Talk:Stevia/Archive 2

Banned in Europe?

I just today purchased a 50g quantity of powdered leaf stevia in France.  ??? 89.159.158.241 (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That's nice. As far as I know, it's still banned in Europe as a food additive. The article doesn't say it's banned totally in Europe. Have you seen it used as a sweetener in foods for sale? Or is it just available by itself? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right. I suspect though with FDA's approval of Stevia derivatives that Europe will soon follow. 89.159.158.241 (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's all about the labeling!

Both in Europe and in the USA stevia has been banned if labeled as an "additive" ("sweeteners" are additives) but permitted if labeled as a "supplement" (vitamins and non-nutritive substances). If you think that sounds crazy then read this story about how the FDA (until now)has tried to prevent any reference to stevia being called a sweetener. 66.102.198.112 (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Brand Names

I think the brand names should be removed from this article in the interest of NPOV. It seems like spam that they are appearing in the intro--Xris0 (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

They appear in the lead section because, per WP:LEAD, the lead section must summarize the rest of the article. The brands that are mentioned are mentioned because they are notable; when they were announced it made national news that major corporations were rolling out products in the face of an environment that banned them in the US.

Another editor is attempting to add an Indian brand, but so far those edits have been reverted because the cited sources are self-published web pages or 1st-party press releases, neither of which indicates sufficient notability for inclusion in this article. =Axlq 17:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Growing stevia plant

How is stevia used in cooking, beverages and recipies when home grown? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.213.155 (talk • contribs) 2006-05-03

I think this might be best covered under a different entry. This article is about the sweetener itself: what it is, what it's called, history, safety, etc. There's already a huge amount of information on the web concerning recipes, so you could always add some external links at the bottom. In my own experience, I have found stevia to be terrible for baking (you really need the structural contribution from crystalline sugar for baked things to work out), but it's very good for sweetening any liquid, whether it's a beverage or a sauce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amatulic (talk • contribs) 2006-08-01

Citation and content problems

Currently ref #1 is broken, ref #2 is a primary source repeated in a secondary journal, ref #6 does not support its related text (the reference does not even mention the name Purevia).

Additionally the entire Truvia paragraph keeps confusing the ingredient rubiana with the final marketed products Truvia (Coke) and Purevia (Pepsi). I did clean up a bit on Truvia clarifying that it was a sweetener made from a combination of erythritol and rebiana. That is from the FDA regulated labeling on the package ... How does one cite that ??? 66.102.204.136 (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like some people put malformed references in the lead section. Some of the dead links are available on archive.org, but I'd prefer a rewrite that doesn't need them. =Axlq 03:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't you just use this? Truvia ingredients It's a commercial website, but it's just a picture of the box and the ingredient statement. Also it looks like they add "natural flavors" too.Sigh Ns (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed the concerns with the references and representation thereof, and removed the tags. =Axlq 03:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Stevia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

It appears that there are some reference problems. Some, especially the first few, are poorly formatted. In addition, please address the tagged concerns of reference problems. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I fixed up the malformed citations. There is still one issue left with citation #5. The text is factual but the citation doesn't adequately support it. =Axlq 06:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by that in your last sentence? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The article had two tags, one about malformed citations and one about citations not supporting the text. I cleaned up the citation formatting and removed one tag. The talk page refers to a citation #6 that doesn't support the text (now #5 as a result of me merging two). That citation still doesn't support the text. However, the statement cited is a true and verifiable statement. I have not yet replaced citation #5 with a better one. Once that happens, it should fix the problems discussed on the talk page. I didn't have time last night (it was late) and I don't have time now (I'm going out in a couple minutes). =Axlq 18:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed the concerns about sources stated on the talk page from March 2009, and I have removed the final cite check tag from the article. The article should now be back up to GA quality again. =Axlq 03:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done This article is kept as GA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Proper Nomenclature

Per "Botany of Stevia", by A. Douglas Kinghorn, 2002, the complete name including naming authority is Stevia Rebaudiana Bertoni (not a cultivar type), but the authority is not needed when citing naming in a general article about the species. S. Rebaudiana is more than appropriate, and the authority for naming is discussed under the History and Use section of the article. S. Rebaudiana is the proper, full Latin Binomial species name. Gat0r (talk)

That's fine. However, as a consequence of your edits, the article now fails to provide the complete name anywhere in the text. Please find an appropriate place to restore it if you disagree with my edits. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The point here is that S. Rebaudiana is the full name, and that Bertoni is only needed in cases where the naming authority is unknown or in question. However, the article already discusses Bertoni under the History and Use section of the article. Other botanical articles do not include the naming authority in the way that it was previously included here. Gat0r (talk)

OK, thanks for the explanation. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for not clearing it up right away, and if I came off as arrogant in my initial edits, they were not meant to be. Gat0r (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

More promotional edit warring

We seem to be back at square one with one editor continuously pushing the Cargill view of stevia. Rebiana is not THE trade name, it is one of many. The whole tone of the article is heavily commercially skewed in favor of one commercial agenda which is undue influence. Simply continuously undoing an edit which seeks to achieve balance and fairness is PROMOTIONAL EDIT WARRING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angusf27 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we seem to be back at square one with Angusf27's attempts at promoting one company, PureCircle. Per Wikipedia policy, the article's balance reflects coverage in reliable verifiable sources, not primary sources or trade publications. Angusf27's edits exhibit the characteristics of a single purpose account that suggest a conflict of interest that should be clearly disclosed prior to editing articles here.

I have no objection to mentioning different trade names in the lead section, but the fact is that Coke/Cargill and Pepsi made national news with their announcements, whereas PureCircle didn't. It is appropriate to discuss the companies and suppliers in the body of the article, but the lead section should summarize the key points of the article. PureCircle doesn't need a mention in the lead for the same reason we don't need to mention the names of every stevia farmer: They are suppliers to notable companies, and those notable companies are what gets mentioned. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the obviously commercially biased response Amatulic. Rebiana is not THE trade name for Reb A, it is A trade name as is PureVia. PureCircle made news all over the world including significantly more coverage than Coke/Cargill. Curious that as representing a broker, you believe that you have a right to exclusively promote and obviously advance your commercial agenda here on a site which should be unbaised and informational. PureCircle supplies more Reb A than the rest of the world suppliers put together. Verifiable and auditable FACT. You are not the gatekeeper of 'notable' and simply continuously reverting text to your preferred commercial stance is edit warring. I have asked my colleague to apply to send this article to arbitration. I believe that Amatulic edits exhibit the characteristics of a single purpose account that suggest a conflict of interest that should be clearly disclosed prior to editing articles here and my colleague will be applying for the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angusf27 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no association with Coke, Cargill, Pepsi, or anything else related, as is obvious to anyone who bothers to look at my user page. I happen to work for a defense company, a totally unrelated undustry.

I repeat: I have no problem mentioning PureCircle in the body of the article, but it is not necessary to mention suppliers to the major product outlets (Coke and Pepsi) in the lead section. We don't mention GLG either (one of Cargill's suppliers - see ref 2) for the same reason.

You have presented zero evidence of PureCircle making news "all over the world". The past times you have discussed anything here, it was to claim coverage in primary sources, press releases, and such sources aren't adequate for "worldwide coverage". You have offered sources in the past but have not yet provided them.

Who is your "colleague"? Why do you need someone else to initiate arbitration for you? What exactly is your association with PureCircle? Why are all the edits from your account solely dedicated to adding exposure to PureCircle?

Try to learn exactly what a single purpose account is. Look at my editing history, and you will see participation in a wide variety of articles and topics. Look at your editing history, and all one sees is attempts to increase exposure for PureCircle.

If you want to go to arbitration, knock yourself out. The article is balanced according to the coverage from verifiable, reliable, 3rd-party sources.

I also have no argument with you concerning trade names. I also don't like the fact that the article claims Rebiana to be the trade name; but at the time that claim was added to the article, that's what the available sources said. Propose some alternative text here, and we'll word-smith it and add it into the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Sun Crystals"

So there's a new Sugar Cane / Stevia combination product called "Sun Crystals" out. One mention of it has already been removed as vandalism, which is... odd, as other Stevia derivatives (Truvia, PurVia, etc) are mentioned in the article. Would a citation for Sun Crystals be helpful to the article? KiTA (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, for the same reasons we don't mention Zevia. See the discussion on Zevia above. =Axlq 23:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Stevia causes diarrhea

I have tried Stevia twice. Both times it has caused diarrhea. This seems to be a common side effect. Should it be added to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandboxer (talk • contribs) 20:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

if you can find a wp:rs for it, then yes.--UltraMagnus (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Dan Quinn

Professional fighter, youtube maniac, this man is stevia's biggest proponent. He is famous on all mixed martial arts and maybe boxing forums for his insane videos claiming stevia cures cancer, tumours, melts obesity from the human body etc, whilst calling out other fighters to prove what it did for him.

Whether or not you find him funny, he is famous the internet over for his youtube rants, and should be mentioned. He certainly raised a lot of awareness in the fighting world, including getting famous UFC welterweight contender Diego Sanchez to declare his support in a video with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.9.63 (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Commercial Derivatives

Why is it that we have the trade names and details for sweeteners made from Stevia in the lead section at all? It would seem that specifics of commercial products derived from the actual subject of the article would be in a subsection. Am I mistaken in this thinking? Gat0r (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you aren't mistaken. However, the trade names appeared there originally because the announcements from Coke and Pepsi made national news. I think it would be enough to say in the lead that there are commercially-available sources of products sweetened with substances derived from stevia. =Axlq 20:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised to see the commercial products there. They should not be in the lead section. 92.78.239.139 (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, after seeing someone add yet another product to the lead section, I have deleted them all. I have modified the prior lead paragraph to explain that stevia can now be sold commercially as a sweetener, not just a nutritional supplement. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Good call, unless any of the individual products are notable then they probably shouldn't be mentioned. Smartse (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Coke and Pepsi products are still described in the body of the article. That's fine with me. I am concerned that such mentionings, however, will devolve into an unmaintainable list. Perhaps a branch article List of stevia-based sweeteners might be appropriate to have someday. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

2 year test in France

Hi, this is my first Wiki post. There is a "citation needed" just before note [21]. I don't have a citation for the 2 year test in France, but here is a link for the fact that it is banned in the E.U.: http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/imports/banned_restricted/stevioside That page says: "....But stevia and stevioside and food products containing them are not allowed to be sold in the UK or the rest of the EU. This is because they did not pass EU safety assessments. So you cannot import any food products or supplements containing stevia or stevioside."

Eyestrayn (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Please post new comments at the bottom of talk pages.

Thanks for the link. I find it odd that "EU safety assessments" are mentioned, yet I haven't seen any such safety assessments. As far as I know the EU simply reviewed literature available and came to one conclusion. The WHO did that also more recently in 2006, using more recent information, and came to a different conclusion.

If we can't find sources about a 2 year trial in France, then perhaps that line should be deleted from the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Citations added Makyen (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Reorganize Availability, commercialization, production

I formatted the Availability section such that it is easier to see what is approved where. There are several countries that appear to have approval, but I did not have the time to dig for what was really approved in each country (Leaf, all extracts, Stevioside, or rebaudioside A, as a food additive, or as a dietary supplement). If someone has the information, putting unknown countries in the appropriate category would be helpful.

I moved some paragraphs that were in Availability into a new section called Commercialization. The paragraphs did not actually fit under Availability. However, there is a considerable amount of Commercialization information under "History and use" and in other sections.

I also added sub-sections to the "production" section as it currently only talks about the production of rebaudioside A and the National Research Council of Canada patented process. There appear to be multiple patented processes for producing rebaudioside A. These should be mentioned. At least a brief mention of Stevioside production and plant production should be included. I am out of time for this (should have stopped quite some time ago). Makyen (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that organization.

The production section should cover not only how steviols are extracted, but how the plant is cultivated and harvested. I think this article could go to "featured" status if it had that level of completeness. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a production section should cover everything from cultivation to end products (leaf & extracts). Leaving section headings hanging without any content was something I really did not like. I had intended to add some content from the cites, but ran way out of time. It is better with the more appropriate single heading you put in. Hopefully we will get more content such that a "production" section is appropriate. Thanks for cleaning up after me there and elsewhere.Makyen (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Split?

Should this be two articles, one about the genus (maybe a stub), the other about S. rebaudiana? The one about the species would be titled either Stevia rebaudiana (with "Stevia" redirecting to it) or just "Stevia", noting that most uses of the word refer to this species. The article is almost entirely about one member of the genus. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've thought of that myself. The article actually has 3 topics: the genus, the specific member S. rebaudiana, and the sweet extracts. In common usage, "stevia" refers to both the plant S. rebaudiana as well as the sweetener extract. I'd have no problem splitting things, but at the moment there isn't really enough to warrant separate articles. Perhaps, it may be enough to have separate sections in this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

This was a misnomer subject title in the article and was highlighting a bias that didn't actually exist in the content as written. I've restructured accordingly. 211.28.60.149 (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I concur with the most recent edit of removing the controversial label in the lead section. It is not controversial for the FDA to say something has to be sold as a supplement rather than a food. There are thousands of such substances. In fact, a majority of health supplements cannot be sold as food. 211.28.60.149 (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the restructuring.

I disagree that the controversial label should be removed. The FDA's actions pertaining to stevia were controversial. They first banned it, contradicting their own principles governing GRAS status, allegedly in response to industry pressure. They resorted to burning books and publications about stevia (see the Nexus article cited). They only permitted it to be sold as a supplement after Congress enacted legislation requiring them to do so. Just about every source one can find covering that period undeniably describes a controversy; therefore, this article should call a spade a spade. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that controversial in the US translates to controversial on the whole. 350 words is a lot of space for one country. I confess openly my ignorance about wiki-policy on this. Should the article lean towards what's going on in the US or on the whole? The substance was never controversial in many countries. It seems the politicking that went on in the US is in the process of passing and might well fade into obscurity (that's my speculation of course). Either way, can you point me to some wikipedia guidelines on internationalisation.

Thanks for the Nexus article. It's a great read. 211.28.60.149 (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Insofar as the political controversy is suspected of being originated by multinational corporations intent on protecting commercial artificial sweeteners sold worldwide, I would say that the controversy applied worldwide. Even 350 words "for one country" isn't too much when that "one country" was the world's largest economy at the time. Due to the sheer size of the sweetener market in the US, the ramifications of any political decision the FDA makes affect other countries also. Because stevia isn't grown in the US, the FDA's decision to ban stevia certainly affected those countries wanting to export their stevia into the US, effectively banning those countries from accessing a huge sweetener market. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know I read your reply and appreciate it. 211.28.60.149 (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Companies

Perhaps we should have a reference to companies in the stevia business, so that investors can look at options. One I know of is SUNWIN INTL NEUTRACL(OTC BB: SUWN.OB)but would like to know of others. JIMGGGG (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Such a list is more appropriate to a category (for example Category:Stevia producers). It would be inappropriate to mention non-notable companies in this article. If a company is notable enough to warrant its own article on Wikipedia, then the category is a good way to generate a list of such companies. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

How it became safe

I heard that Coke make a Coke with Stevia in it and the FDA fined them for it and told them to remove it. Coke however kept selling it which eventually led to FDA just deciding it was safe. Anyone know anything about this? --24.103.173.3 (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't heard about this. If you find any references, let us know. Coca cola has produced stevia-sweetened products in Japan for years. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall hearing about any fines or even a warning letter-there is a list of warning letters issued by the FDA online. I tried to explain this in a previous discussion which is archived.

Backstory-If I recall, Coke or maybe Pepsi may have released their product a short time, like a day or two, before FDA officially GRAS aproved it via "no objection letter" but because there were safety studies submitted prior to that, they could reasonably call it self-affirmed GRAS--the whole system is difficult to understand without a lawyer. But here's a similar approval process with some explanation of the process. http://www.foodingredientsfirst.com/product-by-sector/Starch-Sugar-Sweeteners/Sunwin-and-WILD-Flavors-Inc-Announce-Self-GRAS-Affirmation-for-OnlySweet-Stevia-Extracts.htmlSigh Ns (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?

This article seems to be completely one-sided. I hadn't heard of Stevia until I read this article, and reading this I was astounded that anyone would ban Stevia... actually the one-sided treatment made me skeptical, so a simple Google "dangers of previa" finds a number of concerns about health hazards not even mentioned here, including studies in 2006 about birth defects and reproductive harm (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619379) and supported in this 2009 article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19000919). There are websites online like http://safety.lovetoknow.com/Dangers_of_Stevia that seem to be more neutral on the topic. 98.207.134.23 (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Many sweeteners, not just stevia, have concerns with respect to pregnant mothers. This is nothing new, and is not controversial. However, you have grossly misrepresented the two articles you cite. The 2006 study suggested a fertility reduction in male rats. The 2009 study is all about therapeutic benefits. Nothing about birth defects. That "Dangers of Stevia" site does not appear to be an authoritative source.

The safety issues addressed in the article relate to the FDA's ban of stevia, and the studies that instigated that ban. Your personal astonishment isn't relevant here; the ban is a well-known historical fact.

The "Safety" section used to be called "Health controversy" until somebody changed it today. The original heading was a more accurate description of that section, in my opinion.

The article pretty much stops where the World Health Organization performed an exhaustive survey of the studies performed up to that time and declared it safe. If you can find further valid references for the claims you make, please post them. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I removed mention of all countries other than Japan from what was a list of countries in which stevia is "widely used". There is a BIG distinction between "widely used" and "widely available". We have no information as to how widely stevia is used other than in Japan. In Japan it is 40% of the sweetener market. That is "widely used". For the other countries, lets get some data to back up any such statement. Of the countries that were listed in the lead, Switzerland, Australia, and New Zealand approved the use of stevia extracts less than 2 years ago. Unless there has been a massive push to switch to stevia in those countries then there just has not been time enough for stevia to be "widely used". Unless we have statistics to back up such statements about other countries then we should not be stating it. If we don't state it in the main article then we should not have it in the lead. The lead is supposed to be an intro to, and summary of, the article.Makyen (talk) 10:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed "Whole foods" (herbs)

There was a paragraph under "Health Concerns" which, from the cites, appeared to be bringing up a controversy about an herbalist who is using stevia for some unspecified type of natural healing who wanting to use only the whole leaf, not an extract. The cites were not clear as to what was really at issue, the article text appeared biased, and the issue appeared to not be what was actually covered in the text included in the article. It also appeared to be a fringe issue only vaguely related to stevia. Makyen (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Over the years I've been watching and editing this article, the controversy around that bit seems to have gotten lost. Originally that "whole foods" part was in the article to present an alternative explanation as to why laboratory studies of stevia extracts may show harmful effects (because the whole plant wasn't used; if those doggone experimenters would just use the whole plant their results might be different). However, in the spirit of the WP:UNDUE policy, it makes little sense to devote any space to that viewpoint, so I have no problem with its removal. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Further, even if the whole plant is safe(r), it's then even more relevant since many uses of the plant will be/are extracts and derivative products. It doesn't do a consumer much good if the whole is safe but the extract in their soda is not; well, you know what I mean. It's even better if they're both safe, and seems a stronger proof if even the derivatives are unproblematic. 69.142.154.10 (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Jon Kyl

The quote from Jon Kyl ID'ed him as a Congressman, when he is in fact a Senator. However, much more importantly, when I looked at the source, it appeared to have come from an herbal online store. This is not a reliable source; the quote should ideally be attributed to the letter itself if available online, or to a better secondary source than a site that makes money off of the product whose safety was in question. 98.204.97.78 (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I am restoring the quote. Jon Kyl was a congressman at the time he wrote it. The letter itself isn't available online, and there is no requirement to source only what's online. There are other sources referencing this letter; the herbal article was just one. It is a perfectly legitimate fact to mention in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

structural representation

In the history and use section, the general structure presented as a figure - which itself is not named in the figure caption - is very poorly presented: the absolute stereochemical information is clumsily worked into the figure, and is probably incorrect (the methyl group at one fusion point in the decalin substructure should be on the other face, the "alpha" face for this representation), and moreover there is no indication of the stereochem. at the other fusion point in the decalin substructure

also the entire structure is canted several degrees clockwise from the standard representation

it's a diterpene, it's related to the steroids (looks more "gibberellin-ish", or "kaurine-ish"), and there are standard ways of drawing these things —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.100.134 (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

CSPI source dispute

Makyen's reverts of the UCLA toxicologists' letter opposing GRAS approval, calling it "biased" and non-notable are absolutely meritless. The accusation that adding balance to this article, rather than allowing it to remain pro-stevia propaganda, is also ludicrous. Makyen can't make UCLA's toxicologists irrelevant.

Furthermore, I have no idea where the "self-published" reference thing comes from. I cited the Center for the Public Interest (CSPI)'s letter to the FDA per the opinions of UCLA toxicologists that GRAS approval is premature due to a lack of testing on mice among other things. To call that "not notable" and "biased" is highly suspicious. As for the other citation, that was already in the article under "Safety", trying to be a source that promoted stevia as safe. The irony is that like six studies, according to that very information that was mentioned, found problems. The euphemistic tone of "mildly mutagenic" and the like in this article also reeks of spin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.250.157 (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If you find biased language, by all means copyedit the text to correct it.

"Self published" means that the document is coming from a primary source, from their own web site. That letter isn't peer reviewed, and it hasn't received coverage in reliable secondary sources, as required by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. We don't cite press releases for the same reason.

I reverted your recent change. CSPI found six studies. There are many more studies that find no evidence of problems. It would be far better to cite the actual studies than to cite a letter from a minor US organization, provided such studies represent current scientific consensus. CSPI is certainly not as notable as the World Health Organization (already cited in the article), which has performed a comprehensive review of the studies performed on stevia, far more comprehensive than the six studies CSPI sampled. The WHO's findings, therefore, represent scientific consensus far more than CSPI's letter. You are not adding balance to this article by giving WP:UNDUE weight to a minority viewpoint. At most, this deserves a single sentence saying that some studies indicate health concerns, and I believe the article does that already. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with Amatulić's points - if a peer reviewed study has found it is unsafe then this can be included, if not then it shouldn't be. Smartse (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Amatulic on all the above points.

I am also quite happy to have additional negative information included in the article if it is given appropriate weight and has appropriate references.

24.210.250.157, prior to reverting your edits the first time, I read the references you sited. The facts that the valid ones did not agree with the text you added and that most of the text you added was based on the CSPI letter, which is not a valid reference, were the reasons I reverted your edits.

I should have referred you to WP:UNDUE and WP:SELFPUBLISH instead of stating that they were not notable.

In the comment on the Steviol glycoside reversion I also took into account that your edits were made from a generic IP account which had almost no history of edits on Wikipedia prior to very similar edits to both the Stevia and Steviol glycoside articles. Combining both the generic IP and the type of edits with the facts that the valid references provided stated the opposite of your text and that a self-published reference was the primary basis of the text written, I considered it probable that the edits were coming from a biased, or self-interested, source. Given your willingness to discuss this on the talk page, I consider that less likely.

You sited two actual studies as supporting stevia being bad for you. I have not read the entire studies as obtaining them costs money. However, prior to reverting your edits I did read the abstracts of both sited studies and the CSPI letter that you referenced. The abstracts for both of the studies support a positive view of stevia. One states: "The conclusion is that Stevia and stevioside are safe when used as a sweetener." The other states: "Application of a Weight-of-Evidence approach to assess the genetic toxicology database concludes that these substances do not pose a risk of genetic damage following human consumption."

As has been stated, the CSPI letter is not a reasonable reference. The meta-study which CSPI commissioned could be a valid reference if it is published in a peer-reviewed journal. Having read the meta-study, it does make reasonable arguments for additional long term studies using mice. Six of the 31 studies included in the carcinogenic portion of the meta-study were on mice; none of them showed carcinogenic results. On the other hand, none of them were multi-generational. Quite frankly, having multi-generation studies using multiple different species is a very good idea for almost anything. As an example, the studies submitted to the FDA for approval of sucralose (Splenda) show major reproductive issues in multi-generational studies on rabbits.

Even assuming that the meta study, for which the CSPI contracted, is published in a 3rd party journal, It does not merit mention in the lead. The lead already mentions that there are health concerns. This meta-study is not sufficient to merit placement in the lead on its own. Having it in the lead does introduce bias to the article.

It should also be noted that the results of the meta-study were mixed. For instance it found that the NOAEL (No observed adverse effect level) of rebaudioside A for Han-Wistar rats to be approximately 1,000 times the current recommended maximum dosage for humans. In addition, it should be noted that the urging to have mice studies is primarily based on the fact that 6 of the 800 substances in the National Toxicology Program database of Cancer Bioassays Conducted in Mice and Rats showed no evidence in rats but clear evidence in mice. All of those 6 studies were from the 1970's and 1980's.

I almost always agree that performing more studies is a good thing. There have been many things that have been initially found to be acceptable and later found to be bad. This is particularly true of sweeteners where the profit motive is so strong. Most, if not all, sweeteners have potential negative effects, some very negative. For instance, sugar (the 50% of sugar which is fructose) is actually a non-acute poison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makyen (talk • contribs) 20:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Corporations are camping in Stevia topics

They're reverting edits that add information about the remaining questions concerning its safety, such as questions posed by UCLA toxicologists and the Center for Science in the Public Interest. They're removing the very cited sources that were already in the article trying to propagandize for Stevia if the same sources point out that there are, for instance, six studies that found mutagenic properties.

This is really sad for Wikipedia, although it's been documented already how corporations are tailoring content here to try to make money. Pretending that UCLA's toxicologists are so irrelevant that they can't even be included in this article is beyond specious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.250.157 (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The only way this article is justified for Good Article status is if even the modicum of balance I added is retained. I asked for a GA review, but that continues to be reverted, too. Sad.

Hold on a sec, gonna spit through to the history to find out what happened Yoenit (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That does not appear to be correct. You did not ask for a review, and there is no record of you doing so here: [1]. You removed the Article History template from the article's talkpage and you twice removed the article from the List of good Articles. That does not consitute asking for a review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you must really suck at reading, as your actions are nowhere near the instructions on Good article reassesment. Yoenit (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, 24.210.250.157 has failed to address the concerns written in great detail in the section above, explaining why his edits keep getting reverted, and why they do not add "balance". Edit warring in the article and on this talk page will not solve anything. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Availability

In the European Union stevia is not completely banned. It is banned in the form of stevioside extract, or as a food additive. But it is available as food supplement or herb (its dried leaves). The plant itself is also legal to grow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.45.138 (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Names in Other Countries

An incorrect translation of the terms used for stevia in punjabi (listed under india) names it as 'guurmaar' (sugar-killer), this designation is INCORRECT, guurmaar (or gurmar, aka sugar-killer) is an ayurvedic name for a a woody-shrub native to the foothills of the himalayas (http://www.flowersofindia.net/catalog/slides/Gurmar.html). The extract of this plant is not sweet (it is very bitter) nor is it a sugar substitute, it is use to block glucose from entering the blood stream; it binds with sugar receptors on the tongue and the digestive tract, blocking glucose entering the blood stream. It is in this capacity that it was used to treat diabetes in ancient times (by moderating the entry of glucose into the blood stream). Gurmar is not sweet, in fact, because it binds/block sugar receptors even on the tongue, it prevents a person from tasting sweetness for at 45 minutes after consumption. The translation for punjabi was erroneous, the correct term used in punjabhi is 'madhu-pattha' (sweet-leaf). I have made the relevant correction.24.200.55.244 (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that correction. I recall the original Indian-language terms came from an Indian magazine or newspaper article that isn't cited. An Indian friend of mine verified the Telugu and one other term, but not the Punjabi term. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

FDA approval of other stevia extracts

I reverted a statement saying "Stevia Extracts meeting WHO JECFA specification at 95% have been permitted as a food additive sweetener by the FDA since August 2009.<ref name="FDA GRAS Notice 287"/>

First of all, no actual citation was provided. I found this while searching for GRAS Notice 287, which states at the end "The agency has not, however, made its own determination regarding the GRAS status of the subject use of SG-RS." The notice 287 appears to acknowledge Wisdom Natural's self-determination of GRAS status.

In other words, the FDA has not determined GRAS. I see nothing where the FDA actually grants permission for anything. The FDA simply acknowledges Wisdom's intent to use reb-a and stevioside as sweetener food additives, and neither prohibits nor permits.

I have no problem including some sort of statement saying that stevioside extracts can be used as sweeteners. It needs to state more than "WHO JECFA" jargon, and explain instead that the FDA had no questions concerning Wisdom's self-affirmation of GRAS. Please suggest some alternative wording. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have also twice now reverted an unsourced statement giving the date as March 2008. Let's see the source. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Cultivation

This article does not contain any information about the cultivation of the Stevia plant. This would be a good addition to the article. F3meyer (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The article does not describe why the sweetness of the stevia plant benefits it in some evolutionary way and its sweetness might even be a negative evolutionary feature if it causes animals to consume the plant. The article lacks descriptions of the plant's growth, physical stem and branching structure, type of leaves, and even the type of flowers it has. The article is substantially more about the processed extract used as a sugar substitute instead of the plant.AnimeJanai (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The article reflects the information available, and that information consists predominantly of information about the extract, which is really the only thing that makes this plant notable. If you can find information about cultivation, evolution, etc., feel free to add a section or propose something here. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Plant or extract

This sentence is ambiguous:

• The availability of stevia varies from country to country.

Are we talking about the natural range of the plant, or restrictions on growing it? Maybe what we mean is the availability of the sweet extract of the plant, and what laws govern this extract. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The context seems to be neither, but rather the restrictions on selling products containing stevia (the plant or its extracts). ~Amatulić (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Article makes too much of "prohibition"

The way the article is written, it makes it sound as if stevia is clandestine over some vast part of the world. In truth though, as you read through it, virtually every country allows its sale one way or another; it's just a bureaucratic wrinkle. I looked up the source for the Hong Kong prohibition (which seems odd, since China is listed as allowing it) and it says it's not on a list of approved artificial sweeteners... but that doesn't mean, again, there isn't some other category. That same source seemed to indicate it was approved in Singapore, the other country listed as prohibiting it. I find myself skeptical that there is actually any country prohibiting it. I mean yes, I know, under the crooked Bush administration the aspartame patent-holders managed to get it banned in the U.S. for three years by making the FDA misapply the law, but I think that the taint this American perspective put on the herb is surely massively exaggerated. Getting your competitors' products declared unsafe, and getting your own product declared unsafe once the patent expires, is part of the routine functioning of intellectual property law. Wnt (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Having been to Singapore many times, I can attest that Singapore actively prohibits it. One time I was there, it was all over the news how Singapore turned back a Japanese cargo ship full of food because it was "tainted" with Stevia.

Also, the ban on stevia is part of what makes the extract notable, so it makes sense for the article to devote some focus to it -- especially since, at the time of the ban, the US was the world's largest market for sweeteners, and since the US doesn't produce stevia, this ban affected other countries who would export it to the US. In that sense, the "American perspective" you see is not exaggerated. The article describes stevia-related topics roughly in the proportion to what reliable sources describe.

This has nothing to do with intellectual property law; I'm puzzled why you would bring that up. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not Really Animal Research

The section that contains this "fact" should be removed: Animal research suggests that stevia may have a function in treating osteoporosis. For example, adding powdered stevia leaf to chicken feed can reduce eggshell breakage by 75%.[20]

First, there is no link to the animal research that suggests stevia can help treat osteoporosis. Just because it may help reduce eggshell breakage does not mean it can be used to treat osteoporosis.

Second, the source that is quoted is a U.S. patent, which is meaningless. You can patent things that don't work or that aren't scientifically accurate. They just have to be unique, not feasible. So, unless a better source (i.e., an actual scientific research article) can be found, this section should be removed.

Third, I looked through the patent material and (even if it was a valid source of scientific data) didn't see any mention of a reduction of 75%. What I saw was a reduction to 2% or 3%, but it was ambiguous about whehter these numbers were the reduction in breakage or the overall breakage rate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.147.35 (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

First: The patent itself doesn't address osteoporosis (and I agree it's original research to associate it that way), but the second source about pigs is completely about osteoporosis. I have no problem removing the mention of osteoporosis since the research itself is interesting enough to include.

Second: A patent can be a reliable source if the research and results are documented in the patent, as is the case here. The text of the patent contains more than just "here's an unexplained solution to a problem." Furthermore, I'd venture that most patents granted for industrial processes don't have accompanying publications in research journals because the researchers are not academics, they work in industry, and have no motivation to publish academically.

Third: The patent clearly states that the normal breakage rate for eggs is 10% to 15%, which was reduced to 2% to 3% by the addition of stevia in the feed. This translates to a reduction in the rate of breakage of 70%-87%. The end of the document states that the average breakage rates were 12.35% and 2.873% respectively (a 77% reduction) so the claim of 75% is not unreasonable. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Remove Section About Pigs and Calcium

The follwing statement should be removed: Pigs fed stevia extract were observed to have increased calcium content in their meat.[20]

The reference is to a website that makes the following statement regarding the information presented here: "They also state in their marketing materials for their company (JBB Stevia Laboratory/B&L corporation) that pigs that had a little Stevia-extract in their food had double as much Calcium-content in their meat than other pigs."

This is marketing materials being repeated here as if it were acutal scientific research, and that's clearly not the case. Suggest removing this statement unless a reliable source (i.e., one that doesn't depend on patents or marketing material) can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.147.35 (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Too Pro Stevia

If you're not diabetic, why would you want increased insulin sensitivity? And I can tell you from first hand experience, I've had two whey protein powders I've purchased (Phoenix, and then just a few days ago Pro Advantage from Costco) that I did not know contained the stuff and made me terribly sick before discoveringi it. Today I just looked on the second one trying to figure out why on earth I again feel like this... yep, Stevia. And yet it says elsewhere on the label it's just sweetened with fructose. Phssh. What's the point of adding real sugar if they put this junk in it? Mystery solved again. Abdominal cramps. Aches in the head. Fatigue. No fever. No sore throat. It's not the flu, it rather feels like someone spiked me with their diabetes treatment needle. -Reticuli 66.178.144.76 (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

First, this sounds like a potential medical problem for which you should consider seeking advice from a doctor.

The article is not too pro stevia. It is about stevia. You may, or may not, be sensitive to stevia. The reality is that, at least, a small portion of the population will be sensitive to almost any substance.

This is not a forum. Discussions here should center around the content of the article. However, I will briefly address your comments because I believe just leaving them hanging, without any comment, is ultimately more detrimental to the article than briefly addressing them.

You should be concerned about insulin sensitivity for many reasons. It has been tied to many medical issues and been shown to be a significant contributor to aging. I suggest you research it.

Your issues with the whey protein powders you mention sound like they could be a sensitivity to a substance contained in them. However, assuming that it is stevia is inappropriate. If it were me, I would certainly experiment to determine exactly that A)It really was these powders that caused me the problem and B)exactly what substance it was within the powders that caused me the problem. It is much more likely to be some other substance, in particular fructose, within the powder which is causing your problem. Without experimenting, using pure forms of each substance, you are just assuming that the problem is stevia. It is also possible that your symptoms were not actually from the powders, or that it was some other substance in the powders. Keep an open mind and do not make assumptions.

Fructose malabsorption is a significant issue that affects 30% to 40% of the population of Central Europe (only area for which a % number is given) with 15% to 20% of the total population exhibiting symptoms similar to those you describe. Given that this is probably 10 to 1,000 times higher, or more, than those which are sensitive to stevia, I would certainly investigate this possibility first. It is also possible that you have Hereditary fructose intolerance.

It should also be noted that fructose has many other negative effects which you might want to research. Some resources are fructose#Health effects and Sugar: the Bitter Truth (a lecture which goes into a significant amount of biochemistry, but is good for most audiences).

Makyen (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. One powder contained fructose (the Costco one), the other (Phoenix Labs) did not. So it wasn't that. Drinking juice doesn't make me sick. And this happened months apart with identical symptoms. Each time as if someone had given me a chemical laxative, or something, along with associated insulin-like abnormalities. And very quickly after ingesting it. Optimum Nutrition (with aspartame... though I didn't want any artificial sweeteners) never caused that. Dymatize Elite never caused that. So it's not whey. It's not fructose. And like I said, I did not know the Costco one had it in there... so essentially this was blinded. It was after I got ill from it in exactly the same way as the other powder I'd returned like 8 tubs of (never had issues with whey powders before, so I bought enough Phoenix to get free shipping), that I checked the fine print. It said sweetened with fructose in large letters elsewhere on the Costco whey's label, so I just assumed it had no weird sweeteners. Other than stevia and whey, those were the only commonalities with the leftover tub in the basement. I kept the Pheonix Labs stuff for a while before sending it back, since it was all these 5lb tubs. Going off it for a while, then back on to see what would happen. No doubt it was that. I'm not sure what going to the doctor would do. I doubt in an allergy test they're even capable of testing for it and it cleared up within a day or so of not drinking them anymore. You know, something else that would do something similar to me (without the non-digestive issues) was Sierra Mist, before they changed the formula to be more "natural". I wonder if that had it or a chemical similar to it in there. I’ll take a Sprite. “Is Sierra Mist alright?” Nope, hun. It’s not. -Reticuli 66.178.144.169 (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, this talk page isn't really the place for this discussion. I suggest asking a question on the proper forum, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science, but be sure to frame it as a question about adverse reactions to things you have consumed, and not as a question seeking medical advice, or your question will be removed.

I'll just say that a real test would be to go out and buy some pure stevia extract (and I mean pure, not mixed with expanders or fillers; 1/3 teaspoon of pure stevia powder has equivalent sweetening power to 1 cup of sugar). Mix a small amount in some water or juice (lemon juice and water with stevia makes a good lemonade), drink it, and see what happens. I'm not recommending you do so, but it seems that you may be attributing an allergic reaction to stevia when many other ingredients in the products you consume may be causing the reaction. The only way to really test it is to test it in isolation. I'll point out that protein allergies are the world's most common food allergies (primarily casein from dairy and gluten from wheat, but it's also possible to develop allergic reactions to whey), so what you're experiencing may be due to that. Over-consumption of anything can lead to a reaction. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll say, although Reti didn't seem to make a good case for it, it does seem to be rather pro-stevia. There seem to be unmentioned renal effects, as well as possible negative effects on fertility, language in the article seems to suggest a positive stance, and disagreements between those skeptical of stevia's safety and those in favor of its use are generally presented in a way that demonstrates the basis for proponents' positions, but give no justification for the concerns. Mrsmooth27 (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If you, or anyone else, feels that there should be more text mentioning other issues, then put them in the article (WP:BOLD). Back up the statements with appropriate citations to relevant medical studies. Individual, anecdotal evidence is inappropriate (obviously). While there might be editors which would desire an article with a positive slant, I have not seen anyone actively editing out negative information which was appropriately cited. Both positive and negative information which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry (i.e. unsupported by references) has been removed from time to time. There has been a tendency for the article to slant more positively as the body of medical evidence has become more positive, or negative studies effectively refuted. Makyen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC).

GRAS Aproval

Isn't it kind of interesting it gets approved just as soon as Coca-Cola starts using it? Wouldn't there have to be more to this? --24.94.251.19 (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

What more would there be? Rebaudioside-A extract got GRAS because Coca Cola and Cargill applied for it after investing their resources to develop an extraction method. It had fairly broad news coverage at the time. If you're hinting at some sort of conspiracy, you'd have to find reliable sources about that before we could put it in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Availability in Singapore

There is some confusion regarding how to categorize Singapore's position on stevia.

On one hand, the article cites old source from 10 years ago describing stevia as banned.[2]

On the other hand, we have personal observation of seeing it sold in stores[3] as well as an organization of stevia producers based in Singapore[4] as well as this source claiming "Official approval of Stevia in Singapore is already a fact" as of January 2009, but with no supporting link.

Unfortunately, the regulatory agencies are really difficult to search; I couldn't find anything on the subject of stevia, one way or another, on http://www.ava.gov.sg/ which I thought would be the regulating body.

Due to the above, I think we should categorize the legality in Singapore as "uncertain" for now. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Update: I found this legislation from 2005, which specifies the amount of steviol glycoside permitted in food for sale in Singapore. So it does appear to be permitted after a fashion. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, companies are actively marketing stevia into Singapore. [5] The 2002 ban was a one-time affair aimed at specific Japanese products for a limited time.  Jabbsworth  01:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is the latest list of banned and prohibited foodstuffs and additives in Singapore [6]. Stevia is not on it. Case closed? It's not banned anywhere.  Jabbsworth  01:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a major generalization to go from "not banned in Singapore" to "not banned anywhere". Our list still shows that it is not available as a sweetener in Canada. If you have a ref that it has been approved in Canada, please provided it.

BTW: why are you even re-opening this topic? Could you not read Amatulic's October 3rd comment (right above your's) that shows that it is permitted? Your comment totally ignored the fact that the issue was already settled; you are merely re-stating that it is settled a month and a half late. Makyen (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's available in Canada as a supplement. Show me where the importation of it in foods is banned. Soon a lot of product from US and EU will contain it ... you think any prohibitions will last? But anyhow, where are the .gov.ca links to a ban? Should be easy to show.  Jabbsworth  08:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

EU approval

I moved the EU from banned to allowed food addtive since steviol glycosides have been approved for food use. --130.89.85.35 (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. It is slightly premature to move this to approved. The regulation does not go into effect until 20 days after it was published. The publication date was November 12, 2011. The effective date will be December 2, 2011. It is inappropriate for an encyclopedia to state that it is approved prior to it actually being approved. Doing so would also open up potential legal liability.

When moved, the portion on the EU will also need to be edited. Some of the information may be appropriate in the notes section. We will also need to check that we are not duplicating information, or spreading out connected material, in multiple sections of the article.

Makyen (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The EU approval belongs in the article, in the lede and in the body. Period.  Jabbsworth  00:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the fact that stevia has been approved as a sweetener in the EU belongs in the body of the article. I thought I was clear that my objection to the edit I reverted was that the edit was factually wrong. However, the edit I reverted stated that it is available now. It is not available now as a sweetener. It will be available as a sweetener, but is not yet legal. This may be a nit. But, it is merely a question of fact. There is no good reason for this entry to be factually wrong merely because one, or more, people don't want to wait 10 days before changing a verb tense.

As to it being appropriate to have EU approval in the lead:

We have had edit skirmishes as to putting different countries/political entities in the lead. If we put in a few, it tends to keep growing as people put in their personally important political entity where it is approved/unapproved. The eventual, de-facto, consensus was to have a lead which gave only the two very short examples of Japan and the US.

As I see it, the primary reason to put EU approval in the lead is only the fact that it is current news. It appears that for you the fact of this approval is of primary importance. If other editors feel the EU approval should be in the lead, then we can have it there. My view on it is that the EU approval is just the expected culmination (in the EU) of a decades long process.

As to my removal of the extraneous information which was contained in the EU portion of the Availability section: [Obviously, the contents of this section are being discussed in general below.] The "Current Availability" section is, currently, a list of political entities with very short descriptions of the current legal availability of Stevia in each listed political entity. The portions of the EU line which I removed described the approval process which is irrelevant to its current status, or even stevia in general. As written, the removed material did not even belong in the article. If something was written which described how the approval differed from a "normal" EU approval process, that might belong elsewhere in the article (perhaps "Availability notes") but not contained in the "Current availability" section. The only reason that there used to be a considerable amount of text in "Current availability" for the EU is that the situation used to be complicated which required more text in order to be acurate. As of the beginning of December the situation in the EU is very simple: Steviol glycosides are approved (at levels described in the references).

Makyen (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I won't respond to wall-of-text replies. Make your point succintly.  Jabbsworth  08:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Except for the final paragraph, I see several points succinctly made above, not just one. I agree with these points:

It is factually wrong to state that stevia is available now.

Mentioning additional entities beyond the US and Japan invites a laundry list, which has happened in the past, although mentioning the EU may cause no harm.

EU approval of stevia is not a significant event but rather the culmination of a standard process, without the political controversy that occurred in the US. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

EU approval is significant. It's a whole bunch of countries at once. The other points are splitting hairs over trivia, straining at gnats. Let's get on with fixing ghe article.  Jabbsworth  12:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Article has major problems

This article looks like it was written by the staff of Aspartame manufacturers. It is littered with outdated and false information. I have tried to remedy it but already, false info, such as "Stevia is banned" has been reinserted.  Jabbsworth  23:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The data restored by Amatulic is in many instances outdated and wrong. I ask him NOT to do this. I have, for example, removed the minutiae about stevia's now defunct status in France, which is now defunct with the EU ruling. Likewise, I took out the scaremongering text on the photos, such as "plant may be grown legally in most countries, although some countries restrict or ban its use as a sweetener" (show me where it cannot be grown and cannot be used as a sweetener!). Stop, Amatulic!  Jabbsworth  23:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you notice the edit summary, which stated that I was reverting back to a certain point for the purpose of selectively restoring your edits? You made so many changes, some of which were erroneous, that I had to choose some place to start at, and I asked for you to pause a moment on your talk page while I sorted it out. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, let's do this stepwise.

1. Where is stevia banned from being grown? You restored this text to the image: "The stevia plant may be grown legally in most countries, although some countries restrict its use as a sweetener." I want to know where one cannot grow it, and where it is restricted as a sweetener. Thanks  Jabbsworth  00:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh? I thought I corrected that one after I removed the word "banned". In any case, Singapore is one example of a country that restricts its use, allowing it only in certain foods and in certain amounts. I have no problem with reducing that caption. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Proof of that? AFAIK, there are no limitations in Singapore, and products containing stevia are openly available.  Jabbsworth  01:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, some of the biggest stevia distributors are in Singapore, eg see this  Jabbsworth  01:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I know that. The regulation for what is allowed in food within Singapore is cited in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Health and safety section

Why is the section written so that the first data is that the plant may be a mutagen? This nonsense, moreover, is sucked from a clearly flawed and ancient primary study, contrary to all the rules of wp:MEDRS. How is this defensible? The first data presented to readers should be the results of recent review studies. We do not treat health and safety as historical section ordered chronologically. If you want to have a History of controversy section, that's another matter. I have had many good primary studies removed from pages on WP; how this nonsense has been allowed to have pride of place all this time is frankly amazing.  Jabbsworth  00:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's amazing if you're unaware of the history and the past controversy.

The article used to be structured like you suggest. It had sections called "health controversy" and "political controversy", somewhat intertwined because those flawed and outdated studies causing the health controversy fueled the political controversy that resulted in the FDA banning stevia (even to the point of banning the sale of books about it). It was a big deal then. "Health controversy" was later renamed to "Safety".

I agree that it now looks out of place, but I disagree that the historical context of past flawed studies should be removed, because then the political history would make less sense. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Availability section/s

These sections are unencyclopedic. They should be collapsed into a simple table. Currently there are no countries that ban stevia (and/or steviol glycosides) from being grown, sold or used. It is thus somewhat absurd to have most of the page dedicated to listing country by country histories of banning, then unbanning. Perhaps you need to spin off another article, History of stevia approvals. Meanwhile, let's rationalise this and make the page more intelligible. Comments?  Jabbsworth  00:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of either making a table out of it or a spin-off article. The history of availability of stevia is something significant and notable. The fact that the EU, United States, Singapore, and possibly others banned it in the past while others like Japan were using it widely is a significant, encyclopedic fact that should not be lost.

(As an aside, while visiting Singapore once, I recall an incident where the government turned away a cargo ship from Japan due to something on it being "tainted" by stevia; it was big news at the time). ~Amatulić (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a panic about leaf-stevia being contaminated with nasty bacteria a few year ago (probably orchestrated by the sweetener industry *cough*aspartame*cough*). Anyway, here is an example of the sort of table we could insert:

Country/Region	Approved (Y/N)	Approval date	Comment
USA	Y	2008
EU	Y	2011
Japan	Y	1970
Australia	Y	2008
New Zealand	Y	2008
Mexico	Y	2009
Russian Federation	Y	2008
Example	Example	Example	Example

I like your idea of a spin-off article for old facts ... all we need now is a name. What about History of stevia?  Jabbsworth  00:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes that looks good.

As for spinoffs, in the years I've been working on this article (since 2006 I think) I've never been really happy with the way it conflates the plant with the sweetener. It starts out being about the plant, has a bit of information about the plant, but the bulk of the article concerns the sweetener. I wouldn't mind if the article were split into two along those lines. Then the "old facts" as you put it would fit better in an article dedicated to the sweetener. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll help you; let's do it. Do you want to start temp articles at subpages of the Talk page? Eg Talk:Stevia/Stevia_(plant) and Talk:Stevia/Stevia_(sweetener) ?  Jabbsworth  02:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the "Current availability" section being re-formatted into a table. At the time it was changed to its current format the status of stevia was more complex in various locations than was easily described in a table. At the time, to have it be accurate there were too many notes, comments, or footnotes which made presenting it in a table format cluttered and, frankly, looked bad.

However, we need to make sure that we do not introduce inaccuracies in the translation to a table format. We are describing a situation which has potential legal consequences. In particular, we need to make sure that we keep the distinction as to there actually being a verification (i.e. references), of the regulatory status of stevia in any particular political entity (and what actually is approved). In the past, one of the issues we have had is that various editors have put counties in the "Available as a food additive (sweetener)" category merely because they happened to see it at a store without any attempt to make sure that it actually was approved by the appropriate regulatory body. One of the reasons for the current format was that it makes it clear to random editors that they NEED to have references rather than merely their opinion that it is available.

I also don't have a problem with breaking the article into 2, or 3?, different articles covering Stevia (plant), Stevia (sweetener), and History of stevia regulatory approval (???)

As time goes on, the history becomes less relevant to the main article(s). However, it a good idea for there to be a "record" of the history. There have been many situations where the history of the situation has gotten muddled merely because there was no attempt to keep the information which was readily available at the time it was occurring.

Temp articles and reaching consensus are good things. We need to be sure that we actually have enough separate content to justify breaking the article into (plant) and (sweetener) articles. We also need to decide where the break should be and if it might result in too much duplicated content. For example: would the commercial cultivation of stevia plants belong in the (plant) or (sweetener) article? Makyen (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

We have enough content and there is no harm in creating stubs. I suggest the following 3 articles:

• Stevia - the genus, with links to all the other species articles (which are currently stubs), as well as a disambiguation link to the sweetener article
• Stevia rebaudiana - the plant that is used to extract stevioside compounds for sweeteners
• Stevia (sweetener)

The only issue I see with this might be WP:COMMONNAME, where one could argue what is the most common meaning for the word "stevia". If you're a botanist, it would be the genus. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll let you make that decision ...  Jabbsworth  16:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• On Canada

I just bought some as a sweetener in a Zehr's grocery store in Barrie, Ontario. I can't source that, but it leads me to believe listing it as only "available as a dietary supplement" is inaccurate, if anyone can find any more quotable source. - J — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.148.223 (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

We should add the pronunciation in the first sentence of the lead. But what exactly is the (English) pronunciation? According the "Names in other countries" section, it's pronounced stee'-vee-uh, but I have heard some people pronounce it as steh'-vee-uh. Does anyone have a reliable reference for this? — Loadmaster (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The dictionary shows either pronunciation is fine. The name derives from a personal name "Esteve" which has the "eh" pronunciation in any language, although the English version "Steven" or "Steve" has the long ee sound. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

---

the article exists in Hungarian (Magyar) language but it does not appear in the language selection list. please make it available. heres the link to the Hungarian article: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A1zminpak%C3%B3ca i cant fix that, please help, thx.

 Done -- Dianna (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

---

conspiracy theories shattered

https://www.uni-hohenheim.de/en/news/eu-erlaubt-stevia-suessstoffe-experte-der-universitaet-hohenheim-sieht-enormes-zukunftspotential-37 --Espoo (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Old news. And it refers to alleged conspiracies in Europe, whereas the events surrounding the ban in the U.S. are well documented. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Not old news in Europe - most people here still believe there's a conspiracy blocking stevia. It took me a long time to find that single reliable source disclaiming the conspiracy theories, but i didn't have time to add the info to the article. In addition, conspiracy theories were popular in the US too until Coke and Pepsi started using stevia, so these theories are an important part of stevia's history in the US and should definitely be mentioned in the section on the US too.

The article also does not mention that many countries including all in the EU have not lifted the ban on using the plant itself or parts of it. --Espoo (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, this article already documents the US ban, and sources about conspiracy theories abound. The FDA banned it in contravention of their own regulations, and it was believed even by members of Congress (see quotation from Jon Kyl) that the ban was put in place for industry benefit. This was much more than a conspiracy theory. Nevertheless, adding fuel to conspiracy theories was the fact that the FDA had garnered a "revolving door" reputation where executives move back and forth between the government agency and industry, with documented cases of FDA officials making decisions to benefit their former company. None of that background is really appropriate for this article however. In order to mention similar conspiracy theories in the EU, you'd have to find reliable sources that establish that "most people" believe them, and that those theories have any notability, like they did in the U.S.

As an aside, the status of the plant itself in the U.S. isn't definite. The FDA permitted Rebiana to be sold as both a food additive and a sweetener, but I don't recall ever seeing the stevia plant itself getting such approval. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

When a university professor and expert on stevia writes "popular conspiracy theories" on a university website, that's exactly what you were asking for, a very reliable source establishing that this is a popular conspiracy theory and therefore notable for this topic. --Espoo (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how a vague, trivial mention of "popular conspiracy theories" constitutes significant coverage to meet a threshold of notability that merits inclusion in the article. As I wrote earlier, I'd like to see reliable sources that establish that "most people" believe them, and that those theories have any notability. A professor's one-line opinion is not the same as significant coverage from multiple independent sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Names in other countries

Twice now I have restored what seems to be a disruptive removal of the section called 'Names in other countries'. Because those who blanked it haven't explained their reasoning here in the spirit of WP:BRD, I will make these notes:

• The section was added about 5 years ago, in 2007 (see discussion), and has remained with modification from many contributors. This article has fairly high visibility, so the section isn't something that just happened to be there for a long time until someone happened to notice it.
• The section was included when this article achieved Good Article status. See Talk:Stevia/Archive 1#April 2007 GA Nomination. Significant content that contributed to GA should not be removed without discussion.

Three rationales have been given for removing the section:

• Argument: It's already taken care of by the articles in other languages. Rebuttal: Irrelevant, and not useful to an English speaker. The current section contains significantly more encyclopedic information than a list of article names in other languages, which say nothing about pronunciation or the variations.
• Argument: It's trivia. Rebuttal: No, it isn't, it's encyclopedic content, more useful than the numerous "in popular culture" sections that litter other articles.
• Argument: It's irrelevant. Rebuttal: It's quite relevant what stevia is called in other countries especially since stevia has varying legal status in many different countries.

That about sums it up, I think. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Under WP:ENG, I'm putting the non-English names here. Reference for the section is Multilingual Multiscript plant name database] has terms for the Stevia plant in various languages.[7] --Zefr (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

List collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
China: 甜菊 (tián jú – sweet chrysanthemum), 甜菊叶 (tián jú yè – stevia leaf) Dutch-speaking countries: honingkruid (honey herb) Czech Republic: stévie English-speaking countries: candy leaf, sugar leaf, sweetleaf (USA), sweet honey leaf (Australia), sweet herb of Paraguay German speaking countries: Süßkraut (sweet herb), Süßblatt (sweet leaf), Honigkraut (honey herb) Hungary: jázminpakóca India: madhu parani (Marathi), madhu-pattha (Punjabi), madhu patra (Sanskrit), seeni tulsi (Tamil), madhu patri (Telugu) – all of which translate to "sweet leaf." Israel: סטיביה (sṭīviyyāh in Hebrew) Japan: アマハステビア (amaha sutebia) Latvia: Stēvija Norway: Sukkerblad (sugar leaf) Paraguay: ka´a he'ê (sweet herb in Guarani) Poland: Stewia Portuguese-speaking countries: estévia (Brazil), capim doce (sweet grass), erva doce (sweet herb, which may refer to fennel, funcho, too), folhas da stévia Romania:iarba dulce, frunza de miere Saudi Arabia: (Arabic: أوراق ستيڤيا awrāq estevya, colloquial: ورق ستيڤيا warag estevya – "stevia leaves") South Africa (Afrikaans): heuningblaar (honey leaf) Spanish-speaking countries: estevia, hierba dulce, yerba dulce (sweet herb) Sweden: sötflockel Thailand: satiwia, หญ้าหวาน (ya wan, or sweet grass in Bangkok) Turkey: şekerotu (herb of sugar) Vietnam: cúc ngọt ("sweet daisy") or cỏ ngọt (sweet grass)

I have reverted the blanking of this list. WP:ENG relates to article titles, not article lists. WP:MI is not applicable to this list either. The applicable guideline is WP:LIST. This section was included in this article's WP:GA assessment, and should not be removed so casually. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)-

irrelevant, non-English; reverted in the Article; WP:TRIV. --Zefr (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content, perfectly valid WP:LIST, hardly trivia; you have not addressed a single point made in this section above. Until you do, the content should not be removed. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Amatulic, I do agree with your WP:BRD reversion for the moment, while we discuss it here; and I also agree that it is inappropriate for the main article to ever reference the talk page. However, I do strongly feel that Zefr is right that the material is inappropriate for this article if we want it to be at its best. First let's frame the discussion correctly: the material, as you say, is certainly not irrelevant or trivial to be placed anywhere in Wikipedia, but there is a fixed, agreed-to method for including this foreign-language information that has been reached by wide consensus. An overview can be found at Help:Interlanguage links. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style says that "foreign words should be used sparingly", and as part of that references H:IL for a discussion of how they are normally treated. Consensus says that this foreign language information is addressed with a direct link (using the H:IL system) to that language's full page for this article title. There is a quick link right near the top of every Wikipedia page, and this method has the advantage of not being restricted to just a quick, unreferenced & dubious translation; but a whole entire article of relvant information & discussion in that foreign language. So it is relevant, just not in the body of an English WP article.

These type of lists tend to grow massive over time, as each multilingual casual visitor to the page just quickly plunks in his home language version; and this usually happens without references and without a link to the appropriate foreign language version of Wikipedia, circumventing the method reached by wide consensus and depriving the reader of the full foreign language article. There are thousands of possible languages! We have to take the long view and prune these unreferenced, ever-growing lists back to a truly oraganized, encyclopedic, and consistent treatment; as outlined at H:IL. Otherwise the logical end would be to have all 22 million articles include a truly massive section that contains every foreign laguage translation possible. If we really want to make a FA out of this, it could certainly not contain a huge, poorly referenced, continually-growing list of undue weight that is not directly relevant to English speakers. I'm glad you mentioned its GA status. GA standards were lower then, that article would not pass today, but even then, that version was referenced and this one is not; check the references, they do not cover many of the new additions. People just add to these willy-nilly, and these lists always become decreasingly referenced over time. Also, that version was tidier and more appropriate for relative weight of the article. The current section would just not ever be considered for a FA.

If you want to invoke list guidelines, the relevant one would be Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists, and it is clear about first favoring prose over lists within articles unless it is really necessary. None of the examples of exceptions are similar to yours, or include foreign-language lists, or overrule MOS:FOREIGN, H:IL, or WP:RS. Let's look at the big picture and work within the usual system for foreign-language information so we can eventually get that FA. :) -- --Tom Hulse (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I am undecided as to whether the list should be in the article or not. I am concerned though that most of the list appears to be unsourced - the reference only lists 10 countries whereas the article has 20 - where did all the other information come from? SmartSE (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

As if in answer, on the same day as your question, the most recent edit to the article is another user adding more unreferenced info to that section right in the middle of our discussion (diff). These foreign-name sections always fail when it comes to references, and always get worse, which is why Wikipedia's preferred and more-thorough method of including this information at H:IL is what we need to use instead to work for an FA. Everyone fancies themselves an expert in their own language, who needs references? ;) ----Tom Hulse (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I would have removed the item added to the list. That list should not include items where the name in another country is still "stevia"; it should include only other variations.

Sources are not hard to find. I recall finding the Indian ones some years ago but I don't remember what happened to the reference.

Tom Hulse, let me address the points made in your first lengthy comment.

I maintain that WP:EMBED as well as WP:LIST are the only applicable guidelines here. The objections to this list arise from confusion about the purpose of a list versus a category versus interlanguage links. H:IL describes how to link article topics among different foreign languages. Similarly we have categories on en-Wiki to group similar articles together. However, unlike interlanguage links and categories, a bulleted list by its nature is more complete.

Let's look at a category analogy. Wikipedia may never have an article on each and every item in List of K-1 events, for example, but the list is necessary for the sake of encyclopedic completeness, and the list says something about each item than a mere category would. Similarly, Wikipedia projects may not have articles about stevia in all languages; therefore, it is useful to have a list, and the list says something about each name (pronunciation or what not) that an English speaker would not get from the same article in another language. It does not matter what the list content is; WP:LIST or WP:EMBED does not single out lists of foreign terms, and MOS:FOREIGN obviously isn't applicable to a section that is about foreign terms.

Lists grow massively over time only if there are no agreed-upon criteria for inclusion. The criteria for inclusion are implied by the prose preceding the list, admittedly not clearly spelled out. The list consists of foreign terms that are not simply "stevia" or a similar variant. The Japanese and Thai terms ('sutebia' and 'satiwia') are included because they are unusual and understandable only when pronounced — but I agree those instances can easily be included in the introductory prose of that section.

Where terms are unreferenced, we tag them as unreferenced and go look for references. This is not a reason to remove an encyclopedically useful list. As someone who does a lot of foreign travel, it is useful to me to be able to consult Wikipedia for the local term for stevia or MSG (which used to have its list) to know how the name is spelled and pronounced — a task made nearly impossible if I have to figure out which non-Latin-alphabet inter-language link is the one I want, and even then I wouldn't be able to read the article anyway, let alone know how to pronounce the term. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for a friendly discussion! Regarding the idea that these translations & definitions of foreign words is useful to you personally, please carefully read WP:NOTDIC, especially the part under major differences that says "usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth" belong in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. This is a fixed policy, not a guideline. Perhaps you & I could preserve this information there at Wiktionary? There is a provision to leave a marker in the article, pointing over to Wiktionary. I could see that as a compromise to preserve your info but still give the article a shot at working towards an FA. -- --Tom Hulse (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Political Controversy section

Amatulić, you've been reverted by three different editors now, would you please discuss your proposed changes to the section here instead of continuing towards an edit war? The problem with your sentence is that it presents this "violation" as fact. Your sentence (not just the controversy you are describing) would be flatly denied by the FDA as plain false. Honestly, I do agree with you that the conspiracy is probably true, but this is an encyclopedia, and we can't just present one side of a dispute as though it were a foregone fact. Even if you were to reword it in the third person to say essentially "this group claims.." instead "this designation violates...", you still have to look at the relative reliability of your source when considering due weight. This sentence, at its core, is a question of interpreting the FDA's own guidelines. So who is a more reliable source for interpreting the guidelines of a governmental agency: the agency itself or a single author from Australia publishing in an "alternative" magazine specializing in things like conspiracy theories, dragons, crop circles, UFO's, mind-control technology, aliens, etc.? C'mon man! Nexus is an embarrassment to Wikipedia anywhere it is referenced other than its own page. So find a better source, and also present your sentence so Wikipedia is not taking sides in the controversy. --Tom Hulse (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to modifying the statement, but I do object to removing it entirely, because the section is about controversy, and this difference of interpretation is really the root of it. If you object to the citation, then tag the sentence, but I have seen no valid excuse yet for outright deleting it.

Whether the FDA would disagree with proponents' interpretation of FDA guidelines is irrelevant, because the statement is intended to explain a controversy, not the FDA's position. Right or wrong, stevia proponents interpreted the FDA guidelines one way, the FDA obviously interpreted it another way. The proponents' view was that stevia was already in use in accordance with the FDA's default GRAS guidelines, therefore the FDA's subsequent ban created a controversy by suddenly making a food ingredient illegal based on an anonymous complaint. The source is reliable enough for establishing that proponents' viewpoint. There are other corroborating sources as well, but the Nexus article provides a good overview in one convenient place.

The topic of the controversy is worthy of a separate article all on its own, which could go into FDA raids on publishers, book burnings, etc. Lacking such an article, we should at least provide an overview. Deleting the sentence about why people (including some politicians) regarded the FDA's ban as controversial really weakens the encyclopedic coverage of such an overview.

And by the way, it is not impossible for a government agency to disregard its own rules. It would be biased for Wikipedia to give the FDA a default presumption of correctness regarding its own practices; we avoid citing vanity sources and self-published sources for the same reason. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Your description above, that "the proponent's view was..." sounds reasonable, and the proper way an encylopedia keeps a neutral point of view. That differs from the actual sentence we reverted, which takes sides by saying that one side merely pointed out the true fact of a violation. There is no agreement on a contradiction/violation of FDA's rules, so we can't present it as a true fact that can be "pointed out". I wanted to just change the wording myself, but I'm not including a controversy statement without a decent reference. I read your Nexus article, and it actually doesn't describe anything like a controversy in the usual sense with groups of people. I don't see where it described anyone else, besides the author, who held the view that the FDA violated its own rules. So I didn't feel right putting it in. Also, really, Nexus is not a "reliable enough" source at all. It is a complete joke, and is literally reliable enough for nothing. Please review WP:NPOV, especially the WP:WEIGHT section where it describes why we don't need these kinds of references:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

So either you can find a commonly accepted reference, or find a prominent/notable individual who holds this view, or it is just not notable enough to include, even if it is true, according to WP:NPOV. Regarding your idea that this sentence is essential, and the very "root" of the controversy; please notice that it is almost a duplication of a similar sentence in the middle of the section, which begins: "Stevia remained banned until...". So there is no urgent need to leave in a bad sentence and just tag it. Honestly, this whole section needs a rewrite with those three bullet points in mind. --Tom Hulse (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Nexus article provides a good historical overview, and I don't really see the author's personal opinions shining through, except maybe the way she aggregated together her facts to paint a picture. But individual statements are non-controversial. There's a statement in it "Many foods have not had to go through the process of being approved for GRAS status. Through historical use, it is assumed they are safe for human consumption. Supporters of stevia have put this argument forward to the FDA, but without success." Written 10 years ago, it's an accurate representation of the proponent's views of the time (and it's actually a more neutral statement than the one deleted from this article). Not only that, but the author follows it up immediately with three good (and attributed) examples of major players promoting this view: Celestial Seasonings, The American Herbal Products Association, and Sunrider Corporation.

So, what is wrong with using that source for that claim? After all, if the magazine is indeed a champion of the views of the alternative health community as you claim, then it's appropriate to reference it for that purpose. Even so, for an ostensibly unreliable source, that's actually a pretty good article. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I said Nexus is a "champion of the views of the alternative health community"??? That's funny, lol. I said they were a joke. If you want to be taken seriously you should avoid silly "stunts" like misattributing me.
The article's sentence you quoted is much more fair than yours. It doesn't present an FDA violation as fact, and it doesn't even mention a violation; it just mildly says it was "assumed safe" under those guidelines. What you say may be true, but you go far beyond even your non-reliable-source Nexus article with your violation accusation. You're stretching it.
Regarding Nexus as an (un)reliable source, you didn't really think about how those 3 bullet points apply here. Look closer. You're just blindly assuming the facts are true, and that there is a controversy as you know it; so we need some source, and Nexus seems to have the facts right as you know them, 'so why not them'? Those bullet points say that even true facts are not notable enough to be in Wikipedia unless they are covered by commonly accepted reliable sources or espoused by prominent adherents. Nexus is neither of those (think mind control, tinfoil hats). So you asked what is wrong using them as a source for just that part of the claim? The answer is that their coverage of it, true or false, does not establish that the claim itself is even notable enough to be included here. Nexus needs to be completely removed from this article's sources.--Tom Hulse (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Um... it isn't my sentence (I merely restored it), and I agree it should be rephrased, and that Nexus' version is an improvement. Also note that I slapped on the Nexus citation after the sentence was removed for having no citation; this was just to show that it was possible to find sources. And I'm not blindly assuming the facts are true. Nexus is simply an article that conveniently summarizes the controversy as it stood at the time. As for other sources, note that Nexus names three other prominent ones who espouse the same view. We could probably find direct citations for those. How many more do you want? That is why I stated that some version of the sentence should be there, with a {{fact}} tag if needed. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't want more sources, just one source. One that comes close to meeting Wikipedia's standards. Nexus doesn't. All Nexus references are going to be gone from this article. It's not lawyering, it's Wikipedia policy, get used to it.
If your violation accusation is notable enough to not be an irrelevant fringe opinion, then I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding reliable sources. --Tom Hulse (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)