Talk:Stevia/Archive 3

Health & safety

Hi all,

I'm wondering why this section begins with a discredited study. Furthermore, it's a discredited *animal* study. There are much more recent and relevant human studies and these should be given priority. Wikipedia itself also officially has a stance that human studies should be cited first and given greater credence and relevance than animal studies when discussing the effects of something on humans.

To begin with the discredited rat study gives an initial impression to the casual reader that stevia causes cancer.

This article is primarily going to be read by casual lay readers, not scientists. Initial impressions matter. Because the preponderance of studies -- including scientific reviews of multiple studies -- indicate human health benefits, might we consider re-arranging the sequencing of the presentation of scientific results? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.100.60 (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think the source is adequate to establish that, why don't you go ahead and change it? :) --Tom Hulse (talk) 10:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Current US Legal status in question

I know that for years due to FDA regulations discussed at length above Stevia was available only as a dietary supplement in the United States. Then Reb-A and related compounds received approval and we started seeing TrueVia and PureVia on store shelves. Recently however the company In The Raw, who is known in the us primarily for their turbinado sugar, Sugar In the Raw, has begin marketing on television and heavily promoting their natural stevia extract Stevia in the Raw. An analysis of the package says Natural Stevia Extract. Has the FDA position on the pure extract changed? When did it change relative to Reb-A? I can find no information in the wiki or elsewhere on this? — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 14:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Stevia (genus) split

I see in the talk archives that a split had previously been proposed two years ago. One of the major contributors to this article argued that while a split may be appropriate, there wasn't enough information in the article at that time to merit a split. Information on the genus as a whole has hardly been expanded in that time, but a split article on the genus would not be any more of a stub than many existing articles on plant genera ("stevia" is clearly the primary topic for the sweetener derived from Stevia rebaudiana, and not the genus). The genus is prominent in the lede of this article, but the sweetener is the primary focus of the article. I'd like to move forward with a split, and am proposing having the genus at Stevia (genus), with the sweetener at Stevia (the alternative might be using Stevia as a disambig with a Stevia (sweetener) article). Is this a reasonable course of action? Plantdrew (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that was me. I had proposed that this article be split into three:

• Stevia (genus) - the genus article would have the links to all the other species articles (currently stubs), as well as a disambiguation link to the sweetener article. More could be said about it, such as where it grows naturally, the fact that some species are considered a weed or a pest, a short summary of the sweetener, etc.
• Stevia rebaudiana (currently a redirect to Stevia) - the plant that is used to extract stevioside compounds for sweeteners. This would have sections about countries where this is a major crop, how it's cultivated and reproduced, a short summary of sweetener extraction with links to Steviol glycoside and Truvia. Maybe also some history about the legality of growing it in certain places, if sources can be found.
• Stevia - the WP:COMMONNAME article about the sweetener.

The scientific community may object to that last one, in which case we could have Stevia as a disambiguation page that includes Stevia (sweetener), but that's easy to do if the issue ever comes up in the future.

I was planning to create this series of articles in my user space for others to review but never got to it. If you want to do that, I suggest either creating the articles in your user space first, or alternatively move sections of this article out into their own articles and delete the sections here. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Classification of stevia in Paraguay

Given that the plant is widely available here in Paraguay, where everyone grows it in his garden to sweeten his mate, and where the extract is freely available on supermarket shelves, I think it should be moved from the "Available as a food additive" section of Availability to the "Widely used as a sweetener" section. I just added to the page a picture of the last two brands I bought for my own use ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolgiati (talk • contribs) 14:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Stevia (sweet additions) in popular culture

Given that this item plays a major role in Breaking Bad, should there be a section about this plant as sweetener in pop culture?

"A major role"? Lydia used Stevia in her tea two or three times in the last season. Walt killed her with poisoned Stevia. So what? That's a "major role"? What is this obsession people have with pop culture references in every Wikipedia article? I personally think they're silly. 66.191.43.60 (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

History and use

The two sentences in the second paragraph in the section "History and use" do not make sense to me:

The plant has a long history of medicinal use by the Guaraní, having been used extensively by them for more than 1,500 years.[15] The leaves have been traditionally used for hundreds of years in both Brazil and Paraguay to sweeten local teas and medicines, and as a "sweet treat".[15]

I made a slight edit yesterday to the first sentence to try and clear up some ambiguity, but the sentences still need work. Even though the author of the source in the reference (15) was probably writing about research conducted in Brazil and Paraguay, I just cannot imagine that the Guaraní in areas outside of what are today Brazil and Paraguay (basically Argentina and Uruguay) did not also use stevia, and that the Guaraní, and perhaps others, did not enjoy stevia for non-medicinal purposes until only a few hundred years ago, as the second sentence suggests. If a plant is really sweet and non-toxic, I would imagine people enjoyed either the juice or the leaves just for their sweetness, for as long as they used the same plant to sweeten medicine, or for its medicinal properties. Perhaps someone who knows the subject can add to or revise this paragraph.CorinneSD (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Question about extraction process?

If methanol is used in the extraction process, how can we be sure that the final product has no methanol in it? --108.18.117.110 (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This page is to discuss improvements to the article. Please ask questions about the topic at the reference desk --Makyen (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Good article, needs reassessing

I've extricated the material about the plant genus and species to make two separate pages as is the norm for plant articles. In the process, this page has changed quite a bit, so I have removed the "good article" template. Sorry about that. I'm not familiar with the good-article evaluation process, but whatever it is, this page now needs to have some of that re-done. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Links to other languages

The metadata to italian language is set but not appearing. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:218B:5100:B9DE:8772:2B4F:1A5D (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Old rules for the "Availability" section

These rules below were in the article, as invisible comments. I am moving them to this talk page for reference, althought they are now largely obsolete with the reorganization of the section as a single list of countries in alphabetic order (which is much easier to use and to maintain). --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• New additions to the subsection "Available as a food additive (Regulatory agency approved)" MUST include at least one reference that states the regulatory status of stevia is such that it is permitted to be used as a food additive in that country.
• New additions to the subsection "Available as both a food additive and dietary supplement" MUST include at least one reference that states the regulatory status of stevia is such that it is permitted to be used as a food additive. It would be nice for there to be a reference that shows it to also be available as a dietary supplement in that country. Obviously, multiple references that individually cover each aspect (food additive & dietary supplement) are reasonable.
• If you have no references, but believe that stevia is available in some form, then it belongs in "Available (regulatory status unverified)". It would be nice to supply some reference verifying that it is available, and in what form. Although the existence of such references will often indicate that it is appropriate for inclusion in a different category.
• Within each section please keep the countries in alphabetical order.
• It is unclear what "widely used" should mean. Our benchmark is Japan where stevia is 40% of the sweetener market. If you believe that something else belongs in this category then it NEEDS to have references as to how widely it is used as a percentage of the overall sweetener market in that country. It is strongly recommended that ANY addition to the "widely used" category be discussed on the talk page prior to adding it to the list.
• If a country is definitively determined to permit the leaf as a food additive (there probably are some), create a subsubsection "Leaf and all steviol glycoside extracts available as a food additive (sweetener)"
• If a country allows stevia only as dietary supplement, create a sub-section "Available as a dietary supplement"

Safety

( This section was moved here from the Talk:Steviol glycoside page --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC) )

If it's beneficial for diabetics by making more insulin in the body without the jump in glucose, then how would that be safe for a non-diabetic? I bought 50lbs of protein powder with Stevia in it and this stuff appears to produce the symptoms of mild insulin overdose, almost verging on shock. - Reticuli

It doesn't "make more insulin". Diabetics benefit because it doesn't induce a glycemic response. Your protein powder doesn't serve as a valid test due to the numerous other ingredients in it; for example guarana or ephedra may give you shock symptoms in sufficient doses, and many "thermogenic" protein supplements contain one or the other in the ingredient list. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It does "make more insulin". Protein powders also induce brief insulin spikes. Shouldn't produce symptoms though.Bstard12 (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can determine from sources, steviol glycoside doesn't cause insulin spikes, although protein powder formulations may result in insulin spikes due to their other ingredients. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the protein itself, not the other ingredients. IIRC amino acids, more specifically leucine originating from protein digestion, induce insulin spikes. Briefer than those induced by glucose and counteracted by glucagon to maintain blood glucose levels.

I honestly don't recall what I based my earlier stevia-insulin claim upon, but brief googling revealed this article on insulin secretion stimulation by Rebaudioside A: http://www.metabolismjournal.com/article/S0026-0495%2804%2900210-0/abstract

I won't go digging further, iirc I had a much better article in mind.Bstard12 (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting, thanks. It says that the insulin response depends on the presence or absence of extracellular Ca²+. I am uncertain what that means, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"Get plenty of calcium" ? :D --Bstard12 (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sweetness

This note was taken from the steviol glycoside article. However the link is broken and neither title nor author were given so I cannot fix it. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The sweetness multiplier "300 times" comes from subjective evaluations by a panel of test subjects tasting various dilutions compared to a standard dilution of sucrose. Sources referenced in this article say steviosides have up to 250 times the sweetness of sucrose, but others, including stevioside brands such as SweetLeaf, claim 300 times. 1/3 to 1/2 teaspoon (1.6–2.5 ml) of stevioside powder is claimed to have equivalent sweetening power to 1 cup (240 ml) of sugar.

I recall writing that part originally in both articles (before teh stevia article was split into two).
You can always use archive.org to recover links that have been subject to WP:Link rot. As it happens, the link you removed describes how sweetness tests are conducted, and cited properly in the context in which it was used (which was not the sweetness of stevia). I have reverted your removal of that passage in the steviol glycoside article and fixed up the links.
That snipped could cite Wisdom Natural Brands information page about SweetLeaf brand stevia, which says that the sweetness is 250-300 times that of sugar. See http://www.wisdomnaturalbrands.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10&Itemid=3 but I found a journal article that says the same thing, and replaced the "citation needed" tag in the lead accordingly. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The link in the steviol glycoside was only a questionnaire without any results, and did not even mention stevia. In this article, the only reference given for the "300x sweeter" claim is an article by Cardello, da Silva and others. Although they repeat the claim "300x" in the introduction (without source), their results (on pages 126-127, "SrB") show only ~150x comared to 3% concentration of sucrose, and ~100x compared to 10% sucrose. It would be highly desirable to find a reliable source of the 300x claim. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Popular culture

The paragraph below is under debate for inclusion in the article. Two editors favor it not being included as too trivial; user Mapsfly has reverted its deletion 3 times so is sufficiently warned against edit warring under WP:3RR. --Zefr (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Zefr started the revert and has therefore inevitably gone over WP:3RR first by nature and has been warned accordingly Mapsfly (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Stevia was featured in the television show, Breaking Bad, as the sweetener regularly used by the character Lydia Rodarte-Quayle to sweeten her tea.

user Zefr has reverted its addition 4 times and is now sufficiently warned against edit warring under WP:3RR.

Keep. 3+ editors feel that its addition is in fact necessary. Many have only heard of Stevia through the medium of this specific television series and character and hence has extreme relevance to the topic Mapsfly (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Exclude. This is a trivial topic of probable interest only to fans of the TV show, Breaking Bad which adds neither expertise to knowledge about stevia nor novel examples of its consumer uses. Further, the claim by Mapsfly that "many have only heard of Stevia through the medium of this specific television series" attests to an absence of historical perspective -- as the article reports, stevia has been in consumer products for 40+ years and has been globalized over the past decade long before the TV series was aired. For the record, I see no evidence from article history that any editor other than Mapsfly feels it is a necessary section, and so does not meet consensus.--Zefr (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Except that what I said was true as seen here as well as many other articles: http://adage.com/article/media/stevia-s-breaking-bad-boost/244471/ many people are visiting this page solely because of its mentions in "Breaking Bad" Mapsfly (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, the version to which Mapsfly reverted was a poor version. This one is better, improved by me and another editor: "Stevia was featured in the television show, Breaking Bad, as the sweetener regularly used by the character Lydia Rodarte-Quayle to sweeten her tea; Walter White substituted stevia with ricin to kill her.

• I yield to the consensus of the other editors on this page, and agree with exclude per WP:RECENTISM and WP:TRIVIA. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Exclude. Pop-culture WP:TRIVIA is strongly deprecated, and particularly inappropriate for a scientific article. It is completely irrelevant how people find out about a substance. Softlavender (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Depends. I feel the fact should be kept only if there are several other popular culture references to Stevia that would substantiate a section. Alone, the fact seems a little like trivia. Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not the lack of other items in a popular culture section that makes it trivia, it's the overall relevance within the pop culture work (as well as the overall importance of the pop culture work itself). Methamphetamine is of crucial relevance to Breaking Bad (and meth/Breaking Bad is mentioned in History and culture of substituted amphetamines, which is appropriate context for the pop culture reference). Lydia's death is a significant plot point, but the cause of her death is not very important in the whole narrative arc of the show. Futhermore, she's not poisoned by stevia, which was just used to deliver the poison. Adding this Breaking Bad reference to stevia would be like adding a mention of Arsenic and Old Lace to elderberry wine. Arsenic and Old Lace might be worth mentioning in arsenic poisoning, is NOT worth mentioning in arsenic, and is certainly not worth mentining in elderberry wine. Plantdrew (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Exclude. Years ago, Wikipedia articles used to have "Trivia" sections. When the community rightly came to regard them as non-value-added, they began to be expunged. And then, I observed sections called "Popular culture" springing up in their place. Trivia is trivia, no matter what you call it, and I oppose such sections in articles on general principles. That said, the proposed addition is a decent bit, with adequate coverage, although that coverage consists basically of a couple of mentions at the beginning and and for the purpose of framing a broader article in Forbes. If multiple reliable sources gave this Stevia-in-Breaking Bad topic similar coverage, I'd say include it. But as a stand-alone factoid with one reference, no. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

dead link

I am not sure where the right place for this discussion is, but I noticed that the url for reference number 59 (http://www.fda.gov/ora/fiars/ora_import_ia4506.html) leads to a "Page Not Found" error on the FDA's website. I am not sure how to find the real url.

Just a dead link. It's now here: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia/importalert_119.html -- and I fixed it in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Availability

Reference #38, which is used for many of the countries listed, is not the correct reference. If you follow the link it goes to an article about an acquisition and does not discuss the availability in the various countries that have this article as a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.49.47.233 (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The reference is correct, and it does describe availability in several countries, around the middle of the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stevia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/816/Burnett_07.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Contraception

" At least one folk-method of contraception is being looked into. A South American weed, Stevia rebaudiana, has traditionally been used by the Indians in Paraguay as a contraceptive. Each day women drink a cup of water in which the powdered weed has been boiled. Experiments with rats have indicated a reduction in fertility from 57 to 79 percent compared with a control group, with low fertility lasting up to two months after withdrawal of the drug. Undoubtedly many such folk-methods are known in various human cultures. Some of them may be quite effective and might prove adaptable to the urgent need for population control, particularly in underdeveloped countries. " -- Anne Ehrlich and Paul Ehrlich, "Population. Resources, Environment: Issues in Human Ecology" (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1970, p. 227-228.

See also Paul R. Ehrlich, John P. Holdren, Anne H. Ehrlich, "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment" (1977), p. 999.

John Holdren is President Barack Obama's science czar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.135.78 (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Stevia and tooth decay

I asked my dentist about this and he did not know; the article had nothing either, so I added it, Googling to obtain representative citations pro and con. Zefr has reverted me; he seems to go around reverting users and blanking his own talk page if they post to object. I am not wedded to my text or to my citations, but would like the article to address the subject. Spike-from-NH (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Tooth decay is a medical issue, so the encyclopedia requires sources to meet WP:MEDRS. This topic certainly does not meet it. --Zefr (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's the Pubmed result from searching stevia-tooth-decay. It shows this is a topic of limited preliminary research, so falls under WP:PRIMARY as inappropriate to include in the encyclopedia. --Zefr (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

LEDA at Harvard Law School Source Link Broken? / F.D.A. Info Source Found.

The link in the "Burnett, Lisa (2 April 2007). "Sweetness Lite?: Artificial Sweetener Controversies From Saccharin to Sucralose". LEDA at Harvard Law School. Archived from the originalon 20 December 2010. Retrieved 20 December 2010." will not open for me - is this a problem for anyone else? (Just a note: I am on my iPad.) If the link is broken, I am not sure how to fix it (I am new to Wiki), and if the page is gone, the line "In 1991, after receiving an anonymous industry complaint, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeled stevia as an "unsafe food additive" and restricted its import." is left without a source.

UPDATE: I just found a New York Times article from 2001 that goes into a bit of detail as to why the F.D.A. restricted the sale of Stevia at the time:

"The F.D.A. says no one has ever provided enough evidence that the leaf is safe, and prohibits it from being sold or promoted as a sweetener. That's why it can't be found on supermarket shelves along with sugar, Equal or NutraSweet."

"In the 1990's, two petitions were submitted asking the Food and Drug Administration to conclude that stevia was generally recognized as safe. "But we disagreed with those conclusions," Dr. George Pauli of the agency said. No petitions await approvalnow.[sic] "It costs money to test things, and the companies don't want to spend the money," Dr. Pauli said."

(Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/07/dining/so-sweet-so-natural-so-la.html) Username11223344556677889900 (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

References

1993 Debate

Anachronist seems determined to include this statement as relevant to the history of stevia use in the USA. I and Username11223344556677889900 have reverted it as both irrelevant now (FDA has cleared use of stevia glycosides) and deriving from an unreliable source, stevia.net.

Arizona congressman Jon Kyl called the FDA's action against stevia "a restraint of trade to benefit the artificial sweetener industry"; stevia.net ref here: Kyl, John (R-Arizona) (1993); Letter to former FDA Commissioner David Aaron Kessler about the 1991 stevia import ban.

I prefer to see it out of the article. Thoughts of others? Meanwhile, let's not WP:WAR over this minor edit; WP:3RR is in effect. --Zefr (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Initial FDA Ban

Though I have seen a "1991 FDA ban" on stevia referenced in multiple sources, none of them seem reputable, and I am unable to find any actual documentation regarding the ban (the Import Alert itself, a news report, etc). Has anyone else found anything? Username11223344556677889900 (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Stevia Leaf vs. Stevia Extract

I am having a bit of difficulty determining where in the article raw Stevia is being referenced rather than processed Stevia extracts. That most sources just say "Stevia", without specifying whether it is referring to its raw or its processed form, further complicates this matter. It is my understanding that currently only processed Stevia glycoside extracts are considered GRAS by the FDA, and that raw Stevia is not legal as a food additive in the USA (but it IS legal as a dietary supplement). Is this correct? Additionally, would someone please help clarify in the article to which "Stevia" each passage refers - raw or processed? Username11223344556677889900 (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

There seem to be 3 types of stevia products: 1) purified glycoside extracts which are GRAS and permitted by the FDA as a food additive (also the most technically difficult and expensive stevia to produce); 2) crude glycoside extracts which are not established as GRAS, are not approved as a food additive (less costly to produce, no verified safety data, potential for adulteration and contamination), and may be sold in the US as a dietary supplement which does not require GRAS or FDA approval; 3) raw stevia leaf which is not GRAS, not approved as a food additive, and is sold as a botanical supplement. In the article under this heading, I interpreted that all countries having stevia approval for use in foods applied the requirement of purified glycosides. One general review of these differences in 2015 is here, and a specific example of FDA warning about the non-approved use of stevia leaf as a food additive in teas is here. The articles seems quite clear to me, so perhaps you could review where you feel it needs clarification. --Zefr (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)