stevia-herbal sweetener
cheryl huntington
dehavilland wrote:
>
> Can anyone tell me where I can buy this natural herbal sweetener which is
> 200 times sweeter than sugar. Apparently, because of vested interests, it
> is banned in USA and generally unavailable un Europe.
>
> --
> Dougal G R de Havilland b 31.01.1931
> 27a Newcastle Drive Nottingham NG7 1AA
> Telephone 0115 9111336
> dehav...@ntlworld.com
> notting...@hotmail.com
I've found this at a health food store called Whole Foods. I'm in San
Jose, CA, and I think this chain is in many parts of the USA. It tastes
OK, but still not as good as sugar. :-)
I didn't get far on the whole foods web site
(http://www.wholefoods.com), but it also has a link to
http://www.gaiam.com, which does have stevia.
--
Cheryl Huntington
Mark Probert
cheryl huntington <Cheryl.H...@Sun.COM> wrote:
>
> dehavilland wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone tell me where I can buy this natural herbal sweetener
which is
> > 200 times sweeter than sugar. Apparently, because of vested
interests, it
> > is banned in USA and generally unavailable un Europe.
> >
> > --
> > Dougal G R de Havilland b 31.01.1931
> > 27a Newcastle Drive Nottingham NG7 1AA
> > Telephone 0115 9111336
> > dehav...@ntlworld.com
> > notting...@hotmail.com
>
> I've found this at a health food store called Whole Foods. I'm in San
> Jose, CA, and I think this chain is in many parts of the USA. It
tastes
> OK, but still not as good as sugar. :-)
>
> I didn't get far on the whole foods web site
Here's some more info on Stevia:
FSNET MARCH 23, 2000
http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/riskcomm/archives/fsnet-archives.htm
STEVIA: NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME; MORE RESEARCH
NEEDED TO ANSWER SAFETY QUESTIONS ABOUT łNATURAL˛
SWEETENER
March 21, 2000
Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)
Press Release
http://www.cspinet.org/new/stevia.html
WASHINGTON - Stevia, a plant-based sweetener that
has created a buzz in the health-food world, may
pose risks to health and should not be allowed in
the food supply until itąs proven safe, says the
Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).
[Comment: not Monsanto]
Extracts of a South American shrub are hundreds
of times sweeter than sugar but provide no
calories, making stevia a potential natural
alternative to such synthetic sweeteners as
aspartame and saccharin. Stevia is currently sold
as a dietary supplement in powder form at health
food stores. łAlthough there is no evidence of
harm to people, laboratory studies of stevia have
found potential cancer and reproductive-health
problems. Stevia depressed sperm production in
male rats and reduced the number and size of the
offspring of female hamsters. Until those
concerns are disproven, stevia should not be used
by manufacturers in soft drinks, candy, or other
foods,˛ said David Schardt, associate
nutritionist for CSPI. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) over the past 10 years has
rejected three food-additive petitions for stevia
because its safety had not been adequately
demonstrated. *****Canada also has not approved its
use, and last year a scientific review panel for
the European Community declared that stevia is
unacceptable for use in food.***** In an article in
the April issue of CSPIąs Nutrition Action
Healthletter (NAH), Schardt notes that in the
test tube a derivative of stevia can be converted
into a mutagen. Such chemicals also sometimes
cause cancer. łUntil we know whether this mutagen
is formed in people, stevia cannot be considered
safe,˛ said Schardt. Several studies have also
raised concerns about the effect of very large
amounts of stevia on carbohydrate metabolism. And
that troubles some toxicologists. łI think we
need to be very careful, indeed, as to whether
stevia would present a problem for children. The
take-home message is simply that we donąt know
enough,˛ said toxicologist Ryan Huxtable of the
University of Arizona in Tucson. (emphasis added)
----------
Not approved for use in Canada or in food in the European Union...
--
Mark Probert
Make sure your vote counts--DO NOT vote from the Banana Republic of
Florida!
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Christopher Biow
>> dehavilland wrote:
>> > Can anyone tell me where I can buy this natural herbal sweetener which is
>> > 200 times sweeter than sugar. Apparently, because of vested interests, it
>> > is banned in USA and generally unavailable un Europe.
>WASHINGTON - Stevia, a plant-based sweetener that
>has created a buzz in the health-food world, may
>pose risks to health and should not be allowed in
>the food supply until it零 proven safe, says the
>Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).
>[Comment: not Monsanto]
Yes, if CSPI is recommending caution, that would indicate that anyone
casting this in terms of "vested interests" is either grossly misinformed
or simply lying. Such claims would be a good benchmark for information
sources to be ignored in the future.
goddess...@my-deja.com
The concerns they mentioned seemed to be WRT the reproductive system.
(Not a concern here, as we've already enough children. <g>) Because of
these concerns, IMO, the FDA et al have made the right decision in not
allowing stevia's use in the production of soft drinks, processed foods,
etc. However, it has *not* been "banned" from individual use.
I've tried the liquid stevia, as someone brought a small bottle to
church. I have to agree with Cheryl about it just not being the same.
I'd rather have real sugar in my coffee.
--
Light, Love, & Laughter,
Kitten, Goddess of Mischief
"Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never
forgotten this." - Anonymous
"Just for today, do not worry; Just for today, do not anger; Earn your
living honestly; Honor your parents, teachers and elders; Show gratitude
for every living thing."- Dr. Mikao Usui
Christopher Biow
> Christopher Biow <bi...@ezmort.com> wrote:
>> Yes, if CSPI is recommending caution, that would indicate that anyone
>> casting this in terms of "vested interests" is either grossly misinformed
>> or simply lying. Such claims would be a good benchmark for information
>> sources to be ignored in the future.
>The concerns they mentioned seemed to be WRT the reproductive system.
And carcinogenicity, and metabolic effects.
The bottom line is that complete testing has not been done, and the
incomplete testing to date gives more than enough indication for concern. I
wouldn't hesitate to try a little, but to make it a major dietary component
would not be wise.
yarrow
yarrow
http://www.youngliving.com #23234
http://aromamastery.com/kr
dehavilland <dehav...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:01ma6.5434$vH6....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Can anyone tell me where I can buy this natural herbal sweetener which is
> 200 times sweeter than sugar. Apparently, because of vested interests, it
> is banned in USA and generally unavailable un Europe.
>
>
>
goddess...@my-deja.com
Christopher Biow <bi...@ezmort.com> wrote:
> goddess...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Christopher Biow <bi...@ezmort.com> wrote:
> >> Yes, if CSPI is recommending caution, that would indicate that
anyone
> >> casting this in terms of "vested interests" is either grossly
misinformed
> >> or simply lying. Such claims would be a good benchmark for
information
> >> sources to be ignored in the future.
>
> >The concerns they mentioned seemed to be WRT the reproductive system.
>
> And carcinogenicity, and metabolic effects.
>
I missed any references to signs of carcinogenicity. However, from what
the tests showed of decrease of reproductivity, my feeling is that
anyone planning to have children should probably avoid use of stevia.
> The bottom line is that complete testing has not been done, and the
> incomplete testing to date gives more than enough indication for
concern. I
> wouldn't hesitate to try a little, but to make it a major dietary
component
> would not be wise.
>
Agreed.
D. C. Sessions
>
> goddess...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Christopher Biow <bi...@ezmort.com> wrote:
> >> Yes, if CSPI is recommending caution, that would indicate that anyone
> >> casting this in terms of "vested interests" is either grossly misinformed
> >> or simply lying. Such claims would be a good benchmark for information
> >> sources to be ignored in the future.
>
> >The concerns they mentioned seemed to be WRT the reproductive system.
>
> And carcinogenicity, and metabolic effects.
>
> The bottom line is that complete testing has not been done
It doesn't need to be tested, it's NATURAL.
(As distinct from chemicals, which should be tested for
absolute safety in all possible conditions and combinations
before being used.)
--
| I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.|
+----------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+