Nestle ‘Reinvents’ Sugar, Set To Hit Shelves Next Year

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Something that cannot be added to liquids..that normally can...makes me wonder just what the heck they did to the sugar molecule to change it.

If you had read how they've made it, you might understand why it wouldn't work in liquids..

“It is sugar, but it is assembled differently so it can disassemble easily in your mouth with less going into your gastrointestinal tract,”

Dr. Catsicas compared a normal crystal of sugar to a shoe box, where the box is made of sugar and everything inside it is also made of sugar. The new sugar, he said, will be processed to have the same sugar exterior — though it may be a globe instead of a box — to dissolve in the mouth.

www.nytimes.com...

From your source...

“It is sugar, but it is assembled differently so it can disassemble easily in your mouth with less going into your gastrointestinal tract,” said Dr. Stefan Catsicas, the company’s chief technology officer.

Sounds about as believable as bill in his interview saying he did not have sexual relations with that woman....

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Health effects, but can we trust the regulatory agency (FDA) to do it's due diligence?

Aspartame earning the wink of approval is a horrifying story of tit for tat, and back room deals. No conspiracy, just good ol crony capitalism.

Is Aspartame dangerous: The sneaky story of how aspartame became legal

In January of 1981 Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of Searle, stated in a sales meeting that he was going to “call in his markers” and make a push to get aspartame approved. That month Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President of the United States. His transition team included Rumsfeld who hand picked Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. to be the new FDA Commissioner.

www.thankyourbody.com...

I wonder if the sugar is getting processed through lead pipes. Small amounts of lead can trick the mouth into thinking it had something sweet when in fact it had lead. Saying that it's a redesigned sugar molecule doesn't really make much sense since they would have to change the way sugar crystals grow, or have something inside the crystal matrix tat prevents a solid crystal from forming (possibly by using lead)

OK, OK why I'm I saying lead so much? Didn't nestle just get rights to the water up in Michigan? Specifically water that may or may not be contaminated by ....lead? I think they (nestle) needs to explain themselves a little bit better as to this process of redesigning sugar.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Time will tell won't it?

This is only a thing because it's nestle.

I'm wondering if they will have to label their candy to indicate that it has this new form of sugar or if we can just assume that all their chocolate will soon have the crap in it.

a reply to: Guyfriday

They wanted 100 million gallons of water for $200 dollars, yes 200 dollars.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Chadwickus

I think it is a thing because it is a thing. Do you think if it was my good bestest corp friend Unilever I would think it to be different? Nope, same thing in my mind.

Why you ask? Because corps have little problems putting profit before the consumer.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
I wonder if the sugar is getting processed through lead pipes. Small amounts of lead can trick the mouth into thinking it had something sweet when in fact it had lead. Saying that it's a redesigned sugar molecule doesn't really make much sense since they would have to change the way sugar crystals grow, or have something inside the crystal matrix tat prevents a solid crystal from forming (possibly by using lead)

OK, OK why I'm I saying lead so much? Didn't nestle just get rights to the water up in Michigan? Specifically water that may or may not be contaminated by ....lead? I think they (nestle) needs to explain themselves a little bit better as to this process of redesigning sugar.

Yes, Nestlé did get rights to water in Michigan. They have their own wells that are drilled down into the water table. The lead issue is due to outdated urban water piping infrastructure from source to homes. I don't believe Nestlé is effected by this specific issue. Not saying that their new sweetener may not have harmful side effects nor lead, but it has nothing to do with the Lead issues that are affecting many households in Michigan or many other cities across America.

Edit add: I have to add my home has a well that goes deeper than my neighbors. They tap into the first water table, ours goes into a second deeper water table. Our tap water is definitely different. Tested, no lead, but it is sweeter. My grand kids love drinking our water, my husband and I had lemon juice to our water. I added this because I remember reading that Nestlé wanted to make their second well deeper.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Did they get it, last I heard they are renegotiation the licensing fee, they want 100,000,000 gals of their raw material from the state of Mich for $200.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Chemically it is still sugar as nothing is being added or taken away. They just found a way to refine it into spheres instead of square shaped crystals. The spherical shape seems to allow it to break down faster thus making it seem like the same mass of sugar is sweeter. No gmo needed.

a reply to: conscientiousobserver

There is no way to know that, the story is very very secretive and little to no info is given.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: CynConcepts

Did they get it, last I heard they are renegotiation the licensing fee, they want 100,000,000 gals of their raw material from the state of Mich for $200.

I haven't heard if it was finalized. Realize though that Nestlé does pay an additional unprecedented fee $2.30 per 1,000 gallons of water that they pump out of their own private wells!

As a private rural home owner, that was a scary prospect to me! So far, such a law seems to have been established due to them reselling and extracting. I purposely avoid city limit living due to paying for water is crazy talk and city water usually tastes disgusting! I prefer maintaining my own plumbing costs of repairs and keeping private...private!

Edit add: though, I will be suspect in using some unnatural sugar product until I know and understand how it was altered. Thus, like my sweeter water, want to see multiple tests showing what compounds/minerals it is comprised of.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

I don't know how you can determine that without seeing any sort of chemical analysis.

Cane sugar and fructose are both sugars, but have different molecular structures, for example.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

I'm with you...if it cannot be added to drinks, whatever "still unknown reasons" for that are probably sufficiently disturbing that it shouldn't actually be added to anything else, either.

If people would just make their own sweets, they could add as little or as much sugar as they pleased...or hey, use fruit juice or other natural substitutes. But it's less work to just eat whatever poison they throw into those brightly wrapped packages, and these companies know that. I make just about everything in my own kitchen, including candy. It tastes like peace, love and happiness up in here...not store-bought mystery ingredients.

a reply to: tigertatzen

To be fair, it sounds like they have altered the outside structure of the sugar molecule to break down quickly when it enters the mouth where taste buds are located. Thus, it may be that the carbonation of sodas would break the molecule and leave the drink sour.

Edit add: in other words, the carbon dioxide we exhale apparently has an effect on breaking down this molecule quicker to create a sugar rush sweetening in your taste bud region but does not last longer. My advice is it may not be something you want to savour in your mouth too long! Lol.

a reply to: seasonal

The only questionable aspect is how it is refined into the spherical shape as apposed to the shoe box shape of traditional sugar. My guess is it is a special type of centrifuge or a modified drying process. When the patents are granted we shall see I suppose, but as the good doctor said...

"It’s all about thinking: How can I expose my sensory system to the taste I’m looking for but with the minimum of that ingredient — and without replacing it with something else,” Dr. Catsicas said."

The last paragraph says it all. The article also states the spherical shape allows for it to dissolve faster. So you are not swallowing/wasting still dissolving sugar crystals. They simply made the same exact piece of sugar more efficient.

Lastly Not being able to use it in liquids is also most likely because it breaks down so quickly and it would evaporate when used in hot or carbonated beverages.

I'm glad there's at least a couple of others that get it.

Like I said, this is only a thing because it's Nestle.

a reply to: conscientiousobserver

It is all guessing until we get to the guts of this new sugar. And we will see exactly how this is made and if it is indeed safe.

originally posted by: ColaTesla
Usually these fake sugars turn out to be worse for you the the good old fashioned full fat version

Someone gets it. On top of that, we generally eat to a point of satisfaction, so you eat 40% more? Mother Nature usually wins in the end. Look at what the society of Internal Medicine is advising people regarding vitamins. Just eat real food. It is all you need, eat it balanced, and don't overeat. I'm calling BS on this one. Ever find anything artificial that tasted good and was healthy?

Denny

a reply to: CynConcepts

I just have an aversion to processed foods in general, really. They're universally awful-tasting. You're probably right, and the science is probably sound and relatively safe. I just don't care for the whole mysterious sort of tone...although that could simply be the author creating drama, too. Nestle has been guilty of some shady stuff in the past, so I think they're making a mistake if they're actually holding back any information on what this new formulation does and how and why. People are not in a very forgiving frame of mind these days.