Stevia is a natural sweetener that is 200-300 times sweeter than sugar by weight. It is being used to decrease sugar content in many products, but can have a slightly bitter, metallic aftertaste if used too generously. I made lemonade with copius amounts of Stevia; the sugar equivalent probably would have killed me. The more Stevia I added, the sweeter it got, without the telltale aftertaste. As you can see in the figure, the high speed gas chromatograph (zNose) registered a different spectrum than the unstructured Stevia-sweetened lemonade.
Interview with confectionary Journal:
Dear Timothy,
Thank you so much for talking to me on the phone. Please see my following questions. When you respond, please let me know your title, as well as attaching a landscape picture for my story. My deadline is today.
Tell me briefly about your company.
I am the founder/director of Basic Research Ltd., a non-trading legal/business entity for the holding and dissemination (licensing) of intellectual property flowing from my resonance discovery.
Recently, at the invitation of Professor Gerald Pollack (discoverer of the "Fourth Phase of Water"), I presented my findings to a gathering of top scientists in Varna Bulgaria at the 10th annual Conference on the Physics, Chemistry and Biology of Water. In september, I will be presenting my Stevia research at the 9th Symposium of the European SteviaAssociation (EUSTAS, www.eustas.org) in Gothenberg Sweden.
http://www.waterconf.org/participants-materials/2015/
Can you tell me what the stevia breakthrough is?
The best and perhaps only, sensical way to describe my process is by analogy. While it's not widely known, water can be influenced/restructured by magnets (water is diamagnetic); farmers have been magnetizing irrigation water for decades to great effect (reduced total water use and increased yield). Do magnets need to physically touch water in order to influence it, no; it is a field effect. My process, while not-magnetic, is also a non-invasive "field" effect. To be technical, we believe it is a torsion field effect. Torsion physics is an obscure field of quantim/sub-quantum physics explored by such luminaries as Albert Einstein, Elie Cartan, Henry Feynman, Paul Dirac and Nikolai Kozyrev.
How does it work on chocolate?
Chocolate is both astringent and bitter (especially dark chocolate). The sweetness of sugar not only serves functional roles (preservation being but one), it also helps moderate the bitterness and astringency (drying effect) that consumers find unpalatable. So-called "healthy" chocolates (those high in polyphenols) are particularly astringent and bitter and would require even more sugar to make them palatable. Of course cramming yet more sugar into an otherwise "healthy chocolate" defeats the whole purpose of consuming it in the first place, a bit like washing down your vitamins with vodka.
The Stevia breakthrough on chocolate is related to a general effect stretching across a range of related compounds that present varying degrees of sensory hurdles, hurdles revolving around astringency, bitterness, and other "objectionables." A partial list of this extended family of compounds includes red wine, coffee, and even alcohol, all of which have responded favourably to our resonance process. Stevia itself, while sweet, paradoxically also suffers from a peculiar mixture of bitter and astringent aftertastes/effects, aftertastes/effects that can persist for extended periods of time.
It is widely believed that the taste and texture of various foods and beverages is heavily mediated by hydrogen bonding interactions between saliva and the proteins contained in the foods and beverages (this is the chemical origin of matching wine with food). Bitterness, astringency and even alcohol burn, are a result of complex hydrogen bonding processes.
There is another theory of taste/smell posited by Luca Turing who coined the "quantum smell" effect theory. I suspect that both are right (aren't mutually exclusive) It is the resonance or vibration of molecules, either singularly or in combination, that ultimately determines how smell and taste are perceived, and it is my strong belief that resonance determines, to a large degree, the hydrogen bonding dynamics driving the perception of smell and taste. I also believe our high-speed gas chromatography results showing dramatic changes to the spectra of various "resonated" liquids is, in fact, direct evidence of this "hybrid" (hydrogen bonding/quantum) theory.
Monday, 24 August 2015
RSSL Double blind
Stevia Taste Test
The main objection to high concentrations of Stevia is that it typically manifests on the palate with a relatively long lasting, licorice/metallic aftertaste. The attached report reflects responses from trained taste testers comparing the temporal sweetness profiles of two different varieties of Stevia adjusted for sucrose sweetness equivalence at relatively low concentrations:
1. Stevia "H" (heads)
2. Stevia "T" (Tails) "structured"
With near unanimity, testers reported sample "T" (tails) as having a sweetness that persisted longer in the mouth than "H" when comparing both to sucrose. This would, of course, be very bad news if the "longer" and more "persistent" aftertaste of "T" (structured Stevia) was characteristically licorice/metallic at any concentration, which it isn't.
Since the main objective of this study was to compare temporal profiles, the concentrations were kept much lower than that normally found in say Coca Cola, and as such, the objectionableness of the licorice/metallic aftertaste perennially associated with higher concentrations of Stevia was minimized. Stated differently, if this test were repeated using high concentrations of both types of Stevia, the objectionableness of the untreated Stevia would obscure the teporal profile and serve no other purpose but to highlight untreated Stevia's well known limitations.
There was no perceived liquorice/metallic taste in any of the Stevia samples simply because the concentrations were so low. This is why the study was flawed, requiring us to read between the lines. They think that the liquorice after taste is due to the temporal (long lasting) sweetness profile when in fact it's because unstructured Stevia simply tastes like licorice in high concentrations! Their fear was that if they had used high concentrations, the temporal profiles would be obscured which is nonsense. Either Stevia tastes like iquorice or it doesn't, regardless of how long it persists in the mouth. Basically, they are brain washed to believe sugar is sugar because of its temporal profile, which is a at best, a superficial attribute. Variations in temporal profiles are only problematic if substitute sweeteners don't taste like the sugars they replace! Sugar in Coke is 11.5%.
One can of Coke Classic has approximately 40.5 g of sugar in it. Using the metric system, we find that 40.5gX(1cm^3/1gram)X(1mL/1cm^3) yields 40.5 mL. A can of Coke is 355 mL, so then we divide. (40.5/355)X100 = 11.4% sugar. So Coke is approximately 11.4% sugar.
What kind of challenges did chocolate market face before the breakthrough came into being?
At first I thought only semi-transparent liquids would respond to resonation since we use light in the process. I was quite shocked when something as opaque as melted chocolate was just as responsive as water.
You mentioned your decision to try sweetening chocolate is an extension of your original test of removing aftertastes in Stevia-sweetened beverages. Do you consider the breakthrough as a coincidence?
As stated above, all effects are related to bitterness, astringency, alcohol burn, etc. because all are mediated by hydrogen bonding. I drink nothing but Stevia-sweetened lemonade (zero sugar) and I use obscene amounts of Stevia. Matching the Stevia lemonade I drink for sweetness with sugar would quickly send me into a diabetic coma.
Tell me what a non-invasive resonance process is in plain English. What was it before your company developed this method? What are the advantages of the non-invasive resonance process? Any improvement?
Obviously, if there is no contact (just like with the magnet analogy), there is no chemistry. The process is inherently safe with no regulatory impediments due to the non-chemical nature of the process. This process is even under investigation for delivering medicine and phyto-compounds to the body through the mouth (sub-buccally). For example, Curcumin is poorly absorbed in the gut; we are studying the prospect of delivering it into the bloodstream merely by "holding" in the mouth, a solution of Curcumin suspended in structured water.
Are there any challenges in terms of developing this process? What are they? How did you overcome them?
All technical hurdles have been sorted out, and it's scalable. To give you an idea of just how scalable, we are exploring the resonation of bulk wine (25,000 litre bags, a process that should, by our calculations, take mere minutes; the effect is also permanent).
What are the most common misunderstandings from the general public about stevia-sweetened chocolate?
The public's awareness of the "potential" benefits of stevia is steadily growing; that being said, I would say the major hurdle of stevia is the aftertaste. Let's not blame the victim here. If the consumer says it tastes funny; it tastes funny, end of discussion. We cannot expect consumers to lower their standards or re-program their palates to suit our demands. Consumers have grown accustomed to a certain level of sweetness; let's give it to them, but safely! Remember, stevia is not only not harmful, there is much evidence that it is actually healthful! It's rare thing when bank (nature) makes a mistake in my favour and I for one intend to enjoy it!
Does your process provide any health benefits to chocolate? Does it change the original flavour at all?
There are subtle flavour changes to practically everything I have structured, but the major effect and goal is with the addition of stevia while reducing the overall sugar content.
How big is the Stevia-sweetened chocolate market in your opinion?
It's comparatively small now owing to the aftertaste, but the list of stevia-supplemented products is growing rapidly. I even saw a bag of brown rice in my local supermarket recently sweetened (boosted) with stevia!
How does your breakthrough affect the chocolate industry? How are you going to bring this technology to the chocolate manufacturers?
I am currently in discussions/testing with a leading chocolate maker here in the UK to bring forward a high polyphenol stevia-sweetened chocolate that could potentially be marketed as a health food (provided the sugar is low enough). I'm confident, based on preliminary testing, that it will qualify as such and be delicious. Imagine that, a delicious health food! What's next, honest politicians?
What do you see the development of chocolate ingredients in the next 10 years?
All I see is stevia, but I'm biased!
Thank you very much
Stevia has a noble history. The results of an extensive
literature search, posted on the Internet at www.
cookingwithstevia.com/petition.html, is accompanied
by an explanation of who had written the early articles
on stevia.
Articles published in scientific journals documenting
the safe use of stevia [many published
in Spanish and Portuguese] . . . were written
by botanists, chemists, and food technologists
who are experts qualified by training and experience.
Over 120 articles about stevia were written
prior to 1958 [and some, written over 100 years
ago]. Most of the articles are written by scientists
or government officials. Only three of the 120
articles referred to were written by or published
for the lay public. All were published in journals
and books. Several more articles written after
1958 reviewed the use of stevia as food prior to
1958. Over 900 articles have been published on
stevia to date.
Some of the articles written about stevia
were funded by the United States Government.
Letters on file at USDA chronicle the fact that
the US government had samples of stevia leaf and
intended to investigate it as a crop for the USA
as early as 1921. Articles written by American
scholars and published in American journals prior
to 1958 clearly state stevia leaf has been used
in Paraguay for many years and that no adverse
effects have ever been reported from the consumption
of stevia leaf.100
What made the US government decide not to use
stevia? Was it due to pressure from the burgeoning sugar
industry? But meanwhile, outside the US, stevia was
gaining a great deal of acceptance. The Japanese first
produced stevia as a commercial sweetener in 1971, preferring
to use something stable and safe instead of the
artificial sweeteners saccharin and cyclamate (which at the
time were known to be carcinogenic). Japan uses 40% of
the world’s stevia for packaged foods, soda and table use.
Stevia is also widely used in other parts of Asia, in Israel,
and of course in South America.
Users have experienced, and researchers have observed,
the following effects from ingesting Splenda®:
l Eye problems: spots in vision, cataracts.
l Gastrointestinal disorders (bloating, constipation and
diarrhea, cramps, nausea and vomiting).
l Joint pain, especially in the knees.
l Neurological disorders (anxiety and panic, concentration
difficulties, depression, faintness, migraines,
seizures).
l Skin problems (rash, burning, itching, welts, blisters).
l Enlarged liver and kidneys (which also become
calcified).
l Degenerated adrenals.
l Shrunken ovaries and thymus.
l Abnormal decreases in numbers of red blood cells,
thyroxin levels, urination levels, and minerals.
You may have wisely given up aspartame, but do you
really want to use sucralose instead?
Stevia. Botanically, stevia is part of an entire genus (a
certain classification) of about 150 species of herbs and
shrubs that are native to South America and Central
America. The species Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni—known
in Paraguay as Ka’á he’en, or sweet leaf, and simply called
stevia by Westerners—is a two-foot-high tropical shrub
with small leaves. When commercially grown, the plant
needs careful attention, as it can be difficult to cultivate
seeds that germinate. Much of the commercial stevia crop
is obtained from cuttings. Stevia has no calories, has a low
glycemic index (for what it’s worth), and its extract is up
to 300 times sweeter than sucrose. It’s also stable when
heated to 388ºF or 198ºC (although some sources say it
can tolerate heat up to 392ºF or 200ºC). For over 1,500
years, various tribes in Paraguay, Brazil and elsewhere
have been using different species of the plant not only as a
sweetener, but also as a tea to treat heartburn, to balance
blood sugar levels, and for other conditions.
Stevia became introduced to non-native peoples after
scientist Moisés Santiago Bertoni (1857–1929) emigrated
from the Italian section of Switzerland, where
he was born, and eventually settled in Paraguay. While
researching the ethnography and language of the Guarani
Indians (along with his regular studies of botany, zoology,
agriculture, biology and meteorology), he was introduced
to the plant. In a 1918 edition of a Paraguayan journal,
Dr. Bertoni discussed experiments showing that stevia
not only was safe, but also that it promoted health. The researchers concluded that stevioside,
taken orally, improved insulin sensitivity, and seemed
indicated for either people with diabetes, or for those
who consumed large amounts of fructose.
l Also in 2005, another article was published describing
a similar study at a Taiwan hospital. Scientists induced
diabetes in rats by feeding them fructose, followed up
with stevioside. The botanical compound regulated
blood glucose levels not only by enhancing insulin
secretion, but also by enhancing insulin utilization.
l In 2006, a published study from Denmark showed that
stevia can help normalize the pancreatic cells, and thus
help normalize blood sugar levels.
Other studies have shown that stevia contains natural
antioxidants; that it does not appear to be allergenic; and
that it does not cause cavities. The compound stevioside
safely lowers not only blood glucose levels, but also blood
pressure. Stevia does not appear to
adversely affect growth or reproductive
ability. And stevia has anti-fungal,
anti-bacterial, and anti-viral properties
(it prevents viruses from attaching
to cell membranes). Some experiments
indicate that stevia may even
help prevent cancer. (One study,
which reported that the metabolite
steviol may cause damage to DNA,
appears to have been improperly conducted:
the amounts tested were far
more than what any human being
could conceivably ingest over long
periods. Even water can cause harm if
drunk to excess.) These studies were
done on animals; however, humans
in South America have benefited from stevia for centuries—otherwise, they wouldn’t have continued to use it.
This is quite of lot of benefit from an herb that’s so heavily restricted in some countries.The compounds that give stevia its sweet taste pass through the digestive system without chemically breaking down, though a small percentage of some metabolites (byproducts of the original compounds) are absorbed by the gut. The metabolites that are absorbed (such as steviol, from stevioside), are further transformed by the body and are excreted in the urine, undetectable in the blood. At this time, it’s unclear whether in all cases, people with insulin resistance, blood sugar disorders or Syndrome X can conclusively tolerate stevia. One would think that stevia’s sweetness could cause insulin, glucose and leptin spikes, similar to the problems caused by other sweet tastes. Despite centuries of safe use of the herb, in 1991 the US Food and Drug Administration banned stevia, and perpetrated search and seizure raids against companies that sold it. Although the FDA does not allow stevia to be used as a sweetener in processed food products, on the premise that it’s an unsafe food additive, the agency does allow stevia to be sold as a dietary supplement. In packaged foods and drinks, stevia legally cannot be called a sweetener or even be referred to as sweet. Ironically, a 1995 petition submitted to the FDA cited over 900 studies on stevia, none of which showed a lack of safety. The herb has also been banned as a food additive in most of Europe and in Canada, but it is allowed as a dietary supplement in Canada. In Europe, stevia is permitted as an additive to animal feed.
Below is just a small sample of research on stevia, from
just over 50 years ago to the present:
l In 1954, an article called “Stevioside: A Unique
Sweetening Agent,” written by
a researcher at the Heriot-Watt
College, in Edinburgh, Scotland,
appeared in Chemistry and
Industry.101
l In 1986, a study published in the
Brazilian Journal of Medical and
Biological Research described stevia’s
ability to significantly improve
glucose tolerance.
l In 1997, three chemistry
researchers in Venezuela published
an article identifying, for
the first time, the anti-fungal and
anti-viral effects in some of stevia’s
compounds.
l In 2004, researchers in Eastern Europe published an article called “Glucose concentration in the blood of intact and alloxan-treated mice after pretreatment with commercial preparations of Stevia rebaudiana (Bertoni).” One group of mice was fed stevia, another group was fed stevioside, and a control group was fed neither. All the mice were then given alloxan to induce diabetes. (You may recall that alloxan is a compound commonly found in white bread; see this chapter’s previous section on grain.) The scientists reported:
“Pretreatment with stevia, and to a greater extent with
stevioside, protected test animals from the toxic action
of alloxan compared with controls.” 102
l In 2005, a study was published called “Increase of insulin
sensitivity by stevioside in fructose-rich chow-fed
McDonald’s Head Launches
National Diabetes Week
Bill Glasson, the president of the
Australian Medical Association,
has described inviting the head
of McDonald’s to launch National
Diabetes Week as like “inviting
Dracula to the opening of a blood
bank.”
News in Brief British Medical Journal, July 17, 2004 Complementary Therapies213
unlikely that the full range of health-promoting effects of the herb are present in the modified extracts. All of a plant’s constituent ingredients tend to interact with each other in beneficial ways.
One stevia company representative voiced similar doubts that a partial extract would have the same healing properties of the whole plant. He told me how to obtain good stevia, and also how to use it optimally. To growers and businesses: harvest it once, before the blossoms open; multiple pickings will yield bitter leaves. The stems and the ribs of leaves, as well as the leaves themselves, contain sweet glycosides, so don’t throw out any part of the leaf. To consumers: stevia can sweeten only to a certain extent. Use small amounts; more isn’t better. Excessive amounts may taste bitter and not sweet. If you do buy white stevia extract, make sure it’s processed with water and not solvents. Removal of coloring should be done with high pressure filtration and not bleaching. You can tell that a stevia extract has been filtered by putting it in some water, which adds back a slight bit of color. However, using de-colored stevia seems illadvised—who knows what valuable components are lost due to filtration?
The stevia company representative also told me that stevia appears to even out blood sugar levels by eliminating both the spikes and drops. Health professionals who have monitored clients using his stevia found that it was particularly potent when taken with the herb Gymnema sylvestre (also called Shardunika). When the two herbs were used together, blood sugar levels normalized without the need for medication. In fact, many people report that stevia apparently enhances the effects of other herbs, whether used in herbal teas, or in cooking and baking. There’s a difference between consuming (and testing for safety) extracts of a whole plant, and isolated compounds. In Healing With Whole Foods, Paul Pitchford advises that only the whole plant extract is safe. It makes sense that the clear extracts and white powders may lack essential components, thus possibly transforming a safe and effective herb into a drug that could create imbalance. I will address this issue in detail later, in the Herbs section.
It should be clear by now that artificial sweeteners are
even worse for you than concentrated “natural” ones—and
that for the most part, concentrated, so-called natural
sweeteners are not that natural. As of this writing, the
only sweet-tasting substance that holds any promise is
stevia. New technologies to manufacture yet more sweet
chemicals are constantly being implemented, instead of
addressing what could be done to quiet the sweet tooth
that damages our health and shortens our life span. “In
the last 20 years,” writes Misner, “we have increased sugar consumption in the USA [from] 26 pounds to 135 [pounds]However, perhaps one’s tolerance (or lack of it) to stevia depends on what form of the herb is being used. Many companies, apparently eager to cash in on this new “miracle sweetener,” are making stevia readily available in liquids and powders of various colors (and even flavors!). But what they are not telling consumers is the complete truth about how the herb is processed. And, as with any other food, processing is the key to how the ingredients behave. The clue to how stevia works can be found only in the whole herb. The plant is sweet. But its sweetness is not comparable to sucrose, the sugar alcohols, honey, maple sugar or molasses. The taste of stevia lingers in the mouth longer than most sugars, and the plant has an aftertaste alternately described as bitter, or resembling licorice.
Stevia’s slightly bitter aftertaste is due to the presence of
high amounts of stevioside. It’s rebaudioside, the other glycoside, that’s responsible for the plant’s intense sweetness.Again, a search of the US Patent Office yields valuable clues. Numerous patents exist (one awarded in 1973) not only for the extraction of stevia, but also for processing methods. Most of the patents are for ways to substantially decrease the levels of bitter stevioside and increase the levels of sweet rebaudioside. These methods range from manual cross-pollination of selected seed-bearing plants to obtain the desirable characteristics, to sophisticated manipulation in the laboratory. Some companies treat the plant with enzymes to eliminate the stevioside so just rebaudioside remains. One patent, issued October 5, 1999, outlines an intricate separation of the various components to yield only the very sweet glycoside rebaudioside-A. This method involves extraction, dissolving the mixed sweet glycosides with methanol solvents, cooling, concentrating, filtering through resin, and spray drying to obtain a crystalline solid “of desired purity.” 104 Does this “pure” white powder sound like anything else? This kind of rigorous processing is far enough removed from the simple drying and powdering of the plant to require—and receive—a patent. In the United States, stevia is available as a greenish brown powder, greenish brown liquid, white powder, and clear liquid. The green powder is simply the whole dried leaves ground to a powder. The liquid is a tincture made from the dried herb. Anything else leaves the category of edible foods and becomes a laboratory-synthesized chemical.
For the most part, white stevia products are synthetic
sweeteners, as they contain only selected portions of the
plant that the manufacturer has decided are important. In
addition, almost all of the white stevia liquids and powders on the market are bleached, and contain preservatives.As might be expected, the processed powders taste quite different from the whole herb: they are similar to the ubiquitous table sugar. Even more important, it’s Artificial preservatives tend to be carcinogenic. BHA (Butylated Hydroxyanisole) and BHT (Butylated Hydroxytoluene), commonly added to oils to delay deterioration, have also been found to damage the kidneys, liver and nervous system. Sodium nitrate and nitrite, commonly added to processed meats to prevent bacterial growth, transform into carcinogenic nitrosamines in the stomach. They also cause neurological damage and gastrointestinal distress. The pink color of nitrate and nitrite treated meats may deceive the consumer into believing that the meat is fresh and wholesome, when it is not.
One chemical commonly used as a “flavor enhancer” is monosodium glutamate, commonly called MSG. This is a poison that in some ways mimics the action of toxic metals and can cause abnormal blood pressure, muscle and joint pain, gastrointestinal and respiratory difficulties, skin rashes, blurry vision, and impaired brain functioning that may include depression, dizziness, migraines, seizures, loss of balance, sleepiness, insomnia, hyperactivity in children, mental confusion and anxiety. In fact, the effects of MSG (as well as aspartame) mimic many neurological disorders, such as Alzheimer’s and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (or ALS, also called Lou Gehrig’s disease).
Glutamate (like aspartame) is especially insidious because it can cross the delicate blood-brain barrier, which is a network of tightly packed, specialized capillaries designed to keep dangerous substances from entering the brain. Furthermore, glutamate can keep that blood-brain barrier open, which allows other harmful agents to enter.
Although MSG is ubiquitous, and used around the world, this doesn’t mean that it’s safe. Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills, by Russell Blaylock, MD, describes in detail how and why MSG causes so much harm, and what people can do to minimize the damage. He also provides the many chemical names, and forms, of MSG. This information is wise to have, since many items are legally allowed to contain MSG without having to be labeled as such. See Insert, “The Truth about MSG,” for a guide to the chemical names, and what foods contain MSG. In case you thought that MSG was the ultimate triumph in food additives, the article “Better Disguises through Chemistry” discusses the invention of yet a newer chemical. This chemical tricks the taste buds into sensing sugar or salt even when it is not there. Kraft Foods, Nestlé, Coca-Cola and Campbell Soup are all working with a biotechnology company called Senomyx®, which has developed several chemicals, most of which do not have any flavor of their own but instead work of sugar per person per year! Prior to . . . 1890 . . . the average consumption was only 5 pounds per person per year! Cardiovascular disease and cancer was virtually unknown in the early 1900s.” 105 I have spent considerable time discussing sweeteners because of their enormous impact on our well-being. Healthy people can often tolerate small amounts of natural sweeteners. Those whose health issues are not too severe may sometimes tolerate them. However, those who are very ill should probably avoid them altogether. As for artificial sweeteners, I can see no valid reason to use them, ever.
If your adrenals and pancreas are functioning properly, and you still crave sugar, the craving may be due to certain foods in the diet that are causing imbalances: the wrong types of fats, grains (perhaps improperly prepared), or inadequate or excessive amounts of animal protein. You could be lacking in essential minerals. Or, you could be suffering from Candida albicans or some other microbe that feeds on sugar. Consult a health professional with a solid background in biochemistry and nutrition. You also may want to get yourself a rife machine and start sessions, if you haven’t already.
Preservatives, Dyes, Fragrances and Flavorings So-called natural fragrances and flavors are used in cleaners, cosmetics, drugs and skin care items as well as foods, even though their origins were never even edible in the first place. Of the 3,000 additives to foods, half are synthetic flavorings. The majority of flavorings, dyes, and so-called preservatives are manufactured from petroleum. Their contents are legally protected as “trade secrets.”
“Trade secrets (as defined by FDA) and the ingredients of flavors and fragrances do not have to be specifically listed,” says an FDA Consumer article.106 Even if the label reads “contains natural flavors,” the flavors are legally allowed to be adulterated or comprised entirely of synthetic chemicals. Synthetic fragrances can be comprised of up to 5,000 hydrocarbons (derived from petroleum or natural gas), and as many as 200 other ingredients, which instead of being listed separately can simply say “Fragrance.” Petroleum, natural gas, and their derivatives are not compatible with living systems, but food companies try hard to convince the public that fake foods are innovations rather than atrocities.
Among other conditions, these synthetic flavorings and fragrances cause cardiac and immune disorders, allergic reactions, digestive disturbances, and damage to the central nervous system, respiratory tract, liver and kidneys. They are even causal factors in cancer.
The FDA & Stevia
![](/img/missing-image.png)
“The incestuous relationship between government and big business thrives in the dark.” – Jack Anderson
While the American public has waited in vain for a safe artificial sweetener to be developed, citizens of certain other countries have for years — in some cases, for centuries — enjoyed a safe, natural sweetener that is virtually calorie-free and to which many other health benefits have been attributed. This miracle sweetener is a South American herb called Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni — commonly known simply as stevia, estimated to be some 150 to 400 times sweeter than sugar.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration since the mid-1980s has labeled stevia an “unsafe food additive” and gone to extensive lengths to keep it off the U.S. market — including initiating a search-and-seizure campaign and full-fledged “import alert.”
To judge from the extensive measures the FDA has employed to keep Americans in the dark about stevia, one might assume it was some type of dangerous narcotic. But, in fact, no ill effects have ever been attributed to it, although it has been used by millions of people around the world, in some locales for hundreds of years.
So adamant has the FDA remained on the subject, that even though stevia can now be legally marketed as a dietary supplement under legislation enacted in 1994, any mention of its possible use as a sweetener or tea is still strictly prohibited.
Now that stevia has been designated as “unsafe” — almost certainly to benefit the politically powerful sweetener industry — the agency has insisted on stonewalling any and all evidence to the contrary. Once the FDA makes a decision, neither practical experience nor scientific research is likely to bring about a reversal of its position.
As Rob McCaleb, president and founder of the Herb Research Foundation, puts it: “Sweetness is big money. Nobody wants to see something cheap and easy to grow on the market competing with the things they worked so hard to get approved.”
Copies of the documents referred to on these pages should be available to anyone who wishes to make a Freedom of Information Act request to the FDA. For more information on making a FOIA request, check out the FDA Web site at: www.fda.gov
Stevia Dangers?
Quotes and comments
"According to the Herb Research Foundation, numerous scientists, and tens of millions of consumers throughout the world, especially in Japan, the herb is safe and intensely sweet, which could make it a popular noncaloric sweetener."
Rob McCaleb, president, Herb Research Foundation, Boulder, Colo., USA
"…as a scientist with over 15 years researching the safety of stevia and of many other plants used as food or food ingredients, I can assure that our conclusions in these various studies indicate that stevia is safe for human consumption as per intended usage, that is, as a sweetener."
Mauro Alvarez, Ph.D., Brazil
"The petition cites over 120 articles about stevia written before 1958, and over 900 articles published to date. In this well-chronicled history of stevia, no author has ever reported any adverse human health consequences associated with consumption of stevia leaf."
Supplement to GRAS affirmation petition no. 4G0406, submitted by the Thomas J. Lipton Company February 3, 1995
"Stevia leaf is a natural product that has been used for at least 400 years as a food product, principally as a sweetener or other flavoring agent. None of this common usage in foods has indicated any evidence of a safety problem. There are no reports of any government agency in any of the above countries indicating any public health concern whatsoever in connection with the use of stevia in foods."
Gras affirmation petition submitted on behalf of the American Herbal Products Association, April 23, 1992
"…various extract forms of stevia have been extensively studied and tested. These tests include acute, sub-acute, carcinogenic evaluation and mutagenicity studies. These scientific data, while not directly relevant or required for exemption under the common use in food proviso, nevertheless demonstrate cumulatively that there is no safety problem associated with the use of an extract of stevia. It appear to be extraordinarily safe."
Introduction to GRAS affirmation petition submitted by the American Herbal Products Association, April 23, 1992
"My government is trying to cause the farms of my country to cease growing marijuana and replace these crops with stevia. This idea is strongly supported by the Drug Enforcement Agency because stevia is an excellent cash crop, grows well in Paraguay…finally and most important, stevia is a completely safe health-promoting herb. This has been well-demonstrated by its extensive use in Paraguay and Japan, where its refined product known as stevioside, enjoys 41% of the sweetener market."
Juan Esteban Aguirre, Paraguayan Ambassador to the United States, in a letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, September 23, 1993
"There are more than 2,000 folders in my office, each with a collection of facts and fables about various medicinal plants. In one of these folders there's an old wrinkled envelope dated 5/19/45. In it are old leaves of Paraguay's…"sweet herb," Stevia rebaudiana. More than 40 years old, one leaf of the Stevia will still sweeten a cup of coffee or tea enough to satisfy my sweet tooth….I predict rough sailing with our FDA for this non-nutritive sweetener. I hope it will make it."
James A. Duke, former chief of Medicinal Plant Research of the USDA; The Business of Herbs, November/December, 1986
"[The FDA action on stevia is] a restraint of trade to benefit the artificial sweetener industry."
Jon Kyl (R), AZ in a 1993 letter to former FDA Commissioner David Kessler about the 1991 stevia "import alert."
"Stevia has a political problem."
Rob McCaleb, president Herb Research Foundation
"I had one guy from the FDA tell me 'if we wanted to make carrots [be] against the law, we could do it.'"
Kerry Nielson, former director of operations at Sunrider International, discussing the 1985 FDA seizure of his company's stevia.
"Even if they have reviewed these studies, the only possible way to report that the results showed detrimental effects is by taking information out of context. If this is the case, one concludes that these FDA scientists are incompetent and irresponsible, or if not, they must belong to some sort of conspiracy group to carry on a sinister agenda against this plant with the objective to keep it away from American consumers by attributing to it safety issues that do not exist."
Mauro Alvarez, Ph.D., responding in a 1998 letter to the fact that the FDA cited stevia studies he conducted as evidence that stevia is unsafe.
We've selected a few examples from the hundreds of studies attesting to the safety of the stevia leaf and its extracts.
Contraceptive concerns? The FDA frequently cites a 32-year-old study about stevia and fertility. Read about the study at issue and what its author has to say.
Stevioside and two generations of hamsters
In 1991 a study was done by researchers at the Chulalongkorn University Primate Research Center in Bangkok, Thailand (Yodyingyuad, 1991). The researchers' objective was to study the consequences of daily ingestion of stevioside - the main active sweetening agent in the stevia plant - in hamsters and its effects on two subsequent generations.
This study involved four groups of 20 hamsters (10 males and 10 females) who were one month old. The first group was fed a daily stevioside dosage of 500 mg/kg; the second group received a higher dose at 1,000 mg/kg; and the third group dosage was the highest at 2,500 mg/kg. The fourth group, which served as the control, received no stevioside. (Chinese researchers have estimated that the daily human consumption of stevioside is about 2 mg/kg; Xili, 1992).
The study showed no significant difference in the average growth of the first generation of hamsters in the groups receiving stevioside - no matter what dosage they were given. Even the third generation of hamsters, at 120 days of age, showed no significant differences in body weight - no matter which group they were in.
As to the mating performance, all three generations performed the same, no matter which dose of stevioside they received. Their performance was equal to the controls.
In summary, no growth or fertility abnormalities were found in hamsters of either sex. Mating was efficient and successful.
The researchers agreed, "The results of this study are astonishing. Stevioside at a dose as high as 2,500 mg/kg did not do any harm to these animals. We conclude that stevioside at a dose as high as 2.5 grams per kilogram of body weight affects neither the growth nor reproduction in hamsters."
Assessment of the Carcinogenicity of Stevioside in Rats
published in Food and Chemical Toxicology 1997
This study was performed by Dr. K. Toyoda and colleagues, from the Division of Pathology, National Institute of Health Sciences in Tokyo, Japan. For a period of 104 weeks (two years), three groups of lab rats - 50 males and 50 females - were tested. One group received stevioside in a concentration that constituted 2.5 percent of its daily diet; the second group received a concentration that constituted 5 percent of its diet. The third group, which served as the control, received no stevoiside.
The rats who received the stevioside weighed less than those in the control group. Considering stevioside has no calories, this makes sense. When the organs and tissues of the rats were examined under a microscope, there was almost no difference between those who were given stevia and those who were not. One interesting difference, however, was that the females who took stevioside had a decreased incidence of breast tumors, while the males displayed a lesser incidence of kidney damage. The researchers state, "It is concluded that stevioside is not carcinogenic in rats under the experimental conditions described."
Excerpted from: "The Stevia Cookbook," copyright 1999 by Ray Sahelian, MD and Donna Gates
Additional studies and citations
A. Yamada, S. Ohgaki, T. Noda, and M. Shimizu. 1985. Chronic toxicity study of dietary stevia extracts in F344 rats. Journal of the Food Science and Hygiene Society of Japan 26, 169-183. (in English).
"As a result of this protracted and extensive investigation, it was concluded that no significant dose-related changes were found in the growth, general appearance, hematological and blood biochemical findings, organ weights, and macroscopic or microscopic observations, as a result of feeding male and female F344 rats with S. rebaudiana extracts at levels up to 1% of their feed for about two years. This…study…(involved) nearly 500 test animals that were treated for up to two years..the highest dose level administered to the animals represented some 100 times the estimated daily intake of this sweet material in the human diet. The results obtained are supportive of the safety of S. rebaudiana extracts, stevioside and rebaudioside A when consumed as sucrose substitutes by human populations."1
1Food Ingredient Safety Review: Stevia rebaudiana leaves by A. Douglas Kinghorn, Ph.D.
Acute Toxicity
"Crude and purified extracts of Stevia rebaudiana have been subjected to acute toxicity tests in rats and mice, the results of which endorse the use of these materials for human consumption.
In a study performed in the United States, no evidence of acute toxicity was observed when separate 2 g/kg doses of the S. rebaudiana sweet glycoside constituents, stevioside, rebaudiosides A-C, dulcoside A, and steviolbioside were administered to mice…The results of these acute toxicity studies in rodents do not predict any potential risk for human populations by the ingestion of S. rebaudiana extracts and constituents."2
2Ibid. at 1.
"Acute toxicity was not demonstrated when separate 2 g/kg doses were administered to mice by oral intubation, indicating that a concentrated extract of stevia is less than 1/10 as toxic (acute) as caffeine."3
3Gras Affirmation Petition, Stevia leaves, presented on behalf of the American Herbal Products Association, April 23, 1992
Subacute Toxicity
4"It has been concluded by Akashi and Yokoyama (H. Asaki and Y. Yokoyama. 1975. Dried-leaf extracts of stevia. Toxicological tests. Shokuhin Kogyo 18(20), 34-43. In Japanese, partial English translation provided), that laboratory chow containing up to 7.0% w/w stevioside produced no untoward toxic effects, when fed to male and female rats for nearly two months."
4Ibid. at 1.
5"A subacute toxicity study was carried out on rats using an aqueous extract of S. rebaudiana containing about 50% w/w stevioside. Two levels of extract were mixed with laboratory chow for feeding studies, allowing each animal to receive either 0.25 g or 0.5 g stevioside in 15 g of feed per day. Animals were fed the experimental diets for 56 days…There were no abnormalities relative to controls reported that were dose-related, except for a significant decrease in serum lactic dehydrogenase levels.
Neither of these two subacute toxicity studies would predict any potential harm on ingestion of S. rebaudiana extracts by humans."
5Ibid. at 1.
Contraceptive concerns?
In 1968 Professor Joseph Kuc, then a member of Purdue University's department of biochemistry, performed a study on rats to see if stevia had any contraceptive effect. Undertaken with a faculty member at the University of the Republic in Montevideo, the study was prompted by a rumor that Indian women in South America used the herb for contraceptive purposes. It should be noted that researchers have been unable to duplicate the conclusions of this study.
While the results of the Kuc study might appear at first glance to bear out such rumors, closer examination raises doubts about the methods that were used, and how they apply to the typical way in which stevia is consumed. In fact, Kuc himself, although still standing by his findings of marked, relatively long-term reductions in the numbers of offspring born to female rats administered his stevia solution, acknowledges that those results aren't necessarily applicable to human consumption.
The Kuc study involved a very high concentration - ten milliliters of a dosage administered in about 20 minutes - of a concoction derived by drying to a powder and boiling not just the leaves, but material from the stevia plant that would not ordinarily be consumed. This liquid replaced the animals' drinking water, and was given at such a rate as to equate with a person drinking 2.5 quarts of liquid in less than half an hour.
The study also only utilized one dosage level. Typically, a biological effect (such as what Kuc reported) would be demonstrated by using a variety of doses to establish what is known as a dose-response relationship.
Kuc acknowledges that the study "absolutely needs to be redone" (just as all research, in his view, needs to be "checked and rechecked" to determine whether it "stands the test of time"). He further concedes that this finding, in itself does not constitute an important reason for keeping stevia off the U.S. market.
Kuc also notes something else: that effects in rats aren't necessarily experienced by people - as illustrated by the apparent lack of any correlation between the results of his rat research and birth rates among regular stevia consumers. As pointed out in the Lipton petition to the FDA, "…if this reproductive effect in rats is real and can be extrapolated to humans, then one might suspect that there would be very few children in some regions of Paraguay."
Scraping the bottom of the research barrel
A second study dealing with stevia's supposed contraceptive effect was performed on female mice and published in a Brazilian pharmacological journal in 1988. It was later informally translated by an FDA employee familiar with Portuguese. The only problem is that, outside of the FDA, no one in the scientific community gives it credence.
The research at issue, according to one authority who analyzed it (Professor Mauro Alvarez of Brazil's State University of Maringa Foundation) "caused surprise with regard to the lack of information about the quantities that were administered and the preparation of the infusions, because mice, due to their low body weight, cannot receive high volumes intragastrically without suffering major stress." What's more, the study involved a small number of test animals and was "highly susceptible to external influences," he observed.
The same study was characterized by Mark Blumenthal, editor of Herbalgram - a newsletter published jointly by the American Botanical Council and Herb Research Foundation - as "the kind of research which FDA would never accept if a petitioner was using it (as a basis for) his or her arguments." In his opinion, "The FDA would laugh them out of the room."
What's perhaps most interesting about the FDA's citation of these two studies, however, is that what it regards as a possibly harmful effect is just as apt to be viewed as a beneficial one. As the authors of the Lipton petition put it, "One would think that this effect would make stevia extract the perfect contraceptive agent - easy to consume… and effective long-term - and would be intensely pursued by pharmaceutical companies, the World Health Organization, etc. Obviously this has not happened (or if it has, then there was no effect), which casts further doubt on the validity of the data."
Excerpted from "The Stevia Story: A tale of incredible sweetness & intrigue, copyright 2000, by Donna Gates
What Is Stevia? Side Effects, Safety Dangers and Health Benefits as a Natural Sweetener
By Regev Elya 269 Comments
24
Share
Tweet
53
Pin
0
Share
What you're about to read now is the revised version of what I believe to be the most aomprehensive and unbiased review of stevia available on the internet. It took me a few weeks to go through many of the hundreds of available studies and compile them into this refined, easy-to-digest resource. By the time you're done, you'll know more about stevia side effects, benefits and overall safety than 99.99% of doctors worldwide. Mega-karma points if you share it with anyone curious about this plant.
If you're an avid reader here, you must already know that disease and dark dangers lurk beneath the pearly whiteness of sugar. Too much of it makes you moody, fat and eventually sick and diabetic. Indeed a very sad fate for a human being genetically hardwired for optimal fitness, vibrant health and sexy times.
Sugar substitutes and alternatives have shown themselves everywhere - from the notorious Aspartame to Saccharin and Sucralose. But most of them are artificial and some are so dangerous they've been scientifically documented to induce cancerous tumours and other diseases.
And we obviously want none of that.
Luckily for us, there's a new (not so new anymore) boy in town - Stevia. This cheap sugar alternative comes directly from the soil, is very easy to grow on your own, and is claimed to be successfuly used for centuries by Latin American natives.
What Is Stevia?
You may have also heard the names Sweetleaf or Sugarleaf. Both refer to Stevia.
But is stevia good for you as they claim and you can safely put it in your homemade meal replacement shakes? Or is stevia bad for you like other popular alternative sweeteners and you should avoid it at all cost? Before we dwelve deep into mother science, lets take a look at the stevia plant and see what it holds underneath its lavish green pigments.
What Is Stevia Sweetener?
Stevia plant is a genus of 240 various species of herbs and shrubs belonging to the sunflower family (Asteraceae), and is found naturally growing in sub-tropical and tropical areas in Latin America. The species we care for is the Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni which is now being adopted as a sweetener around the world, just like it was used for centuries by the Guaraní tribes of Brazil and Paraguay.
What Is Stevia?
The Guaraní have been drinking yerba mate teas sweetened with stevia in the raw leafy form more than a thousand years before western yoga hippies jumped on the herbal tea and stevia wagon. They call it ka'a he'ê ("sweet herb"). The plant was discovered to the west by Moisés Santiago Bertoni, a Swiss botanist who emigrated and lived in Paraguay for about half his life.
Processed or pure stevia sweetener products today are used for many purposes - from its raw sweet leaves in Japanese teas to a processed powder or liquid bottle used to sweeten soft drinks, or even at home for baking and cooking. Though my grandfather didn't have much luck germinating the seeds, most people agree its easy to grow. And it's RIDICULOUSLY sweet.
But where does the sweetness come from?
It comes from two primary steviol glycosides - stevioside and rebaudioside. Rebaudioside is the sweetest (350-450 times the sweetness of table sugar) and least bitter part of the leaf, while stevioside (250-300 times the sweetness of table sugar) has that bitter aftertaste many people complain about.
That's why some processed brands like Truvia and PureVia isolate rebaudioside and use it solely while other 'natural' or 'raw' stevia brands use the full spectrum of glycosides. And as you might suspect, problems arise when brands process the plant and add wierd substances to the mix.
So is stevia good or bad for you? Go get yourself a cup of green tea and let's go find out.
Stevia Benefits and Advantages
Is Stevia Healthy For You?
The first thing i'm gonna do is go through the available science and examine the documented stevia health benefits . Yes, stevia is much sweeter than sugar and contains no carbohydrates or calories and everybody knows that. But are there other possible major benefits? Native latin-American used it for centuries as a sweet treat and breath-freshener, but do their claims of stevia being a health food with medicinal properties by itself hold any basis in reality?
In the early 70's, Japan begun cultivating Stevia as an alternative to artificial sweeteners like saccharin after suspecting them of being a potential carcinogen. Fast forward to our days and stevia takes 40% of the sweetener market share in Japan, being used extensively in homes and commercial soft drinks.
But.. would you be surprised to learn that the Japanase are also using stevia as a treatment for type 2 diabetes? Check this out.
The Stevia Diabetes Connection
Researchers found that stevioside increases insulin sensitivity, reduces post-meal blood glucose and delays the development of insulin resistance in rats on a high-fructose diet. 'This is all impressive" you're saying, "but what about humans?"
One research studying the effects of stevia, aspartame, and sucrose on food intake, satiety, and postprandial glucose and insulin levels found similar results and showed that compared to sucrose or aspartame consumers, human stevia consumers had lower post-meal blood sugar levels and much lower post-meal insulin levels.
Best part? The stevia-consuming group didn't have any of the sweet cravings sugar and some alternative sweeteners induce, and their blood-sugar profile was more stable.
Another study found some beneficial effect of stevia on diabetes and diabetes-induced renal disorders and concluded that their results 'support the validity of Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni for the management of diabetes as well as diabetes-induced renal disorders'.
Another recent research evaluated how stevia affects diabetic rats and discovered that rats fed with doses of 250 and 500 mg/kg a day significantly reduced their fasting blood sugar levels, insulin resistance, triglycerides, alkaline phosphatase and omentin levels.
One more study concluded that rebaudioside A possesses insulinotropic effects and may serve a potential role as treatment in type-2 diabetes, while another study reached similar findings and found out that stevioside and steviol stimulate insulin secretion via a direct action on beta cells, and may have a potential role as antihyperglycemic agents in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus.
This suggest to us that stevia and diabetes have more to do than we previously thought. Not only is it a good zero-carb diabetes-friendly alternative for sugar, but it actually helps increasing insulin sensitivity, which is especially helpful for insulin-resistant diabetic people.
Overall, it looks like an ideal all-around saviour for diabetic patients.
Stevia, Memory and Oxidative Damage
One study found an antiamnesic effect of stevioside in scopolamine-treated rats. Researchers impaired the memory of mice through the use of scopolamine (an anticholigernic found in the hallucinogenic devil's weed), gave them 250mg/kg dose of oral stevioside and then checked for memory retention.
They found that the stevioside-fed rats had largely reversed their memory deficit and even reduced brain oxidative damage caused by scopolamine, and concluded that 'stevioside exerts a memory-preservative effect in cognitive deficits of rats'.
I'd be very interested to read further studies about the effects of stevia on memory preservation on humans. Who knows, perhaps an unexpected alternative treatment for Alzheimer was right under our nose all this time?
Stevia and Cholesterol
Researchers studying long-term feeding effects of stevioside sweetener on some toxicological parameters of growing male rats found that stevia taken alone in low-doses lowered cholesterol and was deemed safe to use and without any toxicological effects on body weight, organ relative weight, haematological and biochemical parameters or enzyme activities, though high-doses (1500mg/kg, an amount unrealistic outside the lab) did increase some toxic parameters.
The interesting part: taken together with an inulin soluble fiber - stevioside also increased HDL and lowered overall lipids. I find it very interesting, and if you choose to buy stevia perhaps you'd benefit from getting pure stevia extract with some inulin soluble fiber added to it.
Stevia, Hypertension and Blood Pressure
Researchers also studied the efficacy and tolerability of oral stevioside in Chinese patients with mild hypertension. After two years they found out that an intake of 500mg oral stevioside three times a day significantly reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure compared to placebo.
Their hypertension situation improved and there were no reported or detected side effects. Interesting enough, less patients in the stevioside-group developed left ventricular hypertrophy, a pathological thickening of the heart muscle.
Another study with much lower doses (upto 15mg per kg a day) found no anti-hypertensive effects, and another one researching the mechanism of the antihypertensive effect of stevioside in anaesthetised dogs showed 200mg/kg doses of stevioside to normalise blood pressure and confirmed that 'stevioside is an effective antihypertensive natural product'.
All in all the results are spectacular, even though we're talking about very high doses.
Stevia and Atherosclerosis
Researchers fed 12-week old mice with 10mg/kg dose of stevioside next to a placebo group and found out that stevioside inhibits atherosclerosis by improving insulin signaling and antioxidant defense in obese insulin-resistant mice.
The mice had lower glucose and insulin levels (diabetes people, rejoice!), improved adipose tissue maturation and increased glucose transport, insulin signalling and antioxidant defense. They also had lower oxidised-LDL ("bad cholesterol") and thus reduced atherosclerotic plaque buildup.
Impressive.
And because obesity, cancer and diabetes are very often associated with insulin resistance and high levels of oxidative stress and inflammation, stevia seems to be a king sweetener not only for diabetics looking for a zero-carb natural sweetener but for a wide array of the population as well.
And speaking of cancer…
Stevia and Cancer
One Japanese study from the National Institute of Health Sciences in Tokyo studied 50 male and 50 female rats in three groups for a period of two years. One group received stevioside at a concentration of 2.5% of their diet, second group 5%, and the third group served as a control and received no stevioside.
The results are interesting. Though there was a significant decrease in the final survival rate of the 5% treated rats, there was no noticeable difference in the organs and tissues of all groups when examined under a microscope, and females who took stevioside had a reduced occurrence of breast cancer tumours, and males showed a lesser severity of kidney damage. Also, the stevioside-fed rats weighted slightly less, which makes sense since stevioside has no calories or a glycemic response.
What's interesting though, is that there was also a significant decrease in the final survival rate of the 5% treated rats. Another interesting and relevant study published by Nutrition and Cancer found stevoiside to have some anti breast-cancer properties in-vitro (in cells outside their normal biological environment, like a petri-dish) and decrease some stress pathways in the body that contributes to cancer cells growth.
Unfortunately I couldn't dig the full data to check those findings more thoroughly, but they look promising.
Other Japanese researchers studied the inhibitory effect of stevioside on tumor promotion and found steviol glycosides stevioside, rebaudioside A, rebaudioside C and dulcoside A to posses a marked inhibitory effect against inflammation and tumour promotion.
Rebaudiosides A and C inhibited inflammation in a similar activity to hydrocortisone, a commercially available anti-inflammatory drug, and stevioside was even more effective than indomethacin! Rebaudioside C showed half the inhibition rate of indomecthacin and quercentin, an antitumor promoting agent, but at doses 10 and 100 times smaller.
The groups treated with 0.1mg and 1.0mg stevioside mixture produced 2.2 and 0.3 tumours per mouse - while the control group without stevioside produced 8.1 tumours per mouse. We're talking about 73% and 96% reductions! This is beyond incredible, but it doesn't really seem to surprise the researchers: they're saying that 'a series of naturally occurring components of Compositae plants has been found to possess antitumor-promoting activities'.
They suggested that stevioside is better than some triterpenoids ("heliantriol C,11) pachymic acid, 3-O-acetyl- 16a-hydroxytrametenolic acid, and poricoic acid B16) for the chemoprevention of cancer.
Eagle-eyed readers will say that those are in-vitro studies that are notoriously inaccurate in 'real-life' biological environments (aka in-vivo), and that's a very valid and realistic concern. With that in mind, the researchers say that "many compounds that are active in the EBV-EA assay have been confirmed to be inhibitors of tumor promotion in two-stage carcinogenesis tests in vivo."
Take it as you wish.
Stevia Being a Sugar SUBSTITUTE
"Cancer, above all other diseases, has countless secondary causes. But, even for cancer, there is only one prime cause. Summarized in a few words, the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar." (Otto H. Warburg, 1931 nobel prize winner)
Lastly, and perhaps the most important:
Regardless of the very possible nutritional and medicinal health benefits of stevia, the simple act of eliminating sugar out of your diet is sure to bring benefits of its own. You already knew that sugar is one of the primary causes of diabetes, obesity and most other metabolic diseases, but did you actually know that cancer cells FEED on sugar?
And stevia helps you rid a lot of sugar out of your diet. Take a look:
Bonus: Stevia to Sugar Conversion Ratios
If you're baking with stevia, a good rule of thumb to remember is that 1 cup of sugar equals about 24 stevia powder packets or 2 teaspoons of liquid stevia. You're gonna need a tiny pinch, about half a packet (that's 0.5g) - to achieve the same level of sweetness achieved by a 5g teaspoon of sugar.
Those measurements are from the SweetLeaf brand (comes with inulin insoluble fiber), so if you get a completely pure stevia - you'll need to use much lower doses to achieve the same sweetness.
And by the way, this plant is ph-stable and resistant to high heat (heat stable up to 392°F) and is also freezer-resistant and water soluble, making cooking with stevia entirely possible. That way you'll eliminate lots of empty calories out of your diet. It's some highly potent stuff.
Dangers: Stevia Side Effects and Warnings
Is Stevia Safe to Use?
There were and still are some question marks about the dangers of stevia, mainly concerns related to reproductive toxicity and decreased fertility. So is it time to forget about the pill, ditch the condoms and feed on stevia like lunatic hipsters? Let's take another look at mother-science and try to spot any adverse reproductive or genotoxic side effects of stevia consumption.
Contraceptive & Reproductive Stevia Dangers and Side Effects
Most contraceptive stevia concerns stem from a very old study dating back to 1968. After rumours of South American women using Stevia as a contraceptive, Professor Joseph Kuc performed that study to evaluate any contraceptive properties of stevia rebaudiana.
The results? Kuc found a visible and relatively long-term reduction in the number of offspring born to female rats he fed with a stevia solution:
A water decoction of the plant Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni reduces fertility in adult female rats of proven fertility. The decoction continues to descrease fertility for at least 50 to 60 days after intake is stopped. The decoction did not affect appetite and apparently did not affect the health of adults rats.
Not. Good. At all.
Professor Kuc does admit that his results aren't necessarily valid for humans. First, he used some material from the stevia plant that isn't ordinarily consumed along with his boiled stevia leaf extract. Second, he let his rats drink that mixture in such a high rate, equalling a person drinking about 2.5 litters of liquid in less than half an hour. And third, he used only one dosage level and not a variety of doses to establish what is known as a 'dose-response' relationship.
So should you feel intimidated by prof. Joseph Kuc's findings? Is Stevia safe during pregnancy, breastfeeding or for those trying to have a baby? Let's take a few more looks at science.
One study trying to discover fertility effects of chronic administration (two months) of Stevia found that it could effect hormones because of its glycosides having a similar structure to plant hormones like gibberellin.
"..chronic administration (60 days) of a Stevia rebaudiana aqueous extract produced a decrease in final weight of testis, seminal vesicle and cauda epididymidis. In addition, the fructose content of the accessory sex glands and the epididymal sperm concentration are decreased. Stevia treatment tended to decrease the plasma testosterone level, probably by a putative affinity of glycosides of extract for a certain androgen receptor, and no alteration occurred in luteinizing hormone level. These data are consistent with the possibility that Stevia extracts may decrease the fertility of male rats"
Oh my. You can take away our lives, but you can never take away our testosterone! Another study found a 60% decrease in seminal vesicle weight in rats compared to a control group.
But just like other foods, perhaps those side effects appear only in very high and unrealistic levels of consumption? Are there any studies that show no effect on hormones, especially when consumed in moderation?
One fascinating study comes to us all the way from the Chulalongkorn University Primate Research Center in Bangkok, Thailand (great city, you should go visit). The researchers wanted to study the effects (on a span of two generations) of daily stevioside consumption in hamsters.
They used four groups of ten male and ten female one-month old hamsters and fed the first group with a daily 500mg/kg dose of stevioside, second group 1,000mg/kg, third group 2,500mg/kg (!!!) and fourth group with 0, serving as the control group.
It's important to note that the daily human stevioside consumption is estimated to be about 2-5mg/kg, much lower than the doses used in this study.
But guess what?
There was no significant difference between the average growth of either of the groups, and there was no difference at all between reproductive fitness and mating performance - no matter the dose of stevioside. Mating was efficient and successful in all groups, without any growth or fertility abnormality of either sex.
"The results of this study are astonishing. Stevioside at a dose as high as 2,500 mg/kg did not do any harm to these animals. We conclude that stevioside at a dose as high as 2.5 grams per kilogram of body weight affects neither the growth nor reproduction in hamsters."
Another study achieved similar findings where stevia extract didn't affect male body weight, testicular weights and sperm count, morphology and motility. The researchers concluded that it has no toxic effect on male reproduction, at least in rats.
So what's the verdict? Is stevia safe in moderation or even at high doses? I'd hate to give you such a vague answer, but sometimes I must. We simply don't know enough - and more studies are definitely needed.
You have to remember that the doses used in those (rat-based) studies are very high and unrealistic. Nobody of us would go around munching on kilograms worth of leaves. If you eat enough of anything you'd get side effects. So from a contraceptive perspective, it seems to me as if stevia would be safe under its intended use as a sweetener. But again, more solid research in necessary.
Allergic Reactions and Sensitivity to Stevia
Just like other foods, the main scenario where stevia is sure to give you problems is when you're sensitive or allergic to it. Weightology founder James Krieger said he knows of case reports of people getting atopic eczema (scaly and itchy rashes on your skin) and even people going into an anaphylactic shock from consuming stevia.
He said one study found 16% of infants with nasal allergies to be allergic to stevia, 34% of infants with bronchial asthma to be allergic to stevia and 64% of infants with atopic eczema to be allergic to stevia. Now, I don't know where he got his numbers (update: I emailed him, he emailed me back this precious gem of a reference) but I do know and have heard of people showing allergic reaction to stevia - from difficulty swallowing to shortness of breath to dizziness etc.
But those usually appear in people who are allergic to plants in the Compositae or Asteraceae family - like chrysanthemums, marigolds, ragweed or daisies. Check the comments section below, I predict it will be full of comments from allergic people. They're the ones most likely to google stuff like 'Stevia side effects', after all :)
So yeah, a small percentage of people may show sensitivity and allergic reactions to stevia, and if you're one of them - you're probably better off without it.
Stevia Safety: Toxicity Possible?
We've already covered some toxicity-related studies of stevia, and none of them showed anything special, but let's go check some more studies.. you know, just to be sure. And because we love studies.
One Japanese study involved almost 500 rats that were treated for about two years with Stevia rebaudiana extracts at levels of up to 1% of their total diet (550mg/kg) and concluded that there were no significant dose-related changes in the growth, appearance, organ weights, macroscopic or microscopic observations or haematological and blood findings.
The results obtained are supportive of the safety of stevia rebaudiana extracts, stevioside and rebaudioside A when consumed as sucrose substitutes by human populations.
I also found some leaks (can't verify them though) from an unpublished report submitted to the European Commission by A. Douglas Kinghorn, Ph.D, saying his study (Food Ingredient Safety Review: Stevia rebaudiana leaves) showed no evidence of acute toxicity when he gave mice separate 2,000mg/kg doses of the sweet Stevia glycosides - stevioside, rebaudiosides A-C, dulcoisde A and steviolbioside. His results show no potential risk for acute toxicity for humans by ingestion of stevia rebaudiana extracts and constituents.
Acute toxicity was not demonstrated when separate 2 g/kg doses were administered to mice by oral intubation, indicating that a concentrated extract of stevia is less than 1/10 as toxic (acute) as caffeine.
Not enough evidence for you? alright.
In yet another Japanese study (H. Asaki and Y. Yokoyama. 1975. Dried-leaf extracts of stevia. Toxicological tests. Shokuhin Kogyo 18(20), 34-43) running toxicological tests on dried-leaf extracts of stevia, feeding male and female rats for nearly two months with stevioside being 7% of their diet produced "no untoward toxic effects" compared a a control group that received no stevioside. The study is written in Japanese so I couldn't dig much and verify.
I also read of a study that found no toxicity or dose-related abnormalities but did find a significant decrease in serum lactic dehydrogenase levels, which is important in energy production without oxygen (aka "anaerobic"), but I couldn't find a link to it or anything linking stevia to serum lactic dehydrogenase levels. Take it with a grain of salt.
One more study found stevioside to be non-toxic in rats who were fed with high oral 2,000mg/kg doses and showed no abnormal behaviour or organ damage. Researchers also found no cytotoxic properties at a concentration of 1.25g/L in an in-vitro toxicity test.
So overall, the vast majority of studies that I went through and available evidence shows no abnormal toxicity properties to stevia consumed in realistic amounts . You should be safe in this regard.
Mutagenic Stevia Side Effects and Cancer
You might have also read that in lab, steviol glycosides can be converted into a mutagenic compounds that may cause DNA mutations and promote cancer, and a lot of anti-stevia supporters seem to be using it as an argument.
We don't know if the conversion of stevioside to steviol to a mutagen happens in humans," says toxicologist Ryan Huxtable of the University of Arizona in Tucson. "It's probably a minor issue, but it clearly needs to be resolved.
But have no fear, fellow readers. Devoted lab chemists down the basement in casa-del-Regev have gone on a predation journey to separate rumours from facts and hunt for scientific clues.
One interesting Japanese study titled Mutagenicity of Steviol and Its Oxidative Derivatives in Salmonella typhimurium TM677 found the mutagenic activity of steviol to be 1/3000 of widely-distributed mutagenic compounds like smoke, diesel exhausted gas and overheated meat.
The study also compared stevia to AF2 (a previously authorised food preservative in Japan) and found AF2 levels of 2mg (used to preserve 100g fish sausage) to be equal in mutagenic activity to.. 3000 stevia-sweetened cups of coffee! They concluded that-
..the genetic toxicity of stevia can be regarded as negligible and safe, as long as we limit its use in ordinary amount for our daily life. Although further studies, such as the effect of heating on the activity of stevia, or the metabolic fate of its lactone derivatives in our body are necessary, the present paper suggests that there are no serious genotoxic problem with the daily usage of this low-calorie sweetener.
If you scroll back up to the section about stevia benefits for cancer, you'll find a few studies showing that not only isn't stevia a carcinogen - but it actually shows some anti-tumor properties and seems to be beneficial for the chemoprevention of cancer.
Stevia, Glucose Metabolism and Hypoglycemia
You might have also read that stevioside can interfere with the absorption of carbohydrates and disrupt the conversion of food into energy within cells, which might be an issue for kids. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
Most studies in humans have not detected effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on gut hormones or glucose absorption.
But we wouldn't rely solely on that, right?
I went searching for studies that found anything to back up those claims, but I found nothing very useful. The only relevant thing I could find was an overview paper summarising the available science and concluding that high-purity rebaudioside is safe for human consumption and has no effect on either blood pressure or glucose homeostasis.
But wait! Remember how I showed you that stevia reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressures before? It was the stevioside part we evaluated, and it's the rebaudioside A we're talking about now. Those are the two main ingredients of stevia, and they seem to have some differences in their properties.
There's also a rumour popular on bored single-moms' blogs insisting that calorie-free sweetener like stevia can trick your body into a state of hypoglycaemia because having a sweet taste without an accompanying glucose tricks your body to prepare itself for sugar and lowers blood-sugar levels accordingly. When it gets no sugar, they say, the body releases adrenaline and cortisol to bring blood glucose levels back up by recruiting sugar from other tissues in the body.
Does the idea stand to the test of reality? To be honest, blood sugar altering hormones from oral glands communication to the brain sounds very probable. But science doesn't want to agree, at least not in the cases of aspartame and saccharin - which doesn't affect insulin levels. And here's another study made on human volunteers that shows aspartame to have no affect on insulin.
But if you remember, I did show you that stevia causes some insulin secretion and increases insulin sensitivity in diabetic rats. How can that be? the secret might lie not in the sweet part, but the bitter part of the sweeteners. Researchers studying the effects of artificial sweeteners on insulin release found that while aspartame failed to raise insulin, bitter sweeteners like stevioside did have an effect.
So yeah, stevioside (and possibly not rebaudioside) has some effect on insulin but that effect is more of a benefit than a drawback, especially for diabetic patients. You don't starve your body and feed solely on stevia and the studies we showed earlier showed a positive effect on insulin sensitivity.
It means that yes, stevia does secrete some more insulin - but it increases sensitivity to insulin and rids more sugar from the blood stream to the cells. Which, again, is especially beneficial for the prevention and treatment of diabetes type-II. So unless you already have some hypoglycaemia issues, stevia is unlikely to be a problem here.
Is Stevia Safe for Children?
First things first - removing sugar, cookies, ice creams and lollypops from the diet of your kids is the best move you can do for their brains, guts and teeth. Regardless of stevia. Several attempts to decrease children sugar intake were already made by trying to introduce stevia as a sugar alternative in children's food products. Yet safety issues still rise up.
And it's not facts that rise them up, but fear.
As far as I know, the Guarani population of Brazil and Paraguay have given stevia as a treat to their kids for centuries. Makes sense to me that it should have been 'trial-and-error'ed by now and they would have stopped this practice if it proved to be harmful to their little ones. You know, the same reason we don't go out to the forest and eat any wild mushroom we see. Lots of trial and error proved this to be fatal so we developed habits that go from one generation to the next.
With the available knowledge we have, there's not a reason really to believe stevia is unsafe for kids.
The Verdict: Is Stevia Healthy and Safe?
As a scientist with over 15 years researching the safety of stevia and of many other plants used as food or food ingredients, I can assure that our conclusions in these various studies indicate that stevia is safe for human consumption as per intended usage, that is, as a sweetener. (Professor Mauro Alvarez, Brazil's State University of Maringa Foundation)
The sweet (!) jury down the court halls of casa-del-Regev is ready to give the bottom-line verdict:
It is very probable that some stevia compounds posses some medicinal anti-inflammatory and anti-tumour properties, though the exact mechanism by which those compounds bring those effects isn't precisely known yet. Natural stevia sweetener products are especially useful for type-II diabetic patients and the relevant science was very convincing.
On the other hand - we'd be glad to have some more conclusive studies when it comes to fertility and reproduction effects of stevia, so for now.. i'd say avoid it if you're trying to concieve or if you're pregnant. Just in case. You should also avoid it if you're allergic to the plants in the Compositae or Asteraceae family (marigolds, daisies, ragweed, chrysanthemums, etc) or if you just sense anything unusual.
Do remember that the studies we've gone through used doses much higher than real-life use, doses so high that almost any plant tested would probably produce some kind of side effects. And some of the studies were also in-vitro (petri-dish like environment), not always very applicable in a real living animal.
For non pregnant/allergic people, if all you do is use stevia sparingly as a sweetener for your tea and baked foods, you'll most probably be completely safe. Make sure you choose a good brand with no harmful fillers, and preferable with inulin insoluble fiber for the possible HDL and lipid profile benefits. And always listen to your body.
As for me, I personally don't use it much - and not because of all those stevia side effects and warnings. I simply like my coffee unsweetened and i'll usually add some raw local honey (the cloudy-waxish type, no the commercial liquid ones) to my tea. It's more of a whole food than a sweetener, and it's a nice nutritional boost if you're trying to gain weight or just wouldn't mind the extra calories.
Where to Buy Stevia Products
By now you should understand that not all stevia products are the same. Though the health benefits of Stevia natural sweetener are obtainable in their fullest from its raw form, there are a few more viable options. When you're choosing between stevia brands, make sure you're aware of those 4 distinctive types of products:
Raw Stevia Plant
Grow and get the plant's leafs directly from the soil. It's cheap and easy to grow and contains the full spectrum of glycosides and health benefits of Stevia, though with a little bitter aftertaste.
Buy: organic Stevia seeds are difficult to germinate, so you might want to go to your local nursery and get a garden-ready stevia rebaudiana baby-plant.
P.S: Young stevia plants are sensitive to low temps, so wait until your soil temperature is more than 10-15c before transplanting it. If you get your stevia seed packet online, pay attention to shipment time since it has a lifetime of about three months (if my memory doesn't betray me). Long shipment or time since harvest can render your seeds ineffective, but again - it's better to just get a baby-plant from a nursery.
To release the full sweet potency of the plant, you'll have to dry and grind the leafs after you harvest them. Or you could embrace your laziness and just buy powdered whole-leaf stevia.
Powdered Green Stevia Leafs
Powdered green leaf stevia is basically raw stevia dried and grounded into a powder. Just like the raw stevia above, it contains the full spectrum of glycosides, and has a slightly bitter aftertaste.
Buy: Organic Traditions Stevia
Pure Stevia Extract Products
Market demand for a product without that slight bitter aftertaste has given birth to stevia extract, which is mostly an extraction of the rebaudioside - that sweetest and least bitter part of the stevia leaf, which is also the only compound of stevia legally allowed by the FDA to be commercially labeled as a sweetener.
Benefits? Much sweeter than the green forms and without that bitter aftertaste, but also without the health benefits of stevioside. Many times sweeter than table sugar. Comes either in a powder or liquid form. If you buy the liquid form, make sure it's natural and doesn't contain stuff like glycerin.
Buy: SweetLeaf Powdered Stevia - this is what I would choose if I wanted to buy Stevia. It has two ingredients: organic stevia extract and inulin soluble fiber, which if you remember.. mixes well with stevia and shows some potential beneficial HDL and blood lipids properties.
Sweetleaf Natural Stevia Sweetener
Frankesteinian Stevia Products (like Truvia)
That's basically processed stevia with added ingredients or 'natural flavors'. Truvia, for example, uses a 42 step proccess to make their stevia product. They extract the rebaudioside and add chemical substances like the liver-toxic and carcinogenic acetonitrile and GMO-corn-based erythritol. Kal "Pure" Stevia isn't very pure either - their product is made in china and contains maltodextrin (starch). Many other brands also put some sugars from GMO corn.
Is Stevia harmful? If you don't stay away from those brands, it can certainly be. Stick to certified organic stevia products clean of harmful substances - and you'll be golden.
Now that you know all about Stevia benefits and side effects, it's time for some..
Geeky Stevia Facts
Dr. Bertoni wrote a few of the earliest words about this wonderful plant and said that according to his long experience and the studies of Dr. Rebaudi, stevia is not only non-toxic but also very healthy and can be used directly with it's natural form - while also being much cheaper than saccharine. He referred to Stevia as a "sweetening agent of great power".
Leigh Broadhurst, Ph.D who is a nutritional consultant and a chemist, states that stevia gives you all the benefits of saccharin with none of it's drawbacks. She also stated that Stevia is much more concentrated (sweetness per weight) than aspartame.
Julian Whitaker, M.D in his 'Dr. Julian Whitaker's Newsletter' said that "Stevia is not only non-toxic, but has several traditional medicinal uses. The Indian tribes of South America have used it as a digestive aid, and have also applied it topically for years to help wound healing. Recent clinical studies have shown it can increase glucose tolerance and decrease blood sugar levels. Of the two sweeteners (aspartame and Stevia), stevia wins hands down for safety."
" The greatest wealth is health. " - Virgil.
If you have some personal experience with stevia, do share it through the comment box below. What's your favorite and/or least favorite Stevia supplement and why? How long have you been using it, and what benefits or drawbacks did you experience? I want to create a nice discussion here, wealthy of information and personal experiences for confused fellas.
This comprehensive review is originally published as a short handbook on Amazon, but I decided to publish it here for free for those who can't afford it. If you find the info valuable and want to show your appreciation, drop a few bucks to support the hard work and buy it through Amazon. Or just get Destination Poon! Extra love points if you leave a fancy review. - Reggie
Is Stevia a Danger to Your Health? The TRUTH Comes Out
Posted By Adrienne 218 Comments
1.7k1.2k0
2.9k
Have you heard that stevia might be bad for you? That is could cause all sorts of problems like infertility? What's the STRAIGHT truth? This post covers all the concerns and gets down to the real truth behind stevia being safe or not!
Have been reading posts about stevia and wondering:
"Is Stevia Safe?"
"Is Stevia Bad for You?"
Ads by Healthy Ads
I know I have. I've been using stevia for a long time - ever since I knew I had candida.
We use powdered stevia extract, and I've even figured out a way to make Homemade Liquid Stevia Drops.
It's a super sweet sweetener that doesn't feed candida, so it's used by many who want to have something sweet without the bad "side effects" of sugar.
I wrote quite a bit about stevia in this post - Stevia - What it Is and How to Use It" but essentially, stevia:
- doesn't feed candida
- may help with blood sugar regulation
- doesn't cause caries (tooth decay)
- may reduce blood pressure when it is too high
- is calorie free
So what's not to love?
Well, after literally YEARS of using stevia, imagine my fear when I started reading post after post on the internet by other whole foodies either stating that they'd given up using stevia, or stating why they never used it in the first place, or claiming all sorts of problems with this herb.
I was shooting emails back and forth with other sugar-free bloggers (including one of my faves - Ricki Heller) about studies we'd found on the internet appearing to highlight issues with my "sweetener of choice".
It's pretty petrifying when you hear that something you and your family have been using for years might have serious health consequences. I just had to figure it out because I was for sure not going to be eating something that was likely or surely going to wreck my health.
So into the research I dove. Head first.
It took a long time, but today I am going to go through the claims of the other bloggers one by one so that you can see the conclusion that I came to and why.
Following is a list of the claims that others have made against stevia.
I'll go through them one by one (hopefully I didn't miss any) so you can see whether or not you think they are a problem.
Is Stevia Safe? Claims Against Stevia
- it can cause infertility
- has a hormonal structure
- it can act as a mutagen and cause cancer
- it taxes the adrenals
- hormone issues
- hypoglycemia
- lowers blood pressure
- unsavory (dangerous) additives
- high in oxalates
- tastes bitter YIKES!!!!!
Before you go panicking and throw your stevia in the garbage, read on.
Here's where I need to start setting the record straight.
Have you heard that stevia might be bad for you? That is could cause all sorts of problems like infertility? What's the STRAIGHT truth? This post covers all the concerns and gets down to the real truth behind stevia being safe or not!
Claims Against and the Truth About Stevia
{Please note that the following is not medical advice. I am not a physician. Please consult with your physician prior to changing your diet or supplement regimen. This is for entertainment purposes only. Sorry - had to get that disclaimer in there, folks! There might be an affiliate link or 2 included as well and if you click on one and make a purchase I might make a commission. Your support is very much appreciated and helps keep this free resource up and running.}
1. Stevia is often mixed with additives.
Stevia sold in stores and online is sometimes mixed with fillers and flavor enhancers like:
- maltodextrin
- glycerine (I use this for low carb baking anyway and don't really have a problem with it as long as it's not made from GMO soy)
- dextrose
- cellulose
- erythritol (I have mixed feelings on this one)
- the ubiquitous undisclosed "natural flavors"
I'm sorry but this is simply a ridiculous argument.
While bloggers who make this point are correct to point out that there are often unsavory things added to stevia, this is the equivalent of saying that we shouldn't eat meat because it's often mixed with nitrates, the cows are often fed antibiotics or it is made into hotdogs.
Just.Buy.Stevia.That.Isn't.Mixed.With.Anything.Else.
That would be Pure Stevia Extract.
Like I said, however, I don't really have a problem with glycerine and often I have called companies that have "natural flavors" on their label only to find that their flavorings were completely natural extracts only. So sometimes the "natural flavors" aren't so scary after all and it isn't necessarily a problem to buy stevia with additional ingredients - just do your homework.
Pay attention to the labels on the stevia you are considering buying. And the price. If the price looks too good to be true, chances are you are getting a stevia with fillers. On to the next argument.
2. Stevia is bad because it tastes bitter.
Yes, some stevia is sub par.
Some is just bad and even pretty horrendous-tasting. But if you do your research, you can find great tasting stevia.
I have always loved NuNaturals, but I am now possibly on the hunt for a replacement as they've changed their formula. It's still pretty good but I have a thing about finding "the best" (like with essential oils). Of course, if you use too much stevia in baked goods and the like, you just might get a bitter aftertaste, but there are ways around that.
If you use less, or use stevia with other sweeteners, you can by and large avoid that problem.
Check out these posts for more info:
- Stevia - What it Is and How to Use It
- 6 Tips to Really Like Stevia - This one is written by a former stevia hater and has some GREAT tips for avoiding the bitter aftertaste.
I'm working on choosing some more brands to recommend to you - but it's taking awhile. Hang in there!
3. Stevia Causes Adrenal Problems
The argument here is that:
-you eat stevia
- your body expects glucose because it tastes something sweet
- your body lowers blood sugar (causing hypoglycemia) since it is clearing the way for glucose -your body sends cortisol and adrenaline to create sugar from your tissues. Thus you are causing stress on the adrenals by eating stevia.
I couldn't find any research to back this up. All I can say is that my adrenal issues are far better now after years of eating stevia than they were when I was eating sugar.
Plus there are plenty of places where folks recommend stevia over and above sugar and higher glycemic sweeteners in order to heal adrenal issues including here and here.
I just don't see enough evidence of this for it to merit giving up stevia. I do think that perhaps one could just not drink non caloric drinks with only stevia and make sure that stevia is consumed with other calories to mitigate any possible effect.
One important thing to note is that those who make this claim appear to be of the mindset that candida is not caused or aggravated by sugar consumption. I beg to differ.
I agree that candida is very complex but yeast feeds off of sugar. Just bake some homemade bread to see how it works and it's plain as day.
4. Stevia Can Cause Hypoglycemia
Another concern brought up about stevia is that is causes hypoglycemia. This is tied into the adrenal issue cited above.
Let me tell you this. I had hypoglycemia (I diagnosed myself - my doctor missed it) and I had it bad.
I went completely off sugar at that point and started eating a bunch of stevia. More than I ever had before.
My hypoglycemia is gone.
Totally reversed.
Now, does that mean someone else couldn't have an odd reaction to stevia that might cause hypoglycemia? Of course, it doesn't mean that. If you are concerned, check your blood sugar after consuming stevia. Everyone is different.
5. Stevia Causes Infertility and Miscarriages
One of the main concerns about stevia is that it affects fertility.
There is information floating around the internet that there are studies showing that stevia caused infertility in rats, and there's also talk that stevia has been used in Paraguay for contraception.
Well, we can put this issue to rest. There have been several studies showing contraception issues with stevia, but they have all been debunked.
Take my word for it, or click through here to read a very very thorough article, with appropriate sourcing that addresses this issue completely. Source
Of course, I completely agree with the author of the above-referenced post. If you think stevia is causing issues with your fertility, stop using it. Just the stress of that questioning might be enough to cause issues for you.
6. Stevia Doesn't Support Glycogen Synthesis
The argument here is that your body needs glucose to function but basically this is the same argument of the hypoglycemia and adrenal issues.
However, in one post the additional argument was made that your body needs glycogen to convert inactive thyroid hormone T4 into active thyroid hormone T3.
The thinking here is that if you are using stevia instead of fruit and natural sugars, then you won't have sufficient glycogen. I don't know enough about this but I have been doing a lot of reading about the effects of low carb diets on thyroid and adrenal health and I think it's worth thinking about.
Basically, however, I don't think that this argument necessitates giving up stevia, but it does mean that we ought to consider making sure that we have sufficient carbs in our diets. This post from Wellness Mama and this one from Chris Kresser go into great depth regarding these low carb / adrenal / thyroid issues.
And for another p
7. Stevia is really a hormone is disguise
Several bloggers mentioned that stevia is synthesized in the same pathway as 2 plant hormones, and that it ends up being structurally similar to those hormones.
Again, this is something that I could not find anything about on the internet. And just because something is synthesized in the same way or is structurally similar to hormones, that doesn't mean it is a hormone. Take NaCl for example.
Salt is fine to eat and we sprinkle it on food all the time. HCl, however, is stomach acid and we would do damage to ourselves if we sprinkled it on our food. (I take HCl as a dietary supplement as mentioned here, but you would cause serious damage to your teeth and esophagus if you sprinkled it on your food.
Just because something is similar to something else doesn't mean that it has the same qualities as that thing. I did, however, find this very detailed article on stevia that seems to state that it isn't that stevia is synthesized in the same way as gibberellin and kaurene but that the plant is making kaurene and can either make gibberellin or stevia.
So that puts this argument into question for me. I haven't dug into this enough, but I do think I feel at peace enough to not worry about it.
8. Stevia is High in Oxalates
One of the bloggers initially wrote about stevia being high in oxalates, but she later removed that from her blog post.
However, since it was initially there, I am going to address it. Oxalates are naturally-occurring substances in foods, but some people are very concerned about reducing them in their diet.
Those with kidney stones, hypercalciuria, etc. I personally know some bloggers who are very concerned about oxalates so I looked into this. My thinking is this. Even if stevia were high in oxalates, the amount of stevia used is so small that it doesn't amount to much and should not be a concern since oxalates are everywhere.
For more on oxalates, rea
My friend Diane accidentally called it the Wine Finisher. Thought that sounded cool. I just started calling it the Winey. 2 syllables. SO lazy 😂😂😂😂
Genius!!!! What a fantastic idea Tim!!!! I have a couple folks ordering from you this week. Keep your eyes peeled for Charlotte/Mooresville addresses 😉