Physicians and consumers agreed that sugar induces obesity, which is one of the prior health issues in the present-day society. To reduce calories in one’s diet, people are advised either to refuse from consuming sugar or to substitute it with artificial sweeteners. Many of them are derived from natural raw materials. Stevia, for example, is a plant commonly cultivated in Latin America; it is considerably sweeter than sugar, besides, has no calories. Aspartame, on the other hand, is a synthetic sugar alternative created by fermenting corn and soy. Sugar and aspartame look like a threat to the nature because their cultivating is far from sustainable.
The controversy around synthetic sweeteners has arisen due to genetic modification and improper cultivation of raw materials. Besides, the consequence of their interaction with the environment is unclear yet. Sucralose, for example, cannot be broken by bacteria in human and animal digestive systems; the body takes little calories from it which makes sucralose an effective alternative to sugar. Nevertheless, almost all the substance is released into the water systems where it remains unbroken.
Whichever sweetener is less dangerous to our health, sugar is not favored in the scientific community. Not only its health risks are evident but environmental damage is also immense. The World Wide Fund underlines extensive erosion and degradation of the soils in places where sugar cane is cultivated. Synthetic sugar alternatives, on the other hand, have not caused any considerable side effects to consider them dangerous.