Stevia safe?
carl1738
Posts: 444 Member
Found an interesting article about Stevia and one of it's components that I thought was interesting.
Lab Tests Point to Problems with Trendy New Stevia Sweetener
CSPI Urges More Testing Before Stevia Extract is Used in Food, Drinks
August 28, 2008
WASHINGTON—Coca-Cola and Pepsi are planning to introduce new drinks made with rebiana, an extract of stevia leaves that is 200 times sweeter than sugar. But according to a new 26-page report by toxicologists at the University of California, Los Angeles, several, though not all, laboratory tests show that the sweetener causes mutations and DNA damage, which raises the prospect that it causes cancer. In a letter to the Food and Drug Administration, the Center for Science in the Public Interest says the agency should require additional tests, including a key animal study, before accepting rebiana as Generally Regarded as Safe, or GRAS.
"A safe, natural, high-potency sweetener would be a welcome addition to the food supply," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "But the FDA needs to be as sure as possible that rebiana is safe before allowing it into foods that would be consumed by tens of millions of people. It would be tragic if the sweetener turned out to cause cancer or other problems."
One key animal study has not been conducted, according to the UCLA experts and CSPI. The FDA's guidelines advise testing prospective major new food additives on two rodent species, usually rats and mice. The new sweetener has only been tested on rats, but not mice. The toxicologists' report said that because several studies found mutations and DNA damage, a lifetime mouse study designed to evaluate the risk of carcinogenicity and other health problems was particularly important.
The new report was prepared for CSPI by Sarah Kobylewski, a graduate student in the Department of Molecular Toxicology, and Curtis D. Eckhert, Ph.D., a professor of Environmental Health Sciences and Molecular Toxicology, at UCLA. They were assisted by Professor Joseph R. Landolph, Jr., Ph.D., of the Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, and Pathology, Keck School of Medicine, and the School of Pharmacy at the University of Southern California.
The UCLA toxicologists emphasized the need for more genotoxicity tests, because of the evidence that derivatives of stevia that are closely related to rebiana damage DNA and chromosomes. Their report noted that much of the recent research on rebiana was sponsored by Cargill and urged the FDA to obtain independently conducted tests to ensure that corporate biases don't influence the design, conduct, or results of the tests.
Rebiana is shorthand for rebaudioside A, a component of stevia. It is obtained from the leaves of a shrub native to Brazil and Paraguay. Coke, Pepsi, and other companies are excited about rebiana, because it supposedly tastes better than crude stevia, which is sold as a dietary supplement in health-food stores. After all the controversies pertaining to saccharin, aspartame, and other artificial sweeteners, the food industry expects many calorie-conscious consumers to eagerly opt for this natural sweetener.
Two companies—Cargill and Merisant—have told the FDA that rebiana should be considered GRAS, a category given less scrutiny by the FDA than ordinary food additives. A third company, Wisdom Natural Brands, has declared that its stevia-based sweetener is GRAS and will market it without giving evidence to, or even notifying, the FDA. That company gave CSPI only a heavily redacted report prepared by scientists it hired to declare its stevia derivative, which is of unknown purity, is safe.
Stevia is legal in foods in Japan and several other countries, but the United States, Canada, and the European Union bar stevia in foods because of older tests that suggested it might interfere with reproduction. New tests sponsored by Cargill did not find such problems.
"I am not saying that rebiana is harmful, but it should not be marketed until new studies establish that it is safe," Jacobson said.
Cargill's version of rebiana is called Truvia and would be used by Coca-Cola. Pepsi’s version is called PureVia and is produced by Merisant’s Whole Earth Sweetener division. Merisant is best known for marketing the Equal brand of aspartame.
CSPI has not questioned the safety of two artificial sweeteners, sucralose (Splenda) and neotame, but says that suggestive evidence indicates that saccharin, aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet), and acesulfame-K pose small risks of cancer.
"The whole issue of what gets GRAS status needs to be reviewed by Congress," Jacobson said. "It’s crazy that companies can just hire a few consultants to bless their new ingredients and rush them to market without any opportunity for the FDA and the public to review all the safety evidence."
Two of the most harmful ingredients in the food supply are considered GRAS: salt, which raises blood pressure and causes thousands of unnecessary heart attacks and strokes every year, and partially hydrogenated oil, which is the source of artery-clogging artificial trans fat. CSPI has long campaigned to get partially hydrogenated oil out of the food supply and to reduce salt to safe levels.
Lab Tests Point to Problems with Trendy New Stevia Sweetener
CSPI Urges More Testing Before Stevia Extract is Used in Food, Drinks
August 28, 2008
WASHINGTON—Coca-Cola and Pepsi are planning to introduce new drinks made with rebiana, an extract of stevia leaves that is 200 times sweeter than sugar. But according to a new 26-page report by toxicologists at the University of California, Los Angeles, several, though not all, laboratory tests show that the sweetener causes mutations and DNA damage, which raises the prospect that it causes cancer. In a letter to the Food and Drug Administration, the Center for Science in the Public Interest says the agency should require additional tests, including a key animal study, before accepting rebiana as Generally Regarded as Safe, or GRAS.
"A safe, natural, high-potency sweetener would be a welcome addition to the food supply," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "But the FDA needs to be as sure as possible that rebiana is safe before allowing it into foods that would be consumed by tens of millions of people. It would be tragic if the sweetener turned out to cause cancer or other problems."
One key animal study has not been conducted, according to the UCLA experts and CSPI. The FDA's guidelines advise testing prospective major new food additives on two rodent species, usually rats and mice. The new sweetener has only been tested on rats, but not mice. The toxicologists' report said that because several studies found mutations and DNA damage, a lifetime mouse study designed to evaluate the risk of carcinogenicity and other health problems was particularly important.
The new report was prepared for CSPI by Sarah Kobylewski, a graduate student in the Department of Molecular Toxicology, and Curtis D. Eckhert, Ph.D., a professor of Environmental Health Sciences and Molecular Toxicology, at UCLA. They were assisted by Professor Joseph R. Landolph, Jr., Ph.D., of the Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, and Pathology, Keck School of Medicine, and the School of Pharmacy at the University of Southern California.
The UCLA toxicologists emphasized the need for more genotoxicity tests, because of the evidence that derivatives of stevia that are closely related to rebiana damage DNA and chromosomes. Their report noted that much of the recent research on rebiana was sponsored by Cargill and urged the FDA to obtain independently conducted tests to ensure that corporate biases don't influence the design, conduct, or results of the tests.
Rebiana is shorthand for rebaudioside A, a component of stevia. It is obtained from the leaves of a shrub native to Brazil and Paraguay. Coke, Pepsi, and other companies are excited about rebiana, because it supposedly tastes better than crude stevia, which is sold as a dietary supplement in health-food stores. After all the controversies pertaining to saccharin, aspartame, and other artificial sweeteners, the food industry expects many calorie-conscious consumers to eagerly opt for this natural sweetener.
Two companies—Cargill and Merisant—have told the FDA that rebiana should be considered GRAS, a category given less scrutiny by the FDA than ordinary food additives. A third company, Wisdom Natural Brands, has declared that its stevia-based sweetener is GRAS and will market it without giving evidence to, or even notifying, the FDA. That company gave CSPI only a heavily redacted report prepared by scientists it hired to declare its stevia derivative, which is of unknown purity, is safe.
Stevia is legal in foods in Japan and several other countries, but the United States, Canada, and the European Union bar stevia in foods because of older tests that suggested it might interfere with reproduction. New tests sponsored by Cargill did not find such problems.
"I am not saying that rebiana is harmful, but it should not be marketed until new studies establish that it is safe," Jacobson said.
Cargill's version of rebiana is called Truvia and would be used by Coca-Cola. Pepsi’s version is called PureVia and is produced by Merisant’s Whole Earth Sweetener division. Merisant is best known for marketing the Equal brand of aspartame.
CSPI has not questioned the safety of two artificial sweeteners, sucralose (Splenda) and neotame, but says that suggestive evidence indicates that saccharin, aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet), and acesulfame-K pose small risks of cancer.
"The whole issue of what gets GRAS status needs to be reviewed by Congress," Jacobson said. "It’s crazy that companies can just hire a few consultants to bless their new ingredients and rush them to market without any opportunity for the FDA and the public to review all the safety evidence."
Two of the most harmful ingredients in the food supply are considered GRAS: salt, which raises blood pressure and causes thousands of unnecessary heart attacks and strokes every year, and partially hydrogenated oil, which is the source of artery-clogging artificial trans fat. CSPI has long campaigned to get partially hydrogenated oil out of the food supply and to reduce salt to safe levels.
0
Replies
-
I use Stevia in my coffee, but not this extract they are speaking of. I'm thinking it's the extract from Stevia that is the problem, not so much Stevia itself. I'm wondering if cane sugar is the safest way to go though... Hey, fact of the matter is, we could be getting cancer from just about anything we are putting in our mouths, with all the pesticides, preservatives and such being pumped out there and having tried to eat solely organic for about 6 months it's almost impossible, especially with three kids... Controversial topic! :blushing:3
-
Very interesting. I have never really trusted sugar substitutes, especially as aspartame has had such bad press.1
-
You know.. I don't get why we have to keep screwing with Mother. She already gave us a safe, non-carcinogenic, relatively low calorie sweetener - WHEN USED PROPERLY.
It's called sugar. One teaspoon is like.. 10 calories. If you use 2.5 teasponse in your coffee, you're adding a whoppin' 25 calories. Even better, no cancer. No mutations. No 3 headed fishies swimming in your bathtub. Yes, it has calories *GASP* OH NO! Okay, so drink less soda or none at all. Stop getting Frosted Flakes. Next time you pass the cookie/cracker aisle at the grocery, get some graham crackers intead of double stuffed oreos. I mean .. really?
This is supposed to be HEALTH conscious - not just stuff your food with crap that's going to kill you anyway so you can say you're thin and in good shape. Too much diet soda will kill your kidneys just as fast as too much regular soda. MODERATION. Always. And when you can, stick with real food.4 -
Any updates on " stevia" .....does anyone here use it?
0 -
5 -
I grow Stevia in my garden. Have dried the leaves and crushed them up to use as sweetener. It has an earthy taste but it's not that bad.1
-
I tried it, and hated it. Gave me belly aches. Someone at the time said your body has to get used to it, which is crazy in my head. If my body doesn't like it, it's not for me. Sugar works just fine
0 -
JustMissTracy wrote: »I tried it, and hated it. Gave me belly aches. Someone at the time said your body has to get used to it, which is crazy in my head. If my body doesn't like it, it's not for me. Sugar works just fine
Was it stevia or truvia? Because if it was it could have been the erythritol that did it.1 -
muth3rluvx2 wrote: »You know.. I don't get why we have to keep screwing with Mother. She already gave us a safe, non-carcinogenic, relatively low calorie sweetener - WHEN USED PROPERLY.
It's called sugar. One teaspoon is like.. 10 calories. If you use 2.5 teasponse in your coffee, you're adding a whoppin' 25 calories. Even better, no cancer. No mutations. No 3 headed fishies swimming in your bathtub. Yes, it has calories *GASP* OH NO! Okay, so drink less soda or none at all. Stop getting Frosted Flakes. Next time you pass the cookie/cracker aisle at the grocery, get some graham crackers intead of double stuffed oreos. I mean .. really?
This is supposed to be HEALTH conscious - not just stuff your food with crap that's going to kill you anyway so you can say you're thin and in good shape. Too much diet soda will kill your kidneys just as fast as too much regular soda. MODERATION. Always. And when you can, stick with real food.
I agree with you.
0 -
The thing though is that with the Truvia stuff the rebiana is a super concentrated amount.
0 -
"The whole issue of what gets GRAS status needs to be reviewed by Congress," Jacobson said. "It’s crazy that companies can just hire a few consultants to bless their new ingredients and rush them to market without any opportunity for the FDA and the public to review all the safety evidence."
Two of the most harmful ingredients in the food supply are considered GRAS: salt, which raises blood pressure and causes thousands of unnecessary heart attacks and strokes every year, and partially hydrogenated oil, which is the source of artery-clogging artificial trans fat. CSPI has long campaigned to get partially hydrogenated oil out of the food supply and to reduce salt to safe levels.
This part is nonsense.
Sodium is an essential mineral. FDA has chosen labelling, rather than ingredient regulation to encourage lower sodium intakes; Sodium is part of the mandatory elements for nutrition labelling.
CSPI has had some odd advocacy positions in the past; for example, positioning chicken on top of the dangerous meat pyramid. Further Stevia testing might be needed.
As to "no mouse studies..." a quick search on the FDA web site shows....Reb A was evaluated for genotoxicity in several in vitro and in vivo assays covering mutation, chromosome damage and DNA strand breakage with negative results (Pezzuto et al, 1985; Nakajima, 2000a,b; Sekihashi et al., 2002) as reviewed by Brusk (2008b). These studies indicate that Reb A is unlikely to cause mutagenic or genotoxic effects.
An unpublished chromosome aberration assay of Reb A in cultured mammalian cells was submitted for JECFA review (Nakajima, 2000a). The JECFA review of this study indicated that no increases in chromosome aberrations were found.
In their GRAS Notification, Merisant submitted three unpublished studies on Reb A including a bacterial mutagenicity study (Wagner and Van *kitten*, 2006), a mouse lymphoma study (Clarke, 2006) and a mouse micronucleus study (Krsmanovic and Huston, 2006). All three studies indicated no mutagenic or genotoxic activity of Reb A.1 -
There's so much pseudoscience that comes out with any food substitute.
When I lived in the US I was warned so many times about how aspartime would give me cancer.
In reality, the scientific position lies somewhere between safe and "we cannot prove either way".
If something was proved carcinogenic it would either be rapidly removed from the market, plastered in warnings or the dangers used in advertising by those who don't use the ingredient.2 -
There's so much pseudoscience that comes out with any food substitute.
But stevia -- TRUE stevia -- isn't a "food substitute". It's a plant. You can pick the leaves, dry them and crush them or you can take the leaves and put it right in whatever drink you're trying to sweeten. Granted straight from the garden it has more of an earthy flavor than the processed version that you'll buy at the store but I actually prefer it.3 -
i use both the plant and the processed version. it's my favorite sweetener next to good ole sugar1
-
The article is dated to 2008 - I am fairly confident that science has moved past its initial hysteria about artificial sweetners in the last 8 years. Use them or not - they are safe. Its just a matter of personal preference.1
-
cross2bear wrote: »The article is dated to 2008 - I am fairly confident that science has moved past its initial hysteria about artificial sweetners in the last 8 years. Use them or not - they are safe. Its just a matter of personal preference.
Science, yes, long ago.
Fearmongering on the other hand is just as strong as ever.2 -
muth3rluvx2 wrote: »You know.. I don't get why we have to keep screwing with Mother. She already gave us a safe, non-carcinogenic, relatively low calorie sweetener - WHEN USED PROPERLY.
It's called sugar. One teaspoon is like.. 10 calories. If you use 2.5 teasponse in your coffee, you're adding a whoppin' 25 calories. Even better, no cancer. No mutations. No 3 headed fishies swimming in your bathtub. Yes, it has calories *GASP* OH NO! Okay, so drink less soda or none at all. Stop getting Frosted Flakes. Next time you pass the cookie/cracker aisle at the grocery, get some graham crackers intead of double stuffed oreos. I mean .. really?
This is supposed to be HEALTH conscious - not just stuff your food with crap that's going to kill you anyway so you can say you're thin and in good shape. Too much diet soda will kill your kidneys just as fast as too much regular soda. MODERATION. Always. And when you can, stick with real food.
Mother Nature gave us sugarcane, man gave us sugar made from the sugarcane.
0 -
Sassie_Lassie wrote: »JustMissTracy wrote: »I tried it, and hated it. Gave me belly aches. Someone at the time said your body has to get used to it, which is crazy in my head. If my body doesn't like it, it's not for me. Sugar works just fine
Was it stevia or truvia? Because if it was it could have been the erythritol that did it.
It was Stevia0 -
Sassie_Lassie wrote: »There's so much pseudoscience that comes out with any food substitute.
But stevia -- TRUE stevia -- isn't a "food substitute". It's a plant. You can pick the leaves, dry them and crush them or you can take the leaves and put it right in whatever drink you're trying to sweeten. Granted straight from the garden it has more of an earthy flavor than the processed version that you'll buy at the store but I actually prefer it.
Aye, I should change "food substitute" to "anything new". Staying with my in-laws this week I'm lucky not to be riddled with cancer from Pepsi max, sprite zero, drinking through a camelbak and BBQs, but it must be true because someone in work told them!0 -
muth3rluvx2 wrote: »You know.. I don't get why we have to keep screwing with Mother. She already gave us a safe, non-carcinogenic, relatively low calorie sweetener - WHEN USED PROPERLY.
It's called sugar. One teaspoon is like.. 10 calories. If you use 2.5 teasponse in your coffee, you're adding a whoppin' 25 calories. Even better, no cancer. No mutations. No 3 headed fishies swimming in your bathtub. Yes, it has calories *GASP* OH NO! Okay, so drink less soda or none at all. Stop getting Frosted Flakes. Next time you pass the cookie/cracker aisle at the grocery, get some graham crackers intead of double stuffed oreos. I mean .. really?
This is supposed to be HEALTH conscious - not just stuff your food with crap that's going to kill you anyway so you can say you're thin and in good shape. Too much diet soda will kill your kidneys just as fast as too much regular soda. MODERATION. Always. And when you can, stick with real food.
Mother Nature gave us sugarcane, man gave us sugar made from the sugarcane.
4 -
-
FDA approval is actually really hard to get. Any substance being sold as food that isn't whole food has been exhaustively tested.
Ignore clickbait, do research on your own. In 8 years, no definitive cancer link has been found.
Me personally, I hate the stuff, but that's just because it tastes gross. Splenda on the other hand, perfect for me.2 -
muth3rluvx2 wrote: »You know.. I don't get why we have to keep screwing with Mother. She already gave us a safe, non-carcinogenic, relatively low calorie sweetener - WHEN USED PROPERLY.
It's called sugar. One teaspoon is like.. 10 calories. If you use 2.5 teasponse in your coffee, you're adding a whoppin' 25 calories. Even better, no cancer. No mutations. No 3 headed fishies swimming in your bathtub. Yes, it has calories *GASP* OH NO! Okay, so drink less soda or none at all. Stop getting Frosted Flakes. Next time you pass the cookie/cracker aisle at the grocery, get some graham crackers intead of double stuffed oreos. I mean .. really?
This is supposed to be HEALTH conscious - not just stuff your food with crap that's going to kill you anyway so you can say you're thin and in good shape. Too much diet soda will kill your kidneys just as fast as too much regular soda. MODERATION. Always. And when you can, stick with real food.
They say it for sugar too this is one of many. Heck aparently breathing to much air can kill people also. I agree it seems everything over done is bad and moderation is key0 -
I had a link but it removed it0
-
I stopped reading at Cspi. Alarmist claptrap.0
-
It better be safe because I love putting it in my shakes. Not gonna read all that.1
-
Holy! I think this is the record holder for oldest necro thread I've seen personally.1
-
I have conflicted feelings on this. On the one hand, stevia has an unpleasant after taste to me, and some of its evangelists are really annoying, so part of me wants to believe it's bad for you. On the other hand, CSPI is a bunch of flakes and one really should not be inclined to believe anything that group says on any subject.0
-
muth3rluvx2 wrote: »You know.. I don't get why we have to keep screwing with Mother. She already gave us a safe, non-carcinogenic, relatively low calorie sweetener - WHEN USED PROPERLY.
It's called sugar. One teaspoon is like.. 10 calories. If you use 2.5 teasponse in your coffee, you're adding a whoppin' 25 calories. Even better, no cancer. No mutations. No 3 headed fishies swimming in your bathtub. Yes, it has calories *GASP* OH NO! Okay, so drink less soda or none at all. Stop getting Frosted Flakes. Next time you pass the cookie/cracker aisle at the grocery, get some graham crackers intead of double stuffed oreos. I mean .. really?
This is supposed to be HEALTH conscious - not just stuff your food with crap that's going to kill you anyway so you can say you're thin and in good shape. Too much diet soda will kill your kidneys just as fast as too much regular soda. MODERATION. Always. And when you can, stick with real food.
I agree, just eat sugar ffs!1 -
Moderation, all things in moderation. I personally use sugar cane sugar from Hawaii. I won't eat cane sugar from Central America though. In the past 20 years, 20,000 sugar cane workers in Nicaragua and El Salvador have died of kidney failure. The vast majority are workers bringing in the harvest. So if harvesting the sugar is killing these people, can it be the chemicals Monsanto sprays on the sugar cane during growing? I won't eat that Monsanto sugar or feed it to my family.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions