147 replies to this topic

[wannafulfill]

lmao, I dunno about you but the liquid I use is clear

[Pablo M]

Hundreds of safety studies exist on stevia.  Japan has EXTENSIVELY replaced refined sugar and all but banned artificial sweeteners in their food. 

It's been in use for over 1,500 years in South America, 30 years of food and beverage use in Japan (40% of all sweetening).  China has been using it for 20 years in food and beverage.  All the pacific rim.  Israel...

This in my mind is some of the strongest evidence for stevia's safety. People just wouldn't go on consuming something if it was toxic. Witness Ayurveda, which had much reverence for "brahmi" (bacopa monniera). Presto, now science has confirmed that bacopa exerts a powerfully neuroprotective effect. Cultures observing the pharmacological effects of plants over literally thousands of years don't tend to arrive at baseless conclusions, and they don't tend to continue to eat things that are bad for them. Although they lacked microscopes and petri dishes, these people were following the scientific method by observing the effects that certain plants had on them. When I read One River by Wade Davis, I was absolutely amazed at the level of knowledge these people have accumulated. From the millions of plants that grow in the rain forest, they identified the ones that contain DMT, and were somehow able to figure out that these needed to be combined with other plants which contained MAO inhibitors in order to be orally active. Ayahuasca was born.

Japan is an extremely health-obsessed country. They banned benzoyl peroxide (topical acne treatment) because it is a possible carcinogen. Of course, this doesn't prove anything, but it makes me feel more confident in stevia.

I haven't regularly consumed sweeteners (artifical or otherwise) ever in my life. I bought and used a container of Essential Mix and that will probably be my lifetime exposure to sucralose (although I did steal one of my sister's Listerine breath strips the other day, but that was an emergency). The only time I have ever tried stevia was when I bought greens+, and it was freaking delicious. Perhaps I should try it in my oatmeal.

[skuldugary]

This in my mind is some of the strongest evidence for stevia's safety. People just wouldn't go on consuming something if it was toxic.

hmm. i'm afraid millions of people consume TONS of stuff that is at least bad for them, if not actually toxic. proof: McDonalds. can you supersize that? [glasses] not to mention aspartame, or for that matter, suger.

[mnosal]

What about good old Sweet n Low? Its not as sexy as Splenda or Nutrasweet but it's the only one that has been on the market long enough to draw actual long term data on. Anyone know of proven dangers of saccharine?

My 87yr old Grandfather has used 3+ teaspoons per day for 25yrs or more and it has been crucial in controling his blood sugar.

[lemon]

Maybe some of you just don't get it. Stevia has been growing on earth for a long long time. 1,500 years of continual use and is currently in markets of billions of people with NO ADVERSE REACTIONS EVER REPORTED. Japan is rapidly replacing the biological disaster than is refined sugar in their food supply since 1977. The US does not allow it in the food supply because of the artificial sweetener lobby. It is the only reason. Japan extensively tested this herb many decades ago. They jammed stevia down the mouths of rodents for multiple generations and nothing abnormal happened. Usage of stevia is now in the billion range. Stop defending the artificial sweetener lobby.

[lemon]

The FDA has little to nothing to do with safe guarding your health. They are merely an enforcement agency that has the capability of raiding healthfood stores with armed marshals at the request of artificial sweetener companies. The FDA actually ordered a good 'ole fashioned book burning for stevia cookbooks a few years back. Thankfully the First Admendment has allowed stevia cookbooks to be sold since.

http://www.thewinds..../07/stevia.html

The Commisioner of the FDA should be held accountable (executed) for the widespread chronic disease and death associated with consumption of the known deadly and lethal toxin that is aspartame. Congressional hearings were held on the known toxicity of aspartame in the early 80's. It was still released to the public regardless of overwhelming evidence it was a deadly toxin.

[ajnast4r]

My 87yr old Grandfather has used 3+ teaspoons per day for 25yrs or more and it has been crucial in controling his blood sugar.

he could have just not eaten anything sweet... its not like a REQUIRMENT

[scottl]

My 87yr old Grandfather has used 3+ teaspoons per day for 25yrs or more and it has been crucial in controling his blood sugar.

he could have just not eaten anything sweet... its not like a REQUIRMENT

I was going to say that perhaps his other taste buds (sour, etc) are in dire need of some attention.

[johnmk]

My 87yr old Grandfather has used 3+ teaspoons per day for 25yrs or more and it has been crucial in controling his blood sugar.

he could have just not eaten anything sweet... its not like a REQUIRMENT

Understand human nature.

[mnosal]

Thanks John...the "stevioids" are mutating at an alarming rate

He had it in his tea you nutters

[opales]

Hundreds of safety studies exist on stevia.  Japan has EXTENSIVELY replaced refined sugar and all but banned artificial sweeteners in their food. 

It's been in use for over 1,500 years in South America, 30 years of food and beverage use in Japan (40% of all sweetening).  China has been using it for 20 years in food and beverage.  All the pacific rim.  Israel...

This in my mind is some of the strongest evidence for stevia's safety. People just wouldn't go on consuming something if it was toxic.

alcohol, coffee, coca leaves.. the one thing about every substance that has passed the test of time, some of them blatantly toxic, is that they are addictive, which is also the case with stevia as it is sweet. if we would have introduced any other sweetener 1000 years ago we'd probably still be using it, especially because (purported) toxic effects are not apparent immidiately.

The FDA has little to nothing to do with safe guarding your health. They are merely an enforcement agency that has the capability of raiding healthfood stores with armed marshals at the request of artificial sweetener companies. The FDA actually ordered a good 'ole fashioned book burning for stevia cookbooks a few years back. Thankfully the First Admendment has allowed stevia cookbooks to be sold since.

http://www.thewinds..../07/stevia.html

The Commisioner of the FDA should be held accountable (executed) for the widespread chronic disease and death associated with consumption of the known deadly and lethal toxin that is aspartame. Congressional hearings were held on the known toxicity of aspartame in the early 80's. It was still released to the public regardless of overwhelming evidence it was a deadly toxin.

Maybe some of you just don't get it. Stevia has been growing on earth for a long long time. 1,500 years of continual use and is currently in markets of billions of people with NO ADVERSE REACTIONS EVER REPORTED. Japan is rapidly replacing the biological disaster than is refined sugar in their food supply since 1977. The US does not allow it in the food supply because of the artificial sweetener lobby. It is the only reason. Japan extensively tested this herb many decades ago. They jammed stevia down the mouths of rodents for multiple generations and nothing abnormal happened. Usage of stevia is now in the billion range. Stop defending the artificial sweetener lobby.

I've understood that stevia is also banned as a sweetener also in EU and Canada. Yes, maybe Japan has studied it extensively, but have those studies been reported in English? Have the extensive studies been reported in respected international peer-reviewed journals? If not, it is no wonder that they get ignored, THIS happens in almost any other field also. As a scientist I know that MOST results in any field are badly biased, and the best way to fight the misinformation overload is to rely only on papers published in the most respected (international) journals of the given field, and just about ignore the lesser respected.

As for the toxcity of artificial sweeteners, which you seem to take for granted, there are numerous studies falsifying about every claim about the potential dangerousness (as provided in the articles prestented here earlier). Why do not they account for anything, even though if you look at the references, you see that many of the most respected medical journals are included? Where are your BMJ or NEJM articles on stevia? Why are your peculiar Japanese rodent feeding reports (which no one can probably verify because they are in Japanese) by default, as it seems, more credible than those journals? You seem to suggest a some kind of international conspricy by sweetener companies, goverment agencies and scientist stuying these things. What about your sources, have you ever checked how many of those (Internet based?) sources you thrust in this matter have their own agenda? Most of the natual or alternative sites in the net will oppose about every invention made by large corporations, and at the same time offer you their hell of a lot more expensive, non-tested, non-proven and usually non-sensical "natural" alternatives. No one seems to care that the natural industry openly lies or distorts facts in a manner that would be considered scandalous if it was a big drug company doing that. Does it make it ok to lie if your work only affects a small group of people?

Also, is stevia a big business in Japan (as artificials are here), how do you know that there is not some kind of similar mechanism working on there, but in the opposite direction? Maybe Japanese stevia companies lobbied againts western based sweeteners in the battle for market shares in domestic Japanese markets, who knows.

Why would the congress release it to public regardless of the "overwhelming evidence of its toxicity"? really..

Actually I don't think stevia is more dangerous than any other sweetener, nor do I think it is safer. And I do think the reason for the lack of credible research on stevia results from the fact that the review processes by government agencies are too expensive for substances where there is not money to be made. But I also think it is actually a good thing someone has the monetary incentive to conduct otherwise too expensive research for our safety, and I do find that the research done on artificial sweeteners' safety is credible AND extensive. For stevia, to much lesser extent.

Have any of you "artificial sweetener haters" ever actually read what the other side has to say about? They are usually quite sensible (which I definately always cannot say about the other side, with all the Nancy Markles etc. out there) and like to present proofs rather than anecdotes to support their case. It might do you good.

for starters:

http://www.quackwatc.../aspartame.html

http://www.aspartame.net/

plus the articles presented here earlier

I believe aspartame is an excitotoxin. Definitely not something health-concerned people want to ingest.

as for excitotoxicity

For example, a cup of milk contains about 800 mg of aspartic acid and 350 mg phenylalanine, and even those who consume high amounts of aspartame (10 mg/kg) will get about the same or less of both of these amino acids from aspartame in a single day

plus the claimed effects of aspartame excitotoxicity (could not get an answer earlier what these were supposed to be, so I did my own excursion to the "natural" net) like brain cancers, headaches, seizures or cognitive effects have been disputed in clinical trials, as I said earlier.

[xanadu]

Many of those studies claiming to give a clean bill of health to artificial sweeteners were funded by the companies trying to get them approved. With the level of corruption we have today in our government, I do not trust any of that. A cup of milk does not make me sick, aspartame does and it's not just me. As for the statement that alcohol, coffee and so on have likewise been around a long time, yes it's true but we know those are harmful substances. We found out long ago they were not so good for us. Where are the harmful results from stevia? I don't see any.

[lemon]

The New England Journal of Medicine stated aspartame can cause a significant imbalance of amino acids and neurotransmitters in the brain. One example of this is a decreased availability of the amino acids tryptophan. This may reduce serotonin levels in the brain, which can cause mood imbalances and sleep disorders.

In addition, methanol (wood alcohol) is released from aspartame when consumed. This toxic substance can provoke headaches, fainting, seizures, memory loss, mood swings, depression, numbness in the extremities, nausea, gastrointestinal distress, and fibromyalgia symptons.

Opals,

Hey buddy, keep on wolfin' down aspartame. I'll stick with a substance in use for 1,500 years and over a billion served. Thank-you very much. Don't expect a card from me when you get some aspartame related disease. I'll be laughing !!

[lol]

[lemon]

(and nevermind you're actually embalming yourself with accumulation of formeldehyde in your brain and major organs)

Go ahead and believe the studies citing safety. They all come from the manufacturer.

[lemon]

Japan was the pioneer in extraction and industrial use of stevia. They started studying the herb in the 50's to become self sufficient. They now grow their own stevia. That and the Japanese are arguably the most health obsessed people on the planet and the longest lived. Now all the countries that have the power and inclination to flip off the U.S. and E.U. are using it. This includes Japan, China, Israel, Korea.

Do you see the pattern? The countries that the US would not dare trade embargo are using it. It all comes down to money. Follow the money.

[lemon]

This herb is central in geo-economic politics.

[lemon]

Does anyone here realize how large the sugar trade is? It's big. Damn fucking big.

[lemon]

U.S. Sugar Industry's Free Trade Position

U.S. sugar producers are efficient by world standards with costs of production below the world average, despite the highest environmental and labor standards in the world. Because of our competitiveness, we have endorsed the goal of genuine, multilateral free trade in sugar since the onset of the Uruguay Round of the GATT in 1986. Ultimately, we want to see free trade in sugar include all countries and all government programs. But that will require some doing. Genuine liberalization of trade in sugar must address all market distortions and circumvention, not just import barriers.

Market Distortions

More than 120 countries produce sugar, and in all these countries the government intervenes in the sugar marketplace. The worst of these distortions involves a combination of import protection and production and export subsidies. This combination results in huge over-production, which is dumped on the world market, thus injuring the producers of other countries unless their governments, in turn, protect their markets. The world market for sugar is so distorted by these aggressive practices of over-production that over the past two decades the "world price" has averaged barely half the world average cost of producing sugar, according to independent studies.

U.S. sugar policy is designed primarily to ensure that the U.S. market is not distorted by these aggressive over-production policies. If these subsidies and other negotiations and other market distortions were removed, then the U.S. sugar industry would support negotiations that led to reciprocal reductions in import barriers for sugar. But without this crucial step, such reductions would only encourage government subsidies to destroy efficient producers.

Circumvention

In a world market so undermined by market distortions in national markets, the incentive to evade existing WTO disciplines on sugar trade is enormous. As a result, some countries can become "blending platforms," which import third-country dump-market sugar for manufacture of sweetened products that are then exported. Bilateral and regional agreements can make this problem worse, because "blending platforms" within a free area can export duty-free within the free area, undermining WTO agreement on market access for sugar. Or, new agreements can act on the problem, by including provisions that address this form of circumvention.

Sugar is Not Included in Most Bilateral and Regional Agreements

Because of the uniquely distorted nature of the world dump market for sugar and because of a wide range of border control issues, sugar has overwhelmingly been excluded from bilateral and regional free trade agreements. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations noted last year:

"There are 124 regional trade agreements worldwide at this time, most of which substantially exclude sugar." Some examples:

Sugar is excluded from the Mercosur agreement among major producers Argentina and Brazil, with Uruguay and Paraguay.

Though Mexico reportedly has more bilateral and regional trade agreements than any other country, it has excluded sugar from virtually every one, including its recent agreement with the European Union. The EU is the world's second largest exporter of sugar, thanks to massive production and export subsidies.

Sugar is excluded from the U.S.-Mexico portion of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which defers to WTO disciplines instead.

Sugar is included in the U.S.-Mexico portion of the NAFTA, but the sweetener provisions are embroiled in controversy. Mexico is blocking imports to U.S.-made corn sweeteners that compete with sugar in Mexico, and Mexico insists on accelerating the NAFTA schedule of its sugar access to the U.S.

With sugar excluded from so many free trade agreements, including agreements in this very hemisphere, the challenge of including sugar in the FTAA is, at best, daunting.

The U.S. is Already a Major Sugar Importer; Market is Saturated

The United States has committed, under WTO and NAFTA rules, to import, at a minimum, a volume of sugar amounting to about 15 percent of U.S. consumption, duty free. The U.S. must import this sugar whether the domestic market requires it or not, making the U.S. the world's fourth largest importer of sugar. Twenty-two countries in this hemisphere already benefit from essentially duty-free access to the U.S. market, representing 65 percent of U.S. imports.

In addition, we have experienced import leakage, of blended product from Canada and above-quota sugar from Mexico. These imports, couples with unusually large U.S. production, inundated the U.S. sugar market the past two years and depressed the domestic sugar price to a 22-year low in 2000. The industry is badly oversupplied and in a severe financial crisis, with beet and cane mills closing, and the country's largest refined sugar seller in bankruptcy. The U.S. market has no room for additional foreign sugar.

In the FTAA: Negotiate Real Open Trade or Reserve Sugar for WTO Disciplines

Given the highly distorted nature of the world dump market for sugar and the inability so far of most regional trade agreements to address market distortions, the U.S. sugar industry believes that negotiations on sugar provisions in the FTAA would be so contentious they would delay the wider package. The U.S. sugar industry, therefore, recommends that, within the framework of the FTAA, sugar be reserved for much needed, and more far reaching, disciplines in the multilateral, WTO context.

[lemon]

More than 120 countries produce sugar, and in all these countries the government intervenes in the sugar marketplace. The worst of these distortions involves a combination of import protection and production and export subsidies.

It dosn't get much bigger than sugar... well, I suppose oil is up there

[thumb]

[Pablo M]

alcohol, coffee, coca leaves.. the one thing about every substance that has passed the test of time, some of them blatantly toxic, is that they are addictive, which is also the case with stevia as it is sweet. if we would have introduced any other sweetener 1000 years ago we'd probably still be using it, especially because (purported) toxic effects are not apparent immidiately.

Misleading. Yes, of course, coffee has some toxicity, but even water can throw off your electrolyte balance and kill you. Coffee appears to have some good aspects:
Search for natural products related to regeneration of the neuronal network.

Trigonelline, a constituent of coffee beans, demonstrated the regeneration of dendrites and axons, in addition to memory improvement.

Coffee protects against Alzheimer's (PubMed search 'coffee alzheimer'):

Epidemiological studies suggest that the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, wine and coffee consumption and regular physical activity may delay onset of AD or reduce rate of progression.

Use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, wine consumption, coffee consumption, and regular physical activity were associated with a reduced risk of Alzheimer's disease.

Re your point about coca leaves, there is a large difference between snorting pure cocaine and chewing coca leaves. Native cultures have been chewing coca leaves for 1000s of years. Wade Davis reports that even among the heavy coca-leaf-chewers, there is no withdrawl when they stop chewing coca leaves, suggesting that the addictiveness of coca leaves is very different than that of pure cocaine. Comparing coca leaves to cocaine is like comparing coffee to pure caffeine. Pure caffeine can be deadly-- but millions of people drink Starbucks everyday without any acute toxicity. Hell, they may even be protecting their brains.

For example, a cup of milk contains about 800 mg of aspartic acid and 350 mg phenylalanine, and even those who consume high amounts of aspartame (10 mg/kg) will get about the same or less of both of these amino acids from aspartame in a single day

True, but as LifeMirage said in reponse to concerns about potential excitotoxicity of whey protein, it is probably not a concern when other amino acids are present. The concern with MSG, aspartame etc is the high excitotoxicity of the substances without any compensating effects of other constituents.

[opales]

QUOTE (opales)

alcohol, coffee, coca leaves.. the one thing about every substance that has passed the test of time, some of them blatantly toxic, is that they are addictive, which is also the case with stevia as it is sweet. if we would have introduced any other sweetener 1000 years ago we'd probably still be using it, especially because (purported) toxic effects are not apparent immidiately.

Misleading. Yes, of course, coffee has some toxicity, but even water can throw off your electrolyte balance and kill you. Coffee appears to have some good aspects:

Well ok, coffee is controversial and so are apparently coca leaves. but the point still stands, the test of time does not make a good evaluation criterion as some blatantly toxic substances such as alcohol and tobacco pass it.

QUOTE 
For example, a cup of milk contains about 800 mg of aspartic acid and 350 mg phenylalanine, and even those who consume high amounts of aspartame (10 mg/kg) will get about the same or less of both of these amino acids from aspartame in a single day

True, but as LifeMirage said in reponse to concerns about potential excitotoxicity of whey protein, it is probably not a concern when other amino acids are present. The concern with MSG, aspartame etc is the high excitotoxicity of the substances without any compensating effects of other constituents.

still:

While amino acids by themselves can exert unique effects, it is clear from known responses to doses of these amino acids and also from the research above that most or all of the people who believe they get headaches from aspartame are experiencing the placebo effect.

also I would like to see some other science tha LifeMirage's word that these other amino acids have an effect. besides, if aspartame was used in food, doesn't the same hold then also?

The New England Journal of Medicine stated aspartame can cause a significant imbalance of amino acids and neurotransmitters in the brain. One example of this is a decreased availability of the amino acids tryptophan. This may reduce serotonin levels in the brain, which can cause mood imbalances and sleep disorders.

in rats. and quoting that same study:

However, they should not in any way be interpreted as demonstrating that aspartame significantly affects the human brain.

also:

Aspartame is rumored to be related to the incidence of seizures, attention deficit disorder, and many other cognitive changes. These possibilities have been examined in the research, with the conclusion that normal doses of aspartame do not pose a risk for any of these. In a placebo-controlled study with 48 subjects who received 45 mg/kg or 15 mg/kg aspartame for 20 days, both well above what the average person consumes, there were no changes in adverse effect reports, mood, neuropsychologic measures, and the EEG. This study replicated an earlier six month study on healthy subjects in which reports of side effects and blood tests were no different between 75 mg/kg aspartame daily and placebo groups [16].

lemon says (can't get that quote by someone to work, geez):

(and nevermind you're actually embalming yourself with accumulation of formeldehyde in your brain and major organs)

In addition, methanol (wood alcohol) is released from aspartame when consumed. This toxic substance can provoke headaches, fainting, seizures, memory loss, mood swings, depression, numbness in the extremities, nausea, gastrointestinal distress, and fibromyalgia symptons.

I would really like to see some evidence backing up these claims, seems they are being just tossed up in the air. quote:

Formaldehyde

Yet another scientific paper that has received a disproportionate amount of media attention linked aspartame with the production of formaldehyde in the body. The argument is that aspartame could metabolize into methanol, which may convert to formaldehyde. Again, this paper has been widely criticized in the scientific community, for the following reasons:


1. The study was in rats, which react much differently to methanol than primates.

2. The authors of the study administered carbon-labelled aspartame to the rats and observed radioactivity in various tissues, but did not verify that the aspartame had yielded methanol or formaldehyde.

3. It is known that the amount of aspartame they used would have been insufficient to significantly increase methanol levels in rats.

4. Even high doses of methanol do not yield formaldehyde in rats.

5. Even in monkeys, which are much more physiologically similar to humans, 3 g/kg doses of methanol do not increase formaldehyde levels. Note that to produce this much methanol, and assuming every aspartame molecule yielded a methanol molecule, a 150 lb. person would have to consume a minimum of 2 kg of aspartame in a single sitting, or about 10,000 diet sodas.

6. While methanol can be toxic (due to conversion to formic acid), a study in humans found that 100 mg/kg of aspartame (equivalent to over 30 diet sodas) did not significantly increase methanol blood levels. Higher doses led to slight increases, but did not elevate blood levels of formic acid. Methanol is readily metabolized, and does not accumulate. Another study evaluated chronic consumption of 75 mg/kg of aspartame or placebo daily for six months, and found no elevation in blood or urine levels of methanol or formate. Thus, "even at experimental doses impossible to obtain from aspartame-sweetened foods, no toxicity related to the methanol carbon of aspartame has been found" [12].

7. Some commonly consumed foods, such as fruit and fruit juices, elevate body methanol levels without apparent ill effects, indicating that some degree of elevation is safe (which is in line with the safety data on methanol).

xanadu says:

Many of those studies claiming to give a clean bill of health to artificial sweeteners were funded by the companies trying to get them approved. With the level of corruption we have today in our government, I do not trust any of that.

So basically no amount of evidence is ever going to be enough, because they are by default drug company funded and thus, corrupted.
Actually, to have a large enough study, you have to have monetary incentive, but that is not good because they are funded by companies trying to get them approved. So basically none of the substances out cannot by logical reasoning be considered safe. Should I stop eating?

Where do you think those stevia studies (in US) get funding? not from government if you logically follow through your theory about government suppressing stevia in favor of artificial sweeteners.

[scottl]

"some blatantly toxic substances such as alcohol"

Uhhh dose response?? Daily wine is used to raise HDL and while I haven't looked at the data recently I gather the polyphenols are not the whole answer and the alcohol itself is playing some protective role.

[opales]

Uhhh dose response?? Daily wine is used to raise HDL and while I haven't looked at the data recently I gather the polyphenols are not the whole answer and the alcohol itself is playing some protective role.

over large populations, alcohol causes MUCH MORE adverse health effects than benefits. and has been doing that for some time now. so yes, alcohol is toxic in my book, and still qualifies as an example.

[lemon]

[/quote]Stevia's role as a commercial sweetener first began to be seriously considered during the Second World War. Suffering severe sugar shortages, Great Britain began cultivating stevia as a sugar alternative under the auspices of the Royal Botanical Gardens. Unfortunately, the project was abandoned with reintroduction of cheap cane and corn sugar at the conclusion of the war.

However, other countries were intrigued with the possibility of using stevia as a noncaloric sweetener and as a replacement for potentially-toxic, synthetic substitute sugars like saccharin. When Japan banned the importing of synthetic sweeteners in the 1960's, the Japanese National Institute of Health began researching both stevia and stevioside as possible natural replacements. This prompted a series of high-quality studies to examine both the safety and stability of stevia leaf extract and stevioside (the supersweet glycoside derived from stevia) in order to determine their suitability for sweetening commercial foods. All of the studies found that stevioside had no negative impact on any physical function after an extensive series of tests were conducted. The only side effect noted was a decrease in body weight (Okumura et al., 1978; Lee et al., 1979).

More recent studies have found stevioside to be not only safe, but also to reduce the incidence of breast tumor and kidney damage when consumed on a long-term basis. A high-quality study conducted by Dr. Toyoda of the National Institute of Health in Japan found that even when used in doses as high as 5 percent of the diet for two years, stevioside had no side effects on laboratory rats except for a slight loss of weight, reduced risk of cancer, and an improvement in kidney function (Toyoda et al., 1997).

Other researchers found that stevioside was highly stable to both heat and acid. When heated to 100°C for one hour in pHs ranging from 3 to 9, over 98 percent of the stevioside remained unchanged (Ochi, 1979; Fujita and Edahiro, 1979a). It even remained stable when heated to 100°C at a pH of 3 for 5 hours (Abe and Sonobe, 1977).

In the late 1970s a consortium of large Japanese food producers began to incorporate stevioside as a noncaloric sweetener in numerous food products ranging from soy sauce to seafood. By 1979, Japan was using over 700 tons of stevia a year.

During the 1980s stevioside expanded into Japanese soft drink market, eventually being used as a sweetener in Diet Coke sold in Japan. Although it was later replaced with aspartame when Coca Cola decided to standardize its sweeteners worldwide, stevioside continued to gain acceptance as a safe, noncaloric sweetener in numerous other foods in Japan. Today, 52 percent of all commercially sweetened products in Japan contain stevioside.[quote]

http://reid_j.tripod...blood_sugar.htm

[lemon]

O.K. folks, so if you're living in Japan you ARE ingesting stevia and have been ingesting stevia for the last 30 years. It's in more than half of all sweetened foods.

Over the last 30 years Japan has made extroardinary strides to remove the biological hazard that is refined sugar.

The Japanese also enjoy the longest lifespan of any country despite the fact they do have a smoking problem !

http://www.who.int/t...o/en/atlas8.pdf

http://www.worldpoli.../maps-life.html

[lemon]

O.K. Maybe it's the litre of fresh green tea that they drink each day.

But our F.D.A. already stated green tea is unlikely to have anti-cancer activity!

[lol]

(I am literally laughing right now that some of you are appealing to authority as represented by the F.D.A.)

[icyT]

Lemon, I think I can understand why you have such a high post count.

[lemon]

lol tyciol,

My convictions are very strong regarding this herb. I see the only way it can get past the political muck and mire that is the F.D.A. is to spread the word. Eventually enough people will be asking for it that the walls and levees holding it back will crumble under the weight.

Only a grassroots campaign can make the F.D.A. affirm G.R.A.S. status so unjustly denied it. Not that the F.D.A. ever considered it in the first place. They never even accepted to review the petition for G.R.A.S status.

[lemon]

LOL tyciol,

I actually have a stevia plant growing in my cubicle at work. I've got many of my co-workers converted ! They're now bringing in baked goods made with stevia.

It's a revolution !!!

[lemon]

...and yes, I pick the leaves, swirling them around in my organic Baihao Yinzhen tea (a white tea variety for the layperson).