The Bittersweet Story of the Stevia Herb

[Guest guest]

Thanks for that... I found myself on a site yesterday that had a list

of ingredients and different flags for them... it said to avoid

stevia, but endorsed using sucralose. Pretty much discredited

themselves right there, for me anyway.

 

-Josh

[Guest guest]

> Thanks for that... I found myself on a site yesterday that had a list

> of ingredients and different flags for them... it said to avoid

> stevia, but endorsed using sucralose. Pretty much discredited

> themselves right there, for me anyway.

 

Me too Josh!!

Neysa

 

Some people are like Slinkies. They have no practical use whatsoever, but

they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of

stairs.

[Guest guest]

The length to which the FDA has gone to discredit

and ban stevia is totally insane.

The Stevia Cookbook was even banned for a while.

 

Stevia is quite easy to grow here up North as a tender

perennial. bring indoors in winter.

I had one plant and made quite a few clones but it

died in its third year.

 

Not only is Stevia not bad for diabetics, it is

actively supportive of the pancreas!

 

Ien in the Kootenays

*************************

Healing Body, Mind and Planet

with Wild Whole Foods

http://wildhealing.net

*************************

 

 

[Guest guest]

..

The Bittersweet Story of the Stevia Herb

 

 

The sweet stevia herb has had a long, safe history of use as a food and

medicine in South America and Asia, but in many Western countries it is

illegal as a food or food additive but legal as a dietary supplement.

--

 

Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 10, Number 2 (February-March

2003)PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. ed-

Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381

From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com

© by Jenny Hawke © 2002

c/- NEXUS Magazine

 

 

It's easy to grow, wonderful as a sweetener, contains medicinal

properties, is non-caloric, safe to cook with, and has great potential

in agriculture. It's widely used in South America and Asia.

 

So why isn't stevia a household name in the rest of the world?

 

Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni is a herb native to Paraguay. It is also known

as " honey yerba " and " honeyleaf " and by other variations of these names.

 

 

The mature plant stands from around 65 centimetres (26 inches) to as

tall as 180 cm (72 in) when cultivated or growing naturally in fertile

soil. Historical records show that the leaves have been used for

hundreds of years by the Guarani Indians, who named the plant caá-êhê.

 

The main use was as a sweetener, particularly in their green tea, known

as maté. It was also used in medicine or as a snack. Stevia's leaf is

estimated to be 150 to 300 times sweeter than refined sugar.

 

M. S. Bertoni, in the late 1800s, was the first European to document

stevia. In 1931, French chemists extracted stevioside from the herb in

the form of an intensely sweet, white crystalline compound.

 

The herb was then considered for use as a sweetener during the food

shortages

experienced by Britain during World War II. However, interest waned when

sugar again became available.

 

Since this time, stevia has been used extensively in many Asian and

South American countries, but the USA, Canada, Australia and Europe have

not embraced the herb as a sweetener, opting either for sugar from

readily available sugar cane or sugar beet, or for aspartame-based and

other artificial sweeteners as a sugar substitute.

 

More than 150 varieties of stevia exist, but Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni

is the only sweet stevia plant. Carbohydrate-based compounds from the

stevia leaf can be isolated to glycosides known as steviosides.

 

 

Stevioside is a glycoside of the diterpene derivative steviol, and is a

natural component of the plant. Stevioside is intensely sweet and is

present at levels up to 13% in the leaves of Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni.

Rebaudiosides and dulcosides are other sweet chemical constituents of

the plant that can be extracted.

 

Stevia, the FDA and Big Business

 

In the USA, stevia does not have " Generally Recognized As Safe " (GRAS)

status for consumption, and is therefore " prohibited from use in human

food " under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of

1994. According to the Act, any food or drink containing stevia is an

" adulterated " substance.

 

However, while stevia may not be sold as a sweetener, it may be legally

purchased and taken internally. In amongst

all the contradiction and confusion, this means that stevia is available

 

for human consumption--but only when classified as a dietary supplement

or herb.

 

It has been suggested that stevia has not been granted GRAS status in

the interests of Big Business.

 

In the late 1980s, a trade complaint was registered with the FDA, as tea

containing stevioside was being sold by

Celestial Seasonings. The Stevia.net website has a copy of an FDA

memorandum concerning the incident; it was obtained through the Freedom

of Information Act, and complainant names (company name and legal

representatives) were deleted by the FDA to protect the informant's

identity.

 

In 1991, stevia was deemed unsafe and was banned from the USA

completely. It was only legalised as a dietary supplement due to the

changing of law with the introduction of the DSHEA.

 

According to a 1994 article by Rob McCaleb of the Herb Research

Foundation, the FDA began visiting businesses selling stevia around

1987, saying it was an unapproved food additive. One FDA inspector

reportedly told a company president that the manufacturer of NutraSweet®

 

had made complaints to the FDA to try to stop the use of stevia.

 

After the 1991 Import Alert banning the importation of stevia into the

USA, the Herb Research Foundation produced a review by Doug Kinghorn,

PhD, on behalf of the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA).

 

The

peer-reviewed work concluded that stevia was safe, based on scientific

evidence and historical use. The AHPA then filed a petition with the FDA

 

to have stevia leaf exempted from food additive regulations. However,

the FDA concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove stevia's

 

safety. McCaleb asserts that evidence required to establish stevia as a

food is far more comprehensive than that required for artificial

sweeteners such as aspartame.

 

 

 

Julian Whitaker, MD, believes that the FDA " has been after stevia since

1986, coincidental with the growing popularity of aspartame " .

 

GD Searle and Company developed aspartame (now commonly marketed as

NutraSweet®) by accident when creating an ulcer drug. Many health

complaints have been reported about the negative health effects of

aspartame, from headaches to tumours.

 

According to James S. Turner, lawyer and co-founder of the Aspartame

Consumer Safety Network, Searle funded 100% of the safety studies

undertaken from 1985 to 1995 which found aspartame to be safe.

Apparently all studies not funded by industry raised questions.

Information linking tumours to aspartame was dismissed by the then FDA

Deputy Commissioner, who went on to become Vice President of Clinical

Research for Searle.

 

According to another report by health author Gail Davis, a similar

situation occurred in 1983 when aspartame was approved for use in soft

drinks. The FDA Commissioner left soon afterwards to become a consultant

 

for Searle's public relations firm.

 

GD Searle was bought by Monsanto in 1985 and then acquired in 2000 by

J.W. Childs Equity Partners II LP. The company asserts that more than

200 objective studies have found NutraSweet to be safe and that these

papers were reviewed by relevant regulatory authorities such as the FDA,

 

etc. Neotame is the new sweetener to be marketed by the company. It is

40 times sweeter than NutraSweet and 8,000 times sweeter than sugar.

[For more on aspartame, see feature articles in NEXUS 2/28, 3/01, 7/04

and 7/05.]

 

Stevia's Safe Historical Use

 

Many foods have not had to go through the process of being approved for

GRAS status. Through historical use, it is assumed they are safe for

human consumption. Supporters of stevia have put this argument forward

to the FDA, but without success.

 

Stevia.net contends that Celestial Seasonings was permitted to use

stevia because the herb has had a long history of common use without

adverse health effects. Furthermore, the 1991 Import Alert acknowledges

stevia's use throughout history and is therefore an admission of its

qualification as having GRAS status.

 

The American Herbal Products Association maintains that stevia is a

food, as it has had a long history of food use, hence it should fall

into the safe category.

 

Sunrider Corporation also tried this tack in 1995, stating that stevia

was a " grandfathered " or " old " dietary ingredient, as it had been

contained in their products before the DSHEA of 1994. However, this

approach became problematic because the company had signed a consent

decree in 1984 not to sell stevia, as " Sunrider decided it was not

financially prudent to judicially contest this matter " .

 

The Stevita Book-burning Saga

 

In 1998, the Stevita Company and the US FDA received considerable media

attention after it was reported that the FDA had ordered the burning of

books sold by Stevita. These contained information on the herb along

with stevia recipes.

 

The refuseandresist.org website reported in July 1998 that Stevita had

endeavoured to import stevia in 1987 as " Stevia Sweet " , but the FDA

ordered the labels changed so as not to imply the substance would be

used as a sweetener. Later on that year, FDA agents visited the

company's warehouse and took copies of three books sold on stevia.

 

FDA Dallas then detained a shipment of stevia at customs in February

1998, the reason later given that the shipment was contaminated because

of the previously released literature. A March 6 letter regarding this

matter reportedly stated that the literature " rendered the product

adulterated " .

 

The FDA took inventory at Stevita in April and May 1998, and Oscar Rodes

 

agreed not to sell the books, as the hold-up was affecting business. " We

 

had already been forced to let employees goÉwe have to eat, " he said in

the report. The FDA then arranged to come and take inventory, and stated

 

in a fax that an investigator would " be available to witness the

destruction of the cookbooks, literature and other publications " . Rodes

then notified the FDA agents on arrival that he would not destroy the

books, but would videotape any actions by the FDA to do so.

 

Dr Julian Whitaker became involved when he had his attorney prepare a

lawsuit to prevent destruction of the books. In his article on the

subject, Whitaker makes a point about the power of the FDA by quoting

from Tulane University professor James P. Carter's 1992 book,

Racketeering in Medicine: The Suppression of Alternatives. Carter

states: " The FDA serves as the pharmaceutical industry's watchdog, which

 

can be called upon to attack and destroy a potential competitor under

the guise of protecting the public. "

 

The Aspartame Consumer Safety Network reported that in June 1998, James

Kirkland--author of one of the banned books--attended a congressman's

public meeting at which he displayed two books. One, written by himself,

 

was on cooking with stevia, and the other book gave information on

constructing home-made bombs. He held up the books and asked the

rhetorical question, " Which of these publications is legal? "

 

Whitaker contends that Patricia and Oscar Rodes of Stevita were given

poor legal advice, which led to their agreeing to stop selling their

books. He says that James Lahar from the FDA mandated a book-burning

when he and other agents confiscated the company's stevia, pressuring

Stevita not to sell the books. Oscar Rodes called his local television

station to attract public attention to his company's plight. FDA

officers initialled and dated six books so they could not be sold.

 

Whitaker reported that the FDA backed down after his lawyer filed suit,

advising that no books would need to be destroyed and that Whitaker may

buy any of the books himself.

 

The story according to the FDA is quite different. After the public's

attention was gained, FDA documentation is clearly above the District

Office level. In a memo to file on April 9, 1999, FDA Acting Associate

Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs, Gary J. Dykstra, maintained that

FDA never ordered the books destroyed. Nevertheless, he acknowledged

that an FDA letter of May 19, 1998, states that " a current inventory

must be taken by an investigator of this office, who will also be

available to witness destruction of the cookbooks, literature, and other

 

publications for the purpose of verifying compliance " . The memo also

notes that " Neither Stevita nor its attorney, Ms Sarracino, had informed

 

FDA that the company intended to destroy these materials " . However, he

goes on to state that " the District Office assumed that the company

might choose to destroy them " .

 

An October 26, 1998, letter from Dan Burton, Chairman of the Committee

on Government Reform and Oversight, 105th Congress of the US House of

Representatives, stated that the FDA had no authority from Congress to

be available to witness the destruction of books. Furthermore, it would

be more appropriate under the First Amendment " to refuse to be a party

to the destruction of the books " . Burton adds that FDA's May 19 letter

was " grossly inappropriateÉ(regardless of whether the company agreed to

allow the agency to violates [sic] its First Amendment rights) " .

 

Oscar Rodes denies he chose to destroy the books. As reported on

refuseandresist.org, Rodes refuted the FDA claim by stating: " That's

absurd. I don't want to destroy my own books! How would I ever recover

the cost? "

 

FDA investigators also requested a copy of The Stevia Story: A Tale of

Incredible Sweetness and Intrigue, by Linda Bonvie, Bill Bonvie and

Donna Gates. This created a stir, as the book was published

independently of Stevita, though it was available for sale through the

company. Furthermore, the book questions FDA's treatment of stevia.

Eventually, no action was taken regarding this item. As the FDA stated,

" the book did not mention Stevita or its products and the agency had no

interest in the book " .

 

Books considered problematic by the FDA included Cooking with Stevia, by

 

James Kirkland, and The Natural Choice, by Kay Randall (also known as

Patricia Rodes). Both persons were involved in managing Stevita Company.

 

Dallas District Office informed the firm's lawyers by telephone on May

27, 1998, that " literature or publications that promote Stevita stevia

products for use as a conventional food and that are marketed with or

displayed with those products cause the products to be adulterated as an

 

unapproved food additive " .

 

The agency also noted in correspondence on June 8, 1998, regarding

books, that " FDA had advised Mr Rodes that he should take care not to

use them to stimulate sales of Stevita brand stevia, as that could cause

 

them to be labeling [sic] under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic

Act " .

 

Cooking with Stevia was the book that an FDA official dated and

initialled so it could not be sold. This action was taken on six copies

of the book. Whitaker's attorneys, Emord and Associates, noted the

action in their letter of June 8, 1998, when they accused the FDA of

acting unlawfully under the United States Constitution. After a mix-up

over the amount of books defiled, Emord and Associates wrote that the

" material point is not the number of books defiled, but that the agents

defiled any of the books " . Dan Burton's letter to the FDA makes a

similar point, stating that " FDA has no authority from Congress to issue

 

an enforcement letter that provides for the use of FDA officers to take

a 'current inventory' of a dietary supplement company's booksÉ "

 

The FDA responded to claims of its acting inappropriately regarding the

destruction of books by stating that it had " acted within its authority

under the FD & C Act and the requirements of the First Amendment " .

However, FDA revised its Compliance Policy Guide " to provide further

guidance regarding the disposition of books and other printed materials

that serve as labeling " .

 

This was due to the petition submitted on behalf of Julian M. Whitaker

and also David Dean Richard, an author of one of the books called into

question. Richard stated in an affidavit that he lost sales of his book

due to the FDA's actions of June 1998. Under FDA guidelines, labelling

can include " a book, reference publication, or a reprint or copy of a

scientific journal article " .

 

Whether or not FDA maintains its position and stevia remains illegal as

a food or food additive, it is still available as a food supplement,

therefore the end result is the same: humans ingest it, anyway.

 

Chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Dan

Burton, noted this inconsistency in his letter to the FDA: " I find the

agency's treatment of stevia baffling (it is safe as a dietary

supplement but unsafe as a food additive?)É "

 

Stevia Safety Studies

 

Various concerns have been expressed over the safety of stevia. Many

countries have claimed their reason for not considering stevia for

consumption is the lack of conclusive proof of its safety.

 

In a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) report on

stevioside, it is noted that in rats, stevioside " is not readily

absorbed from the upper intestine but is hydrolysed to the aglycone,

steviol, before absorption from the gut. " The effects of steviol on the

body are not completely known, but it may be a problem because animal

studies are contradictory. It was found that steviol: " Éexhibited

greater acute toxicity than stevioside in hamsters but not in rats.

Steviol was clearly genotoxic [DNA damaging] after metabolic activation,

 

inducing forward mutations in bacteria and gene mutations and

chromosomal aberrations in lung fibroblasts of Chinese hamsters. " This

may sound frightening, but the amount given to animals during testing of

 

such substances can be up to 1,500 times any daily amount relative to

body weight that a human would ingest.

 

The Committee also noted that the material tested " was poorly specified

or of variable quality " , not necessarily representative of the

commercial product, and that " no studies of metabolism of stevioside and

 

steviol in humans were available " . Due to these considerations, the

Committee concluded that it could not give stevia an Acceptable Daily

Intake (ADI) rating.

 

The Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) for the European Commission, in

its " Opinion on Stevioside as a Sweetener " adopted on June 19, 1999,

came to the conclusion that, " of the specific stevioside preparation for

 

which approval is sought " , " the substance is not acceptable as a

sweetener on the presently available data " . Its position was similar to

that of JECFA, including its concerns due to " questionable chronic

toxicity and carcinogenicity studies, and possible effects on the male

reproductive system that could affect fertility " .

 

The study most commonly referred to when raising contraceptive concerns

over stevia was undertaken in 1968, Professor Joseph Kuc of Purdue

University, Indiana, being the principal researcher. Stevia.net reports

that the study was carried out on rats, after it had been alleged that

South American women used the herb for contraception. Kuc acknowledges

that the findings may not be applicable to humans, but believes his

methods were sound. The website quotes from The Stevia Story (Bonvie,

Bonvie and Gates) and states that the rats in the study were given very

high concentrations of stevia--and " Ématerial 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 [approximately 2.8 L] of liquid in less than half an

 

hour " . Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada reported that further " studies

conducted to confirm this result have all been negative " .

 

The Lipton petition, an application to the FDA to use stevia in its

products, is also quoted, making the point that " 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 " .

 

Two separate Thai studies have found that reproduction in rats and

hamsters is not affected by stevia. A study published in 1991, from

Chulalongkorn University Primate Research Centre in Bangkok, found that

" stevioside at a dose as high as 2.5g/kg body wt/day affects neither

growth nor reproduction in hamsters " . Chiang Mai University researchers

had work published in 2000 regarding a study of rats being fed aqueous

extracts of stevia and other plants. The findings stated that " all the

investigated plant extracts have no toxic effect on male rat

reproduction and progeny outcome " .

 

However, a University of São Paulo, Brazil, study published in 1999 came

 

up with different findings when " chronic administration " of stevia

showed that " Stevia extracts may decrease the fertility of male rats " .

 

Lack of detailed studies seems to be a problem where stevia safety is

concerned. The SCF's " Opinion on Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni plants and

leaves " , adopted on 17 June 1999, evaluates the herb as a novel food and

 

concludes that " no appropriate data were presented to enable the safety

of the commercial plant product to be evaluated " --perhaps because the

applicant just didn't supply enough information. SCF also notes that

there was " no satisfactory data to support the safe use of these

products as ingredients of food or as sucrose substitute for diabetics

and obese individuals " .

 

Professor Mauro Alvarez's work was referenced in the SCF's opinion and

has been used by the FDA to raise doubt regarding the safety of stevia.

Alvarez takes exception to his work being used out of context,

particularly by the FDA in the past. A letter expressing his frustration

 

is posted at Stevia.net, where he states, " 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 " .

 

A common argument put forward by stevia supporters regarding the safety

of stevia is that it has widespread usage in South America and many

Asian countries including China, Korea and Japan.

 

A Success Record in Asia

 

Stevia is widely used throughout the Asian region. It has been

considered safe for use in food for many years. In fact, the situation

is quite the reverse of that in the USA, Canada, Europe and Australia.

Many artificial sweeteners such as aspartame are illegal in Asian

countries because of safety concerns. Companies using substances like

aspartame in the USA, etc., are using stevia in Asia.

 

In Japan, companies like Sunkist and Nestlé use stevia as a sweetener.

Coca-Cola uses stevia in Japan for its Diet Coke, as the herb is

non-caloric. A combined Australian university/government report states

that " Japan is by far the most advanced country in the use and

understanding of Stevia in its application in the food and

pharmaceutical industries " . At present, the stevia industry in Japan is

endeavouring to obtain Codex Alimentarius approval of steviosides.

Interestingly, there have been no unfavourable health reports regarding

stevia in Japan in the past 30 years.

 

China has been using stevia since 1985. Shanghai City's Director of the

Health Supervisory Institute was quoted in the Shanghai Star as saying,

" over the past 17 years there hasn't been any documented case of the

sweetener causing ill effects " .

 

Stevia's Positive Health Effects

 

Studies have found some positive effects and possible medical uses of

stevia. A University of Illinois, College of Dentistry paper, published

in 1992, found that stevioside, though an intense natural sweetener, is

not cariogenic, according to their data. A Japanese study from Nihon

University, published in late 2002, revealed that the use of stevioside

on skin tumours in mice inhibited the promoting effect of chemically

induced inflammation.

 

Taiwanese studies showed the possibility of stevia's use for blood

pressure regulation. A study undertaken on rats at Taipei Medical

University, and published in 2002, showed that stevioside lowered blood

pressure. The other study, published in 2000, was undertaken on humans

by Taipei Medical College and concluded that " oral stevioside is a

well-tolerated and effective modality that may be considered as an

alternative or supplementary therapy for patients with hypertension " .

 

Two recent studies by Jeppesen et al., from Aarhus University Hospital

in Denmark, have found after tests on rats and mice that stevioside

could have potential in the treatment of type-2 diabetes.

 

Natural therapists have been using stevia for many years to regulate

blood sugar levels. According to a June 28, 2002, report on Australia's

national broadcaster ABC (http://www.abc.net.au), the herb can be taken

in droplet form with meals, bringing blood glucose levels to " near

normal " .

 

Users of stevia have also reported lower incidence of colds and flu. The

 

herb can aid in weight loss by reducing appetite and can be used to

suppress tobacco and alcohol cravings. Stevia leaf also contains various

 

vitamins and minerals including vitamins A and C, zinc, rutin, magnesium

 

and iron.

 

Stevia has been used in South America for years as a treatment for

diabetes. It has also been suggested that it can aid people to get off

insulin. It has been used topically on skin cancers and to treat

candidiasis.

 

The Healthfree.com website also espouses stevia's use for skin care. It

can be applied to enhance the skin's appearance or to heal acne and

other blemishes and skin disorders including dermatitis, eczema and

seborrhoea. The website also reports that stevia can be used to heal

cuts and scratches quickly and without scarring.

 

Brian Morley is a natural therapist with a biochemistry background,

working in Brisbane, Australia. Morley uses stevia on patients as he

says it " assists the liver in controlling blood sugar levels in the

body " . He says that refined sugar has a negative effect on the liver and

 

can cause chronic fatigue and immune deficiency syndrome. Combined with

bilberry, stevia can also aid sugar cravings. Morley uses stevia in a

" nectar form " that has been vacuum distilled, nitrogen dried and

crystallised so as not to destroy any goodness.

 

Stevia's Uses in Food Preparation

 

Stevioside is suitable for cooking purposes as it is heat stable, unlike

 

artificial sweeteners such as aspartame. However, it is unsuitable for

certain confectionary such as fudge or icing as it lacks bulk.

 

Stevia is used in Japan to sweeten soy sauce, pickles and soft drinks.

Brazil almost followed suit in 1988 when the Minister for Health

proposed that only stevia should be allowed for sweetening diet drinks.

 

However, Big Business opposed the idea, according to a report in Earth

Island Journal (Northern Winter 1997 & endash;98 issue). Apparently

Monsanto had made a substantial financial commitment in the construction

 

of a NutraSweet plant in São Paulo. It was then agreed that

manufacturers would undertake studies by 1989 to incorporate stevia.

However, nothing further was heard regarding the matter.

 

Stevia's Potential in Agriculture and Healthcare

 

One of the advantages of stevia is that it can be grown almost anywhere.

 

Its native conditions are sub-tropical, but it has been grown in areas

as far north as St Petersburg (60°N). The herb also grows well in

tropical areas.

 

Stevia seedlings can be purchased from nurseries. The plant has the

added bonus of having certain insecticidal properties; for example, it

is aphid resistant.

 

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada notes that " Stevia represents a new

opportunity for researchers and farmers alike " , but that more

information is required to " optimize annual transplant production for

Canada " .

 

Stevia could be utilised to benefit research, as " production of

remarkably high levels of one class of secondary metabolite is of

significant interest for chemists, biochemists and geneticists and may

prove to be a foundation for the production of new metabolites in the

future " . It also noted that because of safety concerns surrounding

stevia, " there is clear need for further experimentation with respect to

 

the metabolic fate of steviol glycosides " .

 

Stevioside is not legal in Canada, and the only legal way of obtaining

stevia is by purchasing it as a herb. In Australia and New Zealand, the

situation according to Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is

that stevia leaf may be sold as a food. However, extractable components

of the plant, such as stevioside, are not legal.

 

The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) was

set up by the Australian government " to work closely with Australian

rural industries on the organisation and funding of their R & D needs " .

Professor David Midmore and Andrew Rank put together a report for RIRDC

in 2002 on the possibility of " A new rural industry--Stevia--to replace

imported chemical sweeteners " . The study was jointly funded by RIRDC and

 

Central Queensland University.

 

The report refers to Canadian researchers' findings that 50 hectares of

stevia could produce sweetener equivalent to one million dollars' worth

of sugar. This " in Australia would require 240 hectares of cane to grow,

 

i.e., productivity in terms of sweetness equivalent per hectare is

high " . It notes it will be necessary to " develop production and

processing practices that result in acceptable financial returns to

growers " yet a competitively priced end-product.

 

Environmental considerations are also positive in regard to stevia as an

 

industry in a dry continent like Australia. Primary producers could

benefit because the crop would offer " greater diversification

opportunity and returns per megalitre of irrigation water " . Insects do

not appear to be of concern to stevia. There are some possible diseases

" which do not appear to be a major problem " , according to the report,

and " spraying for control is sometimes undertaken " .

 

David Midmore says that Australia is ready for stevia. " The time is

right for large-scale production, provided we can ensure that production

 

practices are suitable (e.g., mechanical harvesting) and that it will be

 

grown in the correct locations (weather-wise). "

 

According to the report, it is expected that " consumer demand for

natural sweeteners will escalate " as Australians become more health

conscious and as " the incidence of diabetes in Australia and abroad "

grows. It is also suggested that stevia could be marketed " in

conjunction with sugar " to produce low-calorie products.

 

However, input from other organisations and agencies will be required to

 

ascertain if " the constraints to production and acceptance of

steviosides will be manageable in the near (2-3 & endash;year) future " .

 

Currently there is an application with FSANZ for consideration of stevia

 

as a sweetener, and according to Professor Midmore a decision " should be

 

announced by FSANZ in a short while " . A possible obstacle to the FSANZ

acceptance of stevia could be the same concern expressed by JECFA: that

the breakdown of stevioside into steviol can exhibit some toxic and

mutagenic activity. However, David Midmore stresses that " such breakdown

 

is not known to happen in situ in the human body " .

 

A Sweet Future for Stevia

 

Stevia has had a long history of use as a natural sweetener and a

medicinal aid. It is heat stable, non-caloric and can be used by

diabetics.

 

However, the US FDA has had a questionable relationship with the herb,

and issues have been raised over the safety of the stevioside extract.

Yet, no adverse health effects have ever been reported or documented,

including in Asia where the herb is used extensively as a sweetener.

Stevia shows great potential for the future, in agriculture and as a

food.

 

 

 

About the Author:

Jenny Hawke has a Bachelor of Arts in Communication and is on staff at

the NEXUS head office in Australia. Her article, " Uncovering the Facts

on Toxic Carpet " , was published in NEXUS 9/06.

 

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/stevia.html