I do believe Dr Mercola is an authority on clever marketing, however I believe he is mistaken as regards agave nectar. Agave’s rise in popularity is due to its quality and appeal which have led to widespread demand for it by consumers worldwide. Also, the success is also due to the fact that agave is low glycemic, despite Mercola’s purposefully misleading suggestion that it “may” not have a low GI. I have the results of clinical testing on human subjects by The Glycemic Index Laboratories which is the company founded by one of the original authors of information on glycemic Index. The results prove the low glycemic attribute of agave nectar, as does the personal testimony of many diabetic consumers.

So, as with previous articles, the author appears to be leading the reader down a biased path to a negative conclusion. Included in this appraisal are the authors claims that consuming high amounts of fructose “may” lead to unproven consequences including “miscarriage” in pregnant women. This is a serious and fearful charge that has absolutely no basis in fact and is being used to propagandize against agave nectar. I think it is outrageous and reveals a complete lack of credibility that someone would stoop to such low scare tactics to achieve their goal.

Yet another example is the speculation that “Industry insiders are concerned agave distributors are using lesser, even toxic agave plants due to a shortage of blue agave”. This is a total fabrication. I personally travelled to Mexico this year and witnessed the SURPLUS of agave plants. This has been well documented in newspapers in Mexico. The surplus is so great that many of the fields in which 8 years were invested, had been let go to seed and will not be harvested. He fabricates a shortage to qualify the possibility of toxic plants being used. Toxic plants are not being used or substituted for agave syrup. It is a wild and crazy suggestion, a cheap shot again designed to propagandize against agave. The fact that there is a surplus also works against his suggestion of adulteration with corn syrup. Mexico has no corn syrup production capacity. Soda pop in Mexico is made with sugar due to the cost of corn syrup. Corn syrup must be imported into Mexico and there is no cost advantage to adulterate and no import/export documents to substantiate any charge of such. Once again another attack based on speculation and fabrication of information.

There has been no clever marketing scheme as accused by Mercola, who insinuates that agave’s success is simply the result of such marketing. Mercola presentation of unsubstantiated opinions to me is the real example of clever marketing of himself.

Agave nectar has been recognized as a fructose sweetener from the beginning, analysis from a number of companies has long been posted online. There have never been any claims to be a low calorie sweetener and the caloric value is printed on every label. Why does he bring up something that has never been associated with agave nectar other than to create a negative implication?

And, contrary to his claims of clever marketing is the fact that the word Natural was removed from Madhava labels some time ago. While the FDA allows for a product to be called Natural if it comes from a natural source, this is in my opinion a grey area. Agave nectar is made by people. But, the fact remains that it does come from a natural source of plant juice similar to honey from flower nectar. Stevia is not in its natural state, it has been extracted and processed and is currently being manipulated to improve its flavor. So it too is just from a natural source, it does not occur naturally in the form it is marketed in. What sweetener is marketed in its “natural” form beyond honey?

The primary argument made against agave is about its fructose content. Fructose has been vilified due to its association with the overconsumption of HFCS. The theorized link between HFCS and the rise in obesity was made with the overconsumption issue, not with the fructose content. Again, it was the overconsumption of HFCS which paralleled the rise in obesity. Moderate use in the course of a normal average diet was not addressed.

Now though, people are being led to believe that use of agave to sweeten is somehow harmful and this is not the case. There is no hard evidence to the contrary, only negative associations and suppositions. Mercolas points are filled with qualifiers.

In an article published in the NY Times by Melanie Warner, I find the following quotes from a highly credible source;

“There’s no substantial evidence to support the idea that high fructose corn syrup is somehow responsible for obesity” said Dr. Walter Willett, the chairman of the nutrition department of the Harvard School of Public Heath and a prominent proponent of healthy diets. “If there was no high fructose corn syrup, I don’t think we would see a change in anything important. I think there’s this overreaction.”

By no change I think he implies that it is the level of individual consumption which is at issue, not a single component of the overall diet.

Dr Willet is not defending hfcs as a healthy ingredient, but he points out that “High fructose corn syrup’s possible link to obesity is the only specific health problem that the ingredients critics have cited to date, and experts say they believe that this link is tenuous at best.”

While studies have shown that fructose can be a contributor, it is the overall amount of total carbohydrates which leads to weight gain, not any specific one food, as all nutritive foods have caloric value.

Sweeteners are not meant to provide sustenance; they are not consumed as a singular food but as a food ingredient used in small proportion relative to the prepared food. A sweetener has a place in our diet to make the nutritious foods we require more palatable.

But, sweeteners’ drawback is that virtually everyone enjoys sweet dishes and has a tendency to over consume them, irregardless of what they are sweetened with. I think therein lies the problem with obesity. It is a matter of personal choices and caloric intake relative to a person’s activity level with contributing factors from the easy availability of prepared and prepackaged foods, the variety of choices, and many others. As Mercola points out, stevia has no calories, so if that is ones goal, the choice is clear. But, not everyone has that goal.

In another attempt to prejudice the reader against agave, Mercola states that agave is devoid of many of the nutrients of the whole plant. What sweetener contains these nutrients? What nutrients does Dr. Mercola’s choice, stevia, contain from the whole plant? Please see the following information. Again, he is taking something that applies generally to all sweeteners and isolates and condemns agave nectar.

From www.stevia.com

Q) Does Stevia contain vitamins and minerals?

A) Raw herbal Stevia contains nearly one hundred identified phytonutrients and volatile oils, including trace amounts of Rutin (from the Callus) and B-Sitosterol (from the leaves). However, in the quantities typically consumed, the nutritive benefits will be negligible. The extracts of Stevia, being more refined, will contain far fewer of these phytonutrients and volatile oils.

So, even raw herbal stevia has negligible nutritive benefit, and the extracts even far less than that. It is the refined and concentrated extracts of stevia which are commonly in use. Dr Mercola fails to point this out.

Q) How are Stevia extracts prepared?

A) Extracts of Stevia leaves can be prepared by a number of methods some of which are patented. One researcher states: “Production of Stevioside involves water extraction from the dried leaves, followed by clarification and crystalization processes. Most commercial processes consist of water extraction, decoloration, and purification using ion-exchange resins, electrolytic techniques, or precipitating agents.”

Stevia apparently requires a complex refinement process, another point Dr Mercola ignores in his promotion of it. What are precipitating agents?

Q) What is the replacement factor for Stevia herbal powder and extract in terms of common table sugar?

A) Since Stevia is 10 to 15 times sweeter than sugar, this is a fair, if approximate, replacement factor. Since the crude herb may vary in strength, some experimentation may be necessary. The high stevioside extracts are between 200-300 times sweeter than sugar and should be used sparingly. Unfortunately, FDA labelling guidelines may prevent manufacturers from providing a specific replacement factor.

While the crude herb can be used, one must be selective when choosing stevia as the extracts are not natural and highly processed leaving no nutritive value. Also are difficult to use due to the intense strength.

Another point on which Dr Mercola would mislead the reader is trying to link issues associated with copper deficiency with fructose and thus agave nectar. In her book “An Evidence Based Approach to Vitamins and Minerals” Dr Jane Higdon, PhD, The Linus Pauling Institute, Oregon State University addresses the issue of copper and fructose as follows;

“Fructose. High fructose diets have exacerbated copper deficiency in rats, but not in pigs, whose gastrointestinal tracts are more like those of humans. Very high levels of dietary fructose (20% of total carbs) did not result in copper depletion in humans, suggesting that fructose intake does not result in copper depletion at levels relevant to normal diets.”

So, to me it is evident that Dr Mercola has formed a biased attack with little foundation in either fact or science. I would hope by now that he and the others who attack agave with the same sort of style have been shown to be propagandizing the reader largely with fictitious and prejudicial statements and that these comments should be rejected in their entirety.

Agave is becoming the preferred choice among those who choose to consume sweeteners, and with good reason. As Mercola himself points out, the primary reasons are “subtle delicate flavor many people enjoy” and “it takes less to sweeten a food or beverage”. Add to that the low glycemic index and nonallergenic aspect and I think these are the true reasons for agave’s popularity, not any imagined clever marketing scheme. People just like the taste better than other options.

Overconsumption of any sweetener can lead to side effects, and the same can be said for anything that we consume. It is unjust to separate agave nectar and attribute to it the all of the negative implications of overconsumption.

And, when the issue is overconsumption, and less agave can be used than other sweeteners, shouldn’t this be recognized as a main advantage of agave nectar and a reason to choose it?

As with many things, people point to something to cast blame and say that is the problem, when in reality isn’t it with the choices people make where the problem lies? Sugars can be avoided altogether with the use of stevia or artificial sweeteners for those that choose to. For others, there are no inherent problems with incorporating moderate use of sweeteners, including agave nectar, in their diet. The “solution” to the problem is simple and clear, make good overall food choices and avoid overconsumption. People are unlikely to accept a life without sweeteners and I don’t think stevia or the artificials will be accepted for all sweetening uses. Sweeteners will be used, and clearly there is no sweetener which can avoid issues associated with its overconsumption. Agave falls in with sweeteners in general, not outside them. What people have to accept is that there are limits to indulgence in sweetened foods and consequences if overindulged. This is well within everyone’s means to control and no reason to single out agave nectar for attack. When you sweeten, agave remains a good choice due to its taste, less is more sweetening power, low glycemic index, ease of use and organic quality.