stevia approved by FDA

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) just granted approval to the natural herbal sweetener stevia.   You may know that I endorse stevia as a sweetener I use because it is plant-based without altered (synthetic) molecules, it has no impact on blood sugar, and no adverse health effects have been reported from its use.   In short, it’s a dramatic improvement over chemicals like Splenda, saccharin, and the widely used aspartame (brand name NutraSweet).


Aspartame is a public health nightmare.     More complaints have come in to the FDA from its use the past two decades than all other food additives combined (and we have over 4,000 approved food chemicals).   The frightening array of complaints include migraines and other neurological phenomena.


This doesn’t mean, incidentally, that your FDA is a friendlier organization somehow changed to truly protect your health.   Far from it.   The very same organization is well documented to have blocked stevia from store shelves just years ago.   You couldn’t sell it as a food in health food stores (it had to be labeled so as to not make consumers think they could eat it).   A company was banned from using it as an ingredient in its recipe book.   Companies attempting to use it were threatened with fines.   And stevia imports were seized and destroyed.


But due to public pressure following years of complaints about aspartame, Pepsi and Coca-Cola petitioned the FDA for stevia approval to replace aspartame in its products.   So the FDA has yielded once again to big business, not somehow become committed to science, the public health interest, and safety.


The patented product they’ll be using is called Truvia, and from what I can learn, it does not contain any altered, synthetic ingredients.   (I’ll let you know if I find out otherwise.)   While this is good news, of course, two things I want you to think about:


  1. The FDA is still bowing to corporate interests and its activities shouldn’t be the rubber stamp you use to guide your purchasing decisions.
  2. Even when Diet Coke has stevia in it, it’s still really bad for you, so please don’t think it’s a health food.  

Tomorrow, important information about another sweetener I endorse, agave nectar.

9 thoughts on “stevia approved by FDA

Leave a Comment
  1. According to Truvia website, Truvia is coming from rebiana which comes from stevia, which none of this is being grown organically.

    My question is, if stevia is such a great natural sweetner, with nothing harmful in it or done to it, then why do they have to turn it into rebiana and then into truvia? Is this another case like splenda where they claim it comes from sugar, when they actually take a molecule from sugar, wash it in chlorine to make splenda?

    Diet colas, Robyn is right, no matter what they sweeten them with the rest of it is bad .

  2. The answer is:

    Because you can’t patent something that comes from nature.

    And you can’t make a billion dollars from something non-proprietary.

    Definitely buy stevia from the health food store, not “Truvia” the patented thing.

  3. this is Awesome news (and saddening) that yes still they bow to those with lots of money and power and do not have our best interest at heart. thanks for all you do!

  4. Coke has also drawn fire from the FDA this week for their claims of the “Plus” in the new Diet Coke Plus, because the FDA says that Coke can’t claim that the new flavor is better for you with the added vitamins…maybe the FDA is finally ready to fade away into the sunset…

    Coke will follow-up on those warings in January, in their own ‘sweet’ time, since an FDA warning isn’t legally binding.

    It’s another beautiful day in the neighborhood.

  5. The information that the FDA approached Stevia is false and misleading and it should be corrected. A web site that has issued that information should also make a retraction. Since they are part of some 400+ web sites under the guise of publishing ‘truth’. This organization has utilized farming of articles from other sites, claiming it as their own and giving no credit for the source; not good journalistic ethics. They operate more for PR and marketing through their wide array of web sites, the material is superficial and they are unwilling to disclose their ownership or backing that allegedly originates in Taiwan. I won’t hold my breath for the fact checking or the retraction.

    Reacting to alarmist type news is a well known propaganda technique.

    Always do your own thinking and follow up on the data to insure you aren’t taking the data from granted.

    And avoid wolves in sheep’s clothing…..

Leave a Reply