Stevia/SweatLeaf Options

[Seeker]

Has anyone heard of stevia? It's a plant native to South America that Indians have used for centuries as a natural sweetener. It's 250-300 times sweeter than sucrose (table sugar) and has no calories. It doesn't alter blood glucose significantly so it's alright for diabetics. It's widely popular in Japan but not so much in the United States.

I think the reason not a lot of people know about it is because it's not widely marketed since the pharmaceutical industry doesn't have a patent on it. If they don't have the patent they don't want people to use it.

I picked some up at Whole Foods (best grocery store on the planet!!!!), but they also sell it at GNC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/075820220...8791243?ie=UTF8

[Spectatrix]

Yep, I've heard of it. Never tried it, though... I did pick up agave nectar for the first time this week. It's a good natural sweetener too. It's about as sweet as honey, but thinner consistency and a more mild flavor.

I think if I were to try stevia, I'd rather just get a plant at a nursery rather than buying the powdered or liquid extracts of it.

[Testm0nkey]

i thought this was about salvia

[Hartmann]

I coulda swore Sweatleaf was a Black Sabbath song...

[Spectatrix]

Have you used the stevia at all yet? If so, how was it?

[Seeker]

I've tried it in both tea and coffee.

I love it in tea, still testing with the coffee.

[Spectatrix]

Did you get the powder or the liquid?

[Seeker]

i got the powder form that comes in little packets like sugar

i think it'd be weird to use the liquid

[JRockTTU]

I've used Stevia for a few years. Like Lance says, it's good in some types of tea. The unique taste means it's good in some things but awful in others. Just takes some testing and it's a good calorie/sugar free alternative to the chemicals in artificial sweeteners.

I'm very shocked that Lance didn't post why you don't see Stevia added into food, considering the conspiratorial nature of the circumstances. From the Wiki entry:

In 1991, at the request of an anonymous complaint, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeled stevia as an "unsafe food additive" and restricted its import. The FDA's stated reason was "toxicological information on stevia is inadequate to demonstrate its safety."[23] This ruling was controversial, as stevia proponents pointed out that this designation violates the FDA's own guidelines, under which any natural substance used prior to 1958 with no reported adverse effects should be generally recognized as safe (GRAS).

Stevia occurs naturally, requiring no patent to produce it. As a consequence, since the import ban in 1991, marketers and consumers of stevia have shared a belief that the FDA acted in response to industry pressure.[24] Arizona congressman Jon Kyl, for example, called the FDA action against stevia "a restraint of trade to benefit the artificial sweetener industry."[25] Citing privacy issues, the FDA has not revealed the source of the original complaint in its responses to requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act.[24]

The FDA requires proof of safety before recognizing a food additive as safe. A similar burden of proof is required for the FDA to ban a substance or label it unsafe. Nevertheless, stevia remained banned until after the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act forced the FDA in 1995 to revise its stance to permit stevia to be used as a dietary supplement, although not as a food additive — a position that stevia proponents regard as contradictory because it simultaneously labels stevia as safe and unsafe, depending on how it is sold.[26]

Although unresolved questions remain concerning whether metabolic processes can produce a mutagen from stevia in animals, let alone in humans, the early studies nevertheless prompted the European Commission to ban stevia's use in food in the European Union pending further research.[10] Singapore and Hong Kong has banned it also.[11] However, more recent data compiled in the safety evaluation released by the World Health Organization in 2006[20] suggest that these policies may be obsolete.

The best part is the following connection (from wiki's aspartame controversy page) that relates the banning of Stevia to the approval of Aspartame (brand name Nutrisweet):

The first day Ronald Reagan was president of the U.S. (1981), he fired the head of the FDA who would not approve legalization of aspartame, due to the brain cancer in rats issue. (This makes it seem like Reagan, in his first day of office was focused on aspartame, whereas heads of numerous federal agencies step down when a new administration takes office.) Reagan hired Arthur Hayes MD (FDA Commissioner 1981-1983), who legalized aspartame a year later. Secretary of Defense and Reagan supporter Donald Rumsfeld was president and later CEO of G. D. Searle & Company from 1977 to 1985.[74][75] Arthur Hull Hayes MD was a defense contractor before he was head of the FDA. In November 1983 Hayes was under fire for accepting corporate gifts. He quit and joined Searle's public-relations firm as senior medical advisor. Searle lawyer Robert B. Shapiro, renamed aspartame NutraSweet. Monsanto purchased Searle. Rumsfeld received a $12 million bonus. Shapiro later became Monsanto president.

Several members of the FDA board left their jobs after Stevia (aspartame's main competitor then) was banned in 1991. They were all hired at Nutrasweet in higher paying jobs, according to national records. Dr. Michael Friedman quit the FDA when Jane Henney was selected to become the permanent FDA commissioner (1999). Friedman elected to sign on with G. D. Searle as a senior vice president at a purported $500,000 a year. He later accepted a position with Monsanto.

I love the FDA's stance that Stevia is not safe as a food additive, but is okay as a nutritional supplement.