thanks so much for that link and your suggestions! I can't wait to get my liquid stuff in the mail!

One cool thing about stevia is how very little that you have to use - really tiny amounts.

I'm always leery of chemical foods/drugs. One minute they are fine and the next minute they are yanking them off the market which is why I was attracted to stevia.

I do still have splenda - mostly in products like pop or other sugar free stuff. I'm doing South Beach and just in general trying to limit sweet stuff.

Here is a longish article on stevia from about.com which I found interesting.

The Real Issue in the Stevia Battles
Guest article by Jen L. Jones

If you have followed the "Stevia Chronicles" for any length of time, you'll know that controversy dogs this unassuming ancient herb. Banned here ... praised there ... on a consumer alert over there ... yet still sought for around the world.

Just what is the purported danger in using stevia? It's hard to uncover any real evidence for harm.

In his book Stevia Sweet Recipes Jeffrey Goettemoeller has the following to say about stevia's safety:

"Stevia has undergone numerous toxicity tests. None of these tests have shown any harmful effects. Few substances can make this claim. The real test, though, was centuries of continuous use by natives of South America. In addition, thousands of tons of stevia extracts have been consumed over the last 20 years in many countries with no harmful effects reported."

Others have reached similar conclusions. In The Stevia Cookbook, by Ray Sahelian, MD, we read:

"Stevia has been used as a sweetening ingredient in foods and drinks by South American natives for many centuries, and there is no report of any plant toxicity to the consumers (Suttajit, 1993). Stevia has been added to a number of food products in Japan since the mid 1970s. No indications of any significant side effects have yet been reported after more than 20 years of use. Similarly, no reports of any adverse reactions to stevia have been reported in the United States."

In the same book you can read about one of the latest studies of the possible carcinogenic (cancer-causing) effect of stevia in rats. In a 1997 study conducted at the National Institute of Health Sciences in Tokyo, Japan, it was concluded that stevia had no adverse effects on the experimental rats.

Following extensive research, Dr. Daniel Mowrey MD, Herbalist and renowned scientist, reported:

"More elaborate safety tests were performed by the Japanese during their evaluation of Stevia as a possible sweetening agent. Few substances have ever yielded such consistently negative results in toxicity trials as have Stevia. Almost every toxicity test imaginable has been performed on Stevia extract [concentrate] or stevioside at one time or another. The results are always negative. No abnormalities in weight change, food intake, cell or membrane characteristics, enzyme and substrate utilization, or chromosome characteristics. No cancer, no birth defects, no acute and no chronic untoward effects. Nothing."

In the United States, Rob McCaleb, President of the Herb Research Foundation sees the irony in the ongoing FDA stevia (which he calls 'this embattled herb')saga. In a report on the Foundation's website he tells us that stevia has been under FDA import alert since 1991, but "actually, according to the HRF, numerous scientists, and tens of millions of consumers throughout the world, especially in Japan, the herb is safe."

Perhaps it's not the safety of stevia, but its sweetness which is the real sticking point as McCaleb goes on to explain. If stevia has the potential to become a popular non-caloric sweetener, where would that leave some other products currently on the market?

McCaleb says, "That's the problem, apparently, because someone (FDA won't say who, but it's a big company) doesn't want it on the market, and convinced FDA to ban it. Now, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 has forced FDA to allow it in dietary supplements. The agency says it's still illegal to use it as a food ingredient, placing them in the rather stupid position of saying it's safe if labeled as a supplement, but not when sold in or as a food. This would seem to violate the famous "Hee Haw" rule implemented by former FDA Commissioner Frank Young. Dr. Young implored his managers not to place the agency in a position which made it appear foolish by violating obvious common sense. The rule was reportedly prompted by the FDA's case against ginseng capsules years ago. A judge told the Agency that the position that ginseng was safe as a tea but dangerous in a capsule was ridiculous. Now they say stevia is safe in a capsule, but not in a tea, unless the tea is labeled as a dietary supplement. Go figure . . ."

Toxic or just tasty? We think it's time that the evidence on stevia be allowed to speak for itself.

About this article: First published in Stevia Canada's Newsletter, Issue 6.

About this contributor: [i[Jennifer Jones is the editor of Stevia Canada's electronic newsletter (Former editor and publisher of Herbs at Home: Gardens and Good Living, a Canadian magazine). Jones' email is jenjones at alumni.uwaterloo.ca

Are you serious?? Ok.. you think that adding Turbinado is the same as adding poison to your food.. yet you will add something that does not occur naturally that is made in a lab somewhere, by some "mad scientist" Okie Dokie

Here are a few facts on Turbinado ( Raw Sugar):

Q : What is raw sugar?

A: Raw Sugar is a natural, unrefined sugar made from sugar cane grown in Maui. Juice is extracted from the sugar cane, and then crystallized through evaporation. These crystals are rinsed with a very small amount of water to remove just enough stickiness to make the product free flowing.


Q: What makes Raw Sugar different from other sugars and is it healthier?

A:distinctive color and taste comes from the sugar cane juice flavor that naturally occurs in the crystals. By contrast, white sugar is obtained by refining the sugar cane crystals to remove all the sugar cane juice flavor (and with that, all of the nutrients). Thus white sugar is basically 100% sucrose whereas Raw Sugar contains very small amounts of nutrients. Some nutritionists believe that these very small amounts of nutrients contribute to the advantages raw sugar over refined white sugar. Some commercial brown sugars are made by adding coloring and flavor back to refined white sugar; this is not the case with raw sugar.

Now as far has it spikeing the blood sugar.. sure it does.. however, if you know how to balance your nutrition that doesnt happen. For instance, if you have sugar in something.. it should always be with or after protein. Protein balances your blood sugar. I dont recommended eatting it by the spoonfuls. But I would hardely call it poison as opposed to artifical sweetners.

Dairy Fairy- I feel ya on the sweet tea. I had to give that one up myself. It wasnt easy but I did.

I did not care for it. I thought it had a strong after taste.

I bought a bottle of stevia and only used it once and threw the rest out. It had a bitter aftertaste to me. I guess everyone's tastbuds are different!

I just use teaspoon or two a day of sugar (16 cals. per tsp.) to sweeten my plain yogurt or oatmeal.

I tried Stevia on the recommendation of a friend. Can't stand the stuff! To me it tastes even worse than saccharin. I still make a concession by using 1 tsp. of sugar in my occasional cup of coffee.