The Case Against Stevia

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/28/opinion/the-case-against-stevia.html

Version 0 of 1.

This article is part of the Opinion Today newsletter. You can sign up here to receive the newsletter each weekday.

Dispatch from David: Whither stevia? After we published our guide to eating less sugar, several readers wrote to us to ask about stevia: Why was it included on the list of sweeteners people should minimize? Isn’t it natural?

Here are some answers:

• There is no perfect definition of “natural,” but, under most reasonable definitions, many versions of stevia fail to qualify. “I know the stevia producers say it’s not artificial because it’s extracted from plants, but really it’s not,” as Marion Nestle, an N.Y.U. food researcher, says. “It’s mostly synthesized.”

• There is little reliable information about the health effects of stevia. Makers of the product have financed several studies that found — get ready to be shocked — no harmful effects of eating it. But you shouldn’t trust industry-financed research. It has a long history of bias. “Unfortunately, we don’t have reliable evidence on stevia,” says Laura Schmidt of the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine.

• If you had to choose between a normal sweetener (like granulated sugar, honey, corn syrup or maple syrup) and a calorie-free sweetener (like stevia or sucralose), you’re probably better off choosing the calorie-free sweetener. The research is pretty clear on normal sweeteners: Most Americans eat far more than is healthy. The research on artificial sweeteners is murkier. The evidence so far suggests that they’re not as damaging — and may be fine.

• But the best advice is to cut down on all sweeteners, including the artificial varieties. For one thing, their long-term effects could end up being worse than we realize. For another, eating them doesn’t help you recalibrate your palate away from the sickly sweet modern American diet.

“Here’s what I tell people for now,” Schmidt told me. “There is little question that artificial sweeteners keep the palate tolerant to a high level of sweetness. For those wanting to reduce sugar consumption and cravings, we want to retrain the palate to enjoy foods and drinks that aren’t heavily sweetened.”

She added: “So artificial sweeteners may be best used as a temporary strategy for reducing sugar consumption. Consider them as part of a strategy for gradually stepping down off sugar, but not as a long-term replacement.”

Bottom line: Stevia isn’t a magical solution.

In The Times. John Paul Stevens, the former Supreme Court justice, argued in a Times op-ed yesterday that the Second Amendment should be repealed. The piece generated a large amount of reader responses, some of which you can read here and here.

And Isabelle Robinson, a senior at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, argues that treating disaffected kids like the Parkland, Fla., shooter with kindness won’t necessarily stop them from hurting others.