Chemists Were Wrong About Splenda

Humans have evolved alongside natural systems. And if humans have been eating something for a very long time, it's probably alright to eat. If a new sugar-like substance came into existence, it would probably come into existence as incremental changes to an existing system. Let's say that existing system was a staple food source for humans. Humans would gradually change as their food source changed, and adapt to it... Or, that food source would gradually become toxic to humans, and we would stop eating it.

Now, take human-invented stuff. You have a sudden new thing which hasn't had generations of humans munching on it. Some lab tests show that it's great. But who really knows? Biology is super complex. And lab tests often have questionable funding and incentives.

Consider the day that wonder-bread was introduced to the world. Old-school fermented sourdough bread had been eaten for a very long time by healthy humans. Wonder-bread had various chemicals tested in isolation which had proved to be positive for health (iron, calcium, etc). But now that enough time has passed, I don't think anyone looking back would suggest that wonder-bread is preferable to traditional sourdough fermentation.

Asbestos is another good example. We thought the stuff was just the best thing ever. Turns out, in the very long run, it's pretty bad news.

So, there's a certain logic to trusting evolved-systems over human-designed systems.

This is where I think your argument breaks down a bit. Let's take your example of sugar: humans have been consuming sugar since before it would be reasonable to call them humans. That's why our bodies have adapted to crave sugars and seek them out--because they have been tested by evolution and found to contribute to survival and reproduction.

And when you say that sugar is decidedly toxic at average consumption levels, you're correct, but that's a human-created problem: the levels of sugar naturally occurring in the fruits a person could obtain, say, 10,000 years ago, were much, much lower than the levels we can obtain by harvesting massive fields of sugar cane, sugar beets, and corn, and refining the sugar from them.

So evolution did test sugars, and then humans refined them to a far greater extent than nature did and, without adequate testing, integrated sugars into our diet to an extent that's culturally very difficult to reverse even though we now know it's deadly.

And the same goes for a lot of things: coca, consumed in leaf form, is relatively safe and effective for treating altitude sickness, but when refined and mass produced becomes cocaine. Alcohol when consumed from rotting fruit has little danger until it's produced in quantity and consistency that enables alcoholism. Chances are, if there's a whole chunk of plant that humans have been interacting with for millennia, it's pretty safe because it has been tested, but refinement processes invented by humans bring otherwise safe chemicals into concentrations and quantities that become unsafe. And while we do test these things, it's often after-the-fact, too late, or just completely ignored.

To be clear, I'm not advocating a "things from nature are better" stance. GMO grain has saved millions of lives. Most of the medicines out there are the results of human innovation. And there are plenty of poisonous plants out there which are perfectly natural.

What I am advocating is that the human track record versus evolution track record is pretty bogus, and vulnerable to selection bias. The fact is, that's just not even a good way to choose whether to consume something. We rarely have enough information to make an informed choice. Even when we study something for a decade we don't completely understand that. So in the absence of information, basing our decision on "organisms pretty biologically similar to me have survived by interacting with this other organism for millions of years" is not a metric to be dicarded.

What we should be doing is reducing our sugar intake given that most of us are no longer living on the edge of caloric survival. But that's hard, and not doing it comes with guilt and health issues. So instead we create a chemical that provides all the pleasure of eating with none of the caloric benefits.

Calorie-free food is pure hedonism. Not bad in and of itself, but to the extent we in the developed world have taken it, something to be just a little bit ashamed of.

Human-created chemicals are much more of a risk. They might only have existed for a few years, and the amount of testing done is nothing compared to the history of evolution on Earth. We are creating them with an imperfect understanding of chemistry and biology. Many people simply prefer an imperfect but reliable solution over a potentially much better but also riskier option.

Not everyone is going to be able to personally vet the safety of new chemicals, so they have to trust the manufacturers who often prioritize profits over safety, confident that they will be able to pay for damages. Consumers need a better reason to trust the people pushing artificial chemicals in food because right now it's hard for them to see their interests as aligned with the companies that make them.

You don't?

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?

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).

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

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

I figured the difference between Coke Zero and Diet Coke was branding for people who don't want to drink something labeled as diet.

EDIT: I drink both regularly (including today), and I personally do not perceive difference in taste. YMMV.