Talk:Stevia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Indiemindy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

References

• Planas, G. M.; Kucacute, J. (1968). "Contraceptive Properties of Stevia rebaudiana". Science. 162 (3857): 1007. doi:10.1126/science.162.3857.1007. PMID 17744732.
• Melis, M (1999). "Effects of chronic administration of Stevia rebaudiana on fertility in rats". Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 67 (2): 157–61. doi:10.1016/S0378-8741(99)00081-1. PMID 10619379.
• Singh, S. D.; Rao, G. P. (2005). "Stevia: the herbal sugar of 21st century". Sugar Tech. 7: 17. doi:10.1007/BF02942413.
• Geuns, J (2002). "Bioactive Natural Products (Part H)". Studies in Natural Products Chemistry. 27: 299. doi:10.1016/S1572-5995(02)80039-4. ISBN 9780444512307. {{cite journal}}: |chapter= ignored (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone (talk • contribs) 10:47, March 27, 2010 (UTC-8)

Why remove all content re: weight gain?

I am wondering why not a single word of the content I had added was left after my edit was reverted by User:Zefr?

Much of that content was from the fully approved Artificial sweeteners article, including the citations. They are fine in that article but not in this one??

This was part of the content that was reverted after it had been edited by an Administrator:

     There is some doubt as to whether steviol is useful for weight loss. According to research, particularly a 2010 study, artificial sweeteners do not fully activate the brain's "food reward pathways" as sugar does. Because sweetener does not provide full satisfaction, the user may search for, and then ingest, additional high-calorie sweets, leading to weight gain.https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks/artificial-sweeteners/ <ref>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/ 

Peter K Burian (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

This was the rest of the fully cited content that was reverted:

  Another 2010 review concluded there is a correlation between consumption of artificially sweetened beverages and weight gain in children, but that no clear causal link has been determined. Brown, R. J.; de Banate, M. A.; Rother, K. I. (August 2010). "Artificial sweeteners: a systematic review of metabolic effects in youth". International Journal of Pediatric Obesity. 5 (4): 305–312. doi:10.3109/17477160903497027. PMC 2951976. PMID 20078374.  Research in 2013 showed that the consumption of artificial sweeteners weakens the association of sweet taste as a food cue with post-ingestive caloric sensory. In turn, this can lead to the over-consumption of high-calorie sweet tasting foods when eaten in a diet alongside artificial sweeteners, which may cause weight gain. Davidson T. L., Sample C. H., Swithers S. E. (2014). "An Application of Pavlovian Principles to the Problems of Obesity and Cognitive Decline". Neurobiology of Learning and Memory. 108: 172–184. doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2013.07.014.{{cite journal}}:  CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

  A more recent study (2017) also found no evidence to support the claims of weight loss when an artificial sweetener is used and suggested a possible association of routine consumption with weight gain and risk of heart disease.  Azad, Meghan B.; Abou-Setta, Ahmed M.; Chauhan, Bhupendrasinh F.; Rabbani, Rasheda; Lys, Justin; Copstein, Leslie; Mann, Amrinder; Jeyaraman, Maya M.; Reid, Ashleigh E.; Fiander, Michelle; MacKay, Dylan S.; McGavock, Jon; Wicklow, Brandy; Zarychanski, Ryan (16 July 2017). "Nonnutritive sweeteners and cardiometabolic health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies". Canadian Medical Association Journal. 189 (28): E929–E939. doi:10.1503/cmaj.161390. 

Peter K Burian (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The answer is simple: Stevia is not an artificial sweetener. Until some studies specific to stevia can be cited, everything written above amounts to WP:SYNTHESIS in the context of stevia. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hm .... I had not noticed this post. You are right. It is not artificial. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/artificial-sweeteners-sugar-free-but-at-what-cost-201207165030

So, I now agree. The section on weight gain should not be included in this article. I will Revert my own edit that added that paragraph.Peter K Burian (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The stevia product consumers buy from a shelf is not natural because it is an extract, i.e., requiring considerable industrial processing to produce the powder product one purchases in a bottle or package. There is barely a difference in manufacturing between sucralose (which is also an extract and called "artificial" supposedly because it is synthesized in a minor process from sucrose) and stevia. --Zefr (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, according to the Harvard article, stevia is a "natural sweetener". The FDA has approved five artificial sweeteners: saccharin, acesulfame, aspartame, neotame, and sucralose. It has also approved one natural low-calorie sweetener, stevia. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/artificial-sweeteners-sugar-free-but-at-what-cost-201207165030

That is why I agreed to remove my edit which confirms that artificial sweetners may cause weight gain. Whether the stevia we buy -- or the stevia in certain foods and drinks -- is artificial needs to be proven. The minute you do so, with scholarly sources, I will agree that my edit indicating that it may cause weight gain should be reinstated. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Stevia is an industrially processed ("artificial") sweetener as explained here. Your weight gain comment should not be reinstated because there is no WP:MEDRS-quality evidence that sweeteners of any kind affect brain mechanisms directly to affect fat metabolism and weight gain. --Zefr (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Er, no. Pedantically, "stevia" is a plant. The leaves and the plant's natural extracts are sweet, and have been used as natural sweeteners for centuries. Rebaudioside-A is a specific stevioside that requires industrial processes to extract with purity, but it also isn't an "artificial" sweetener in that it isn't synthesized (unlike sucralose, in which chlorine atoms are substituted for hydrogen); rebaudioside-A is already present in the stevia plant. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point, Anachronist, but one could argue that sucralose is natural because it derives from natural sucrose and is changed little in chemistry. If you can find a reliable secondary source that splits this hair clearly, defining stevia as natural and sucralose as not, then I may agree. I don't think you'll find it. What is the meaning of 'natural' on the label of food?: "From a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is 'natural' because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth." (my emphasis edits) The FDA has been struggling with this term for a decade, with no resolution through 2017. --Zefr (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Zefr, I'm not arguing about the semantics of the word "natural"; I know very well how that word is abused in the food industry. I'm just making a common-sense comment. Rebaudioside-A is already naturally present in the stevia plant. It wasn't invented or manufactured or made by modifying some other chemical. The industrial technique to extract it in a pure form doesn't change it. In contrast, sucralose doesn't exist anywhere at all in nature. It's an artificial sweetener by any common-sense examination, because it isn't naturally occurring. Calling it "natural" because it derives from glucose is just marketing hype. Also, the fact that you start with glucose and change it doesn't mean you end up with something safe. Sometimes the difference between something safe and toxic can be the difference of one atom. And of course, the converse holds as well: just because something is naturally-occurring doesn't mean it's safe to consume. Therefore the word "natural" is meaningless from a health or safety context. I'd love to see a well-designed study that investigates whether consuming stevia extracts have the same effects as artificial sweeteners, especially in individuals who've been consuming it for many years. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

  Research has shown that the consumption of artificial sweeteners weakens the association of sweet taste as a food cue with post-ingestive caloric sensory; that is, such products do not fully activate the brain's "food reward pathways" as sugar does, leading to the over-consumption of high-calorie sweet tasting foods when eaten in a diet alongside artificial sweeteners, which may cause weight gain. Davidson T. L., Sample C. H., Swithers S. E. (2014). "An Application of Pavlovian Principles to the Problems of Obesity and Cognitive Decline". Neurobiology of Learning and Memory. 108: 172–184. doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2013.07.014. PMC 3899105.{{cite journal}}:  CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Peter K Burian (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

For those who prefer plain English: Artificial Sweeteners Are Linked to Weight Gain

 In the report, published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, researchers analyzed 37 studies on artificial sweeteners to see if they were successful for weight management. The studies followed more than 400,000 people for about 10 years. Seven of the studies were randomized controlled trials, a type considered to be the gold standard in scientific research.

  Artificial sweeteners did not appear to help people lose weight. Instead, observational studies that looked at consumption over time suggested that people who regularly consumed them—by drinking one or more artificially-sweetened beverages a day—had a higher risk for health issues like weight gain, obesity, diabetes and heart disease. http://time.com/4859012/artificial-sweeteners-weight-loss/

Peter K Burian (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Canadian Medical Association Journal

 Artificial sweeteners linked to risk of long-term weight gain, heart disease and other health issues 

Granted, more research is required: "Given the widespread and increasing use of artificial sweeteners, and the current epidemic of obesity and related diseases, more research is needed to determine the long-term risks and benefits of these products," said Azad. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The sources listed above prove nothing about how artificial sweeteners affect brain functions or specifically weight gain/loss, which is why those sources do not satisfy WP:MEDRS. Peter K Burian, please read the MEDRS guideline, particularly WP:MEDASSESS. --Zefr (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Natural Stevia dif to synthetic stevia

I think it is important to point out that Natural stevia is no problem for people with diabetes. But synthetic stevia is. Because the synthetic contains more than 90% glucide carbonat.Sorgim (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

To what are you referring? The article makes no mention of "synthetic stevia" and I see no reliable source references to such a substance, and none that mention "glucide carbonate" in the context of stevia. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

more studies that have found problems

The 2020 study below is not the first one to find problems with DNA damage. The three studies below are those I found with a very quick perusal today. Note that all stevia-derived sweetening compounds are metabolized into steviol.

Steviol, the active principle of the stevia sweetener, causes a reduction of the cells of the immunological system even consumed in low concentrations

Our results showed that Steviol reduces the number of lymphocytes due to falls of CD4+, CD8+, and CD4+CD8+ subpopulations. Besides, we observed an increase in the level of DNA damage and a gradual incidence of structural changes in the lymphocyte chromosomal sets. Although Steviol is used globally as a sweetener, its use should be cautious, as our study points out that Steviol has cytotoxic, genotoxic and mutagenic effects in the concentrations and conditions tested in the culture of human lymphocyte cells. DOI: 10.1080/08923973.2020.1811309 Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol 2020

These findings highlight the potential for steviol to act as a potential endocrine disruptor. DOI: 10.1016/j.mce.2016.03.005 Mol Cell Endocrinol 2016

Our results provide mechanistic data indicating that stevioside and stevia sweeteners may have the potential to induce food-drug interactions, a finding that warrants future prospective clinical investigation. DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2017.09.007 Food Chem Toxicol 2017 166.216.159.49 (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

These are all preliminary in vitro assays with no WP:MEDRS review of evidence they have any relevance to consumers, so are not useful. There is no comment of safety concern about commercial stevia sweeteners by the FDA, as of July 2023, stating The safety of steviol glycosides has been extensively studied and reported in the scientific literature. In humans, steviol glycosides are not hydrolyzed by digestive enzymes of the upper gastrointestinal tract and are not absorbed through the upper portion of the gastrointestinal tract. Several chronic studies and clinical studies in humans have been conducted demonstrating no adverse effects. Zefr (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

"These are all preliminary in vitro assays with no WP:MEDRS review of evidence they have any relevance to consumers, so are not useful."

Scientific studies aren't useful? That's an interesting take. The FDA has been shown to have serious drawbacks, such as in its lack of adequate regulation of lead in cocoa products. 166.216.159.49 (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Early-stage in vitro studies are not evidence of an effect on human health, WP:MEDINVITRO, and are too preliminary and unconfirmed to represent content in the encyclopedia. Further studies in vivo and in human volunteers would need to be shown in a clinical review or government agency guideline to state a safety concern.

As the largest food safety organization in the world, the FDA constantly assesses the safety of ingredients and manufactured foods. There is no other international health organization or national government agency expressing concerns about the safety of stevia. Zefr (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)