Talk:Stevia/Archive 1

Testing for Stevia

Anyone know how to test for stevia? RJII 18:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Counterintuitive Introduction

"For centuries, the Guarani Native Americans of Paraguay and Brazil used Stevia species, primarily S. rebaudiana which they called ka'a he'ê ("sweet herb"), as a sweetener in yerba mate and medicinal teas for treating such conditions as obesity, high blood pressure, and heartburn" Are we saying that the native Americans in Brazil suffered from obesity, high blood pressure and heart burn centuries ago, and treated them? That seems rather counterintuitive. Even if they were obese, would they try to lose the weight? Would they regard it as a problem?57.66.51.165 11:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that sentence either needs a citation or the list of conditions should be removed, simply stating that stevia was used to sweeten medicinal teas. I have made the necessary changes without removing any content. Amatulic 16:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Add oriental chars

Please show the Japanese and Chinese characters and pinyin for this plant! One might be in Japan and not know what to ask for at the store. --jidanni 2006-04-15

That was more difficult than I expected, but I finally found some references to Stevia in other languages. I added a section for synonyms in other languages. Amatulic 14:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved the list of words for Stevia in other languages to Wiktionary because that's where it belongs. If some of the other names are especially imporant or interesting, you can add them back in prose, with explanations, but please don't start another list. —Keenan Pepper 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the elimination of the list of foreign terms from this entry because I doubt many people will go looking in Wiktionary (it never occurs to me to do so, at least), but I'll leave it as is, and make sure there's a link to the Wiktionary page (which you made rather hard to find, as the Wiktionary entry for "stevia" already has a section for translations to other languages). 66.159.220.134 22:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, after much thought and exploration of many other Wikipedia entries, I have decided to restore the list of alternate names. There is ample precedent for this elsewhere on Wikipedia. These alternate names are highly relevant to this article for the simple reason that many people travel and will refer to Wikipedia to find information on what a food substance is called in another country. This is an encyclopedia after all. For similar reasons, the entry for MSG has alternate names in other languages, as do many other Wikipedia entries. It belongs here, and not in the form of prose; that's inappropriate and unwieldy for a collection of names that are likely to expand. Please do not remove this list again. If anything, expand it. Amatulic 20:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm only going to remove it one more time, so please look at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Lists of words in other languages. Once again, if any of them are important enough to include, they should be explained in prose, and if not, they should not appear. —Keenan Pepper 07:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Could we put in something stronger to point out that the names in other languages are in the dictionary? As a previous correspondent has noted, few people would look in wiktionary unprompted, as they'd not expect find anything there that's not already in the encyclopaedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nunquam Dormio (talk • contribs) .

Exactly the same thing could be said of any other article. There's nothing special about stevia that would make people want to say it in different languages more than any other word. Take it to Template talk:Wiktionary. —Keenan Pepper 10:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As indicated by Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Lists of words in other languages], there is apparently no policy on lists of alternative names, so please don't make one up. There is a policy against creating an entire article as a definition list, which this article is not. I also agree that it would be better to include the terms as prose as much as possible; this list is just a start. Also, as I stated before, there is ample precedent for having such a list, as can be seen by a simple search for the phrase "alternative names". Additionally:

(a) it meets a need identified by jidanni at the start of this thread;

(b) others have been making edits to this list, rather than simply removing it; and

(c) friends and acquaintances who are foreign nationals, aftern learning that I sweeten things with stevia, have told me they looked on Wikipedia to find what it's called in their language.

That last reason alone should be sufficient rationale to include the alternate names: people look here to find it! It's distressing when these people come upon this article to find that the list has disappeared.

I have restored the list (with redundant entries removed) until such time as someone can figure out how to incorporate it in prose. I promise to work on doing that, but until then, consider the inclusion of foreign names in prose as a work in progress, so please leave the list in. Expand it or improve the presentation if you can. Amatulic 15:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reorganized this list by country, which consolidated the four Indian-language names into one item, and improved on the prose that introduces the list. If anyone has literal translations for these terms, it would help to know which ones literally mean "sweet leaf" -- in which case those can incorporated into the prose. Amatulic 16:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious about the Sanskrit form. It couldn't be classical Sanskrit, given how recently the plant was introduced to India. Is this the term used by modern ayurveda practitioners, etc? Does anyone have a citation for ith? 67.87.98.121 23:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The citation is in the section about names in other countries. plant names database -Amatulic 23:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That link does not contain or point to (I think -- all its references are dead links) any of the Indian language names. Thanks! -67.87.98.121 00:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I thought the sanskrit-like spelling in Thai would be sufficient. I remember getting the Indian names (sanskrit, telugu, etc.) from some Indian web sites such as this one ,and this one indicates that it's a coined term. I don't recall finding any scholarly articles, just merchant sites and blogs referring to stevia by that name. -Amatulic 01:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Nutrasweet hiring FDA board members

Any citation at all for that? Any specific names at least? If nobody provides anything soon, I'll delete that section because it sounds like a conspiracy theory/urban legend. I'm not saying it's not true - weirder things and dirtier things happen, but without proof it's useless.

The disputed text is repeated all over the web, verbatim: "After stevia was banned, several of members of the FDA board left their jobs. They were all hired at the Nutrasweet Company (a Monsanto subsidiary) in higher pay jobs, according to National (government) records."

I suggest restoring it with revisions, perhaps mentioning one specific name. Google returns over 500 results describing how Arthur Hull Hayes approved aspartame as his last act as FDA Commissioner, and subsequently went to work for a NutraSweet PR firm. This was before Stevia was banned; however this Nutrasweet/FDA linkage does lend credibility to the suspicion that Monsanto's influence resulted in the ban on stevia.

http://www.the7thfire.com/health_and_nutrition/aspartame_crimes.htm

http://www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm

http://www.stevia.net/aspartame.htm

Furthermore, there are other articles highlighting an apparent "revolving door" between Monsanto and the FDA. A former FDA commissioner Michael Friedman went to work for Monsanto's PR firm Searle in 1999 according to a PR Newswire story. I also find articles about former Monsanto board members getting jobs at the FDA. Even Donald Rumsfeld appears to have had a hand in approving aspartame, according this lawsuit. Amatulic 19:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In which countries is it legal?

The article doesn't give comprehensive information on this. Is it legal, e.g., in Pakistan? Etaonsh 22:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but this Pakistan government makes it seem legal there: http://www.parc.gov.pk/articles/sugar_leaf.htm

I agree it would be nice to know where else it's banned (such as in Singapore, which is mentioned in the article) and restricted (USA and EU). It's possible that the information in the article is what exists. It's also possible that many countries haven't created a policy about stevia one way or another. Amatulic 16:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought EU banned it(?). --Etaonsh 19:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm, not sure. The article simply says that the EU banned its use in food, which is what the US does (still permitting you to use it as a "supplement"). I don't know if the EU bans it outright. I'll have to do some digging. Amatulic 01:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Available in France as a "supplement". For instance, 5.5 Euros for 90g in green (non refined) powder form stored within a small plastic/carton container, available in organic shops.--PeaceAnywhere 19:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on what little I know about EU regularionts (which isn't much), if it's a legal supplement in France, it's probably legal throughout the EU. It would be nice to know country by country. It's quite possible, however, that many countries simply don't address stevia in their laws, one way or another. =Axlq 02:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The mere fact that a nonlethal food item has been banned makes me want to buy it even more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.122.193 (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I also wish someone could compile a complete list of where stevia is legal / illegal / unclear status by national laws. "Unclear status" in some countries can mean that you can sell it if you are on good terms with the right people, but the next day if they don't like you, then you could be hanged or imprisoned as a drug dealer. I suppose the best protection is to apply for an import permit and to state clearly what it is, before importing. Or if just for personal use, then my advice is: be sure to carry it in small commercial packages with the original label. I mean, do not carry this white powder around in plastic bags, ahem. You can then use stevia safely, even in countries where it is illegal, just so long as you do not give away large amounts or sell it. Krystof (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to find sources and add it to the article. Personally I think the article has greater needs, such as information on cultivation and glycoside extraction. =Axlq 17:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to assume it's legal in the state of Washington, since I saw it by Altern & Splenda at the Super Walmart. http://www.steviva.com/cat--Pure-Stevia-Powder--purestevia.html

'Dietary supplement, not food additive'

'In 1995, the FDA revised its stance to permit stevia to be used as a dietary supplement, although not as a food additive.' Am I alone in the feeling that this rather arcane distinction needs a little elaboration? --Etaonsh 08:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see anything wrong the first time I read that (it's a basic historical fact after all), but I see your point. Consider it elaborated. Amatulic 21:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a long way of saying, 'You can't sell stevia in the US except on its own/unadulterated/with nothing added.' --Etaonsh 22:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You could be forgiven for not understanding this. The issue of the FDA and dietary supplements is covered to some degree in the linked supplement article. The FDA was putting pressure on manufacturers of stuff like ginseg, St. John's Wort, and the like to come up with safety/efficacy data, since their products were being marketed analogously to drugs. Congress decided to intervene and declared that the FDA did not have the authority to hold supplements to the same standards as drugs and food additives. As a result the FDA cannot regulate them - unless they make a claim of treating disease (which makes them drugs). So, all manner of things can be packaged in bottles in pill form, but cannot be put in food. Rich0 01:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit confusing now that the article now states 'available in the US and Canada as a food supplement, although not as a food additive.' where food supplement and food additive point to the same article. How is there a distinction now? --Millard73 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Elsewhere the article uses the correct term dietary supplement. I just corrected it in the lead. =Axlq 04:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Cargill and Merisant have applied for FDA GRAS status --here are 2008 FDA GRAS notices-- for their stevia based sweeteners and Sweetleaf is claiming self-affirmed GRAS. I don't know the real difference between the two ways of gaining GRAS status, but once it's achieved, it means you can legally use it in a food per any stated limitations. Sigh Ns (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The difference between the two ways is, one works and one doesn't. Because the FDA is the only entity that can bestow GRAS status on something, "self-affirming" it without applying for it accomplishes nothing. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's not strictly true. FDA made a new catagory--not sure how long ago, maybe 2-3 years--called "self-affirmed GRAS" where you run your clinicals that theoretically prove the ingredient is safe and get "an independent body" (whatever that's defined as)to agree with you and you have self-affirmed GRAS. The fuzzy part for us laypersons that don't deal with it (me) is that I think you can then sell it as food, unless the FDA objects, but it's likely it might just be legal limbo. However if I really knew, I'd be editing, not discussing--any FDA food lawyers out there? Or perhaps Amatulic, you really are correct, and I'm losing it...not out of the realm of possibility! Anyway, until someone starts waving around an FDA no objection or other official approval, to me it's still in the realm of speculation. Sigh Ns (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Dietary supplements 'not commercial'?

'...in Australia and Canada, stevia has been approved only for dietary supplements. However stevia has been grown on an experimental basis in Ontario since 1987 for the purpose of determining the feasibility of growing the crop commercially.' The implication of 'however' seems to be that dietary supplements are considered 'not commercial'(?). Also, 'it' will do for 'stevia' in the second sentence. --Etaonsh 08:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing prevents you from making modifications. I replaced "However stevia" with "it" as you suggest -- and you're right, it makes more sense that way. Amatulic 21:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

'Health concerns & limits on use'

The first sentence in this section is misleading because it fails to mention that extremely large doses were used (see [[1]]). The same presumably applies to the second sentence, which further fails to clarify whether such findings are relevant to human beings. The current citations in paragraph 1 merely refer the reader to the References list at the end of the article, which is a bit like saying, 'Go and read it all up yourself to find the relevant refs.' Would it be possible for the person or persons in the know to make the citations more specific and checkable at some point? Also, perhaps some gloss, for the layman, on how and why scientfic research sometimes seems to yield contradictory findings? --Etaonsh 10:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I recently made some significant changes to that paragraph, adding citations and rewording, but I didn't touch the first sentence. Toward the middle of the paragraph it does question the relevance to humans, but I guess it could be more clear. As always, anyone is free to make modifications, but I'll try to work on it in the next couple weeks when I get a chance. Amatulic 14:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Etaonsh - I notice you added a rather POV-sounding sentence "Ethical and procedural concerns have been raised about these experiments involving the unnatural force-feeding of laboratory rats, dismissed, as usual, on the controversial grounds that this is the 'normal' testing procedure for any substance." The words "controversial grounds" and "dismissed, as usual" and putting "normal" in quotation marks reads like sarcasm or biased language. It states as fact things that aren't established as fact. Any arguable or controversial claims in this article should include a citation and be free of bias. That sentence has neither quality. Can you do something with it? I'm inclined to remove it because it doesn't add encyclopedic value, but not without telling you first. Amatulic 01:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

'Controversial' is surely uncontroversial in that context, and 'dismissed, as usual' controversial only for being mentioned, to someone who would rather it wasn't - rather showing your own allegiances, there, I think(?). Reading 'normal' in inverted commas as 'sarcasm' says more about how seriously you regard discussion regarding prevailing scientific and behavioral norms than I, who, despite your polemical assumptions, fail to reveal my own personal opinion here, apart, obviously, from that of someone who clearly doesn't believe that all discussion of these issues should be suppressed. I reject your assertion that I 'state as fact things that aren't established as fact,' but I'm not opposing a citation - but surely a citation linking to evidence of controversy over experimentation with laboratory animals would, on current form, aggravate you further, quite apart from failing to fall within the boundary of 'facts needing citation to convince the average reader.' --Etaonsh 02:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't attribute motivations or allegiances to me that don't exist, or allege things that you don't know to be true -- either about me or about stevia. You see, I happen to agree 100% with that sentence you wrote; however, what you wrote lacks a neutral point of view. You introduced a sentence that, factual or not, contains loaded language that violates the NPOV policy here. All I'm suggesting is you rephrase it to have a more neutral tone, and provide citations for things that an average reader might question. I would have done it myself but at the moment I'm at a loss -- probably because I personally agree with your sentence. When writing something controversial, you don't want to give readers who disagree anything to pick at. I picked at it in a "Devil's advocate" mode, that's all. It's curious that your response was to attack me rather than address the problems I raised. Amatulic 20:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I can understand you saying that, but only in the context of a scenario in which militant/violent animal rights activists have effectively triggered an authoritarian clampdown on discussion, as if discussion in itself would make matters worse, and imply support for militant methods. I'm not attacking you, but your lack of courage in your own convictions, to the effect that neutrality lies where you thought it did, not where we are told. --Etaonsh 22:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

First: The activities of militant animal activists is a non-sequitur, having nothing to do with this article.

Second: A Wikipedia article about a food additive isn't the place to demonstrate the courage of one's convictions; it isn't a forum to sway an opposing point of view. Instead, it should provide factual information relevant to the subject. Personal convictions written out with emotion-laden words and no backup are no better than promoting one's religious beliefs, and just as irrelevant in the context of this article.

The sentence contains multiple undertones that distract from the message you want to convey about the unreliably of experimental findings. For example, mentioning "ethical concerns" distracts from the validity of the finding - all biological experiments have ethical concerns (even those that demonstrate safety of stevia), so mentioning ethics is irrelevant to the subject at hand: Health Concerns about Stevia.

Procedural criticisms of scientific findings are valid, but your sentence follows citations for experiments that don't even mention force-feeding rats. Honestly, I don't see where this fits.

What remains is criticism of experimental procedure. I have replaced the sentence with one about procedural concerns, and moved it to follow the sentence about the only really significant negative finding - that stevia is a mutagen (which also didn't involve force-feeding, it involved liver extracts). I have also provided a citation showing that this finding would have also found water to be a mutagen. Amatulic 17:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Do I detect the unmistakeable whiff of irrefutable female logic? --Etaonsh 19:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first mistaken allegation you've made about me. :) Amatulic 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Article candidate?

To me, this article looks like it might meet the criteria for qualifying as a good article on Wikipedia. I'd like anyone to comment first, though, before adding it to the Good Article Candidates page. -Amatulic 01:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

it'a a good article for me too. 62.38.141.163 02:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Great job citing sources for NPOV

Amatulic, thanks a lot for making this edit, that's exactly what the article needed. I looked for sources myself, but this is more specific than anything I found. —Keenan Pepper 22:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Keenan. In truth, I was actually unhappy with that edit when I finished it. It just seems wrong (to me) to quote a politician in the middle of an encyclopedia article (it's not a newspaper article after all). I want to figure out a better way to say it, referencing the quotation in the footnote rather than in the article text. However, I don't see footnote quotations in other Wikipedia articles, so I'm not sure that's a good solution either. -Amatulic 05:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Relevance of recent World Health Organization evaluation

This article should include the results of the WHO's evaluation of Stevia this year -- in 'Safety evaluation of certain food additives,' prepared by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). The document is included in External links. This evaluation appears (to me) to endorse the safety of the use of Stevia as a sweetener. On page 140, it states: "The Committee 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." anorak 24.80.185.127 19:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I have included a short paragraph about it, citing that document as a reference. It took forever to download (18 megabytes!) but the section on stevioside and steviol research impressed me with its thoroughness, and made for interesting reading. Thanks for finding it. -Amatulic 20:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sweetness

I've never been able to understand the phrase "200-300 times sweeter than sugar". How the heck do you measure sweetness? What are the units of sweetness? Would it be relevant to explain this in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.93.63.81 (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Based on my readings on the subject, sweetness isn't measured with instruments, but rather with a panel of many test subjects (people) tasting a series of dilutions (10:1, 100:1, 1000:1, etc.) of a solution of the sweetener. The data obtained doesn't have any absolute units; sweetness is expressed as an average relative to sucrose (table sugar). The level of dilution at which the panel can no longer detect any sweetness determines how many times sweeter the substance is relative to the standard. The result isn't exact, which is why it is often expressed as a range; e.g. "200-300 times sweeter than sugar". -Amatulic 01:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That's correct, Amatulic, although it would be a "trained panel" vs. random people Sigh Ns (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a trained panel, although it helps to have people with sensitive taste buds. But even untrained people can easily determine whether or not substance A is sweeter than substance B. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional Research

I've enjoyed Stevia for several years now. Excerpt:

"James May, the founder of Wisdom Natural Brands, was involved in bringing Stevia to the United States over twenty years ago. Wisdom Natural Brands is now the leading US manufacturer of Stevia and offers a full line of SweetLeaf Stevia products available in convenient single serving packets, liquid, powder, tabs and concentrate, including their best selling products SweetLeaf SteviaPlus and Flavored Liquid Stevia, which were developed by Steve May. Together, they have introduced millions of people in North America to Stevia."

Source: Wisdom Natural Brands

James May authored a book "The Miracle Of Stevia: Discover the Healing Power of Nature's Herbal Sweetener (Paperback)" Source: Amazon Books —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian.murphy.tx (talk • contribs) 03:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

What about Japanese and European Safety Studies?

It seems that there have been very few American scientific studies on Stevia-- but what about Japanese and European studies? What do they say about the safety of Stevia?

67.42.243.184 05:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have any to cite, let us know where they are, and you or others can try to work them in. Many of the sources already come from international journals open to scientists from any country. Also the World Health Organization recently compiled much of the relevant research into safety and wrote a report, which is also cited in the article. -Amatulic 20:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I found this Rebiana Sweetener Studies Publishedwhich is just a news item, but a summary of some recent U.S. studies. The link looks now outdated, but if you link to that page Food and Chemical Toxicology , not the main journal page, and search stevia, you get 8 studies, including the 4 new ones published July 2008, which you might want to discuss/link to. Sigh Ns (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

External link reversions

User:Maquoketa added the link http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/sugarfree_blues.html to the External links section. At the time, I looked at it and it seemed to comply with WP:EL. Then User:Deli nk came along and reverted it without explanation. User:Axlq undid the reversion, and then User:Beetstra removed it again, claiming the link is "spammy".

I disagree. Speaking as someone who has been heavily involved with this article, I believe the link is useful and complies with WP:EL#What should be linked. The link doesn't meet any of the requirements in WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. Therefore, I am adding it back as a useful resource with meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in the article. There are other links on this article that are less appropriate, in my opinion. -Amatulic 19:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link because of the way it was added. User:Maquoketa added the same link to about twenty articles before he was warned that what he was doing was inappropriate. The link may be appropriate for a general article such as sugar substitute, but trying to put it in every single related article is excessive - that's just linkspamming. I'm also mildly concerned about the non-neutral point of view and potential conflicts of interest. If other editors come to a consensus that the link is appropriate for this article or another one, I won't object to it being re-added. Deli nk 20:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Maquoketa has added the link to many pages, and was reverted because of that. Hence, the link was added in a spammy way, and therefore, the link addition should first be discussed on the talkpage. That is why I reverted again.

About WP:EL. The page fails several things noted in policies and guidelines. Firstly, links should be kept to a minimum, policies/guidelines applied there are WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL. The linked page is about sugar substitutes, linked here from a page about a plant. I don't directly see the link between that, but I can understand that stevia is used as an artificial sweetener (should this be linked here, per WP:EL?). Then we go to links that should normally be avoided: Does this page provide a unique resource? And is this a reliable source (this might be, note however, that while and external article cites many references, does not mean it is reliable, but it at least gives the impression it might very well be, is it reviewed, is it a common resource on the web).

I hope this will give some food for thoughts. It might be that I am wrong, and that this site really adds something to the information about this plant (but then, should it be an external link, rather than a possible reference?), in that case, feel free to add the link again. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The linked web article is by The Weston A. Price Foundation, with an self-described agenda to promote a single, sometimes controversial, point of view - that's not necessarily a bad thing, but something to consider. Deli nk 20:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Some replies (to Deli nk):

• You are correct that serial linkspam should be reverted. However, in rare cases such a link actually fits the article and seems like a good-faith edit. I looked at it only in the context of the article, not in the context of an editor's history.
• You are also correct that it probably fits sugar substitute better, although I felt it was appropriate because stevia is a sugar substitute, and the article did describe stevia in a broader context of sugar substitutes than this Wikipedia article on stevia does (or should).
• Conflict of interest should no longer be a problem since there is now more than one editor who thinks it's appropriate, and I have no conflict of interest (I never heard of that site until I saw the link).
• As to NPOV, the linked article is comprehensive and well researched, although critical of artificial substitutes. There is no reason why a criticism article should not be linked; there is ample precedent for including it if the link is appropriately labeled.

Anyway, I too will wait for further discussion. I'm willing to lose the link if the consensus leans that way. -Amatulic 20:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

For me, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY is already enough to make it questionable. The link does not add to the article, and is questionably a WP:RS. Having said that, I had a look at stevia (I myself had never heard of stevia before the link got added), and I would argue that many of the links would not comply with the guidelines on external links. It feels there are many links that give information that easily can be incorporated in the article (e.g. the multilingual description, that is interwiki-links, and there is a blog, which is certainly not a WP:RS). But I will leave that to you all. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, the article seems well researched, and dispite its POV slant, it does adequately describe many relevant and verifiable facts about stevia that are beyond the scope of this article. As such, it seems like a reliable and verifiable source which could be cited, if not used as an external link.

You are correct, blogs should be removed. I didn't notice until now. I'm normally pretty meticulous about removing blog links from other articles when I find them. Thanks for pointing it out; it's gone. To be honest, when I work on this article I usually don't get down as far as the links, so inappropriate stuff does find its way in. -Amatulic 22:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Processing

The article seems to be lacking in information on the processing of stevia.

1. How is the powder extracted?
2. What are the different methods used to obtain the powder and who does it which way?
3. Is the chemical something that can or is being manufactured without growing it?
4. Is cloning the main method used to obtain the plants?
5. If so, who clones and who does not?

Some of these might not fit in the article, and some may be seen as spam; however, this type of information is lacking and I think it would be good. SadanYagci 23:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think such information would be highly appropriate. I haven't found much about processing, other than indications it's most economical to get stevioside extracts from harvested plants. If you find a source, add a section to the article or put the source on this talk page and someone can try to incorporate the information. -Amatulic 22:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Used in Vernors ginger ale since 1866

See my rant on the discussion page for vernors in wikipedia. Here appears to be another example of corporate interference with our individual consumer choices, likely for profit by the high fructose corn sryup industry. Vernors used to be sweetened with it. It was delicious. Now it taste like everything else...corn syrup.I am voting for this as a good article, then I am going to look where I can buy stevia.

The orriginal Vernors Receipe is at http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~dins/history/gingerale.shtml —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jhackett (talk • contribs) 03:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

I'll go with that. I won't drink or eat anything with corn syrup in it anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.122.193 (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

eerr... where did the producers of Vernors find a source of stevia that long ago? it seems to clash with separate claims i've seen that westerners (dr. Moises Bertoni, specifically) first encountered it in 1887 and that the first commercial crop wasn't harvested until 1903. ("source": http://www.margonaut.com/stevia.htm ). which claim should i believe? 75.41.10.221 (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, that "original recipe" link goes to the web page of a band - hardly a reliable source. I think saying that Vernors used stevia back in 1866 is dubious, until better sources can be found to say otherwise. =Axlq 17:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I traced the link using archive.org here and found the intended information. While there is **a** recipe for making ginger ale with stevia above the Vernors history, the article does not say that Vernors use stevia. Likewise, this Google book page shows a stevia based gingerale recipe that is supposed to taste like Vernors but again does not actually say it is the original recipe. Mr. Vernor worked as a pharmacist for many years and as such he may have had access to exotic herbs and so eventually may have added stevia into his recipe, but so far I can find no verifiable source that says he actually did that or if he did them when. This sounds a bit like an urban legend mixed with a modern cookbook. 66.102.198.112 (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Zevia

I removed the following text that was recently added: In early 2007 DrinkZevia Ltd. began production of Zevia. Zevia is a Carbonated Stevia Supplement in the United States, it is purported to be the worlds first all natural alternative to diet soda. Availability is still an issue, it is a Seattle based company with limited distribution. *zevia.com

This sounded too much like advertising to me, and it seems like a company that the FDA will slap down as soon as they become aware of it. I have seen other stevia-sweetened products that the FDA has stopped; I don't know why this one should be singled out as different. I'd like to see it mentioned in the article if it's notable somehow, but I'm not seeing either notability or legality. =Axlq 05:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I put this piece of information. It is a bit like advertising, I will tone it down. I am a diabetic and came across this product and I love stevia. However as you know not much is out there except in powder form, so this was put on here to help fellow stevia supporters like myself. It is a legitimate addition to the stevia page. As for the legality of the product it is a supplement and not illegal, if you are truely a stevia supporter you will know the distinction. I will add something indicating that it is legal as a dietary supplement. Im new to Wikipedia, but love the fact that we can share and interact like this. I have tried the product Zevia and I live in Missouri, so when I was visitng Seattle is when I discovered it. They do not sell it where I live and I will not pay the high shipping cost they offer online. So I would like to get support for this product so I can see it here in Missouri. Any discussions on this or any other health or supplement issue I would love to discuss with you. Thanks for your input. Marvin Albright-Jefferson City, MO. USA

Welcome to Wikipedia. It can be tough to master the art of neutrality (one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. I encourage you to lose the mindset of being a stevia proponent when you edit this article. It takes practice. Unfortunately, your latest version is still advertising and even makes false claims, so I removed it again. Here are the problems:

• The product is still obscure. Potential notability doesn't meet the notability guidelines. There are ways the product could be notable, but it isn't, yet.
• There have been many Stevia-sweetened drinks in the past. Many have existed for years in Japan and other countries, and all of those drinks can be considered "stevia supplements" because they transport stevia into your body. Zevia is certainly not the "world's first." It isn't even first in the United States. There have been others, no longer available due to FDA actions.
• Even if it's "first" in the USA, this article isn't US-centric, this article has audiences in all English-speaking countries (UK, Australia, Singapore, etc.). It isn't appropriate to single out one obscure US product.

The only thing I can see that makes it worthy of mention is that the product is advertised as a dietary supplement to get around the FDA restriction of selling products using stevia as a food additive. Somehow I don't think that strategy will convince the FDA of its legality since it is arguably a soft drink sweetened with stevia, but time will tell.

This does lead to a contextual way to mention it. In the paragraph about the distinction between food additives and supplements, we could mention that some product manufacturers have resorted to labelling their products as a "supplement" to get around the restriction, and Zevia could be cited in a footnote.

I can understand your attraction for this product (it's attractive to me as well), but Wikipedia is not the place to "get support" for an obscure product. This isn't a forum for publicizing anything. =Axlq 02:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It has started gaining some notoriety and it is being carried in more health food stores accross the USA. It gets around the legality by calling itself a suplement and not a food. If Coca-Cola can be mentioned on here (for a product that has not been released yet), Zevia Natural Cola Carbonated Stevia Supplement can be mentioned on here too. Antmusic (talk) 06:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

When it becomes sufficiently notable that verifiable and reliable sources see fit to mention it (the Zevia web site doesn't count) then yes, it can be mentioned here too. But until then, no. The Coca-cola effort to legalize a stevia extract was covered by national news outlets, and has potential global implications, because Coca-cola plans to market it worldwide. That makes it notable. Zevia is, at the moment, of local interest only, and this article shouldn't be U.S.-centric. =Axlq (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

April 2007 GA Nomination

The article is pretty good, however I do have some suggestions before passing it as GA...

1. Intro, 1st par, 2nd sentence: As a sweetener, stevia's sweet taste has... The second sweet is redundant, please remove.
2. Intro, 2nd par, 3rd sentence: Stevia has negligible effect on blood glucose, therefore it is attractive as a natural sweetener to diabetics and others on carbohydrate-controlled diets. This is an important assertion, please provide an inline citation to avoid WP:OR or WP:A disputes.
3. History and use: please provide inline citations to important facts such as Japan currently consumes more stevia than any other country; it accounts for 40% of the sweetener market, and China is the world's largest exporter of stevioside.
4. Health controversy: please provide inline citations for quotes, including In his book Healing With Whole Foods, Paul Pitchford cautions, "Obtain only the green or brown [whole] stevia extracts or powders; avoid the clear extracts and white powders, which, highly refined and lacking essential phyto-nutrients, cause imbalance".and to this important assertion: Indeed, millions of Japanese people have been using stevia for over thirty years with no reported or known harmful effects.
5. Political controversy: These assertions : As a consequence, since the import ban in 1991, marketers and consumers of stevia have shared a belief that the sweetener industry pressured the FDA to keep stevia out of the United States and To date, the FDA has never revealed the source of the original complaint in its responses to requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act. are, as the section implies, controversial. Please provide inline citations.
6. Availability: The first paragraph should be placed in the History and use section, since it strays away from the controversy subject. The second paragraph should be left in the Political controversy section.
7. Names in other countries: The entire section lacks inline citations. Please provide where appropriate.
8. Copyedit.

Once these issues are resolved, I'd be glad to pass it for GA. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 13:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have struck out the issues above that have been addressed so far. -Amatulic 18:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

All items have now been addressed and satisified. I found additional sources beyond those requested above, too. -Amatulic 19:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Your hard work has paid off. Congrats! - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 02:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Caption on image

"Stevia can be grown legally" ... can be grown legally where? --Davidkazuhiro 09:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Anywhere. The plant itself isn't banned anywhere as far as I can determine; only edible products containing it are banned or restricted in some countries.

That image is there primarily due to peer review comments that there weren't enough images. A more meaningful caption would be desirable, if you can think of one. -Amatulic 20:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Supplement?

So is stevia actually used as a dietary supplement at all, or is it just a legal technicality that it is labeled as such in stores? It isn't known to be used as a medicinal herb or anything? --Billyjoekini 05:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It is sold in capsules, the only use of which would be a food supplement. However, I personally buy the bulk powder to use as a sweetener.

The natives of Paraguay use the herb for its medicinal properties (as described in the article), and the World Health Organization has also collected extensive research on medical uses - that is cited in the article also. =Axlq 05:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Truvia^TM Annoucement

An annoucement was just released today concerning a new sweetener product called Truvia^TM that is based on the Stevia plant. This product was developed by a cooperative effort between Cargill, Inc. and the Coca-Cola Company. Please see the link for more details.

Truvia^TM home page

--Maxjonas (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I just updated the article with this information. I also created a redirect link for Truvia to this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are interesting including new stevia based sweeteners for the US, there's actually another I recently found out about called Enliten^TM Sigh Ns (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I've been able to determine, Enliten isn't intended for the U.S. market. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a brand called Steviva that sells stevia sweetners in the US. Seen it at Walmart with Altern & Splenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Legal yet?

I bought 50lbs of protein powder (10 5lb containers) that turns out includes Stevia. I've had terrible lethargy, cramps, and have even gained body fat, even though I've been dieting on only the powder and low/no-fat breakfast cereals. I have a very difficult time working out when I'm taking it. I've used like half a dozen different powders and never had that happen before. Could stevia be causing Hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia? I always lose weight when I'm doing this protien+cereal diet and get very ripped. Anyone? Are they legally even allowed to be including this stuff in products in the U.S? -Reticuli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.139.176 (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions to clarify "unresolved questions" and "whole foods" philosophy.

As of July 27, 2008, I find the Wikipedia "Stevia" article to be a triumph of the wiki system. Virtually every other internet reference is so strongly biased "pro" or "con" as to be of little value. This is the best and I don't want to spoil this. I have only the following minor suggestions which I hesitate to implement due to my inexperience. Awaiting feedback.

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...

This is difficult to read. Some readers are likely to infer that stevia is still strongly believed to produce a mutagen, even though after being understood, this phrase certainly is implying the opposite. Also to achieve this understanding depends on fully recalling the 'mutagen' theory way up at the beginning of the previous section, without even saying so. I suggest saying the same thing but more directly: Although questions remain about the validity of early studies (as explained under "Health controversy" above) the early studies nevertheless prompted the European Commission to ban stevia's use... Krystof (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree the sentence is difficult to read. It's also awkward to put parenthetical notes in encyclopedia articles if they can be avoided. What you wrote isn't "more direct"; rather, it's more vague. The mutagenic potential, specifically, is what prompted the European Commission to ban it. It is already known that steviol can be used to form a mutagen under certain conditions. The question is, does this can happen naturally? That's what's unresolved, even though recent studies indicate mutagenic effects are not expressed in vivo or in vitro. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

...Paul Pitchford cautions, "Obtain only the green or brown [whole] stevia extracts or powders; avoid the clear extracts and white powders, which, highly refined and lacking essential phyto-nutrients, cause imbalance".[32]

I would suggest to add the clarification: However the same "whole foods" philosophy can be used equally to condemn any refined substance including vitamins, and certainly white sugar and all chemical sweeteners. While any substance is arguably "less balanced" after refinement, there is no evidence for dangers particular to the refining of stevia. Krystof (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A sentence that makes use of terms like "arguably" is personal opinion.

For over a year, that sentence originally had the following sentence after it: However, Pitchford does not support this statement with scientific evidence other than general findings about refined foods being less beneficial. That sentence was removed on the grounds that an article shouldn't argue with the sources. The revision you suggest argues with the source. What you need is a credible source that makes the argument that whole stevia has no particular advantage to refined extract. Or add text like I suggest in my comment below. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Liquid stevia usually contains grapefruit extract, which is labeled as a potent antiseptic and antibiotic. The long term ingestion of antibiotics certainly may cause imbalance to digestive flora. But I do not know of any reference source that points this out, so I suppose it can't be mentioned.... except perhaps within the context of the "whole foods" discussion:

...While any substance is arguably "less balanced" after refinement, there is no evidence for dangers particular to the refining of stevia. However liquid stevia may contain grapefruit extract, which when sold separately is labeled as an edible antibiotic. The long term ingestion of antibiotics generally can promote an imbalance to digestive flora. Powdered stevia extracts contain no such ingredient.

Krystof (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Here, you're getting into details that are interesting but start running into problems with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. We could append to that Pritchford sentence: However, no studies have indicated dangers particular to the refining of stevia. ... and leave it at that. The details about grapefruit extract really have nothing to do with the safety of stevia, especially in the context of the health controversy section. We aren't writing about other ingredients in different stevia products, we're writing about stevia. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

- - - - - - - -

From lapabc, Oct 1, 2008: Another suggestion is to simply DELETE the Pritchard statment. Frankly, it has no basis in fact. The idea that whole foods (whole plants) are superior to extracts or purified compounds is simply a belief of many (but not all) herbalists. This belief is supported by pseudo scientific arguements, but at the end of the day there is no empirical evidence to support it (with the exception of the benefits of lycopene as part of a whole or cooked tomato versus purified lycopene). However there are gobs of examples of the opposite, some coming from pro-herbalist view (e.g., extract of saw palmetto extract is better at controlling BPH than herbal saw palmetto) and anti-herbalist view (See section 3 of the following reference http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/paraherbalism.html)

I suggest is is worth keeping the Pritchard statement in because (1) so many people believe this idea, and (2) many people belive stevia has more health benefits than it being merely a sweetener and want to consume it as a nutriceutical. If Pritchard remains, it must be counterbalanced.

The current article now contains a counter-balancing statment.

- - - - - - - - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.199.3.130 (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Truvia is on shelves now in the US (Dec. 2008)

Did Truvia get approved for retail sale as a sweetener?

I thought that was all still pending with the FDA but as of December 14, 2008 Truvia packets are on shelves at my local Kroger, right alongside Splenda, Nutrasweet, table sugar, and other sweeteners. The Truvia packaging says 'Nature's Calorie-free sweetener' and mentions nothing about being limited to 'nutritional supplements' or similar wording that might allow it to be sold as a supplement. The store is following the packaging and treating it as nothing but another sweetener. In any case, I bought some and tried it. The taste and texture is rather close to sugar. I like it, however that is just my own opinion.

On a recent trip to Canada, I got the chance to try Cyclamate-based sweeteners for the first time and liked those as well. It seems the US has been stuck with inferior sweeteners for a long time while the rest of the world moved on. It is good to see this changing for the better for US consumers. Patrick AWA (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Stevia has been approved for retail sale for years, so I'm not surprised that one can find Truvia as a stand-alone product. I think the real sign it's been approved (absent any reliable source saying it's been granted GRAS status) will be Truvia's appearance as an ingredient in other food products.

Cyclamates are banned as carcinogens. The rest of the world didn't "move on" from cyclamates, the rest of the world is still stuck there. The U.S. moved on to saccharin and then aspartame. The rest of the world (such as Japan), moved on to stevia, but the U.S. didn't. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Promotional edit warring

Currently contributions has been engaging in a low-rate edit war on this article. I can see two issues of concern here:

• Deletion of properly sourced material about Cargill and Coke in the interest of "balance". It is actually less balanced to omit this material, because it was announced in major news outlets. WP:UNDUE policy is relevant here. Commercial references should be balanced in proportion to media coverage, and the article currently reflects that balance. Angusf27's earlier edits attempt to promote PureCircle by eliminating properly sourced news coverage about Coke and Cargill, and adding in statements about PureCircle without references. We need verifiable, reliable, third party sources, not primary company sources or press releases.
• Whitewashing of terminology. The fact is, the FDA did, at one time, ban stevia. The plant and its products were banned from store shelves, banned from import, banned as a food additive, and even banned as a dietary supplement. Even the sale of information about using stevia's use in food was prohibited. There is nothing negative about the word "ban". The word is both precise and accurate.

I ask Angusf27 to propose changes here on this talk page first, and provide proper rationale linked to Wikipedia policies for those changes. From this talk page we can work towards a consensus for improvement. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I note that about 9 hours ago, Angusf27 promised to discuss here but has not done so, preferring simply to revert instead. I'm happy to consider changes that are truly balanced without violating WP:UNDUE, and that have a good rationale behind them. The current version's balance reflects the weighting in the sources available. =Axlq 17:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope that 24 hours block will send a message to Angusf27, so (s)he will participate in this discussion instead of edit-warring. Ruslik (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Amatulic

1. Heavily weighting an article in favour of a particular commercial interest because 'it was announced in major news outlets ' cannot be a justification for writing a Coke/Cargill promotional article. Using this criteria I can include endless amount of material that has been reported in the trade and consumer press about rival products.

2. Media coverage cannot be the justification of fair weighting and even if it were, there are many who would completely disagree about the subjective evaluation about media coverage. For instance, PepsiCo are just about to blanket coverage and swamp Cargill coverage ( they have the resources to do so ). Does this mean that Cargill coverage should be downplayed or eliminated? Of course not. Same applies to PureCircle and PepsiCo.

3. Re. whitewashing of terminology. Please show references where this specific term is used.

4. I too am happy to work with you to achieve a fair consensus ( and it doesn't matter which company is mentioned first ) as long as the material is objective as possible.

PS New to Wiki, so please excuse activity which may have looked more disrespectful than intended.

Regards

Angusf27 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angusf27 (talk • contribs) 2009-01-06

This article does not promote any company, it merely presents history of FDA approval based on verifiable and reliable sources (i.e. major media outlets). "Consumer press", if you're referring to the thousands of self-published stevia web sites out there, are not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. "Trade press", if you're referring to primary-source press releases, aren't acceptable either. Third party sources are preferable. Please carefully review the policies regarding undue weight, verifiability, and reliable sources.

As I wrote earlier, the word "ban" is concise, accurate, and non-controversial. The word has an exact definition, and it fits the FDA's action in 1991. Google for "stevia ban" and you'll find nearly 200,000 hits, including some national news sources such as U.S. News and World Report. In fact that reference would be useful for statements about the companies involved too (Whole Earth Sweeteners, Coke, PepsiCo, etc.).

I worked hard as the primary editor who brought this article up to the status of Wikipedia:Good articles and I find it distressing to see this article devolve into whitewashing and companies competing for visibility. The anonymous editor who put PureCircle advertisements all over this article some months ago is what has caused other editors here to be perhaps overly sensitive to new emphasis on PureCircle appearing. Your recent addition to the lead, however, was fine after I reorganized it a bit. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking over the Availability section again, I can agree that there's a bit too much detail about Coke and PepsiCo. Their entries into the market are historically significant and well-supported, but I admit the article doesn't need to list all the products that are planned to be sweetened with Reb-A. That has the potential to grow into an unwieldy list. I've rearranged and trimmed down that section a bit, and deleted the list of products. =Axlq 20:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll let someone who has time figure this all out, but it looks like Cargill buys reb-a from 2 sources, one of which is PureCircle. See this and this They are reports of press releases, but that doesn't mean they aren't true. This comment might be better situated in the section about brand names, too. Sigh Ns (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)