Finally....
I don't have to add stevia or stevia extracts to everything. I'll soon be able to buy stevia sweetened beverages.
You see, the FDA used to prohibit the sale of stevia as a "sweetener", but you could still buy it as a "supplement"....
I hate the FDA.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia#Political_controversy

12/19/2008 8:35:26 AM

Yeah I hate that whole not having to worry about the food I buy making me sick thing too.

12/19/2008 10:44:21 AM

FREE MARKET! LET THE PUBLIC DECIDE! IF IT KILLS PEOPLE, THEY WON'T BUY IT! IF IT GIVES THEM CANCER 20 YEARS FROM NOW, THEN AT LEAST OUR GRANDKIDS WON'T BUY IT!

DOWN WITH THE FDA! DOWN WITH THE EPA! DOWN WITH THE FDC!

12/19/2008 10:48:45 AM

Enlighten me please.

Why is this better than plain old sugar? I have never heard of the stuff.

12/19/2008 11:20:42 AM

Just another low-to-no calorie sweetener. A few companies would like to use it versus the other chemical cocktails out on the market, and the FDA finally gave the green light this week.

12/19/2008 11:40:08 AM

^^ if you haven't noticed, sugar tastes very good, and makes all of our food and drinks taste very good, but it is also bad for you, at least in excess (just like almost everything)

For example, just drinking 2 Cokes a day can be up to 400 calories. In a 2000 calorie diet, that's pretty significant, and it's not just coke or soda - sugar and high fructose corn syurp are put in to almost everything we eat and drink, significantly increasing our daily calorie intake.
There are several artificial sweetners on the market now that are significantly more potent than sugar, and as such you only need to use a fraction of the amount, so you end up with far, far fewer calories. The problem is, they usually don't taste as good (or at least, not the same) as sugar/HFCS, and they are more expensive. I guess this is another one of those, which appears to be more natural than the other ones (aspertaine, saccharin). And while there are lots of paranoid people, there still has not been found to be any actual harm from the artificial sweenters (the "chemical cocktails"), but I guess it's still good to have a real, natural alternative

12/19/2008 11:53:26 AM

Quote :

"Why is this better than plain old sugar?"

It's not necessarily better. It's just different in that it's a plant (Stevia Rebaudiana -- in the Chrysanthemum family) The sweet parts are chemicals called steviol glycosides or "steviosides". It's many times sweeter than sucrose. It won't raise blood sugar levels. It has essentially no calories. The main drawback appears to be that in large amounts, it has a slight bitter aftertaste....


There is some controversy over whether there should be testing of the whole leaf or the extracts. Other controversy has to do with patents. (As some of you know, so called "intellectual property" is fundamentally flawed.)

There have been some teas and perhaps some juices sold with stevia or stevia extracts in them, but the container label couldn't reveal that the stevia had anything to do with sweetening. Rather, it would have something like, "nutritional supplement". The FDA has recently let coke and pepsi use patented extracts. (I'm not at all comfortable with allowing patents of organic life.) I'm not sure, however, if all food producers now have the green light on using whole leaf stevia (or extracts) as a sweetener, and advertising it as such....

Quote :

"Health controversy ...No evidence for stevia constitutents causing cancer or birth defects has been found.[29][30] Other studies have shown stevia improves insulin sensitivity in rats[31] and may even promote additional insulin production,[32] helping to reverse diabetes and metabolic syndrome.[33] Preliminary human studies show stevia can help reduce hypertension[34] although another study has shown it has no effect on hypertension.[35] Indeed, millions of Japanese have been using stevia for over thirty years with no reported or known harmful effects.[36] Similarly, stevia leaves have been used for centuries in South America spanning multiple generations in ethnomedical tradition as a treatment of type II diabetes.[37] In 2006, the World Health Organization (WHO) performed a thorough evaluation of recent experimental studies of stevioside and steviols conducted on animals and humans, and concluded that "stevioside and rebaudioside A are not genotoxic in vitro or in vivo and that the genotoxicity of steviol and some of its oxidative derivatives in vitro is not expressed in vivo."[38] The report also found no evidence of carcinogenic activity. Furthermore, the report noted that "stevioside has shown some evidence of pharmacological effects in patients with hypertension or with type-2 diabetes"[38] but concluded that further study was required to determine proper dosage. Whole foods proponents draw a distinction between consuming (and safety testing) only parts, such as stevia extracts and isolated compounds like stevioside, versus the whole herb.[39] However, professionals in pharmacognosy, as well as physicians and science journalists disagree that whole foods are necessarily beneficial over extracted components, and may even be harmful.[40][41] Political controversy 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."[42] This ruling was controversial, as stevia proponents pointed out that this designation violated 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.[15] Arizona congressman Jon Kyl, for example, called the FDA action against stevia "a restraint of trade to benefit the artificial sweetener industry."[43] 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.[15] 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.[44] 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 in 1999 to ban stevia's use in food in the European Union pending further research.[17] Singapore and Hong Kong have banned it also.[18] However, more recent data compiled in the safety evaluation released by the World Health Organization in 2006[38] suggest that these policies may be obsolete. In December, 2008, the FDA gave a "no objection" approval to Cargill [Coca-cola] for their Truvia product and PureVia (a product developed between PepsiCo and Whole Earth Sweetener Company), both of which are wholly-derived from the Stevia plant. This reverses years of political wrangling over the availability and use of the sweetener as a sugar substitute in everyday products. [45]"

[Edited on December 19, 2008 at 12:02 PM. Reason : ]

12/19/2008 12:01:33 PM

Miracle Fruit!

12/19/2008 12:14:36 PM

^
YES! (different, though)

Quote :

"The Miracle Fruit plant (Synsepalum dulcificum) produces berries that, when eaten, cause bitter and sour foods (such as lemons and limes) consumed later to taste sweet. The berry, also known as Miracle Berry, Magic Berry, Miraculous Berry or Flavour Berry,[2][3] was first documented by explorer Chevalier des Marchais[4] who searched for many different fruits during a 1725 excursion to its native West Africa. Marchais noticed that local tribes picked the berry from shrubs and chewed it before meals. The plant grows in bushes up to 20 feet (6.1 m) high in its native habitat, but does not usually grow higher than ten feet in cultivation, and it produces two crops per year, after the end of the rainy season. It is an evergreen plant that produces small red berries, with flowers that are white and which are produced for many months of the year. The seeds are about the size of coffee beans. The berry contains an active glycoprotein molecule, with some trailing carbohydrate chains, called miraculin.[5][6] When the fleshy part of the fruit is eaten, this molecule binds to the tongue's taste buds, causing bitter and sour foods to taste sweet. While the exact cause for this change is unknown, one hypothesis is that the effect may be caused if miraculin works by distorting the shape of sweetness receptors "so that they become responsive to acids, instead of sugar and other sweet things".[3] This effect lasts between thirty minutes and two hours. History An attempt was made in the 1970s to commercialize the ability of the fruit to turn non-sweet foods into sweet foods without a caloric penalty, but ended in failure in controversial circumstances with accusations that the project was sabotaged and the research burgled by the sugar industry to prevent loss of business caused by a drop in the need for sugar.[7] The FDA has always denied that pressure was put on it by the sugar industry, but refused to release any files on the subject.[8] Similar arguments are noted for FDA's regulation on stevia now labeled as a "dietary supplement" instead of a "sweetener". For a time in the 1970s, US dieters could purchase a pill form of miraculin.[3] It was at this time that the idea of the "miraculin party"[3] was conceived. Recently, this phenomenon has enjoyed some revival in food tasting events, referred to as "flavour tripping parties" by some.[2] The tasters consume sour and bitter foods, such as lemons, radishes, and beer, to experience the taste changes that occur."

12/19/2008 12:23:42 PM

Good news. I hope the public will favor it over aspartame and sucralose, and even sugar. It might actually do something towards this obesity epidemic.

^If Big Sugar wasn't aruond, we might actually have a healthy nation.

[Edited on December 19, 2008 at 12:41 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2008 12:38:58 PM

Whatever guys, the FDA's prerogative is to protect Americans and make sure all drugs have been thoroughly tested before they are released. Duh!

Hey, does anyone have any extra Vioxx laying around?

12/19/2008 12:54:46 PM

^^i assume you mean big corn

12/19/2008 12:58:59 PM

When it comes to sweetners, it really is a group effort. Big Sugar would not exist were it not for laws keeping imported sugar off the market.

12/19/2008 1:56:29 PM

"Big Sugar"

lolz

anyhow,

theres research that suggests artificial sweeteners don't help you lose weight. that the body is fooled into thinking its actually getting sucrose/fructose and processes the artifical sweetner as if it were real sugar, continuing to keep the stores of accumulated fat cells.

sorry i'm not explaining the metabolic processes very well; it's an (extremely) oversimplified explanation.

12/19/2008 7:09:11 PM

i thought this thread was about sativa

12/19/2008 7:12:00 PM

Quote :

""Big Sugar" lolz"

Watch it, you talkin bout my boo now

12/19/2008 8:46:41 PM

Yeah, that was a clunky term there...

12/19/2008 11:49:34 PM

Quote :

"theres research that suggests artificial sweeteners don't help you lose weight. that the body is fooled into thinking its actually getting sucrose/fructose and processes the artifical sweetner as if it were real sugar"

I'm not sure, but I don't think stevia would do that, and I doubt stevia was in any of that research. Plus, stevia isn't an artificial sweetener. It's a completely natural sweetener. You could bite a leaf right off the plant and it'd be sweet....without sugar. In fact, it appears that stevia is a medicine that might help many obese people:

Quote :

"Furthermore, the report noted that "stevioside has shown some evidence of pharmacological effects in patients with hypertension or with type-2 diabetes"[38]"

Quote :

"Hey, does anyone have any extra Vioxx laying around?"

lol, exactly.
Stevia, miracle fruit, ephedra, (all unpatentable,) and many others are just added to the list of FDA bullshit. Add in the fact that they ban or delay life-saving medicine over a bunch of bullshit, and add in the fact that they routinely give harmful or fatal drugs the clean bill of health after basically being bribed by money or political influence. All of this adds up to a clearly fascist* federal bureaucracy. (*or whatever you want to call it....corrupt, broken, malevolent, negligent, etc.) Why don't we do something about it? Would it take a presidential or congressional act?

[Edited on December 20, 2008 at 9:18 AM. Reason : ]

12/20/2008 9:17:12 AM

Do any of you see the relationship between intellectual property rights and the FDA's habit of not playing by their own rules when it comes to substances on which intellectual property rights can't be granted?

What else does this affect?

12/22/2008 9:51:11 AM

i saw a commercial for this

12/22/2008 12:49:04 PM

I bet it could catch on if it had a different name.

PUtting "stevia" in my food seems a little creepy.

12/22/2008 1:00:32 PM

substances occuring naturally are not inherently better than artificial substances. An argument that "this wont have the same problems as artificial sweetners because its natural" is garbage without proof. I'm all for advances in sweetner technology (natural or artificial) but lets see some scientific evidence.

As for your complaints about the FDA, IP rights are important in some cases (especially in other industries), but I agree a patent on a naturally occuring substance is junk. If you come up with a process that creates a Stevia plant that produces more of the substance you want, that process should be patentable, but not the actual substance itself.

12/22/2008 1:06:49 PM

This thread brings up an intresting point about product labelling. Items such as "natural and artificial flavors" should be clearly delinated as to what the products are as they may contain problems to people with restrictive diets. also, there should be better country of origin labelling on the ingredients. For instance, in the United States, the FDA strictly requires that products like MSG, modified food starch, etc all be derived from certain items if produced in the United States, but if they are not produced in the United States they can still be added to the food in the United States. It creates a problem for individuals who for health reasons cannot have certain products.

12/22/2008 1:32:44 PM

Quote :

"substances occuring naturally are not inherently better than artificial substances. An argument that "this wont have the same problems as artificial sweetners because its natural" is garbage without proof."

I agree that substances occurring naturally are not inherently better or their problems inherently worse in and of the substances themselves. However, substances don't exist in a vacuum. Naturally occurring substances are inherently better in that, in the case of plant-based substances, they are their own production facility. They work with nature. Some would even say that the fact that they can't be patented is a huge benefit. Consumer demand to know and approve of how something came to be, and not just what the end result is, is rapidly increasing. Others view plants as a tool to combat excesses of patent law, similar to how open source software is used to combat excesses of copyright law.

12/23/2008 2:43:07 PM

i saw boxes of truvia at harris teeter last week

12/23/2008 3:10:13 PM

Quote :

"Naturally occurring substances are inherently better in that, in the case of plant-based substances, they are their own production facility. They work with nature."

Again, natural is not better than artificial without proof. Because something "works with nature" doesn't mean it cant be improved upon.

If you use your "nature is better because its natural" argument in a scientific discussion you're only going to hurt your argument.

As for comparing it to open source software, it doesn't really work. Natural processes shouldn't be patentable because they aren't human creations. Software is a completely human invention. It can require significant time and money investment, and patent laws exist as a way to help guarantee a pay off for that investment. Certainly the scope of some patents is ridiculous, but you cant get rid of the entire system.

12/23/2008 3:40:18 PM

Quote :

"Again, natural is not better than artificial without proof"

Proof of what? "Better" is a subjective claim.
For some, the mere fact that they are plants... as you said:

Quote :

"Natural processes shouldn't be patentable because they aren't human creations."

... means that they can use the unpatentable natural process without having to pay for intellectual property rights. No one "owns" stevia -- that's the benefit. Nature already "invented" it. In this way, for what it's worth, natural is better than artificial. Generally, artificial substances are owned -- which may make them potentially financially prohibitive, and "open-source" substances by contrast, are basically free.

But yes, the substances themselves aren't necessarily better because they are natural. Natural doesn't necessarily mean safe or beneficial....

Quote :

"I agree a patent on a naturally occurring substance is junk."

Exactly.
If nature created something -- no one should be able to patent it.
What are you doing to oppose these types of patents? (... it's not a mainstream issue at all.)

Quote :

"I bet it could catch on if it had a different name. PUtting "stevia" in my food seems a little creepy."

Yeah, all of my spell-checkers don't even know of the word "stevia"...

3/21/2009 8:30:42 AM

Quote :

"Yeah I hate that whole not having to worry about the food I buy making me sick thing too. "

Were you referring to this FDA?

Quote :

"FDA ignored whistleblower; plant had major problems Problems with syringe maker's 'clean room' were overlooked for six months. March 21, 2009- An employee told federal regulators about troubling conditions in a North Carolina syringe manufacturing plant months before deadly bacteria-tainted devices were shipped to patients, according to documents released Friday. The worker's concerns were not immediately investigated by inspectors with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, whose handling of the AM2PAT syringe case has raised questions about the regulatory oversight of the 10,000 companies that make drug devices used by millions of Americans. More than 100 people were sickened, and at least five deaths were linked to the syringes... Efforts to reach an FDA spokeswoman Friday were unsuccessful. "

Ooooh... I feel all safe n snuggly...the FDA is looking out for me.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1451991.html

3/22/2009 12:04:17 AM

If dying people want access to a medication that could potentially save them, I believe no agency should exist to stop said contract.

I hate the FDA too.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

3/22/2009 2:03:32 AM

Is this going to lead to another kind of diet coke?

They already have regular diet coke, coke zero, and diet coke with splenda (has a yellow cap).

3/22/2009 2:24:57 AM

^
They've already got it in japan:

Quote :

"Coke, Cargill team up on new sweetener By Harry R. Weber, Associated Press ATLANTA Coca-Cola (KO) plans to use a new calorie-free sweetener in some of its products in other countries and is hoping at some point to get FDA approval to use it in its products in the United States. The push to develop the natural sweetener, which is being called rebiana, is a partnership between Atlanta-based Coca-Cola and privately held Cargill, the Wayzata, Minn.-based agribusiness. Coca-Cola will market and use the sweetener in unspecified products. Cargill will use farmers it contracts with to grow the plant from which rebiana will be extracted, and the company also will refine it. It may also use the sweetener in some of its food products. Neither company would say Thursday how much money is being spent on the initiative, or how the costs will be shared. A Cargill spokeswoman, Ann Tucker, called it a "significant investment." Coca-Cola has filed 24 patent applications related to using, formulating and processing high potency sweeteners, including rebiana. Rebiana is made from the leaves of the stevia plant, a South American herb that has been used as a sweetener in other countries. The leaves of the small, green plant are said to have a refreshing taste that can be 30 times sweeter than sugar, according to a website about the plant. The herb isn't approved in the U.S. for use in food and beverages, but is approved in 12 other countries, including Brazil, Japan and China, Coca-Cola spokeswoman Kari Bjorhus said. Stevia has not yet undergone the lengthy FDA testing required before a product can be approved as a food addictive. Cargill is working on clinical trials of the sweetener to support a petition seeking FDA permission to use rebiana as a food additive in the U.S., Bjorhus said. Bjorhus declined to say what Coca-Cola products rebiana would be used in. She said taste tests show the sweetener tastes similar to some other sweeteners the company uses. Cargill, a make of food, agricultural and risk management products, is one of the world's largest privately held companies. Coca-Cola is the world's largest beverage maker. Coca-Cola already uses a variety of sweeteners in its products, including sugar, high-fructose corn syrup and artificial diet sweeteners like aspartame. Bjorhus said rebiana is a compelling addition because it is a natural sweetener."

[Edited on March 22, 2009 at 6:36 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2009 6:31:24 PM

they have Coke Light in brazil.. not sure the difference from zero or diet but people on serious diets know the diff.

3/22/2009 6:34:08 PM

I wish someone would massacre Coca Cola and Cargill. They are monsters.

3/24/2009 11:30:39 AM

^
Why? (I tend to agree, but could you elaborate?)

3/24/2009 2:15:48 PM

Quote :

"Do any of you see the relationship between intellectual property rights and the FDA's habit of not playing by their own rules when it comes to substances on which intellectual property rights can't be granted? What else does this affect?"

4/4/2009 4:11:19 PM

Stevia isnt anything new to people in the know. Vegetarian cookbooks I had close to 15 years ago had discussions on the stuff. I even got some plants in the early 00s but couldnt keep up with seed production.


a water extract made from the fresh leaves is both much sweeter and less bitter than the dried material, and certainly the isolated "rebaudioside." It is particularly good in baking.



something that is bugging me about this discussion is Willy Nilly's assertion that Stevia is "in the Chrysanthemum family." Actually, this statement is similar to saying that humans are are in the pygmy marmoset family. Stevia is actually in the same tribe as several beautiful wildflowers native to our state:


Stevia rebaudiana


Eupatorium purpureum, Joe Pye Weed


Eupatorium perfoliatum, Thoroughwort or Boneset


Vernonia noveboracensis, New York Ironweed

Stevia species are native to central and South America. The same tribe of indians who popularized the use of yerba maté in the US through their self-branded tea products (the Guayakì) have also traditionally used this herb to sweeten their maté.




As far as intellectual property rights/patenting of stevia glycosides, I'd like to bring up another plant example.



Meet Digitalis purpurea, better known as foxglove. It and a closely related species, D. lanata have long been used in traditional medicines as medication for lung disorders.

Chemically speaking, this plant contains a potent mix of "cardiac glycosides" referred to as Digitalin en masse, and they generally act to control heart rate and are often prescribed in cases of heart failure.

There are specific glycosides which have been developed for modern pharmaceutical use. The most prevalent example of this is Digoxin, marketed by Glaxo-Smith-Kline as Lanoxin, Digitek, and Lanoxicaps. It is also available as a 0.05 mg/mL oral solution and 0.25 mg/mL or 0.5 mg/mL injectible solution. There are a few other select cardiac glycosides which have been developed as drugs, such as digitoxin, which is processed by the liver rather than the kidneys.

This plant can easily be fatal if you ingest unregulated amounts, and each variety and to a certain extent, each plant contains differing amounts of cardiac glycosides, so determining an exact dosage by this method would be extremely difficult. The drug Digoxin, however, is certainly safe when taken as prescribed by a physician.

So, here is another example of a natural product which has had a specific alkaloid patented, approved by the FDA and marketed as a chemical, not as a natural product. The FDA did not approve the raw plant material, but instead a standardized extract known to contain a specific amount of certain active chemicals. This distinction will be very important in the future if rebaudioside's HBP- and 'beetus-fighting powers are further explored as a drug rather than a food.

4/5/2009 7:45:47 AM

Quote :

"IF IT KILLS PEOPLE, THEY WON'T BUY IT!"

-agentlion

Haha this line made me laugh out loud. I think its a good spoof of anti-FDA rhetoric. Kinda like one of those Yogi Beara(sp) sayings. "No one goes there anymore, its too crowded". I think I will put it in the SB quotes thread for good measure.

I say that as someone that is slightly anti-FDA my self (I drink moonshine and think that the drug approval process can be much improved).

[Edited on April 5, 2009 at 9:06 AM. Reason : ``]

4/5/2009 9:06:22 AM

^ you know, I wish I could say that my intent was to be as pithy as Yogi Berra, but as I recall, I was not trying to be clever when I wrote that. While how you interpreted the quote certainly makes it even more relevant and even more true, I think I was really just trying to get at "if people die from the product, then other people won't buy it," but I was writing in a rush.

But the point (either point - the original one, or yours) still stands. History has shown that people are not, apparently, smart enough or self-preserving enough to discontinue buying/using a product "just because" it is shown to be imminently dangerous. People either do not know about those effects because we don't have perfect information, or they simply discount the effects to other causes. Therefore, I believe agencies like the FDA are necessary, and can be on the side of the common good. That's not to say, though, that they aren't susceptible to corruption and cronyism, which is unfortunately very dangerous and has grave implications for an agency tasked with overseeing the health of people. See this Expose story for some problems with the FDA http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05232008/watch2.html
and this story for how direct-to-consumer advertising has fucked up the drug industry - http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05162008/watch2.html

[Edited on April 5, 2009 at 9:36 AM. Reason : .]

4/5/2009 9:34:12 AM

^ I agree. I don't think I would say that people aren't smart enough, but I would say that asymmetric information leaves an opportunity for snake-oil salesman to profit off the ignorance of others.

That's why I definitely think the FDA is genuinely solving a market failure problem in most cases.

4/6/2009 6:42:55 AM