Talk:Stevia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
To-do list for Stevia: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh


Here are some tasks you can do:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Peer review Stevia has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Good Article candidate?

To me, this article looks like it might meet the criteria for qualifying as a good article on Wikipedia. I'd like anyone to comment first, though, before adding it to the Good Article Candidates page. -Amatulic 01:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

it'a a good article for me too. 62.38.141.163 02:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Testing for Stevia

Anyone know how to test for stevia? RJII 18:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counterintuitive Introduction

"For centuries, the Guarani Native Americans of Paraguay and Brazil used Stevia species, primarily S. rebaudiana which they called ka'a he'ê ("sweet herb"), as a sweetener in yerba mate and medicinal teas for treating such conditions as obesity, high blood pressure, and heartburn" Are we saying that the native Americans in Brazil suffered from obesity, high blood pressure and heart burn centuries ago, and treated them? That seems rather counterintuitive. Even if they were obese, would they try to lose the weight? Would they regard it as a problem?57.66.51.165 11:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that sentence either needs a citation or the list of conditions should be removed, simply stating that stevia was used to sweeten medicinal teas. I have made the necessary changes without removing any content. Amatulic 16:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add oriental chars

Please show the Japanese and Chinese characters and pinyin for this plant! One might be in Japan and not know what to ask for at the store. --jidanni 2006-04-15

That was more difficult than I expected, but I finally found some references to Stevia in other languages. I added a section for synonyms in other languages. Amatulic 14:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I moved the list of words for Stevia in other languages to Wiktionary because that's where it belongs. If some of the other names are especially imporant or interesting, you can add them back in prose, with explanations, but please don't start another list. —Keenan Pepper 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the elimination of the list of foreign terms from this entry because I doubt many people will go looking in Wiktionary (it never occurs to me to do so, at least), but I'll leave it as is, and make sure there's a link to the Wiktionary page (which you made rather hard to find, as the Wiktionary entry for "stevia" already has a section for translations to other languages). 66.159.220.134 22:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, after much thought and exploration of many other Wikipedia entries, I have decided to restore the list of alternate names. There is ample precedent for this elsewhere on Wikipedia. These alternate names are highly relevant to this article for the simple reason that many people travel and will refer to Wikipedia to find information on what a food substance is called in another country. This is an encyclopedia after all. For similar reasons, the entry for MSG has alternate names in other languages, as do many other Wikipedia entries. It belongs here, and not in the form of prose; that's inappropriate and unwieldy for a collection of names that are likely to expand. Please do not remove this list again. If anything, expand it. Amatulic 20:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm only going to remove it one more time, so please look at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Lists of words in other languages. Once again, if any of them are important enough to include, they should be explained in prose, and if not, they should not appear. —Keenan Pepper 07:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Could we put in something stronger to point out that the names in other languages are in the dictionary? As a previous correspondent has noted, few people would look in wiktionary unprompted, as they'd not expect find anything there that's not already in the encyclopaedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nunquam Dormio (talk • contribs) .
Exactly the same thing could be said of any other article. There's nothing special about stevia that would make people want to say it in different languages more than any other word. Take it to Template talk:Wiktionary. —Keenan Pepper 10:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
As indicated by Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Lists of words in other languages, there is apparently no policy on lists of alternative names, so please don't make one up. There is a policy against creating an entire article as a definition list, which this article is not. I also agree that it would be better to include the terms as prose as much as possible; this list is just a start. Also, as I stated before, there is ample precedent for having such a list, as can be seen by a simple search for the phrase "alternative names". Additionally:
(a) it meets a need identified by jidanni at the start of this thread;
(b) others have been making edits to this list, rather than simply removing it; and
(c) friends and acquaintances who are foreign nationals, aftern learning that I sweeten things with stevia, have told me they looked on Wikipedia to find what it's called in their language.
That last reason alone should be sufficient rationale to include the alternate names: people look here to find it! It's distressing when these people come upon this article to find that the list has disappeared.
I have restored the list (with redundant entries removed) until such time as someone can figure out how to incorporate it in prose. I promise to work on doing that, but until then, consider the inclusion of foreign names in prose as a work in progress, so please leave the list in. Expand it or improve the presentation if you can. Amatulic 15:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I have reorganized this list by country, which consolidated the four Indian-language names into one item, and improved on the prose that introduces the list. If anyone has literal translations for these terms, it would help to know which ones literally mean "sweet leaf" -- in which case those can incorporated into the prose. Amatulic 16:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nutrasweet hiring FDA board members

Any citation at all for that? Any specific names at least? If nobody provides anything soon, I'll delete that section because it sounds like a conspiracy theory/urban legend. I'm not saying it's not true - weirder things and dirtier things happen, but without proof it's useless.

The disputed text is repeated all over the web, verbatim: "After stevia was banned, several of members of the FDA board left their jobs. They were all hired at the Nutrasweet Company (a Monsanto subsidiary) in higher pay jobs, according to National (government) records."
I suggest restoring it with revisions, perhaps mentioning one specific name. Google returns over 500 results describing how Arthur Hull Hayes approved aspartame as his last act as FDA Commissioner, and subsequently went to work for a NutraSweet PR firm. This was before Stevia was banned; however this Nutrasweet/FDA linkage does lend credibility to the suspicion that Monsanto's influence resulted in the ban on stevia.
http://www.the7thfire.com/health_and_nutrition/aspartame_crimes.htm
http://www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm
http://www.stevia.net/aspartame.htm
Furthermore, there are other articles highlighting an apparent "revolving door" between Monsanto and the FDA. A former FDA commissioner Michael Friedman went to work for Monsanto's PR firm Searle in 1999 according to a PR Newswire story. I also find articles about former Monsanto board members getting jobs at the FDA. Even Donald Rumsfeld appears to have had a hand in approving aspartame, according this lawsuit. Amatulic 19:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Growing stevia plant

How is stevia used in cooking, beverages and recipies when home grown?

I think this might be best covered under a different entry. This article is about the sweetener itself: what it is, what it's called, history, safety, etc. There's already a huge amount of information on the web concerning recipes, so you could always add some external links at the bottom. In my own experience, I have found stevia to be terrible for baking (you really need the structural contribution from crystalline sugar for baked things to work out), but it's very good for sweetening any liquid, whether it's a beverage or a sauce.

[edit] In which countries is it legal?

The article doesn't give comprehensive information on this. Is it legal, e.g., in Pakistan? Etaonsh 22:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but this Pakistan government makes it seem legal there: http://www.parc.gov.pk/articles/sugar_leaf.htm
I agree it would be nice to know where else it's banned (such as in Singapore, which is mentioned in the article) and restricted (USA and EU). It's possible that the information in the article is what exists. It's also possible that many countries haven't created a policy about stevia one way or another. Amatulic 16:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought EU banned it(?). --Etaonsh 19:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Hm, not sure. The article simply says that the EU banned its use in food, which is what the US does (still permitting you to use it as a "supplement"). I don't know if the EU bans it outright. I'll have to do some digging. Amatulic 01:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Dietary supplement, not food additive'

'In 1995, the FDA revised its stance to permit stevia to be used as a dietary supplement, although not as a food additive.' Am I alone in the feeling that this rather arcane distinction needs a little elaboration? --Etaonsh 08:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see anything wrong the first time I read that (it's a basic historical fact after all), but I see your point. Consider it elaborated. Amatulic 21:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it's a long way of saying, 'You can't sell stevia in the US except on its own/unadulterated/with nothing added.' --Etaonsh 22:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You could be forgiven for not understanding this. The issue of the FDA and dietary supplements is covered to some degree in the linked supplement article. The FDA was putting pressure on manufacturers of stuff like ginseg, St. John's Wort, and the like to come up with safety/efficacy data, since their products were being marketed analogously to drugs. Congress decided to intervene and declared that the FDA did not have the authority to hold supplements to the same standards as drugs and food additives. As a result the FDA cannot regulate them - unless they make a claim of treating disease (which makes them drugs). So, all manner of things can be packaged in bottles in pill form, but cannot be put in food. Rich0 01:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
It is a bit confusing now that the article now states 'available in the US and Canada as a food supplement, although not as a food additive.' where food supplement and food additive point to the same article. How is there a distinction now? --Millard73 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Good catch. Elsewhere the article uses the correct term dietary supplement. I just corrected it in the lead. =Axlq 04:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dietary supplements 'not commercial'?

'...in Australia and Canada, stevia has been approved only for dietary supplements. However stevia has been grown on an experimental basis in Ontario since 1987 for the purpose of determining the feasibility of growing the crop commercially.' The implication of 'however' seems to be that dietary supplements are considered 'not commercial'(?). Also, 'it' will do for 'stevia' in the second sentence. --Etaonsh 08:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing prevents you from making modifications. I replaced "However stevia" with "it" as you suggest -- and you're right, it makes more sense that way. Amatulic 21:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Health concerns & limits on use'

The first sentence in this section is misleading because it fails to mention that extremely large doses were used (see [[1]]). The same presumably applies to the second sentence, which further fails to clarify whether such findings are relevant to human beings. The current citations in paragraph 1 merely refer the reader to the References list at the end of the article, which is a bit like saying, 'Go and read it all up yourself to find the relevant refs.' Would it be possible for the person or persons in the know to make the citations more specific and checkable at some point? Also, perhaps some gloss, for the layman, on how and why scientfic research sometimes seems to yield contradictory findings? --Etaonsh 10:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I recently made some significant changes to that paragraph, adding citations and rewording, but I didn't touch the first sentence. Toward the middle of the paragraph it does question the relevance to humans, but I guess it could be more clear. As always, anyone is free to make modifications, but I'll try to work on it in the next couple weeks when I get a chance. Amatulic 14:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Etaonsh - I notice you added a rather POV-sounding sentence "Ethical and procedural concerns have been raised about these experiments involving the unnatural force-feeding of laboratory rats, dismissed, as usual, on the controversial grounds that this is the 'normal' testing procedure for any substance." The words "controversial grounds" and "dismissed, as usual" and putting "normal" in quotation marks reads like sarcasm or biased language. It states as fact things that aren't established as fact. Any arguable or controversial claims in this article should include a citation and be free of bias. That sentence has neither quality. Can you do something with it? I'm inclined to remove it because it doesn't add encyclopedic value, but not without telling you first. Amatulic 01:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

'Controversial' is surely uncontroversial in that context, and 'dismissed, as usual' controversial only for being mentioned, to someone who would rather it wasn't - rather showing your own allegiances, there, I think(?). Reading 'normal' in inverted commas as 'sarcasm' says more about how seriously you regard discussion regarding prevailing scientific and behavioral norms than I, who, despite your polemical assumptions, fail to reveal my own personal opinion here, apart, obviously, from that of someone who clearly doesn't believe that all discussion of these issues should be suppressed. I reject your assertion that I 'state as fact things that aren't established as fact,' but I'm not opposing a citation - but surely a citation linking to evidence of controversy over experimentation with laboratory animals would, on current form, aggravate you further, quite apart from failing to fall within the boundary of 'facts needing citation to convince the average reader.' --Etaonsh 02:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't attribute motivations or allegiances to me that don't exist, or allege things that you don't know to be true -- either about me or about stevia. You see, I happen to agree 100% with that sentence you wrote; however, what you wrote lacks a neutral point of view. You introduced a sentence that, factual or not, contains loaded language that violates the NPOV policy here. All I'm suggesting is you rephrase it to have a more neutral tone, and provide citations for things that an average reader might question. I would have done it myself but at the moment I'm at a loss -- probably because I personally agree with your sentence. When writing something controversial, you don't want to give readers who disagree anything to pick at. I picked at it in a "Devil's advocate" mode, that's all. It's curious that your response was to attack me rather than address the problems I raised. Amatulic 20:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I can understand you saying that, but only in the context of a scenario in which militant/violent animal rights activists have effectively triggered an authoritarian clampdown on discussion, as if discussion in itself would make matters worse, and imply support for militant methods. I'm not attacking you, but your lack of courage in your own convictions, to the effect that neutrality lies where you thought it did, not where we are told. --Etaonsh 22:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
First: The activities of militant animal activists is a non-sequitur, having nothing to do with this article.
Second: A Wikipedia article about a food additive isn't the place to demonstrate the courage of one's convictions; it isn't a forum to sway an opposing point of view. Instead, it should provide factual information relevant to the subject. Personal convictions written out with emotion-laden words and no backup are no better than promoting one's religious beliefs, and just as irrelevant in the context of this article.
The sentence contains multiple undertones that distract from the message you want to convey about the unreliably of experimental findings. For example, mentioning "ethical concerns" distracts from the validity of the finding - all biological experiments have ethical concerns (even those that demonstrate safety of stevia), so mentioning ethics is irrelevant to the subject at hand: Health Concerns about Stevia.
Procedural criticisms of scientific findings are valid, but your sentence follows citations for experiments that don't even mention force-feeding rats. Honestly, I don't see where this fits.
What remains is criticism of experimental procedure. I have replaced the sentence with one about procedural concerns, and moved it to follow the sentence about the only really significant negative finding - that stevia is a mutagen (which also didn't involve force-feeding, it involved liver extracts). I have also provided a citation showing that this finding would have also found water to be a mutagen. Amatulic 17:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Do I detect the unmistakeable whiff of irrefutable female logic? --Etaonsh 19:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It wouldn't be the first mistaken allegation you've made about me. :) Amatulic 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great job citing sources for NPOV

Amatulic, thanks a lot for making this edit, that's exactly what the article needed. I looked for sources myself, but this is more specific than anything I found. —Keenan Pepper 22:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Keenan. In truth, I was actually unhappy with that edit when I finished it. It just seems wrong (to me) to quote a politician in the middle of an encyclopedia article (it's not a newspaper article after all). I want to figure out a better way to say it, referencing the quotation in the footnote rather than in the article text. However, I don't see footnote quotations in other Wikipedia articles, so I'm not sure that's a good solution either. -Amatulic 05:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance of recent World Health Organization evaluation

This article should include the results of the WHO's evaluation of Stevia this year -- in 'Safety evaluation of certain food additives,' prepared by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). The document is included in External links. This evaluation appears (to me) to endorse the safety of the use of Stevia as a sweetener. On page 140, it states: "The Committee concluded that stevioside and rebaudioside A are not genotoxic in vitro or in vivo and that the genotoxicity of steviol and some of its oxidative derivatives in vitro is not expressed in vivo." anorak 24.80.185.127 19:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I have included a short paragraph about it, citing that document as a reference. It took forever to download (18 megabytes!) but the section on stevioside and steviol research impressed me with its thoroughness, and made for interesting reading. Thanks for finding it. -Amatulic 20:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweetness

I've never been able to understand the phrase "200-300 times sweeter than sugar". How the heck do you measure sweetness? What are the units of sweetness? Would it be relevant to explain this in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.93.63.81 (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Based on my readings on the subject, sweetness isn't measured with instruments, but rather with a panel of many test subjects (people) tasting a series of dilutions (10:1, 100:1, 1000:1, etc.) of a solution of the sweetener. The data obtained doesn't have any absolute units; sweetness is expressed as an average relative to sucrose (table sugar). The level of dilution at which the panel can no longer detect any sweetness determines how many times sweeter the substance is relative to the standard. The result isn't exact, which is why it is often expressed as a range; e.g. "200-300 times sweeter than sugar". -Amatulic 01:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Research

I've enjoyed Stevia for several years now. Excerpt:

"James May, the founder of Wisdom Natural Brands, was involved in bringing Stevia to the United States over twenty years ago. Wisdom Natural Brands is now the leading US manufacturer of Stevia and offers a full line of SweetLeaf Stevia products available in convenient single serving packets, liquid, powder, tabs and concentrate, including their best selling products SweetLeaf SteviaPlus and Flavored Liquid Stevia, which were developed by Steve May. Together, they have introduced millions of people in North America to Stevia."

Source: Wisdom Natural Brands

James May authored a book "The Miracle Of Stevia: Discover the Healing Power of Nature's Herbal Sweetener (Paperback)" Source: Amazon Books —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian.murphy.tx (talk • contribs) 03:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] What about Japanese and European Safety Studies?

It seems that there have been very few American scientific studies on Stevia-- but what about Japanese and European studies? What do they say about the safety of Stevia?

67.42.243.184 05:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have any to cite, let us know where they are, and you or others can try to work them in. Many of the sources already come from international journals open to scientists from any country. Also the World Health Organization recently compiled much of the relevant research into safety and wrote a report, which is also cited in the article. -Amatulic 20:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External link reversions

User:Maquoketa added the link http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/sugarfree_blues.html to the External links section. At the time, I looked at it and it seemed to comply with WP:EL. Then User:Deli nk came along and reverted it without explanation. User:Axlq undid the reversion, and then User:Beetstra removed it again, claiming the link is "spammy".

I disagree. Speaking as someone who has been heavily involved with this article, I believe the link is useful and complies with WP:EL#What should be linked. The link doesn't meet any of the requirements in WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. Therefore, I am adding it back as a useful resource with meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in the article. There are other links on this article that are less appropriate, in my opinion. -Amatulic 19:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link because of the way it was added. User:Maquoketa added the same link to about twenty articles before he was warned that what he was doing was inappropriate. The link may be appropriate for a general article such as sugar substitute, but trying to put it in every single related article is excessive - that's just linkspamming. I'm also mildly concerned about the non-neutral point of view and potential conflicts of interest. If other editors come to a consensus that the link is appropriate for this article or another one, I won't object to it being re-added. Deli nk 20:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Maquoketa has added the link to many pages, and was reverted because of that. Hence, the link was added in a spammy way, and therefore, the link addition should first be discussed on the talkpage. That is why I reverted again.
About WP:EL. The page fails several things noted in policies and guidelines. Firstly, links should be kept to a minimum, policies/guidelines applied there are WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL. The linked page is about sugar substitutes, linked here from a page about a plant. I don't directly see the link between that, but I can understand that stevia is used as an artificial sweetener (should this be linked here, per WP:EL?). Then we go to links that should normally be avoided: Does this page provide a unique resource? And is this a reliable source (this might be, note however, that while and external article cites many references, does not mean it is reliable, but it at least gives the impression it might very well be, is it reviewed, is it a common resource on the web).
I hope this will give some food for thoughts. It might be that I am wrong, and that this site really adds something to the information about this plant (but then, should it be an external link, rather than a possible reference?), in that case, feel free to add the link again. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The linked web article is by The Weston A. Price Foundation, with an self-described agenda to promote a single, sometimes controversial, point of view - that's not necessarily a bad thing, but something to consider. Deli nk 20:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Some replies (to Deli nk):
  • You are correct that serial linkspam should be reverted. However, in rare cases such a link actually fits the article and seems like a good-faith edit. I looked at it only in the context of the article, not in the context of an editor's history.
  • You are also correct that it probably fits sugar substitute better, although I felt it was appropriate because stevia is a sugar substitute, and the article did describe stevia in a broader context of sugar substitutes than this Wikipedia article on stevia does (or should).
  • Conflict of interest should no longer be a problem since there is now more than one editor who thinks it's appropriate, and I have no conflict of interest (I never heard of that site until I saw the link).
  • As to NPOV, the linked article is comprehensive and well researched, although critical of artificial substitutes. There is no reason why a criticism article should not be linked; there is ample precedent for including it if the link is appropriately labeled.
Anyway, I too will wait for further discussion. I'm willing to lose the link if the consensus leans that way. -Amatulic 20:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
For me, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY is already enough to make it questionable. The link does not add to the article, and is questionably a WP:RS. Having said that, I had a look at stevia (I myself had never heard of stevia before the link got added), and I would argue that many of the links would not comply with the guidelines on external links. It feels there are many links that give information that easily can be incorporated in the article (e.g. the multilingual description, that is interwiki-links, and there is a blog, which is certainly not a WP:RS). But I will leave that to you all. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
As I said above, the article seems well researched, and dispite its POV slant, it does adequately describe many relevant and verifiable facts about stevia that are beyond the scope of this article. As such, it seems like a reliable and verifiable source which could be cited, if not used as an external link.
You are correct, blogs should be removed. I didn't notice until now. I'm normally pretty meticulous about removing blog links from other articles when I find them. Thanks for pointing it out; it's gone. To be honest, when I work on this article I usually don't get down as far as the links, so inappropriate stuff does find its way in. -Amatulic 22:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Processing

The article seems to be lacking in information on the processing of stevia.

  1. How is the powder extracted?
  2. What are the different methods used to obtain the powder and who does it which way?
  3. Is the chemical something that can or is being manufactured without growing it?
  4. Is cloning the main method used to obtain the plants?
  5. If so, who clones and who does not?

Some of these might not fit in the article, and some may be seen as spam; however, this type of information is lacking and I think it would be good. SadanYagci 23:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think such information would be highly appropriate. I haven't found much about processing, other than indications it's most economical to get stevioside extracts from harvested plants. If you find a source, add a section to the article or put the source on this talk page and someone can try to incorporate the information. -Amatulic 22:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/e/Talk%7EStevia_d2d3.html"