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Concerns over sweetener safety has led to global legislation. The FDA has not approved the use of raw stevia, and stevia has been banned in the U.S. since 1991 due to studies that suggested the sweetener may cause cancer. Elsewhere, the European Union bans sale of the plant as a food or food ingredient also because of safety concerns. Although newer sweeteners such as monk fruit sweetner have not been officially banned, it is of note that the AHA recommends that children and adolescents should limit their intake of artificial sweeteners, including so-called natural sweeteners like monk fruit sweetener, due to the inconclusive evidence on their effects. In particular, children under the age of two should not eat or drink anything with such sweeteners. CSPI recommends caution because the monk fruit sweetener has been poorly tested in animals.</p><p></p><p></p><p>What may seem natural in origin may acquire carcinogenic properties due to comtamination in production processes. Mogrosides from monk fruit are processed and extracted with methyl alcohol or other toxic chemicals, and traces of these chemicals may remain in the final products, particularly when production plants are poorly equipped and underregulated. Furthermore, such extraction factories may substantially mar their environment and the health of local populations. One of the major monk fruit sweetener producers, Ji Fu Si, a poorly equipped enterprise based in Guilin, China, is the nexus of air, river water, and groundwater polution in its county, with a significant number of cancer cases among farmers living nearby in the polluted environment. With such enterprises lacking the updated technology to control their environmental impact, it raises questions as to how safe and pure their extractions actually are.</p><p></p><p></p><p>A Danish study done in 59,334 pregnant women found that the intake of artificially sweetened beverage was associated with an increased risk of preterm delivery, so artificial sweeteners use including stevia and swingle should be accompanied with caution in certain high-risk individuals such as pregnant and lactating women, diabetics, migraine,and epilepsy patients, and children. Many of sweeteners’ purported beneficial effects remain invalidated in large scale clinical studies.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="monkfruit, post: 2432012, member: 547613"] Not So Sweet For Your Health? Potential Pitfalls behind “Natural” Sweeteners - Monk Fruit Sweetener and Stevia The search for guilt-free sweetness that spares waistlines has led to the rise of “natural” sweeteners: extracts from particular plants whose sweetness does not derive from sugar, and cannot be metabolized by the body. You might have heard of stevia, and the up-and-coming monk fruit sweetener, derived from mogrosides in the monk fruit, also called swingle fruit or luo han guo. However, what is marketed as “natural” does not necessarily equal “healthy” for consumers, nor is “natural” necessarily environmentally-friendly in production. Concerns over sweetener safety has led to global legislation. The FDA has not approved the use of raw stevia, and stevia has been banned in the U.S. since 1991 due to studies that suggested the sweetener may cause cancer. Elsewhere, the European Union bans sale of the plant as a food or food ingredient also because of safety concerns. Although newer sweeteners such as monk fruit sweetner have not been officially banned, it is of note that the AHA recommends that children and adolescents should limit their intake of artificial sweeteners, including so-called natural sweeteners like monk fruit sweetener, due to the inconclusive evidence on their effects. In particular, children under the age of two should not eat or drink anything with such sweeteners. CSPI recommends caution because the monk fruit sweetener has been poorly tested in animals. What may seem natural in origin may acquire carcinogenic properties due to comtamination in production processes. Mogrosides from monk fruit are processed and extracted with methyl alcohol or other toxic chemicals, and traces of these chemicals may remain in the final products, particularly when production plants are poorly equipped and underregulated. Furthermore, such extraction factories may substantially mar their environment and the health of local populations. One of the major monk fruit sweetener producers, Ji Fu Si, a poorly equipped enterprise based in Guilin, China, is the nexus of air, river water, and groundwater polution in its county, with a significant number of cancer cases among farmers living nearby in the polluted environment. With such enterprises lacking the updated technology to control their environmental impact, it raises questions as to how safe and pure their extractions actually are. A Danish study done in 59,334 pregnant women found that the intake of artificially sweetened beverage was associated with an increased risk of preterm delivery, so artificial sweeteners use including stevia and swingle should be accompanied with caution in certain high-risk individuals such as pregnant and lactating women, diabetics, migraine,and epilepsy patients, and children. Many of sweeteners’ purported beneficial effects remain invalidated in large scale clinical studies. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Diabetes Discussion
Diabetes Discussions
Artificial sweeteners, for and against
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…