Comments on: The Science Behind Truvia and PureVia Sweeteners (Rebiana)

By: LMF

LMF — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 21:21:37 +0000

I find there to be a licorice aftertaste to the TruVia as well. I tried it in a cup of tea, I used half a packet. I have a strong dislike of licorice and the taste nauseated me.My sister however swears that there is no after taste and she loves TruVia for sweetening. She will use 2 packets in a large iced tea and says there is no aftertaste.

To each their own I guess. If you are sensitive to licorice or you do not like that flavor, this may not be for you.

By: John Serrao

John Serrao — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:02:17 +0000

Sherrie – most of your questions are answered in the article if you read it closely.

Stevia cookbooks are controversial and many retailer do not carry them. Check Amazon.com – as they have the largest selections of books in the world.

By: Sherrie Rogers

Sherrie Rogers — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:13:47 +0000

Hello: I was overjoyed to read about this product and hope it is not harmful. Can’t you tell me about the side effects, if any of Truvia and PureVia? I do not like the “licorice” taste Stevia leaves in my mouth and I get a bit nauseated.
I need to find recipes for baking and cooking for using PureVia and will it raise blood sugar? Can you tell me where to get a recipe book using any of these sugar substitutes? No store I went to is using PureVia in their soft drinks, jello or candy. Please answer these questions and I thank you. Best from Sherrie Rogers

By: Kelli

Kelli — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 01:00:50 +0000

Bravo on this article. My thought is that studies aimed at individual chemicals are useful to a wider audience, and these studies are expensive so it makes more sense cost-wise to test the individual ingredients of these products. The only folks who would stand to benefit (or not) from the results of studies on Purevia and Stevia specifically would be those companies who manufacture or use the product (and the public, of course). I do agree that a test specifically for Truvia and Purevia would be ideal, especially given that plant compounds, as they occur in the wild, tend to interact with one another in order to exert their effects. Hence, we might not see the healing effects of Stevia unless we use the whole plant. I agree that in order to really know the interactions of the chemicals in these sweeteners we should test the products as a whole. But alas, we’re really not that far ahead in our thinking and in our regulation of chemicals. The status quo is to test one chemical at a time.

Again, I really appreciated this article.

By: J. C.

J. C. — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:07:05 +0000

If the Japanese have used stevioside for the last 40 years, why concoct another “recipe” that may prove to have side effects. If it’s greed, than TruVia and PureVia better hope no problems develop or they will be sued into bankruptcy! Some company should partner with Japan’s and market the stevioside product in the U.S.

By: GT

GT — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:37:47 +0000

What are the other ingredients that are added to the stevia before shipment for consumption? Are these ingredients natural or synthetic, innocuous or harmful chemicals. Does anyone know?

By: Betsy

Betsy — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:54:51 +0000

The process to make this product is fermentation, right? Yes. Other products with this process include wine, beer, sauerkraut and vinegar. If consumed in large quantities, it will have ill effects. Grapes used for wine and vinegar, cabbage and barley and hops don’t really taste great unrefined either.

Refined stevia doesn’t bother me in theory. I really want to like this product, but it does not agree with my digestive tract. The discomfort is not like what I get from eating beans; it’s worse. Bloating and pressure like I have never experienced. I do think stevia is a good choice.

Why did sugar become the sweetener of choice any way? Politics? Probably. Doesn’t mean it is the right choice even if it is customary. Too bad European monks didn’t get ahold of stevia in the Middle Ages. Then we would probably would never fuss with sugar cane that is not indigenous to most of the Western world anyway. I am up for finding a better choice and I will keep looking!

By: Nathan

Nathan — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 22:03:19 +0000

John, while I agree with your view that more research is needed, I would balk at the assertion that the ingredients in either of these new products are synthetically developed, as they are natural products. I feel, in large part, that the research on whole stevia can be used as guidance on the extracts, or steviosides, although more research is definitely warranted. The research on stevia as a sweetener strongly suggests that it, and presumably its extracts, are indeed safe for human consumption.

As to the FDA’s initial claim that stevia is a dangerous product, we must all remember that the FDA is a puppet of the food industry, and that unless companies like ConAgra, Monsanto, Cargill, etc. can realize a profit, OR if something jeopardizes their profits, the FDA will inevitably make assertions that advance the industies causes.

That being said, I also have to disagree with you Scott. While you are right about qualitative difference between stevia and these new, more refined sweeteners, I don’t think these corporate conglomerates should get a patent for natural products. There is no patent for sucrose. Why should there be for any other refined natural sweetener? If they can’t derive a profit without patent protection, …who cares? …they still get plenty of government subsidies.

By: John Serrao

John Serrao — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:34:17 +0000

Scott, shouldnt there be a reasonable expectation by the public that if they are buying a synthetically developed food product it should have passed some kind of safety tests? Your idea that no one cares to study these compounds is incorrect – they were developed and rushed to market so quickly no researcher could have gotten a grant application into the NIH before they on the market. Lack of access is why they were not studied, not lack of desire from researchers.

And if we are to believe the FDA’s initial claim that stevia is a dangerous product that merited a ban (that unbelievably continues today as truvia/purevia remain legal), isn’t it all the more reason these new products need to pass safety checks?

Your arguments take the industry’s position of innocent until proven guilty. We’ve already done that the first couple times with sucralose, sacchrin and aspartame – all of which have been proven to harm people after the fact. Why are we doing this again? I think I know and $$$ seems to answer all of my questions.

By: scott

scott — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:03:56 +0000

How is Truvia better than Stevia? The answer is simple: do a TASTE test.

Truvia = no aftertaste
Stevia = nasty, bitter aftertaste

They came up with a formula that tastes good, which beats stevia, splenda, sweet & low, etc…

The natural foods industry and other companies had 50 years or more to isolate the sweet chemical from the bitter-tasting ones, but Cargill got to it first. Seems to me like they deserve their patent.

Every new sweetener product starts out with insufficient evidence to prove its long-term safety, because long-term studies take a long time to do. Truvia isn’t any different. Unbiased, long-term studies will come out over time. But it takes a product which is already widely used to create enough interest for someone other than the product’s producer to finance a study.

By: Rick

Rick — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:53:02 +0000

Stevia is great, but I wish they didn’t have to mix it with all these other sweetners. I’m drinking a Vitamin Water 10 right now and it has 3 different sweetners in it. I’m curious if it’s due to shelf life or perhaps consistency in the final mix. I hope we get an unbiased third party study here soon and also that Stevia is more than a \supplement\ down the road.

By: hm

hm — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:10:57 +0000

“What makes this better than just using regular old stevia?”

If they weren’t in such a rush to make these products and had better researched the potential side effects of other ingredients besides stevia, they would have helped bring Stevia itself onto the commercial industry rather than as a supplement. But competition must continue.

Coke- Truvia
Pepsi- Purevia
Diet Coke
Diet Pepsi
Vanilla Coke
Pepsi Vanilla

The list continues..

All Trivia/Purvia does is use a resource that is already there and mixes it with questionable and untested additives.