Leaves of Stevia = 100% Natural Sweetener

[Obamot]

Is stevia harmless because it is a polyol? Can Cuicui prove it?

Does Cuicui have a link which would demonstrate it, it could be interesting ...

Otherwise, powdered stevia, hydrogenated by an industrial process to increase its sweetening power and make it "intense sweetener", certainly not!

The natural stevia, to see ... If really it does not cause insulin discharge on the simple basis of its sweet taste (but it seems that alas it does so since it is not a polyol ). There remains the xylitol which is one of them, and the best it seems ... But how can we find one which is not industrially hydrogenated in powder form, except directly in fruit?

[Cuicui]

Is stevia harmless because it is a polyol? Can Cuicui prove it?

Regarding the glucose syrup, it wasn't to contradict you, it was just a piece of information to share: if you see "glucose-fructose syrup" on the leaflet, take a detour! For stevia, I only use the leaves of my plants.

[delnoram]

There remains the xylitol which is one of them, and the best it seems ...

The Internet is teeming with conflicting information and it is often difficult to know what to think about it.

xylitol is listed as certainly carcinogenic by the Association for Therapeutic Anti-Cancer Research (ARTAC, France)

http://www.additifs-alimentaires.net/E967.php

[Obamot]

It is curious that a natural molecule can be described as carcinogenic!

In this case it would be necessary to stop eating fruit (since they would be as much ...)

Or they want to talk about xylitol as "intense sweetener", which is a point to clarify as long as we do not know if it is"dietary supplement"VS"galenic preparation"? Hydrogenated or not? Etc ...

Even so! If xylitol was considered as such, what should we think of refined white sugar acting by ricochet in the collapse of the immune system and precursor of a lot of cancer by this fact (?), I wonder! When will its ban ...?

Which can only make us think about a dilemma:
- "profit"VS"risk"
- "refined white sugar"VS"xylitol"(or possibly natural stevia)

PS: Cuicui, I'm just asking questions, because I don't have all the answers to my own questions! I just gave elements of what I had discovered ... But as soon as we move forward, then we must give links or elements that allow us to understand a reasoning: hence the questions.

[Did67]

It is curious that a natural molecule can be described as carcinogenic !.

Why ???

Because in nature, everything would be "ideal" ???

Colchicine, contained in colchiques, is a powerful mutagen ...

Certainly, not all mutations give cancer, and fortunately. Generally, this results in the simple death of the cell ...

[Cuicui]

It is curious that a natural molecule can be described as carcinogenic !.

Why ??? Because in nature, everything would be "ideal" ???.

The toxins in the phalloid amanitis are not bad either.

[Obamot]

It borders on the code ...

It is curious that a natural molecule can be described as carcinogenic !.

Why ???

Because in nature, everything would be "ideal" ???

Colchicine, contained in colchiques, is a powerful mutagen ...

Certainly, not all mutations give cancer, and fortunately. Generally, this results in the simple death of the cell ...

As I was one of the first to say that we should be as wary of natural molecules as those of synthesis, I am perfectly comfortable with the idea and will not contradict it.

However, it still seems to be ill-advised. Apart from the specificities and individual predispositions (which I was also one of the first to talk about and which we could talk about for a long time regarding EVERYTHING we eat, including stevia, in short ...) the point is rather: "How a molecule such as xylitol - and intended for public consumption - would be harmless in fruit, and suddenly become carcinogenic in some organizations"... If not because it would be denatured during an industrial process, is not it! On the other hand, if someone has a link / s proving its carcinogenic involvement "in its natural state", I think more than one would take!

If there was one on this forum who would not be an ayatollah on all these issues
I would gladly let you find who it would be

[Janic]

Did67

Because in nature, everything would be "ideal" ???

Colchicine, contained in colchiques, is a powerful mutagen ...

Certainly, not all mutations give cancer, and fortunately. Generally, this results in the simple death of the cell ...

It would never occur to anyone to consume crocuses (except accident by ignorance by confusing it with saffron for example)

Why ??? Because in nature, everything would be "ideal" ???.

It is not because it is in nature that it is suitable for human consumption.

The toxins in the phalloid amanitis are not bad either.

Indeed, as for the crocus!
Then, in a general way, it is not the products themselves which are carcinogenic, but the transformations which the industry makes them undergo and against which the body must fight to compensate for their iatrogenic effects and to exhaust themselves to this little Game.
Consuming as close as possible to the product in its natural form is one of the best ways to avoid these cancerizations. (Not taking into account pollution by fertilizers and phytosanitary products)

[Did67]

It is curious that a natural molecule can be described as carcinogenic !.

Why ??? Because in nature, everything would be "ideal" ???.

The toxins in the phalloid amanitis are not bad either.

The field of toxic natural molecules is very wide ... Hemlock, curare, etc ...

I wanted to quote something that being known potent mutagen, is probably a potent carcinogen.

PS: Did you read my address request on our wire dedicated to gardening (I have your tomato seeds).

[Did67]

Indeed, as for the crocus!
Then, in a general way, it is not the products themselves which are carcinogenic, but the transformations which the industry makes them undergo and against which the body must fight to compensate for their iatrogenic effects and to exhaust themselves to this little Game.
Consuming as close as possible to the product in its natural form is one of the best ways to avoid these cancerizations. (Not taking into account pollution by fertilizers and phytosanitary products)

That's why I didn't take a "toxic", but a powerful natural mutagenic molecule!

Even without any transformation, it therefore happens that there are very negative effects in natural products.

[This does not mean that the transformations do not add a layer, we agree. But I do not recommend reversing the reasoning.]

Another example, but we are coming out of the carcinogen: I took, for a while, natural red yeast rice ... And I noticed on myself, the same negative effects as those of a well-known drug , the Crestor. Simply because these yeasts naturally contain a statin which is synthesized for el Crestor ...