Since so many people here are diabetic or pre-diabetic or trying to
diet I thought this might be of interest:

MMMMM-----Meal-Master - formatted by MMCONV  2.10

     Title: A Buyer's Guide To Sugar Substitutes Pt 1
Categories: Info, Diabetic, Sugar
  Servings: 1 text file

           sugar info

By Sylvia Geiger, M.S., R.D., EatingWell.com

According to a recent survey, seven out of 10 adults say they want
to reduce or avoid added sugars. To do so, they're turning to
sweeteners that deliver zero or minimal calories. Data from Mintel,
a market research group in Chicago, shows that while sales of
caloric sweeteners like sugar have been declining in recent years,
sales of "diet"-friendly substitutes have skyrocketed, increasing by
about 50 percent from 2000 to 2006. And since 66 percent of
Americans are overweight and 20.8 million have diabetes, even many
health experts are advocating the use of these sugar substitutes.

Bittersweet History

Interest in no-calorie sweeteners isn't new. Saccharin, the first,
premiered in 1879. Its slightly bitter taste and poor performance in
the kitchen didn't bother people with diabetes or dieters: they now
could enjoy sweets. Unfortunately, after the safety testing of food
additives was federally mandated in 1958, saccharin was shown to
cause cancer in animals. In 1977, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) proposed to ban it. But public outcry kept it
on the market, albeit with a newly mandated health warning. In 2000,
the National Toxicology Program concluded that saccharin did not
increase cancer risk in humans and Congress revoked the rule
requiring the disclaimer.

"The public should feel confident that any approved sweetener is
truly safe and has been closely scrutinized," says Manfred Kroger,
Ph.D., professor emeritus of food science at Penn State. And most
food scientists agree.

But the saccharin-cancer connection has left many skeptical of
artificial sweeteners. Some public health advocates say that the
FDA's food-additive approval process—in which an ingredient's
manufacturer is responsible for demonstrating its safety—is biased
and too lax. For years, the Center for Science in the Public
Interest (CSPI), a Washington, D.C.-based consumer watchdog group,
has advised consumers to avoid saccharin, Ace-K, an artificial
sweetener approved by the FDA in 1998, and even aspartame, after a
2007 study in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives showed
increased incidence of cancer in rats with long-term exposure to it.
However, a recent review of aspartame in Critical Reviews in
Toxicology concludes that there is no evidence to support its
association with cancer.

And, despite CSPI's warnings, its executive director, Michael
Jacobson, acknowledges, "The risk that any individual will develop
cancer as a consequence of consuming aspartame is very low. But when
millions of people are routinely consuming [a variety of ingredients
that may pose a slight risk], the overall risk of cancer may become
very significant."

The Reassuring Scoop

Sucralose, the newest artificial sweetener, hasn't raised red flags
with CSPI. And those wary of anything "artificial" now can choose
from several "natural" options: xylitol and erythritol, sugar
alcohols long used in foods marketed to people with diabetes.
(Stevia, also touted as "natural," is sold as a dietary supplement
because it hasn't received FDA approval.)

But safe doesn't necessarily mean tasty—or even acceptable. How do
these sweet substitutes stack up? We put some of the most popular
ones to the test (in beverages and "sugar" cookies).

Sucralose (Splenda)

Sold as a "tabletop sweetener" (packets used mostly to sweeten
beverages)

Commonly added to packaged foods and beverages

Heat-stable; can be used for baking

What is it? A compound made by combining sucrose (table sugar) with
three chlorine molecules. The body doesn't digest or derive calories
from sucralose.

Sweetness factor: 600 x sugar

Take note: There has been legal controversy over the Splenda slogan,
"Made from sugar so it tastes like sugar." Critics claim it falsely
implies that the substitute—which was approved as an additive by the
FDA in 1998—is natural, which it is not.

  From: Mignonne                        
 
MMMMM-------------------------------------------------

Cheers

YK Jim


___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5