Sweetness enhancer is Reb C, says Redpoint
Redpoint Bio has revealed that is RP44 sweetness enhancer is in fact Reb-C, a component of stevia and a side stream of Reb-A production. It could be used in conjunction with Reb-A and sugar to lower calorie levels further than previously possible.
Uh kal555man, with your anfractuous brain you go out of your way to miss a simple point. The premise of SNMX tech is for the food via the taste buds (receptors) to relay to the brain that the food tastes the same even though much less sugar, MSG, salt, etc., is present in the food.
GRAS does not speak to the commercial efficacy
of the taste intent, it only addresses the issue
of being safe for consumption. GRAS is a statement
the companies make to the FDA without the pharmaceutical
standard clinical trials involved to prove something
works or it doesn't, assuming the trails are honest.
The FDA did not state anything with GRAS acceptance
other than what the company claimed regarding safety
of their product(s) and there will be monitoring required
once SNMX goes to market with their product(s).
Claims of taste have no bearing on the FDA GRAS.
Uh kal555man, the whole premise of SNMX's technology is to leave the taste the same with no after taste but use less of the sugar, MSG, salt, etc., or to block the taste of bitter, etc., with no after taste. If the SNMX technology doesn't do that in a particular instance, the enhancer or blocker would not be acceptable. So from an electrical analogy SNMX technology either amplifies or filters flavors of interest to food vendors and consumers. Of course amplifying or filtering the taste is artificial, but in each case the SNMX technology is found to be GRAS (generally regarded as safe). Thus the taste is the same, the flavor is the same using less of the product of interest, and the brain is happy about the flavor/taste.
Natural is not the issue. Safety and how the food product tastes during and after the consumer tastes the product is the issue.
I guess if they have questions at CNBC
then the issue is resolved, commercial
prospects have been determined based on
the CNBC brain trust inquiry.As for SNMX,
how "natural" are their products.
At this point the investor only has
SNMX's viewpoint on everything regarding
their product(s),only have the MSG product
out on a minimal commercial basis, regarding
taste and makeup. How artificial is the effect
of changing receptors to alter taste. I doubt
anyone on this board knows.
I do see people using Stevia because there's a notion that it's not artificial. I've seen people buy it at Whole Foods and have known friends who wanted to buy it for their kids as an alternative. I don't know what kind of market there is for it or if those same people would shun stevia where it to contain a modulated chemical (e.g., a senomyx molecule even in low quantity). All I know is I tasted it and hated stevia.
kal555man, I see you don't want to answer the CNBC group's question why another sweetner that does not taste exactly like sugar has any place in our food. We have sugar, blue, pink, and yellow sweetners, and the commonsense idea they pose is simply how much room is there for something like stevia in US consumer foods. It is a big hurdle for you to jump over, but I am sure you will blog away.
Just the beginning with the Stevia potential, it's a natural
product not artificial as you claim. The plant(s) have extraordinary commercial application as is and with some additional research.
Stevia is a genus of about 240 species of herbs and shrubs in the sunflower family (Asteraceae), native to subtropical and tropical South America and Central America. The species Stevia rebaudiana, commonly known as sweetleaf, sweet leaf, sugarleaf, or simply stevia, is widely grown for its sweet leaves. As a sweetener and sugar substitute, stevia's taste has a slower onset and longer duration than that of sugar, although some of its extracts may have a bitter or licorice-like aftertaste at high concentrations.
With its extracts having up to 300 times the sweetness of sugar, stevia has garnered attention with the rise in demand for low-carbohydrate, low-sugar food alternatives. Medical research has also shown possible benefits of stevia in treating obesity and high blood pressure. Because stevia has a negligible effect on blood glucose, it is attractive as a natural sweetener to people on carbohydrate-controlled diets. However, health and political controversies have limited stevia's availability in many countries; for example, the United States banned it in the early 1990s unless labeled as a supplement, although in 2008 it became commercially available as a sweetener. Stevia is widely used as a sweetener in Japan, and it is available in Canada as a dietary supplement.
You and your stevia obsession again. Apples and oranges here. The problem with stevia is that it has an aftertaste, just like nutrasweet, splenda, etc. The SNMX sucrose enhancer has NO independent taste, so products containing it replicate the exact taste of the original food item while only needing 50% of the table sugar. Products with stevia cannot do this.
While what you say about Stevia may be true there
are formulation opportunities and problems for ALL
companies involved that none of us would have a clue
about because the companies themselves don't know yet.
It's no where as black and white as you post it to be.