I have a problem with truth-in-packaging with the entire so-called artifical sweetener industry. As I understand it, all of the following applies:

1) Dr. Atkins recommends against Aspartame/Nutrisweet because he observed the kind of reaction discussed here, i.e., the body reacts to non-carb sweeteners with an insulin response as if it actually was sugar. Presumably this varies with the individual, but I believe he was not generalizing this to ANY non-carb sweetener, just Aspartame.

Additionally, he was always partial to Cyclamates (not easily obtained, but legal again in the USA since 1997) and I believe he would have coupled Cyclamates to his non-recommendation for Aspartame if it applied.

I'm not sure of his position on Sacharrin, but it's not very popular due to the bitter aftertaste.

More recently, he seemed to be squarely behind Splenda/Sucralose as acceptable which would seem to confirm the notion that you cannot generalize, i.e., for some people and some people only, only some artificial sweeteners will cause an insulin reaction as if they were sugar, even though they are not.

2) Fructose IS a sugar, yet for some people there isn't a corresponding insulin reaction. In this case, not enough reaction could be worse than too much reaction. Again, it's an individual thing, but ultimately sugar is sugar in terms of how much glucose equivalent it becomes as to what actual effects take place, etc.

3) I have heard a lot of praise for Stevia, but primarily from sources I wouldn't trust (vegans, who seem to use it as an "excuse" to prove that all but "natural" foods are bad for you unconditionally even when they have to admit that "natural" sugar is also bad for you, thus there is still a natural "out" to the issue that "natural" foods serve "all" of your dietary needs, including the need to have something sweet while staying all natural while avoiding carbs, etc.). However, when I tried it, it was quite bitter mostly as an aftertaste, sort of like a "super" form of Sacharrin. [Sacharrin seems to be truly an aftertaste effect of some bitternest, while Stevia seemed to have the bitterness come on during the taste, etc.]

4) I cannot obtain Aspartame, Sucralose, etc. in any form other than in diet soda, where it's not in the presence of OTHER carbohydrates such as maltodextrin, or worse some witch's brew of either sucrose, dextrose, or lactose.

Yes, anyone claiming to get these sweeteners is being duped! I am NOT saying these are sugars claiming to be non-carbohydrate artificial sweeteners, but what I AM saying is that they are PACKAGED with ordinary sugars!! [READ THE LABEL ON ANY PACKAGED ARTIFICIAL SWEETENER and read just how much well over 90% the actual contents is some form or other of sugar. Most common are: so-called Nutrisweet brand: Mostly maltodextrin, a carb, lesser ingredient Aspartame. Nutrisweet in those cute little blue packets: Dextrose over 90%, the rest essentially the same as the Nutrisweet brand in the larger container. Yes, essentially the blue packets are the original product, already over 90% maltodextrin, cut to less than 10% total, the rest being pure sugar! In this case, the Aspartame is now the THIRD ingredient! Don't think Splenda is any better: The big box is mostly maltodextrin while the little packets are mostly sugar with a little maltodextrin thrown in that happens to itself contain an even tinier amount of sucralose! Even Sweet 'n Low or Sugar Twin have Sacharrin as the minority ingrediet; the major one is either "nutrative dextrose" or lactose, which in my case is even worse as I am lactose intolerant!]

So, yes, It's all fine and dandy to talk about the theoretical problem of what artificial sweeteners may/may not be causing sugar-resemblant insulin reactions in people taking the sweeteners, but other than in certain sodas [extremely few on the market, but it's slowly coming!] where is this source of these sweeteners all are discussing which are NOT surrounded by overwhelming amounts of actual sugars?!

cjl

ps: In some cases, the packaging obfuscates the true contents. You get things like [in fine print you need a microscope to read!] total weight: 1 gram. Carbohydrate contents: LESS THAN ONE GRAM. Well, how much less? <no-comment> How about virtually no less than one gram since the damn thing is 96.5% pure sugar and the pitiful rest might be something non-carb sweetener in such an insignificant amount you can't even reliably calculate just how little, and it really doesn't matter, since for all intents and purposes, all these packets, white, pink, blue, yellow are ALL SUGAR!

pps: The soda industry is guilty of a related thing: sodium content. Be advised that only NO means no for this. "Very low sodium" is a euphemism for essentially so much sodium that were they to add any more, most people would notice that the sweetener doesn't mask the salty taste. There are only the two points on the curve: None and "very low". While I personally don't have much of a problem with salt, it affects certain people greatly and contributes to edema/water retention/high blood pressure, etc.

So how are these companies getting away with this? Because the packaging doesn't actually, lie, it just obfuscates the information so while it's staring you in the face, you cannot comprehend the information. Thus, just as good as lying.

cjl (go get your best magnifying glass out and read it for yourself!]