Stevia: A Sweet Secret (Without Calories)
Posted on March 19, 2007 under History| Health
Since the mid-1980s, the United States government has been at war against a leaf, traditionally used in native cultures throughout the Caribbean, South America, and recently parts of Asia. Although many studies have shown the leaf not to be harmful, and others even showing the leaf to have healthful consequences, there is a misinformation campaign underway to see that this plant remains marginalized, almost illegal, even for people suffering from severe illnesses. The plant’s name … Stevia Rebaudiana. Or just Stevia, for short.
It is a powerful, totally natural sweetener, with no calories, and–according to its promoters and distributors–completely safe. This would seem to be the case, as stevia has been in use in Japan since the 1970s, and Japan has never been known as a country with particularly lax health laws. Many studies have been carried out in Japan and other countries, with no safety issues reported. In Japan, stevia has gained around 40% market share, and is being used by many multinational corporations (Coca-Cola, and Beatrice Foods, to name two), for diet drinks and foods in many countries, who feel that the herb poses no health risk.
The plant is not a new discovery, even for Americans and Europeans. Upon landing in South America, the Spanish learned and wrote about it in the 1600s. American researchers began studying stevia around the beginning of the 20th century, but it has been in use in Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia, Uruguay, and parts of Central America, and the Caribbean for centuries. The Guarani Indians in South America, to this day, use stevia leaves to sweeten mate (an herbal tea common in Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil), cure heartburn, and for other medicinal remedies.
For years, the United States sweetener market has been cornered by artificial sweeteners such as NutraSweet, Equal, Splenda; products made from saccharin, aspartame, and some containing benzene, a compound known to cause cancer. So why is stevia being so vilified? Well, read the first sentence of this paragraph again, and you will likely find the answer. Who wants an all-natural, no-calorie, cheap sweetener? Consumers for sure, but mega-companies producing artificial ones, would certainly like to keep stevia off the shelves, and out of the public’s consciousness.
As it is currently, stevia is not banned in the United States, merely marginalized. In 1991, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration received a nameless complaint against stevia, and banned it soon after, stating that there was not enough information available to safely allow it to enter the market. In 1994, a particularly hypocritical and typically bureaucratic move was made by the FDA. By passing the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, the FDA was forced to re-label stevia as a dietary supplement, but stopped short of calling it a food additive. The distinction between the two terms is that supplements can only be sold in certain specialty stores, may not be used by many companies for preparing no-fat foods or diet beverages, and stores are severely limited by how much information they can display. The FDA apparently feels that stevia is safe enough for human consumption as a supplement, but not as an additive…a confusing distinction.
Despite all this, the market for stevia is still growing … quite rapidly, in fact. U.S. sales for 2005 were around $45 million, which represented nearly a 25% increase in sales from the prior year. This is no doubt due, in part, to the success and growing popularity of such specialty markets as Whole Foods, Wild Oats, and other all-natural food stores. Many people who are tuned in to the sweetener market—diabetics, nutritionists, and natural foods fans—have begun to take up the stevia flag.
While word is slowly getting out in some American communities, it remains to be seen whether or not stevia will be—or can be—embraced by the general public. In Japan, South Korea, Brazil, and many other countries, though, this mild-mannered herb is already the norm.
Comments
Leave a Reply