Talk:Stevia

Commercial Derivatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 year test in France

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controversies

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

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

I agree with the restructuring.

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

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

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

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

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

Reorganize Availability, commercialization, production

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

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

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

Thanks for that organization.

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

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

Removed "Whole foods" (herbs)

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

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

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

Split?

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

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

How it became safe

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

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

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

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

References

• Planas, G. M.; Kucacute, J. (1968). "Contraceptive Properties of Stevia rebaudiana". Science. 162: 1007. doi:10.1126/science.162.3857.1007.
• Melis, M (1999). "Effects of chronic administration of Stevia rebaudiana on fertility in rats". Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 67: 157. doi:10.1016/S0378-8741(99)00081-1.
• Singh, S. D.; Rao, G. P. (2005). "Stevia: the herbal sugar of 21st century". Sugar Tech. 7: 17. doi:10.1007/BF02942413.
• Geuns, J (2002). "Safety evaluation of Stevia and stevioside". 27: 299. doi:10.1016/S1572-5995(02)80039-4. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Companies

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

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

Neutral point of view?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with Amatulic on all the above points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead

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

Sources for planting/cultivation/preparation

• http://bio.kuleuven.be/biofys/ESC/English/ESC.htm
• http://www.uky.edu/Ag/NewCrops/introsheets/stevia.pdf
• http://www.stevia.com/Stevia_Article.aspx?Id=8077
• http://www.agricare.org/stevia.htm
• http://www.everstevia.com/stevia.pdf
• http://www.truviacafe.com/truvia-sweetener-faq
• http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1999/v4-510.html

(I looked at these sources and they're predominantly academic--though two are commercial--and all have various info on production).

Jon Kyl

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

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

structural representation

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

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

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

Corporations are camping in Stevia topics

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

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

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

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

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

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