One of the problems we have is that sugar is so darned tasty! We get it.
Dr. Chatterjee is one of many we follow on YouTube for guidance on general health. Some episodes are truly fascinating and this one could be worth a look for anyone new to this site and wondering what all the fuss is about.
Rather than explain the video contents, for now I'll just post it and let the title do the talking. Just the first few minutes of it are eye opening to the uninitiated.
We've been considering blending a product that helps newcomers to get started. We will gather feedback and make a decision, but the concept is to blend sugar with our Classic Blend. Yes, you read that right. At least beginners can start with a 50% reduction in calories and take steps toward going to zero.
As Dr. Lustig states in this video clip, sugar is but one of the problems. Over consumption of ultra-processed food and seed oils, among other things, are also major issues.
Our food supply system is broken and we encourage people to visit Whole Foods stores to find unprocessed foods.
]]>As an ex-NZ age grade rep, our eldest boy Josh is a mad keen volleyballer who currently plays at the top club level. He often complained of sore knees when training and playing. It seemed odd for a 20 year old at the time, but in the very first week of his sugar reduction regime he played in a big tournament on the weekend. He came home declaring that he had no joint pain at all over the whole tourney!
On the flip side, our youngest son is still very much addicted to sugar. It is everywhere and nearly impossible for a young teenager to avoid - assuming they wanted to! To give just one example, our youngest had a small bottle of orange juice the other day which had something like 38g of sugar! That is 9.5 teaspoons of sugar in a small bottle that was consumed in 90 seconds.
An article titled Chronic Inflammation states that inflammation is associated with the most common ailments affecting modern humans today: diabetes, cardiovascular disease, arthritis and joint diseases, allergies, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The following is taken from this article.
Inflammation is manifested by:
Diet is recognised as a significant risk factor leading to inflammation:
Ways to prevent chronic inflammation include:
Here is another paper for those who want to explore the subject:
Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9471313/
"Based on these reported findings, we emphasize that dietary sugars and mixed processed foods may be a key factor leading to the occurrence and aggravation of inflammation."
Inflammation causes a great deal of health problems and we all need to aware of it. Ideally we can make our health experts and politicians aware of it and see some change.
]]>We get asked from time to time why we don’t sell Maltitol or Tagatose, so here are some comments that help explain.
Maltitol is one of the more common Polyols found in sugar free chocolates and we looked into it as a replacement option for Erythritol. Like most Polyols (sugar alcohols) it has around 75-80% the sweetness of table sugar (sucrose), and significantly less calories.
While Maltitol comes with a higher score on the glycemic index (52) and is known to be one of the worse Polyols in terms of causing gas, bloating or diarrhea (link).
Maltitol has been around a long time and comes cheaper than Erythritol. It is known to cause more gassiness and bloating than Erythritol, though this is dose dependent and transitory, but is otherwise regarded as a great product for food production.
In fact, Maltitol is commonly used in sugar free chocolates and candy due to it's high melting point and creamy texture, and in these low quantity portions should have limited negative impact to consumers.
With a high glycemic index (GI) score of 52, Maltitol comes in not much less than sugar (65) but much higher rating than Erythritol (0) or Xylitol (7), and this is the main problem customers on any kind of specialised low calorie, sugar free or diabetic diet will have.
Summary:
Tagatose has a GI rating of just 3, which makes it an excellent product for specialised sugar free, low calorie and diabetic diets. It is of high interest as it is known to caramelise with all the properties of sugar except the calories.
The major drawback with Tagatose is the fact that it currently costs almost 10X the price of Erythritol (which itself is almost 10X the price of table sugar), which is prohibitively expensive.
Tagatose is one to watch though as a new American manufacturer called Bonumose has launched with funding from the largest global cane sugar producer - American Sugar Refining, Inc. - and Hershey Corporation.
Summary:
I've been doing a lot of reading about the health benefits of Stevia lately. Let's switch tack and look into Monk Fruit.
Monk Fruit (Siraitia grosvenorii, also known as luohan guo) is named after the Buddhist monks who first cultivated the fruit nearly 800 years ago. This fruit is native to the mountainous regions of southern China, particularly Guangxi Province, where it is still primarily grown today.
The monks were reputed to have first used the fruit for medicinal purposes, and it's been a part of traditional Chinese medicine since then. The name "monk fruit" pays homage to these monks and their early cultivation and usage of the fruit.
Monk Fruit extract is approved and considered safe by Food & Safety Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ), citing that it has a history of safe consumption in China, Japan, Canada and the United States for many years and that no studies have yet demonstrated evidence of adverse effects in humans.
The FSANZ approval report from 2018 cites that available evidence shows monk fruit extract is not genotoxic even at the highest doses tested in animals. Given this evidence, studies in humans are relatively "unnecessary".
Let's look at a few more studies that can easily be found online.
Modulation of Gut Microbiota Composition and Short-Chain Fatty Acid Synthesis by Mogroside V in an In Vitro Incubation System - link to study
"Enhanced antioxidant abilities of the metabolites were found in the broth. The results suggested that MV, as a potential prebiotic, could benefit human health through its interaction with gut microbiota."
Effects of a synbiotic yogurt using monk fruit extract as sweetener on glucose regulation and gut microbiota in rats with type 2 diabetes mellitus - link to study
"Our results indicated that monk fruit extract may be a good alternative to sucrose for synbiotic yogurt products in people with type 2 diabetes to delay the progression of diabetes and associated complications."
Even though human studies investigating the health effects of monk fruit sweeteners are limited, and monk fruit hasn’t been linked to any adverse side effects or health risks, it does seem that more studies on human consumption would be helpful.
I suspect that if Monk Fruit ever becomes a threat to Big Sugar and Big Food, research that make the benefits of Monk Fruit irrefutable will not only be helpful but vital to counter the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) that seems to be commonly spread about natural sweeteners.
Learn more at https://monkfruit.org/
The World Health Organisation released it's guidelines on non-sugar sweeteners recently and recommended we do not consume these products. They have no nutritional value and might even have adverse effects on our health.
When we looked into some of the media around this report, we found it quite shocking to see Stevia's name alongside a list of artificial sweeteners - especially as Stevia hardly featured in the report, and when it did, the results were overwhelmingly positive.
For the report to recommend against consuming "non sugar sweeteners" like Stevia is perplexing and frankly, frustrating.
Let me share our thoughts on all of this.
First up let's look at why Stevia was included.
Here's the kicker: the definition of "non-sugar sweeteners" was made to include those with zero calories or nutritional content and as Stevia has zero calories and no vitamins, it was included along with a range of artificial sweeteners.
Stevia actually came out with resoundingly positive results and is extremely good for our health. Sadly the information on how good it is for you seems to have been ignored due to a misguided classification to focus defining "non-sugar" as "zero calorie".
In a world awash with high calorie refined sugars, why include a good thing on a bad list, just because it has no calories? It's almost as though this was decided by the sugar lobby itself.
Next we should look at some of the sweeping generalisations that were made.
Just 3 of the 46 randomly controlled studies reviewed within the report focused exclusively on Stevia. To ignore all the positive results that were attributed to Stevia and the fact that it only appeared in 5 lines (out of 210 pages) is lazy at best.
To generalise the results like this is appalling:
"Results of the review also suggest that there may be potential undesirable effects from long-term use of [non-sugar sweeteners], such as an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and mortality in adults."
As demonstrated in the report itself, Stevia has absolutely no association with any of this nastiness. Stevia has been consumed by humans and used as a medicinal herb for 1500 years, with no downside!
Why ignore the obvious positives and produce a lazy umbrella generalisation?
Finally we need to consider how the media picks it up and twists it. This is where there the real damage occurs.
Journalists see the classification as "non-sugar" and they see the list of sweeteners included in the report: acesulfame K, aspartame, advantame, cyclamates, neotame, saccharin, sucralose, stevia and stevia derivatives.
They then go on to conflate the WHO report on "non-sugar sweeteners" with "artificial sweeteners" and include Stevia under the heading "WHO rejects artificial sweeteners".
Good grief. It makes me wonder who pays for the advertising at CNBC and other mainstream media organisations.
Stevia is a plant. You do not require a laboratory to make it. In fact you can pick some up at your local garden store.
The damage will be done though, and I suspect we will be forever fielding questions about the "safety" of Stevia. This is bad for people who could benefit from this natural herb.
Here is the response from two organisations that responded to the report: the International Sweetener Association (ISA) and the Calorie Control Council. You can read the details by clicking the hyperlink.
INTERNATIONAL SWEETENER ASSOCIATION:
"the ISA believes it is a disservice to public health to not recognise low/no calorie sweeteners’ role in reducing sugar and calorie intake and aiding in weight control."
CALORIE CONTROL COUNCIL:
"The Calorie Control Council strongly disagrees with this recommendation and reaffirms the documented health benefits and longstanding safety of non-sugar sweeteners"
Learn More: https://steviabenefits.org/
Obviously we sell natural sweeteners, so we have a horse in this race so to speak, and potential for bias here. This is why I have included links to the report and quoted directly from it. We say "no" to laboratory-made artificial sweeteners, and "yes" to sweeteners arise in nature, but we would encourage our customers to dig deeper to find more information.
Food & Safety Australia & New Zealand safety report - link to report
I sat down over lunch to watch a little YouTube. What popped up in my feed was a video on The Obesity Industrial Complex, which seemed well produced and struck some chords with me.
We've probably all heard of the Military Industrial Complex, which entails a range of corporations that are perversely incentivised by war profits. The Obesity Industrial Complex concept is similar.
Around just 15 minutes in length, the clip is well worth a watch. It starts with a critique of a 60 Minutes piece that aired earlier in the year in the US and goes on to explain the relationship between the main actors in this particular industrial complex.
First up, Big Food is incentivised to addict us to their products rather than to nourish us, which means they are made cheaply and devoid of nutrition or fibre, which in turn makes us sick (and obese). The cheaper the food can be produced, the more profitable Big Food can be.
Meanwhile Big Pharma is incentivised to avoid any meaningful discussion around non-pharmacological remedies such as eating vegetables, reducing sugar, exercising, fasting, etc. Nope. The idea is that we should just take our pills.
Mainstream Media stay out of any moral debate and just focus on selling ad spots. Lame Duck Government plays along, enjoying the perks that come from the corporate lobbyists.
Intentional or not, no party in this equation has any incentive to change the status quo that makes them money. This presents a large, complicated codependency where more sick people are actually good for business.
Enter the Expert. In the video, narrator and writer James Li starts out with Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford - an obesity "expert" - being interviewed on the 60 Minutes episode claiming that obesity is "a brain disease" and the "number one cause of obesity is "genetics" regardless of optimal diet, exercise or other actions we may take. The interviewer looks flummoxed as most of us would be when hearing such an argument.
I certainly don't buy it. We've all seen our grandparents or photos of other humans from 50-60 years ago, and they were remarkably slim compared to today. Even old research shows average BMI scores blowing up over time. The chart and information shown in this research is also mind-blowing and worth seeing.
According to the video's producer, neither the good doctor being interviewed nor CBS who aired the show disclosed that she has been paid significant sums of money from several major pharmaceutical companies, including the one sponsoring the show. Despite her credentials, one could argue that she is nothing more than a paid actor.
Worse, apparently the segment did not mention any solutions to the obesity problem other a single drug, leading another critic to cite this particular episode of 60 Minutes as a "Shameful, Dangerous, Irresponsible Drug Commercial". I rarely watch it but you have to wonder if this show was representative of 60 Minutes' standards?
Doing a little Googling about all this I am also somewhat horrified to see that Dr. Stanford has now been promoted to the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee where she will advise on food regulation under the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
How can someone so compromised be put in charge of food supply regulation? How can someone who believes that we don't need to investigate the root cause of the problem, but rather all we need are some new pills be right for this role?
Because she is paid to ignore the facts and say what her corporate sponsors (the very same companies paying for the advertisements) need her to say. With paid actors like Dr. Stanford in the drivers seat, the problem is both deep and systemic. This certainly seems symptomatic of an Obesity Industrial Complex in the USA at least.
I don't believe anyone who reads this blog post would agree that Big Pharma is the only solution as Dr. Stanford infers. To list just a few top of mind ideas on preventative non-pharma solutions we could consider:
I don't have the answers but it seems our politicians only go for the low hanging fruit - excuse the pun. None of the current crop are brave enough to wade through the "noise" and tackle the big challenges around healthy food supply.
I think we need to make sure our politicians hear our voices on food safety, health and wellness, and for there to be conversation around non-pharma solutions. Surely there is one politician brave enough to take a stand and fight the FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt - that inevitably comes out to reject any proposals to change the status quo.
It is election year and if the politicians don't listen we need to vote for the ones that do, as we all know that prevention is the best medicine.
Here are some charts from a couple of the articles I linked above:
THE 60 MINUTES SEGMENT ON OBESITY WAS A SHAMEFUL DANGEROUS IRRESPONSIBLE DRUG COMMERCIAL
A TIMELINE OF THE INCREASE IN CONTRIBUTION OF REFINED SUGAR AND HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP
NEW ZEALAND OBESITY RANKING:
https://www.otago.ac.nz/news/itunesu/podcasts/otago022513.mp4
The WHO report on non-sugar sweeteners was damning for zero calorie sweeteners, and if you read the report it is clear enough that artificial sweeteners should be avoided - even if the recommendations to avoid them were made with "low confidence" in the evidence.
The tragedy is that Stevia was included in this report alongside artificial sweeteners because it has no calorific value. (Which suggests they kind of missed the point!)
Stevia on the other hand showed a whole host of positive health benefits, or at least nothing detrimental. Many people will now be confused by it's inclusion and the sweeping generalisation made about "non-sugar sweeteners".
As they only included 3 studies that were dedicated to Stevia, the findings are fairly limited. In fact we could only find 5 references to Stevia so we will include them below, along with screenshots taken from the report itself.
This is every sentence that references Stevia within the report:
"...in one trial, the participants in the control arm reported overall higher hunger scores compared with an arm receiving stevia (52)."
MEANING: Stevia performed well in reducing hunger cravings. That is a good thing!
"A sixth trial reported a significant positive correlation between sweet cravings and sugars intake but not between sweet cravings and stevia intake (52)."
Meaning: Unlike other options, Stevia has no positive association in creating sweet cravings. Good, right?
"...those receiving stevia for 6 weeks did not display any changes in cognitive function, whereas those receiving sucralose showed a significant decrease in overall memory, encoding memory and executive functions (54)."
Meaning: The plant Stevia had no impact but (artificial) Sucralose actually impairs cognitive function. That's not good at all!
"...the concentrations of cariogenic Streptococcus mutans bacteria and lactobacilli, and the probability of developing caries (measured by a cariogram) in the stevia arm had decreased compared with baseline, whereas there were no statistically significant changes in the sugars arm (209)."
Meaning: Compared to baseline data, Stevia promoted good dental health. Great!
Furthermore...
"...mouth rinse containing stevia or placebo was used daily by children for 6 months. At the end of the trial, there was a significant improvement in the stevia arm compared with the placebo arm in plaque scores and gingival scores. There were no changes in the number of cavitated lesions in the stevia arm, but there was an increase in cavitated lesions in the placebo arm (from 5.6% to 5.8%) (210)."
Meaning: Yet again, Stevia is fantastic for dental health! Hooray!!
In summary the findings shown in the report were:
That does not sound like something we should be generalising as the same as artificial sweeteners, which literally have no value at all. Humans have been consuming Stevia for more than 1500 years and we think that should continue!!
We advise our readers to take a look at some of the research we found on the health benefits of Stevia - one of which was included in the report.
Obviously we sell natural sweeteners, so we have a horse in this race so to speak, and potential for bias here. This is why I have included links to the report and quoted directly from it. We say "no" to laboratory-made artificial sweeteners, and "yes" to sweeteners arise in nature, but we would encourage our customers to dig deeper to find more information.
]]>
Let's delve into the influence of insulin and how natural sweeteners can aid insulin management.
Insulin is a hormone generated by the pancreas that controls blood glucose levels. Upon carbohydrate consumption, they break down into glucose for our cells to use for energy or store for later.
Insulin resistance is a state where the body's cells are less responsive to insulin, impairing glucose utilisation. Insulin resistance can be caused by factors such as excess weight, physical inactivity, or a high-sugar diet.
Insulin resistance carries risks such as high blood glucose levels, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic syndrome. This is particularly concerning as even though this is largely a "lifestyle" issue, it can contribute to obesity-related chronic diseases and New Zealand is not on a good trajectory at all with diabetes and obesity on the rise.
NEW ZEALAND OBESITY RANKING:
The following chart should shock all of us - no matter our body shape. You can see a more up to date (and equally disturbing) chart on OECD data, here.
You can manage Insulin Resistance by cutting sugar consumption, controlling calorie intake, and improving insulin sensitivity to maintain a healthy body weight and minimise the risk of obesity. Lifestyle modifications are crucial, and in some cases, medications may also be prescribed.
Many of our customers partake in active Keto or partial Ketogenic diets, which manage sugar and carbohydrate intake, and such a dietary change may be beneficial to those struggling with insulin resistance. If you have concerns about this, you should visit your local doctor for advice.
Our goal at Sugar Free Food is to show Kiwi's that we can enjoy sweet and tasty foods as part of a very healthy diet. Natural sweeteners like Stevia, Monk Fruit, Xylitol, and Erythritol offer a sweet taste without impacting blood glucose or calorie intake, thus providing a way to both enjoy our food and manage our health for the better.
The important point is that lifestyle and diet changes may seem daunting, but there are many Keto-friendly products available - including natural sweeteners - that may it an easy process.
For more information on these subjects, visit https://www.diabetes.org.nz/ or https://nutritionfoundation.org.nz/keto-diet/
You can find a range of Keto-friendly online stores on our Online Stockists page: https://www.sugarfreefood.co.nz/pages/online-stockists
If you have queries or concerns about insulin, weight loss, or dieting, please consult your local doctor.
I thought I would share that finally we have the new packaging for our natural sweeteners in place - all except for the Golden Brown, which will be ready in a few weeks.
If you don't see these in your local supermarket, please ask the staff to stock them. Our stockists include most New Worlds, all Fresh Choices, but not Countdown or Pak 'n Save.
We are also in most Wholefoods/Bin Inn's around New Zealand and a lot of boutique whole foods stores - you can check our Stockists page for details.
As for breakfast, here is how I made a delicious porridge:
Since taking over Sugar Free Food in 2022 we have been on a crash course in the world of sweeteners. One name that keeps coming up in queries from customers is Allulose so we thought it time to share an update.
Allulose is a newer "sugar alcohol" that has increasingly been used over and above other products around the world, and we get asked about it - a lot.
This is one of the super sweeteners that has all the benefits of other sugar alcohols, but without the cooling effect. What is more, Allulose will brown and caramelise, whereas others do not.
Allulose was in our range of products until November 2021, when the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) withdrew it from the permissible import list until further notice. What is happening from our understanding is that MPI is seeking to put some regulation around this new product. That's fair enough.
The company that has submitted the application is a large global pharmaceutical company with huge investment in the sugar alcohol and sweetener space. We have been talking to them about a distribution arrangement so that we can supply our Bin Inn and whole food retailers, however the volumes required for this may be beyond our capability at this point in time.
We do see a fair amount of Allulose on the market here in New Zealand, which is a concern. Obviously it is bypassing government channels. We have been waiting patiently for the approved product as we wish to avoid any issues or legal problems.
With regards to the approved product, Food & Safety Australia and New Zealand have approved it, but New Zealand's MPI seems to be dragging their feet. Despite this, as soon as it is "legal" again, we will definitely carry this product.
We have been playing around with some of our old stock and really enjoying it on it's own, but we are also experimenting with a blend of Allulose and Stevia in the same way we produce our Classic Not Sugar and Icing Not Sugar.
We have even gone so far as to apply for trademarks in Australia and New Zealand for the naming rights of this blend. Watch this space!
Find out more about Allulose here: https://allulose.org/
]]>My first sighting of this study was of a CNN article with a terrifying title:
I am naturally a bit of a skeptic and especially skeptical of US media, which often appears to have a huge conflict of interest with advertisers. In fact, doctors and politicians also have very real conflicts of interest in the US.
That is not to say fact checking has not been done here, just that it warrants a deeper dive.
Other media outlets have come out in the aftermath with a more reasoned response. After reading this Time Magazine article I read the scathing review by Oxford University Doctor and well respected Dietician, Dr. Nicola Guess and her post on Instagram, shown in this screenshot:
I strongly recommend reading Dr. Guess' savaging comments here on her Substack site. You can even subscribe to her emails. [She also has a very good follow up article found here.]
Mike Mutzel at High Intensity Health, another YouTuber I watch from time to time also blogged with the critical headline:
Finally, and I think 3 opinions is enough for the purpose of this blog post, but this video from Keto guru Thomas DeLauer quoting US medical researcher Alan Aragon, may also be valuable. I transcribed Alan's comments here:
Before I found the articles and feedback mentioned above, I had spent quite a bit of time reading the study and here are some points that I thought useful to consider:
There have been many studies over recent years seeking to determine the benefits and risks associated with Erythritol, both endogenous and dietary. Readers can do their own digging, but to provide context to this alarmist study, please take a look at these examples:
I should provide a disclaimer here that I am not a doctor nor a scientist, nor particularly adept at deciphering empirical literature, and as we sell Erythritol we have a pretty obvious conflict of interest.
All of that notwithstanding, after reading the study and listening to various commentators I think it fair to say that now and until determined otherwise, we feel comfortable that Erythritol is safe - as per the many hundreds of other studies conducted on actual consumption, and as per the US FDA's safety recommendations.
Apologies for the super lengthy post, but as I dug deeper and deeper on the study and the backlash, I just kept finding more things worthy of sharing. We hope this helps everyone to make up their own minds!
Polyols, also known as sugar alcohols, are organic compounds that contain one hydroxyl group attached to each carbon atom. The name "polyol" refers to their carbon compound structure as poly (many) and -ol (alcohol), although they do not contain actual alcohol.
Polyols can be derived from sugars, either naturally or produced industrially by hydrogenating sugars. They are made by fermenting natural sugars found in fruits and vegetables and are commonly produced from corn using enzymes to ferment the sugars. After fermentation, the white liquid is filtered, dehydrated, and crystallized into the sugar-like product enjoyed by many.
Note this image provided for reference uses sugarcane as the source plant, whereas the polyols we import are made from non-GMO corn.
Polyols are low GI sweeteners, which generally have low or zero GI scores, meaning they have limited to no effect on blood glucose levels. They are vegan and are commonly used in the food and beverage industry to produce sugar-free or low sugar products, while Xylitol is found in many oral hygiene products. Polyols are consumed by people looking to reduce their intake of refined and artificial sugars for various reasons, such as weight loss, general health, managing diabetes, or a Keto diet.
With consumer interest in healthier sugar alternatives, polyols are becoming more popular, and Erythritol is growing at the fastest rate due to its stability and relatively low production cost compared to other polyols. While there is no difference in the final product, organic certified polyols can be purchased, and non-GMO verified polyols are commonly used because of concerns about the negative side of GMO plants.
New Zealand's largest sugar producer owns a subsidiary that specializes in selling polyols to food manufacturers. Polyols are commonly used in the food and beverage industry to produce sugar-free or low sugar products, making them a popular ingredient for people looking to reduce their sugar intake.
Sugar alcohols are produced in the same way that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is produced. Each polyol uses a different enzyme to ferment the sugars found in the source plant - usually corn. The result of the fermentation process is a white liquid that is then filtered to remove any unwanted materials (sludge, proteins etc), dehydrated and crystalized into the sugar-like product we enjoy.
According to recent market reports, the polyol market size in New Zealand is estimated to be around NZD 20-25 million. The overall growth rate of the polyol market has been steady in recent years, with an expected CAGR of 5-6% from 2021 to 2026. Erythritol is growing at the fastest rate among all polyols, with a projected CAGR of 7-8% during the same period. This is due to its stability and relatively low production cost compared to other polyols.
On the other hand, Xylitol is also experiencing steady growth, with a projected CAGR of 5-6% from 2021 to 2026, and it is commonly found in many oral hygiene products. Despite the smaller market size compared to other sugar alternatives, the growing consumer interest in healthier sugar alternatives is expected to continue driving the growth of the polyol market in New Zealand.
Sample of market research report (USD):
Polyols are commonly used as a sugar substitute due to their low glycemic index (GI) score. GI measures the impact of carbohydrates on blood glucose levels. Polyols have a lower GI score compared to regular sugar, which means they have a minimal effect on blood sugar levels. This makes them an attractive option for people with diabetes or those who want to manage their blood sugar levels.
Generally, polyols have a GI score of 0 to 50, while regular sugar has a score of 60 to 70. Xylitol has a GI score of 13, while Erythritol has a GI score of 0, making it the most popular polyol among people looking to reduce their sugar intake. The low GI score of polyols also means they can be used in a wide range of foods and beverages without causing significant spikes in blood sugar levels.
You can learn more about GI in this blog post.
Technically speaking there is no difference in the final product, whether the source material is organic corn or not. The corn starch is fermented and converted into the polyol, which is in itself a new thing. That said, it is possible to buy organic certified polyols as they use organic byproduct as the source plant. This is considerably more expensive however, and as polyols make up the bulk of our blends we do not go so far as to buy these polyols. As prices come down, we will revisit this decision.
Similar to organic status, whether the source product is GMO or not, the final product is made as a result of a fermentation process which should in theory negate any negative properties of the source plant. That said, due to the negative side of GMO plants - chiefly the idea of pesticide resistance being built into their DNA and thus the heavy use of pesticides in their growing - we only source non-GMO verified products. We have confirmed these verifications ourselves with Food Chain ID, one of the original technical administrators for the Non-GMO Project Verified.
In the same manner as with organic status as the source product is vegetable and the end product a result of a fermentation process, we do not see any issue for vegan people to consume polyols. We do have written statements from our suppliers to the effect that to the best of their knowledge there are no animal products included in the production of polyols, nor any known allergens (wheat, crustacean, dairy, etc). Our suppliers are all highly specialized in the production and manufacture and distribution of natural sweeteners and there should be no possible way for non-plant matter to enter the production cycle.
All of the above notwithstanding, we have not applied for Vegan Certification because of the time and cost required. We are not yet sure if there would be a positive benefit to us taking this step, but we will review it in due course.
While polyols offer a range of benefits and are generally considered safe, there are some potential negative side effects associated with their consumption. Some people may experience digestive issues, such as bloating, gas, and diarrhea, if they consume too much polyol. Therefore, it's generally recommended to consume polyols in moderation and follow the recommended daily intake guidelines.
The European Food Safety Authority has set an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0-0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight for several common polyols, such as erythritol and xylitol. It's important to note that this ADI is a guideline, and some individuals may be more sensitive to polyols than others. As with any food or supplement, it's always best to consult with a healthcare professional before adding polyols to your diet.
When it comes to taste, sugar is known for its sweet flavor that many people enjoy. Polyols like Erythritol or Xylitol also provide a sweet taste, but they can also have a cooling or minty sensation that some people may find different from the pure sweetness of sugar. Some like it, some don't.
To make it easier for newcomers to understand, we have decided to use the tagline "Not Sugar" on our new product line packaging. This will help consumers easily recognize the purpose of these products, both in New Zealand and in other markets where we operate. Our aim is to simplify the often complex chemical names associated with polyols, making it easier for consumers to make informed decisions about their sugar intake.
Polyols are known for their sweet taste and are commonly used as sugar substitutes due to their lower calorie content. They have a sweetness level that ranges from 40% to 100% of sucrose (table sugar) depending on the type of polyol. For example, Xylitol is equivalent in sweetness to sucrose, while Erythritol is about 60-70% as sweet as sugar.
The sweetness of polyols varies depending on factors such as concentration, the presence of other ingredients, and the individual's taste preferences. It is important to note that while polyols are sweet, they do not have the same mouthfeel or texture as sugar, which can affect the taste and overall eating experience of products containing them.
The chances are that if you are on our website, then you are not beholden to the taste of refined sugar or artificial sweeteners and are looking for healthier alternatives. In this case polyols are probably a good place to start and we hope the information provided here helps you make up your own mind on what is right for you.
If you find that polyols do not work for you, you may wish to try high intensity sweeteners like Stevia or Monk Fruit. Either way, and if you can find a natural sweetener that works for you as an additive or ingredient in your cooking, then that is a good thing.
]]>Wicked in a good way!
I am not normally a spirits drinker but Sawae is on occasion (she might clobber me for writing that!). Anyway, thinking it a likely match, I bought a bottle of gin to test out how some of the new Liquid Stevia Drop flavours would work out.
This was a winning combination. Just wow!!
In fairness I suspect the gin itself - Imagination Gin from Kapiti - is a really good one, and with a generous splash of Peach flavoured Stevia drops it is phenomenal.
I also tried the Spearmint and Raspberry flavours, which were good, but not quite as good. I also assume that Watermelon is a nice match, and probably the Pineapple too, but I had to stop after the Spearmint as I'd been a bit liberal with the gin portions...
For those who like a tipple, enjoy!
]]>We are currently in the process of repackaging our products with a new theme: Not Sugar
It's no longer just a concept!!
Luckily our manufacturers worked hard to get these printed over our Christmas and New Year to be shipped just prior to the Chinese New Year. It may be late February by the time they arrive, and from there we need to start on the repacking, so hopefully we are on shelves by mid-March.
After exploring options we have opted to go with a full packet print on recylable materials. While we strongly wanted to have a fully biodegradable material the limitations on shelf life of the package were not practical. We looked at compostable materials, but for "home compostable" material would face the same issue of longevity.
In the meantime, to provide customers with options we are also exploring a sweetnz® branded tin can concept for people to buy and refill. The refill pouches will be fully compostable.
This idea started with original owners Lynn and Glenn when they named Icing (not) Sugar and we think the Not Sugar name can be used for more of our products.
With the new packaging you will see that a number of product names will change. Specifically:
We believe the new packaging will help our products stand out on shelves in supermarkets and pantries to attract a wider number of sugar-free curious.
The refill option will involve a biodegradable and home compostable pouch that can be poured into a 300 gram tin canister (or any other storage container).
We love the look and feel of the sweetnz® branded cans and hope that they may provide sugar free fans with a nice option for the pantry, or as a gift idea for others venturing out on their sugar free journeys.
Let us know what you think!
Seriously. This is a question asked by people who can't let go of sugar. We need to break that bond.
This is one of the reasons we have decided to run with the theme of Icing (Not) Sugar and rebrand many of the sweetener products as exactly that...
Sure, we all love the taste of sugar. That is the whole problem!!
Because of this love affair-turned-addiction the western world has sky rocketing rates of Type 2 Diabetes, obesity and a whole lot of the complications that come with that. Yet we continue crave sugar and the food manufacturers are more than happy to feed the habit.
Our blends add the boost of Stevia or Monk Fruit extract to make them a great 1:1 replacement for sugar, but they are not sugar. So no, natural sweeteners do not taste the same as sugar. However they are sweet and they are delicious.
Here is the kicker: they have low or no calories!!
The sweetnz® range is for those who want to break their addiction, change their lives for the better, and do that without compromising their values around chemicals or artificial ingredients.
If you are the one asking that question, it may take you time to adjust to new flavours, but you need to mentally break the sugar addiction or you will never heal yourself from it's damage.
Below is a sneak peak at the new packaging concept for Not Sugar that will come out in early 2023. We hope you like it!!
]]>I thought it may be worth sharing one of our favourites at home, which is super simple and super delicious.
We've been adding Caramel and Vanilla Stevia Drops to milk since we came into the business, but we started on Raspberry and Chocolate and wow!! They're great and it's kind of amazing to think that they really are sweet with zero calories.
It was a bit silly of us but the Chocolate flavoured Stevia had exceeded it's best before date so we put it all aside in wait for the next shipment to arrive. The only time I used it was to spruce up a dead boring cereal, but none of us had considered it for milk!!
The new shipment that has the Chocolate flavour is finally in customs, so after many delays we could be about to post about all the new Stevia Drop flavours, including Lemon, Spearmint, Watermelon, Peach and Pineapple, as well as the Monk Fruit Drops we brought in to try. (Back soon!)
Perhaps at some point we can even launch a range of flavoured milk like we had when we were kids - but without the sugar.
Check out the range in the Shop.
]]>This is a really good question but what if we reframe this question to ask, why is sugar so cheap?
After a bit of reading across the web, here are a couple of factors behind why sugar is so cheap:
In part because sugar can come from cane or beet as the source and therefore grown almost anywhere, so many countries produce it and many like Brazil, India, Thailand, China, and the United States produce it en mass. It was technology invented in the early 20th century that made it cheaper to process sugar and the boom was on!!
Here is a scary chart from an interesting website (Sugar and Sweetener Guide):
This is an awkward one and related to the first point on how sugar became so prevalent, but if we look back to the 19th century there was free (slave) labour and free (expropriated) land available to colonial and American plantation owners. Sugar production grew massively through the 19th and 20th centuries as a result of this increasingly cheap production. Once upon a time sugar was a luxury for the rich and elite, but wider consumption sky rocketed as technology made production easier, and with this commoditisation, prices plummeted.
The global sugar industry is a USD 38 billion dollar business in 2022, which is expected to keep growing despite developed countries becoming more aware of the negatives. A commodity industry of this scale has many vested interests driving it forward.
Most countries provide some form of subsidy to industries of importance and the sugar industry is no different. For example, the US government provides support to maintain price stability under what is called the US Sugar Program. Other countries do the same because a stable, cheap price means that all the products produced with sugar as an ingredient - from beverages to desserts or even bread - can also maintain reasonable price stability.
Natural sweeteners are the competition to the status quo. Production volumes remain fairly small as the world is awash in cheap sugar. In contrast to the USD 38 billion sugar industry, the market size of one of the more prevalent natural sweeteners, Stevia, is still just USD 770 million dollars in size. The Xylitol market is also less than a billion USD and even though it is growing rapidly, the Erythritol market is less than half of that.
It may take some time for prices to come down, but if Coca Cola (or any other major sugar user) decides to go big on any natural sweetener then production will need to increase. I would assume that after an initial spike in prices due to the sudden scarcity, prices will come down as that production comes on line for everyone other than Coca Cola (or whoever it may be that reduced supply).
In reality I assume a Coca Cola (or other) will stick to sugar as their cash cow because it is so addictive, and continue to offer synthetic/artificial sweeteners because they are also cheap to produce. This model is tried and proven as hugely profitable, and it may require government intervention toward healthy outcomes before anything changes.
Despite the shocking increase in Diabetes Mellitus (Type-2) around the western world, including New Zealand, not many governments seem motivated to do that. There are all kinds of arguments as to why that is so - from the tax revenues coming off the healthcare sector, to lobbyists having all the power - and until people speak up to their politicians, all of this will be hard to change.
What we can say is that for those of us who need a little sweetness in our lives, without the health risks, we need to pay a bit extra to have it. The faster this sector grows, the more production expands and the quicker prices should fall.
Stay healthy people!!
]]>One of our TOP SELLING PRODUCTS Icing (not) Sugar is a finer powdered version of our Classic Blend (best for baking) and contains the same ingredients: Erythritol and Organic Stevia (RA98%).
Now that shipping is returning to normal post-COVID, we are looking to reduce the stockpile of a few products, including Icing (not) Sugar. As we get deeper into Spring we want to promote the ways to use this wonderful product at a special discounted price.
The perfect 1-1 substitute for traditional high calorie, high GI icing sugar, here are some ideas for how you can use your Icing (not) Sugar:
We'd love to hear of other ways people are using Icing (not) Sugar, and hope people will give it a go to replace their regular icing sugar next time they do a bake!!
This special price applies only while stocks last.
]]>Let's take a look at one of the most common questions that comes in around a popular product: Xylitol.
A lot of people are freaked out by the idea of corn being the source of sugar alcohols (polyols) like Xylitol, most likely as there is so much negative information out there about genetic modification in American corn. They therefore tend to come seeking product derived from birch trees, which is understandable.
Before going into the whole birch vs. corn discussion, it is important to point out that consumers around the world are not accepting of genetically modified products, and our suppliers are certified as Non-GMO Project Verified. We hold copies of their certification, verified by Foodchain ID.
Most consumers are focusing attention to the sustainable impact of products they consume. It takes 40 years for a birch tree to mature, where as corn can be harvested annually, if not faster, making the impact of this on sustainability and production cost is enormous. Birch is not sustainable at all.
An estimated 40% of our food is wasted, so exploring sustainability further we should consider the potential for enzymes to break down and convert all kinds of food waste and plant matter into sugar alcohols (polyols) or biofuels.
There is huge amounts of waste coming out of almost all modern food production (and consumption). Imagine dairy waste such as whey curd, fisheries waste, forestry waste, and so on being harnessed as an asset just as the discarded corn cob is used presently to make sugar alcohols like Xylitol. [Read more about this here.]
With respect to other discussion points on Birch vs. Corn Xylitol, rather than rewrite essentially the same message, I am simply going to point readers toward a great article found at www.naturallysweet.com.au, and paraphrase them here:
End Product: It is the same. Whether derived from birch or corn or anything else, there is no molecular difference.
Taste: There is little difference in taste, and the difference would appear to come from the mesh or granule size rather than actual product difference. Corn-derived Xylitol often being of a finer mesh.
Allergy: Even if allergic to corn, the end product is not corn and does not impact consumption.
Cost: The difference in production cost and consumer price is massive.
Standards: Corn-derived Xylitol [used by Naturally Sweet and Sweetnz] is of a high "pharmaceutical grade", whereas birch-derived product is "food-grade" which is a less rigorous.
Source: Naturally Sweet citing information from Karen book, Sweeten Your Life The Xylitol Way available on Amazon
]]>Since taking on this business we have been on a steep learning curve with respect to diet, health and the world of non-sugar sweeteners. This post shares some of the research papers I dug into on this journey.
First up let me share the important point that quality counts when it comes to Stevia extracts. We use the highest grade quality products in liquid form (>95% Steviol glycosides) and in powdered form (>98% Rebaudiana A). You will find lower quality products on the market, so keep your eyes open.
I am only posting the top few articles that came from a Google search and just paraphrased the top 2, and while there is a lot more information out there, you can quickly see that this plant has some amazing potential for our health:
As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words so here is Figure 2 from the paper:
"...inclusion of stevia leaf extracts in the diet has been associated with antihyperglycemic, insulinotropic, glucagonostatic, hypotensive, anticariogenic, antiviral, antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, immunostimulatory and chemopreventative responses."
I only listed the top results from Google but you can find more than 50 papers about Stevia here:
Stevia is more sustainable than sugar with an "82% reduction in carbon footprint for stevia compared with beet sugar and a 64% reduction compared with cane sugar". - link to study
Learn more about Stevia at https://steviabenefits.org/ or https://www.stevia.org/
Food & Safety Australia & New Zealand safety report - link to report
]]>While everyone else went off to a) play video games (do they even call them that these days?!?), or b) watch some on-demand show that I am not up to date on, I carried the dinner conversation on by myself.
We were comparing the sugar content of various sauces with our steak / chicken salad / corn fritter dinner. Which was delicious and the sauces really make a difference.
In short, as we pulled the products for out of the fridge for a look we were shocked.
We used to go for the hot and spicy Maggi sauce that a neighbor gave us, as we all loved it. But more recently at the Matakana Market we found Jimmy's Craft Foods and had two of them on the table with dinner. We also had two of Fiona's Fabulous Food chutneys from Oratia Farmers Market, but alas - amazing as they were - there was no sugar content reading.
So. The conversation was around why we loved these old sauces so much... and you guessed it: sugar content.
We pulled out some ageing sauce bottles from the fridge and compared what we have and these are the ugly results:
Brand | Product | Sugar per 100g | Teaspoon Equivalent |
Maggi | Hot 'n Sweet Tomato Chilli Sauce | 37.4 | 9 |
Greggs | Smokey BBQ | 32.3 | 8 |
Watties | Tomato Sauce | 29.4 | 7 |
Jimmys | Summer Series Smoked Sweet Chilli Sauce | 14.4 | 3 |
Jimmys | Kiwi Bushmans Wild Game BBQ Sauce | 11.1 | 3 |
FUN FACT: The supermarket sauces recommend really small "serving sizes" like 9 grams (Maggi), or 15 grams (Watties), which I am sure few people adhere to. By giving this serving size, they can argue that they are by far and away the healthy choice when compared to Jimmy, who is realistic/honest about a 25 gram serving size.
Price is an obvious a barrier to entry, but we can't state strongly enough how great the low(er) sugar sauces from Jimmys are. Not only do they have 1/2 to a 1/3 the sugar content of standard supermarket options, but they are far more complex and tasty.
I'm a bit of a geek, so I made a graph:
3 is not great either, but imagine pouring 4-5 teaspoons of sugar on your meal!! For reference, the recommended daily dose of sugar is just 3-4 teaspoons, yet more than that would come from a reasonable helping of Class-A Maggi or Greggs on your din-din!
It is no wonder that we have a Type-2 Diabetes epidemic (that we don't hear about).
]]>We know that for new visitors it can be a tricky decision on what to buy, and how to use, so hopefully the comments are a guide.
To all of those who provided a review...
Some comments were truly heart warming. It is so nice to see how our products positively impact the lives of our customers.
]]>On both sides of our families we have diabetes, Type 1 and Type 2. Since starting out in Sugar Free Food we've been learning more about the state of diabetes in New Zealand and we'd like to share some of our findings.
According to the Diabetes New Zealand Healthy Food and Drink in Schools submission:
That provides the backdrop for an unfortunate future.
The forward-looking Diabetes New Zealand report Economic and Social Cost of Type 2 Diabetes compiled with PwC and a range of partners, explains:
I read that the government has taken diabetes off the list of "problems" as they achieved their targets back in 2016. Yet this is not going away at all - it is getting worse!
As individuals we can do something of course. We can educate our family and children on the harm that comes with overeating sugar or an inactive lifestyle, but if my kids are any example, that will probably be met with rejection.
A better way to engage on this subject may be not to engage.
What do I mean by that? I mean that you can replace the sugar in your family diet while maintaining sweetness and enjoyment without even telling them.
Or as we are doing in our family, we can show the kids the alternatives to sugar and actively make foods with natural sweeteners that they enjoy.
Type 2 diabetes is something that can be avoided with the right lifestyle choices. It can even be reversed if caught early and changes made toward healthy living, with sugar-reduced and low-calorie food.
Natural sweeteners are on the rise globally and the demand is very much being driven by the above factors: weight and diabetes management.
If you or anyone in your family is at risk of diabetes, give natural sweeteners a go.
If anyone who reads this article would like to share how they use our products, we would love to hear from you: hello(at)sugarfreefood.co.nz
________________________
If you would like to donate toward Diabetes New Zealand, please visit their site at: https://www.diabetes.org.nz/donate
]]>It has similar sweetness, 60% the calories of household sugar and 25% the carbs, so is Xylitol a kind of Super Sweetener? It just may be, so long as you a) don't eat too much of it, and/or b) feed it to your dog. I think this is why we don't hear so much about it.
Xylitol is a sugar alcohol, a natural substance with antimicrobial effects. It is a naturally occurring sweetener derived from wood or corn starch, though the conversion process is both extremely technical and expensive.
Birch is the most famous source of Xylitol, but the most common one for reasons of cost-efficiency and sustainability is corn. Unlike birch trees which take 40-50 years to grow to maturity, corn is easily replenished. Whether from birch, corn or any other source the molecular structure of the processed Xylitol is the same. To quote Xylitol.org, "from the research we have done, there appears to be only two major differences between the two sources: environmental impact and price."
Here is a look at the nutritional information of our 100% Xylitol product produced sustainably from non-GMO corn. It's quite amazing.
Unlike regular sugar, Xylitol is scientifically proven to provide a range of health benefits:
We recommend you to Google these topics and learn more about Xylitol - a potential Super Sweetener that I am sure sugar manufacturers don't want you to know about.
Laxative Effect - The downside of Xylitol is that if you eat too much you may just be on the receiving end of the laxative effect that comes from overconsumption. While that can be said of many foods, for some people this is a very real thing.
One study we found helps shed light into how much Xylitol can put you at risk of greater than normal flatulence (or worse), and it would seem a 6kg female would need at least 142g and a 90kg male almost a cup (243g) before negative side effects. That's quite a lot of sweetener, so as with anything - including regular sugar or coffee - moderation is the key.
Cooling Effect - Like most sugar alcohols Xylitol gives a cooling after effect when consumed. This cooling effect comes from the absorption of heat as your saliva breaks down the crystals of Xylitol. It is very real, and for some people it is off putting. Because of this effect we tend to use Xylitol in our tea, coffee or with mint. That said, we don't find the effect to be very profound and in fact we really like the fresh mouth feel.
Risk to Dogs - This is the big one. Xylitol is used in small doses to treat our pets teeth and gums, but it can very dangerous if eaten by dogs. A canine pancreas overreacts to Xylitol and can cause a sudden and profound drop in blood sugar (known as hypoglycemia). Anyone consuming Xylitol with curious puppies in the house, or who regularly shares their plate with their furry one should take special care.
Here is an article from a New Zealand pet insurance company, and an FAQ post from a New Zealand vet that help shed light on this subject. The bottom line is that you need to treat Xylitol just as you do Chocolate: don't feed it to your pets.
In our opinion the positives of Xylitol far outweigh the negatives. Chocolate is also bad for our dogs, and we learned not to feed this to them, and I am not convinced the laxative effect is a real issue for most, but for some it is. Actually I think the major reason Xylitol has not been hailed as such a "super sweetener" is more about the name.
Having lived in Japan where Xylitol chewing gum is popular and the health benefits are well known, we are very happy using Xylitol as our 1-1 sugar substitute, whether in baking (though the argument goes that it doesn't caramelise so well) or in our tea or coffee.
Sugar Free Food's customers tend to go for Erythritol over Xylitol, or a blend of both like our Classic Blend or Premium Blend, but we are fans of our Xylitol product straight. Allulose is something we will put back on the menu as it has none of the negatives associated with Xylitol that we just talked about. The name is even better!!
Learn more about Xylitol here: https://xylitol.org/. We strongly advise you dig through the internet and find out for yourself.
Do you think Xylitol a Super Sweetener?
]]>If you thought That Sugar Song was brilliant then you really need to watch That Sugar Film (2014). (Available via Netflix, Google Play or Prime, you can still find it here at Watch Documentaries.)
Here are a few places you can go to learn more about the wonders of sugar:
There is so much more information out there that shows that sugar added to our meals and snacks over and above the sugars that occur naturally within our foods, is bad. Real bad.
There is not a lot out there promoting the benefits of sugar. I visited NZ's largest sugar refinery's website assuming their "social and community" page must be loaded full of links to "positives". Nada. (Edit: not entirely true... they donate sugar syrup for birds to feed on at Tiritiri Matangi, which is nice and has no negative impact on the bird's teeth. Yup.)
Visiting the US Sugar Association website it seems the main benefits of sugar are that the industry provides 142,000 jobs. When addressing the fact that 30 million Americans have diabetes, they suggest "moderation", which is helpful.
Don't get me wrong, we don't all have to go zero sugar, but we do all need to be aware of what it does so that we can make decisions on our health and well-being that fit our health profile and that of our children. At the very least it would be nice if we could just slow and halt the alarming rise in Type-2 Diabetes, or childhood obesity in Aotearoa and beyond.
As new owners of a sugar free business we feel it is our mission is to play a part in promoting alternatives to sugar, and to debunk some of the noise that is made around "sugar free" that I assume largely comes from the sugar industry and the "synthetics".
Searching official New Zealand organisations and associations for sugar alternatives doesn't bring up a whole lot. Consumer NZ has a fairly limited article from 2021 that focuses on synthetic sweeteners like Aspartame (E951), Saccharine (E954) and Sucralose (E955), among others.
The Consumer article pays a cursory mention of sugar alcohols like Erythritol, Xylitol and no mention of Allulose, which we field requests for every other day. (PS: For anyone looking for granulated like-for-like alternatives to sugar, it is probably one of these three.)
The point is that there is a dearth of information out there and we hope to change that.
Fight the good fight!! Start with That Sugar Film!!
]]>I mentioned in our first blog post that we are not a hard core Keto family. Yes, we absolutely get it and we agree with the concepts behind the keto movement, but we just don't need to be 100% keto all the time.
We are what they call "Lazy Keto" or perhaps "Keto Lite". (I kind of like the sound of Lazy Keto, so I will use that.)
The Ketogic Diet (commonly called "Keto") is a diet that seeks to limit sugar and carbohydrate to the extent that your body goes into a state of "Ketosis". Starved of sugars and carbs, Ketosis the process where your body uses the energy stored in fat, which is not only an obvious weight loss strategy, but also has other health benefits.
You know what? Here's Wikpedia. There is a lot of info on Keto available if you look online and we are here to focus on Lazy Keto.
Based on the name you can probably guess that it is a bit of a less than full effort at a Ketogenic Diet. You do keto some days, or even with some meals, or even just a mix in keto-friendly foods that serve to reduce your overall sugar and carbohydrate intake.
I made this up but I think it demonstrates the market as a whole and where we fit in...
Like any new diet trend, "Keto" can be intimidating for newcomers. Like all trends it starts with the fans who are highly educated on and devoted to the subject, and is adopted later on by the less devout.
The goal for Keto I think, is to collaborate with us Lazy Keto types and improve education to the point that Keto is not a "fad", but a mainstream part of healthy living. Right now I think it is at the point where education is key to helping the "majority" across the line, and Lazy Keto is a less intimidating start.
Look into some of the Keto cafes and shops found on Google or on our Online Stockists page. Even without buying anything you will start to get a feel for what is available (and you will be pleasantly surprised).
If you have a Bin Inn or other wholefood grocery near your home, why not pop in and look around?
In our house we started by reducing the amount of potato, pasta and rice in our meals, while upping the proteins. We started every so often, and now it is a pretty regular thing. We still have carb heavy meals and even sugar heavy snacks from time to time, but it's not the norm.
Maybe you don't want to lose the sweetness in your food and snacks and that's where Sugar Free Food can come in.
If you aren't comfortable going to zero with your table sugar, why not start baking or cooking with half sugar and half Xylitol or Erythritol granules? That could be a nice easy stepping stone toward your final destination: a healthy and sweet sugar free life.
If you are aggressively looking to reduce the calories and maintain the same sweetness as sugar, then perhaps the Erythritol/Stevia "Classic" Blend is a better fit to your needs. The added Organic Stevia extract gives the Blend a boost, bringing the overall sweetness to much the same as that of table sugar.
Play around and see what works for you!!
]]>We've updated the FAQ on the natural sweeteners we carry, but how about artificial sweeteners?
Whether you call them synthetic or artificial, we should state that there is no evidence that any engineered sweeteners are actually bad for you in any way. Despite this the feedback we hear from our customers suggests that natural is the preference and we will stay true to these values.
So what are the common artificial sweeteners and how do you spot them on a product label?
If you see the letter "E" preceding the number this refers to "Europe" where regulation of food additives began in the 1960s.
The number is of course their product code. All food additives - good, bad or otherwise - have a number, so hopefully when these ingredients are disguised by their number you can recognise them and make your decision.
While synthetic sweeteners like aspartame, saccharin, sucralose, acesulfame-K, and neotame may be cost-effective, they are not the healthiest option for those looking to reduce their sugar intake. Unlike natural sweeteners that are derived from plants, these artificially engineered sweeteners are manufactured in a laboratory, and their long-term health effects are still not fully understood.
So, if you're health-conscious and prefer natural sweeteners, you may want to think twice before reaching for that low-calorie soda sweetened with artificial sweeteners.
]]>We are an international family with three sons in their early, mid and late teens. Mum (Sawae) and Dad (Murray) met in Tokyo, Japan, where Murray worked for the past 20+ years.
Mum is big on gardening, dance, yoga, and is a heck of a cook!! Dad is a pretty typical Kiwi guy who is fairly active with walk/hiking, camping and riding his motorbike.
In 2019 our family moved back to New Zealand after 20 years away. With the kids in school Dad continued to work remotely in an offshore role, but having left his job for good in 2022 it was time to look for something new.
We made the family decision to buy Sugar Free Food because we felt a sense of "fit" around the themes of health, weight management, and diabetes. We hope we can make a positive impact on society by helping others produce sweet and healthy foods.
Along with the theme of health, as an international family we were very interested in moving into an import business, so again the fit was a good one. We were already exploring ideas.
Finally, as parents we saw an opportunity for our family to unite around a business that our children can both learn from and grow with. Our hope is that our kids can take an active role with real responsibility as we build.
For us to be successful, we need to help our retail and food production partners to be successful. Obviously if we can help them do better, then our products will do better, but we also plan to expand our reach so that our products can be accessed in more retail outlets.
We want to expand the range of products we offer and that will require us to listen to our customers. Hopefully we can even start a line of sugar free Sweetnz treats together like candies, cookies, drinks or ice-cream that are made in partnership with our customers.
At the very least we hope to make an impact helping food makers to develop sweet and tasty treats that keep ourselves and our kids healthy and happy.
It may be because we have diabetes in the family that we have never been huge consumers of sugar, but we definitely consumed... in fact you could say Dad especially has a pretty bad sweet tooth!!
Our concern with sugar also comes from witnessing the weight and poor health outcomes that come from our approach to unhealthy "convenient" food that is high in sugar content. While sugar isn't the only problem out there, giving people a way to reduce calories without entirely giving up their sweet tooth is a start.
While raising the kids sugar consumption was definitely on our minds. We encouraged our kids not to suck down litres of cola from McDonalds, and growing up in Tokyo it's weird to know they drank (and enjoyed) much more bottled tea more than Cola!!
Great question. No. A full ketogenic diet fits certain people well, but for us we are more "part-time" keto or "keto lite". We manage our sugar and carb intake and have meals and even full days where we eat mostly Keto'ish. Dad even likes to go full carnivore on occasion, but none of us can be called "full Keto".
We are all different so we think everyone should eat and drink to meet own health and well-being needs. Experimentation helps you find what works for you and your goals whatever they may be, but the key to it all is balance.
We are believers in the occasional "fast" as well. Nothing crazy, but just going without a meal like humans did for tens of thousands of years is probably not a bad thing. Humans used to go hungry growing or chasing their food, while now we have high calorie food 24/7 via an app on your phone. No waiting. No chasing.
You should probably talk to a nutritionist or doctor before doing anything wild, but you can start by substituting sugar with natural sweeteners, supporting bakeries and shops with low carb or keto foods, and of course reducing your carbs or skipping a breakfast or two per week. The real hurdle is a mental one, not physical.
Yes, of course! We take every opportunity to experiment with natural sweeteners. Whether making our own chocolate, baking, glazing food, or sweetening and flavouring drinks, there is a lot you can do with the product range we have.
Dad's favourite is a simple Golden Brown on top of porridge. Mum's is using the Blend's in baking or perhaps using the Caramel Liquid Stevia to flavour dark chocolates. Our youngest son is also a bit of a baker-turned-patisserie, so we look forward to him experimenting as well. He wants to make a sugar free bubble tea.
]]>Monk Fruit is quickly becoming a favourite among sugar free sweeteners thanks to its great taste and low GI, calorie and carbohydrate count.
It comes from a small melon-like fruit found in the mountains of southern China, where for hundreds of years it has been grown and used by Buddhist Monks, hence the name Monk Fruit.
It has also been used for centuries in traditional Chinese medicine as a digestive aid and to treat coughs and colds.
Its sweetness doesn’t come from sugar but from antioxidant compounds called mogrosides. Though incredibly sweet these aren’t recognized by the body as sugar. They are metabolized in the body quite differently and therefore do not raise blood sugar levels.
Monk fruit can be up to 200 times as sweet as sugar depending on how it is processed. It can come in a liquid or powdered form.
It has a pleasant mildly caramel flavour.
Apart from being an amazing sweetener Monk Fruit has shown to be ........
A useful antioxidant, a natural antibiotic, and an effective anti-inflammatory.
Studies have shown it may help reduce fatigue, reduce histamine and asthmatic reactions, be effective against cancer, and useful as an antidiabetic medicine.
Monk fruit has no known side effects.
Learn more here: https://monkfruit.org/faqs/
]]>