Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

Stevia is a noncaloric, powdered sweetener derived from the leaves of a South American perennial shrub, Stevia rebaudiana. I have used stevia for many years as a substitute for white/table sugar in tea, coffee, smoothies, and in baking. It is very simple using it in liquids, but when baking, pure stevia powder, unmixed with anything else, only works as an adjunct to other types of sweeteners in baked goods, not as a complete replacement. This is because you don't use as much volume of it as white sugar due to it being much sweeter. That lesser volume inevitably changes the consistency/texture of baked goods. Additionally, when you buy "pure" stevia extract, it depends on the brand how sweet the stevia actually is. Some brands are sweeter than others, even though each may claim to be "pure" stevia, unmixed with anything else which might dilute the sweetness. For example, in my experience, NOW Foods stevia powder is approximately eight times as sweet as white/table sugar. In contrast, the presumably much more expensive Kal Pure stevia exract powder is about 24 times as sweet as table sugar. That is, it is three times as sweet as the NOW brand. So even though it costs per ounce about about 1.5 times as much as the NOW brand, because it goes 3 times as far, in actuality it costs half of what the NOW brand is because you can use 1/3 as much of it to get the same level of sweetness. This particular product attempts to solve the problem of the missing texture for baked goods that is lost when using pure stevia powder by mixing it with maltodextrin. The consumer is assured that enough maltodextrin has been blended with the stevia to bring it down to the level of sweetness of table/white sugar and to provide enough volume to substitute it cup for cup for white sugar. The consumer is further assured that this is a "zero calorie" product based on a serving size of 1 teaspoon, which is .5 gram of the product. The first question I had on examining this product was: What is maltodextrin? I researched that ingredient and learned the following: Maltodextrin is a food additive that is either without taste or slightly sweet. It is commonly used in the processed-food industry as a thickener or filler, to improve the texture and appearance in processed food. As a relatively cheap ingredient, it can also add more bulk to a given product, thereby increasing profits for the company using it. In the U.S., most of the time it is derived from rice, corn, or potato starch. Through a process called hydrolysis, the starch is reduced to its basic amino acids. Then an enzyme is used to break it down even further, resulting in a powder that instantly dissolves in water. People who are allergic to gluten should be aware that maltodextrin can sometimes be derived from barley or wheat. Per the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act (FALCPA), all FDA-regulated food products that contain maltodextrin derived from wheat must include the word "wheat" on the food label. In the case of USDA-regulated foods (meat, poultry, and egg products), this warning is not required on the label, so beware of products such as soups with meat in them which say they contain maltodextrin. However, products such as jams and jellies--and a powdered product such as this one--which contain maltodextrin, are required by law to say "wheat" in the the nutrition labeling if the maltodextrin is derived from wheat. The label of this product does not mention wheat, and it does claim, "Naturally gluten free food." This means that, hopefully, the manufacturer is in compliance with the law and the maltodextrin is not derived from wheat or barley. In terms of the manufacturer's claim of this product having "zero calories," yes, the product is technically in compliance with the FDA's definition of what that means, but the method for reaching that compliance is grossly deceptive. It is vital for consumers to be aware that though maltodextrin has zero useful nutrients, it does *not* have zero calories. It has the same calories as any carbohydrate, approximately 4 per gram. Because it is a starch, not a sugar, government regulation allows foods that contain it to be labeled "sugar free" if they contain no other sugars--which for some reason the manufacturers of this product did not choose to claim, even though they legally could have (which is actually a missed opportunity on their part to make a marketing "health" claim that many consumers would be attracted to, though for the wrong reasons--see more below on this issue under Glycemic Index). The manufacturers of this product have labeled this product as "Suitable for people with diabetes." There are two major problems with this claim: 1. This product is clearly developed to be used for baking. If a consumer is interested in using stevia for liquids, this is *not* the form of stevia that person should purchase. In that case, pure stevia powder is what it required. For baking, no one is ever going to use a so-called "serving" of a teaspoon of this product, which would actually come in at 2 calories, by the way, not zero calories. At 4 calories per gram, it has the same calories as any carbohydrate, including the flour used in, for example, cookies, and the regular white/table/granular sugar used in cookies. The reason the manufacturer can claim this product has zero calories is due to creating a completely unrealistic serving size to technically meet the requirement of the FDA for what constitutes a "calorie free" food, to wit: "Less than 5 cal per RACC and per labeled serving." RACC is defined as "Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed." Let me repeat again: No one regularly consumes a mere 1 teaspoon of sugar or sugar substitute when baking! What cookie, cake, candy, or pie recipe calls for 1 teaspoon of sugar? None. What serving of cookie, cake or candy (if broken down into segments/servings) contains only 1 teaspoon of sugar? None. This is false advertising at its most harmful! Imagine all the diabetic consumers using this product and assuming what they are baking has greatly reduced calories when, in fact, it does not! 2. The Glycemic Index (GI) of maltodextrin is over 100 which is much worse than table sugar, which is 68. Conclusion: You are better off using plain, white sugar than this product. This is not only not better for you--it is worse! If you want to cut calories or lower the GI of home-baked goods because you have diabetes, hypoglycemia, or want to go on a low-carbohydrate diet to lose weight, this product will *not* do the job for you. There are additional issues with this product as a substitute for white, granulated sugar: In terms of the texture of baked goods, this product's weight and consistency is very unlike granulated sugar, making its substitution in cooking problematic as to how similar to baked goods made with sugar and baked goods made with this product will actually be. Another problem is that many people do not like the aftertaste of stevia, something that can easily appear in a food it is used in if the "dosage" is not "titrated" (to use medical terms) precisely to individual tastes--which can only happen by trial and error. With stevia, there is no such thing as a standardized recipe as there can be for granulated sugar because of the varying sensitivity to the stevia aftertaste from individual to individual. I personally have not found any way to make cookies or candy without using at least a partial amount of some form of sugar. I can use slightly less of it by substituting stevia powder for part of the sugar (I can't use xylitol or other sugar alcohols because I am highly sensitive to the gastrointestinal upsets they cause since they are indigestible by the body). For the sugar I do use for baked goods such as cookies or candy, I substitute for white/table sugar more "natural" sugars like raw sugar or date sugar, though, truly, they are much more expensive than white sugar and only marginally more "healthy." The one way I've found to have a sweet baked good using very little sugar other than stevia is to make muffins. Here is a recipe that is low in fat and low in sugar by using apple sauce (it also tastes good omitting the Raisin Bran): Apple-Bran Muffins 1-1/2 cups whole-wheat pastry flour 2-1/2 tablespoons Slim Sweet (substituted for 1/3 cup brown sugar) 2-1/2 teaspoons baking powder 1 teaspoon ground cinnamon 1/2 teaspoon ground ginger 1/4 teaspoon ground cloves 1/4 teaspoon ground nutmeg 1 teaspoon stevia 1 tablespoon vanilla extract 1 tablespoon coconut oil 2 medium apples peeled and cored, run lightly through my Vitamix (or a regular blender) to make a chunky apple sauce 1-1/2 cup Post Raisin Bran Cereal 1 cup almond milk (substituted for low-fat dairy milk) Instructions: Sift together dry ingredients. Add coconut oil, vanilla, apples and milk. Blend with a wire whisk or fork until all dry ingredients are mixed well. Do not beat. Stir in cereal. There will be lumps. I bake these in silicone baking cups. I grease them lightly with coconut oil. I use a three-tablespoon, large-size cookie scoop, which makes 18 small muffins at 76 calories each. The apples are a good substitute for the high calories of oil. They cause the muffins to be as moist as extra oil while imparting a delicious texture and natural sweetness. I bake these muffins in my toaster oven instead of a regular, large oven. It saves energy and the kitchen doesn't heat up as much. I set the temperature at 375 degrees F. and bake for 12 minutes (when a toothpick comes out clean). The silicone cups take a lower than normal temperature of 425 degrees F. for muffins and even so, they cook much faster than the usual 20 minutes. The shorter cooking time is both because of the silicone and because I divide the batter into 18 muffins instead of the usual 12 muffins this recipe would make. By the way, these muffins are a bit larger than the small muffins I've eaten at a restaurant called Sweet Tomatoes, and they have about half the calories. They don't taste sugary-sweet like Dunkin Donuts, but they are sweet enough and quite filling. A nice, hearty snack. They can be stored in the freezer for up to a month.