top of page

Stevia Conspiracy Theory !

Few days ago my good friend Mr. Richard Howes, Chief Innovation Manager, South African Cane Growers’ Association drew my attention to a webpage “Toxic Truth About Stevia”. I visited the webpage and was quite surprised to find some tedious piece of work deliberately aimed to spread misinformation about Stevia. Later I found that the content of that particular webpage has been replicated in several other websites. It was really perplexing and I felt real clueless about the motives of some people who take these extraordinary efforts to create planned confusion. The text in the webpage was full with examples of incomplete scientific knowledge, hearsay and distortion. At first, I thought that it will be more prudent to ignore this type of propaganda, because these people are trying to garner public attention by play-acting as controversialists. But, at the same time, I was concerned about the potential effect of these misinformation on unsuspecting people who may be unnecessarily scared off from stevia.

So, I invested some time to prepare a reply to scientifically refute their arguments. I shall be glad myself if anybody points to the deficiencies of my logic and counter-arguments. 

This the link to the original article. 

The page was compiled by Ms. Jane Barthelemy - who is a "gluten-free, Paleo chef, author, health practitioner and guide in your journey to health and vitality" [Sic] according to her website.

In the following table, I have put her statements in the left column and my counter-arguments in the right column. I did not resort to personal attack of any sort - my only intention is to provide some valid scientific facts.

word cloud.jpg

Assertions made by the author

My comments

Executive Summary:

Yes, Stevia’s green leaves are naturally sweet. However those white powders and clear drops we find in groceries have very little to do with stevia leaves. They aren’t really stevia at all. They’re an extract that’s been super-refined using toxic chemicals, bleach, and marketed as “healthy”. When you look at the chemical refinement process, stevia is no more natural than Aspartame, Splenda, NutraSweet, Equal, Sweet N Low, etc. Everybody is looking for a non-addictive, healthy sweetener. But beware of any sugar-free sweetener that gives you the illusion of a “free ride”, because you may just be deepening your addiction

The author should name the toxic chemicals used in extracting and purifying Stevia, otherwise it seems a deliberate and desperate effort to create confusion and spreading misinformation.

 We need the citation of the extraction process where “bleach” is used. According to my review of all the published information, no “bleach” is used in any of the extraction process. The green colour is removed by selective adsorption on specific ion exchange resins. Demineralized water used for pharmaceutical applications is often made with the use of ion exchange resins

The author could not differentiate between the active ingredients “Aspertame” and brands like “Splenda, NutraSweet, Equal, Sweet N Low”, which indicates limited knowledge in chemistry of these sweeteners.  

What are the toxic chemicals?



You must be kidding!



Brands and ingredients mess up

Grow Your Own Stevia!

The best stevia is the kind you can grow yourself. When it’s alive you know it’s REAL! Stevia plants grow beautifully in a pot, a garden, a window box, or on your kitchen window sill.  Just pull off a leaf when you need to sweeten something. This way you can be sure it’s organic, and the soil is healthy.

There are no published reports on any scientific study about safety of whole Stevia leaves as sweeteners. This is the reason USFDA and EFSA discourages use of whole Stevia leaves.

 All the published safety studies on Stevia as a sweetener is done using well defined purified product.

How we should reach to the conclusion that Stevia leaves are the safest option? Moreover, the taste profile of whole Stevia leaves (as a sweetener) may not be acceptable to a whole lot of people and people will stay away from Stevia as a result. Thus, this misinformation will function as a well designed tool to discourage people to use Stevia. And what happens when somebody wants use Stevia as a sweetener when they are not at home? Should they carry around a potted Stevia plant with them?

The use of stevia leaf and crude stevia extracts is not considered GRAS and their import into the United States is not permitted for use as sweeteners. For details, see Import Alert 45-06.

What is Stevia Really?  How can I Know if it is Pure?

Stevia, or “stevia rebaudiana” is a plant that originates in Brazil with naturally sweet leaves. The leaves can be dried and powdered into a pure sweetener about 40 times sweeter than sugar. These raw, unprocessed stevia leaves have a strong aftertaste akin to licorice, and taste artificial. Pure unprocessed stevia leaves and green powder are not widely available due to their strong aftertaste. If you live in Santa Fe like I do, buy them bulk at the Coop on Alameda near the almond butter grinder. (Or you can order a pound here from Frontier on Amazon).

How the author knows that Stevia leaves available at her recommended sources are “pure”? What is the benchmark of purity here? It seems like she is patronizing some particular brands. It would have been more useful to the audience if she could post the protocol for identifying “real’ and “pure” Stevia.

In 2017, A scientific study was undertaken to assess if steviol glycosides get chemically modified during the commercial extraction and purification process. Samples of three independent commercial‐scale extraction and purification batches of steviol glycosides, each batch containing a sample of the untreated stevia leaves, the first water extract and the high‐purity end product, were analysed using HPLC‐UV and HPLC‐ESI‐MS/MS. The results show that the commercial powders of extracted steviol glycosides with an estimated purity of more than or equal to 95% contain the same steviol glycosides as the dried stevia leaves and their hot water infusions, demonstrating that steviol glycosides are not affected by the purification process.


Oehme, A., Wüst, M. and Wölwer‐Rieck, U. (2017), Steviol glycosides are not altered during commercial extraction and purification processes. Int J Food Sci Technol, 52: 2156-2162.

Bias and brand patronizing 





No chemical modification during extraction – proved scientifically 

In grocery stores, we find an entire shelf of “stevia” in the form of processed liquid drops and white powders – all highly refined chemical extractions from the leaves, in the hopes of reducing the aftertaste. The resulting processed sweeteners are called myriad confusing names such as stevia, stevia extract, pure stevia, Rebaudioside A, Reb A, steviol glycosides, etc, and are anywhere from 2X to 350X sweeter than sugar, depending on the blend with other fillers.

These are not confusing names. Rather, these names convey more sense to an informed buyer.

Stevia extract, steviol glycosides, Rebaudioside A – these are the names of the sweet compound in Stevia. These names often indicate the specific grade or purity lavel of the products.  For an analogy - sugar, tarbinado, brown sugar, molasses are the different grades of sweeteners made from sugar cane.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United nations have specific recommendations for nomenclature regarding Stevia extracts – which is available through this link.

There are scientific protocols for naming a steviol glycoside based sweetener, and everybody is expected to follow it.

As a high-intensity sweetener, a little goes a long way, therefore it is often pre-measured in packets or mixed with other fillers such as GMO Maltodextrin, GMO corn Erythritol, inulin fiber, or even cane sugar.

Is there any physical, chemical or biochemical tests through which anybody can differentiate between purified maltodextrine or erythritol from conventional and GMO crops. Does moltodextrine from conventional crop and genetically modified crop has different molecular structure? Then how our body differentiates between GMO maltodextrine and normal maltodextrine.

The author also posted a link for “Healthy Sweeteners” (written by her) in the first paragraph of this article.  In that linked webpage, she included ‘Swarve” brand of erythritol as safe sweetener. I have checked the website of Swarve – and could not find anything special about their erythritol. 

She included “Inulin Fiber” in harmful ingredient category. But, in the same linked page, she considered “Just Like Sugar” brand “Crystal Chicori Root” powder as a safe sweetener.

Actually, Inulin fiber and crystal chicory powder is the synonym of the same substance [Link]

Is the chemical structure of GMO maltodextrine is different from that derived from non-GMO crop?


Ambiguous stand on erythritol


Ambiguous stand on inulin

Processing is done with a variety of chemicals, such as, methanol, arsenic, ethanol, acetone, and others.

In Stevia extraction process, ethanol is used in some processes. Methanol is an obsolete process aid in the extraction processes and its use has long been discontinued. Arsenic and acetone are never used in Stevia extraction. I would like to see the citation of the information source


The resulting artificial sweetener called “Stevia” is toxic and unhealthy.

Don’t be fooled by the name, that seemingly innocent stevia we find in grocery stores is a chemical concoction just like Splenda and Aspartame. In fact, it’s highly probable that you’re buying a blend that’s 99.8% Erythritol, a fermented sweetener made from genetically modified corn, with a pinch of refined stevioside powder. Your “Stevia” can be processed, mixed with chemicals, blended in a hundred ways, and still legally be called simply “stevia”. Refined stevioside is sold under countless brand names such as Sun Crystals, SweetLeaf, Truvia, PureVia, Stevia in the Raw, Pyure, and NuStevia to name a few.

The author should refer to some scientific study where purified stevia is proved as toxic and unhealthy. Otherwise – it seems like a personal perception and bias.

Again there is a mess up with ‘Splenda: and “Aspertame”…….No differentiation between an active ingredient and a brand.

The stand on erythritol is really ambiguous…….. bad-mouthing about erythritol here and praising about specific brands in her other webpage.

At the bottom of this webpage, I have provided a compilation of references for safety studies on Stevia.

Scientific fact?


Personal perception?

Commercial Stevia is bad news.

Stay away from it. That includes Stevioside and Rebaudioside and all the names. All “stevia” in grocery stores is processed with toxic chemicals. If you’re still going for the story that stevia is natural and comes from Peru, know that 85% of all stevia comes from China. Even the world’s top stevia marketer, international sugar giant Cargill, top food manufacturer in the world with over $102.7 billion in 2016 sales, manufacturer of Truvia and PureVia with Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, has all of its stevia produced in China. It’s a small world when you control the sweeteners everybody is addicted to.

When large multinational companies select their vendors, the selection process is based on thorough assessment of the quality and its consistency. Every country has their own food and drug safety law. All the American companies selling stevia based sweetener in America comply to the relevant FDA. regulations. So, a consumer in USA are supposed to get products with quality prescribed by FDA, regardless of the origin of its source.   

The quality standard of any food products is to be compliant to the local food safety law. 

All food products sold in USA are supposed to be compliant to USFDA quality standards. 

Take-Home Message:

If you truly want to be free of sugar addiction, then processed stevia and other artificial sweeteners won’t help you. It’s better to skip all forms of Stevia, Truvia, and the blends listed below. The best solution is to use small doses of sugar-free sweeteners, to slowly detox your system from regular sugars. Check out my two preferred sugar-free sweeteners: Just Like Sugar Table Top, and PureLo LoHan by Swanson.

Are there any specific reasons for preferring those two sweeteners? Has there been any comparative safety study between the active ingredients of those two brands and Stevia? I could not find answers to these questions in the article.

The author may have personal preferences. But, apart from making some imprecise comment about some non-existent “toxic” chemicals in Stevia products, she never took the effort to scientifically explain what may the issues with purified Stevia.    

A matter of the author’s personal preference

How is Stevia Processed?

Processed stevia is made with a dangerous chemical refining process hidden from the public and deceptively marketed as “natural”. Manufacturers run into the problem that stevia leaves are extraordinarily resilient. The stevia cell walls are so tough that they resist the usual methods of boiling or centrifuging. Producers aim to extract the active sweet compound, stevioside, and remove the funny aftertaste. In order to concentrate stevia to 300X concentration, toxic chemicals and artificial chemical enzymes are used, such as methanol, kerosene, alcohol, chlorine, ash, acids, titanium dioxide, arsenic, preservatives, chemical stabilizers, and emulsifiers.

“Manufacturers run into the problem that stevia leaves are extraordinarily resilient. The stevia cell walls are so tough that they resist the usual methods of boiling or centrifuging.” – This is not an example of presentation of true scientific facts. There is no specialty in the physical characteristics of Stevia leaf tissue. I am afraid that this assertion is entirely based on the author’s personal perception. You can watch a Youtube video demonstrating how easy it is to extract crude Steviol glycosides from Stevia leaves with hot water


The author invented the term “artificial chemical enzyme” just to scare the readers. Enzymes are complex protein molecules and, to date, artificially synthesizing complex enzymes is only restricted to high end molecular biology research. There is no published report of commercial application of “artificial enzyme”. There are some online resources for artificial enzyme – which you can check

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Claiming that “kerosene, alcohol, chlorine, ash, acids, titanium dioxide, arsenic, preservatives, chemical stabilizers, and emulsifiers” are used in extraction of steviol glycoside is deliberate misinformation. This indicates that the author does not have any first-hand knowledge of the extraction process which are commercially adopted.

There is nothing special with Stevia leaves – it is just like any other leaves, physically.


Enzyme which is both “artificial” and “chemical” in stevia extraction process? 

I need the citation of the published report – desperately!



The world’s largest producers of stevia hold patents for undisclosed, proprietary extraction methods. These patents belong to industry giants such as Coca Cola, PureCircle in Malaysia and USA, Cargill – maker of Truvia and PureVia, JustBio – A Canadian Biotech firm, McNeil Nuritionals LLC- maker of Splenda, and Chengdu Waggott Pharmaceutical Company in Sichuan China. That’s quite a line-up! Here are 5 common stevia extraction methods I located in public patent records. They all indicate the use of toxic chemicals, which are difficult or impossible to remove.

On the contrary – details of steviol glycoside extraction process is in public domain for quite a long time.Though there are hundreds of patents on steviol glycoside extraction processes, all the processes are not commercially feasible and are not adopted.

All the extractors need to comply with the product specifications advised by World Health Organization – Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives and US Food and Drug Administration. 

The entire “research” by the author is a cut and paste job from the citation section of the patent document WIPO WO2006038221A1 published on 2006-04-13. Thus, her entire information source is 13 years old. 

There is no secrets about the extraction process and no information are concealed from public view

One of the more popular methods of producing stevia extract was developed by D. Payzant, U.S. Pat. No. 5,962,678. In summary, sweet stevia glycosides are extracted using methanol, a toxic, colorless, volatile flammable liquid alcohol. This method has been used for decades. The major drawback is that a toxic solvent like methanol is difficult to remove. Trace amounts are harmful to health and not ideal for human consumption.

This process is never used commercially. The patent was filed in 1998. The patent filing organization – Alberta Research Council was not even interested in paying the maintenance fee – so the patent is now expired.

At present, in all commercial steviol glycoside extraction process – methanol is not used.

The permissible methanol content of salable steviol glycoside is 200 parts per million (ppm). So, one serving of steviol glycoside (40 mg) may contain 0.008 milligram of methanol – as the worst case.

I am presenting some information from the document “COT Statement On The Effects Of Chronic Dietary Exposure To Methanol” published by Committee On Toxicity Of Chemicals In Food, Consumer Products and Environment -  Government of UK

“Methanol occurs naturally in food, notably in fresh fruits and vegetables and their juices. It occurs as free methanol, methyl esters of fatty acids or methoxy groups on polysaccharides such as pectin from which it can be released by digestion. Pectin is broken down during digestion in the colon, from where methanol can be absorbed, meaning that the potential methanol intake from the diet is higher than analysis of the free methanol content of individual foodstuffs might suggest. The methanol concentration of fruit juices ranges from 1- 640 mg/L with an average of 140 mg/L . Concentrations of methanol in fresh orange and grapefruit juice were in 2 the range 11-80 and 12-60 mg/L respectively. Canning may increase the methanol content of fruit and juices by trapping the volatile components. In human volunteers, consumption of 10-15 g isolated pectin or of 1 kg apples (containing approximately 10 g natural pectin) induced a significant increase in methanol in the breath and, by inference, in the blood . Consumption of 1kg apples was estimated to release 500 mg methanol. It has been estimated that humans may be exposed to approximately 1000 mg methanol per day from fruits and vegetables; riper fruit was found to release more methanol than unripe fruit.”


So, it is seems that 200g apple contains 100 mg methanol – which is 12,500 times more than a serving of steviol glycoside. The author should fight for banning apples or all other fruits.

Can you avoid methanol, at all?


One apple can deliver 12,500X more methanol than a serving of steviol glycoside

Another common production method comes from Uenishi Hideaki, Japan Patent 54030199. To extract the sweetness and discard a bitter aftertaste, this method also requires the use of various toxic solvents. The removal of solvents requires energy and time, which are not considered cost-effective.

I have checked the patent information. It is a 40 year old patent and long expired. No information about use of any “toxic” solvent is available from the archaic online references.

 The argument of methanol concentration in fruits stands here too.

What are the toxic solvents used in this process?

A third production method developed by R. H. Dobberstein, U.S. Pat. No. 4,361,697, uses several toxic solvents including methanol in a complex multi-step process. The major drawback is still the presence of toxic solvents, and their complete removal is not possible and not considered commercially viable.

This is an archaic patent again – which is of academic interest only. The method described by the patent assignees is not commercially feasible. The patent expired in 2001. In the patent document it was never mentioned that “complete removal of solvents is not possible and not considered commercially viable”. So this comment is the author’s own perception.

 Wherever this patent is cited, it is mentioned that this process is not commercially feasible.

Archaic production process – never used commercially

Sato Toru, Japan Patent JP57005663 uses a new and improved process to extract sweetness from stevia hydrated in water containing alcohol, with the addition of calcium, iron, or aluminum. These compounds are then removed, passed through an acid-cation exchange resin using toxic solvents such as ethanol, acetone, etc. The major drawbacks here are the removal of water from aqueous extract, and removal of toxic solvents, which is not economical.

Old and expired patent – published in 1982. Never adopted commercially. Whenever this patent is cited, it is mentioned that this process is not economic and not commercially feasible.

Archaic production process – Not commercially feasible

US. Pat. No. 4,599,403 by Sampath Kumar uses an improved method that is said to be less dependent on toxic chemicals. The major drawbacks are that the aqueous extract is treated first with an acid and then with base and then treated with toxic solvents like n-butanol, which lower the final yield and must ultimately be removed. Again, removal of solvents is not commercially viable; therefore most stevioside products generally contain these toxins.

Why discuss about a patent which is never adopted since it is not commercially viable?  In the citations it has been clearly mentioned that the process is prone to steviol glycoside loss. Who will be interested in adopting a process which is not efficient and economic? The patent is of academic interest only.

Most stevia products are not produced from steviol glycoside extracted by this process, so they do not contain any of the process aids used in this process. 

Very disconnected extrapolation with surrogate outcome

What’s Really in Your Stevia Bottle?


Well, you can start with the knowledge that there’s almost NO pure stevia out there, except for that rare green powder with a funny aftertaste. (I don’t mind the aftertaste, but many people don’t care for it.) If you want to know what’s really in your stevia, you can try reading the label. However that’s a problem since labels don’t have to disclose all ingredients. Your next hint is serving size. A low serving size of one gram or less is a good indication that the manufacturer is taking full advantage of the legal loophole, and omitting certain chemicals or ingredients. Here’s the loophole: By law, any item under 0.5 grams per serving is not required to be disclosed. So there’s no way you can know for sure what’s really in there. If your Stevia is any of the popular products below, I’ve done some of your homework for you, by reading the labels. However what’s undisclosed we’ll never know.

The entire argument by the author is filled with cherry picked archaic and obsolete references. In this writing. The author also seems clueless about her pivotal argument. Did she want to prove purified steviol glycoside is bad? Or did she want to prove the dilutants and fillers are to be blamed?

If extraction and purification makes steviol glycoside harmful, the same logic may apply for essential oils, edible oils, plant pigment based colorants etc.

The entire reference list of the “research” comprised of some old expired unusable patents, some non-technical blog posts. She did not refer to any scientific paper published in peer reviewed journals. 

If stevia did even half of the bad things the more wild-eyed nutritionists say it does, our armed forces would be deploying it as a cheap biological weapon. Nutritionists often misrepresent legitimate scientific research, make claims based on weak observations, over-interpreted surrogate outcomes in animal and tissue culture experiments and cherry picked published research.

The following paragraphs are quoted from “The Truth About Nutritionists” by Ben Goldacre.

“Media nutritionists speak with a grain of science, but all too often it’s like the difference between astrology and astronomy. Nutrition is one of the few areas where the notion of scientific evidence for health interventions is popularly discussed: the nutritionists take this opportunity and use it to promote the public misunderstanding of science, laying fertile ground for health scares and a misled population.”


"The Committee determined that no safety issues exist for steviol glycosides produced by any one of four methods (see FAO JECFA Monograph) resulting in products with ≥95% steviol glycosides as per existing specifications. The Committee indicated that the ADI of 0–4 mg/kg bw established at the sixty-ninth meeting of JECFA for steviol glycosides (expressed as steviol) applies to steviol glycosides produced by the four methods indicated in the annexes of the specifications monograph produced at the current meeting."


"Considering the available toxicity data (in vitro and in vivo animal studies and some human tolerance studies), the Panel concludes that steviol glycosides, complying with JECFA specifications, are not carcinogenic, genotoxic or associated with any reproductive/developmental toxicity."


"Canada had previously permitted steviol glycosides from the stevia plant to comprise one or more of ten named steviol glycosides, singly or in any combination, provided that the total steviol glycosides content is at least 95%.

As no safety concerns were raised through Health Canada's assessment the Department has enabled the expanded use of the food additive steviol glycosides to comprise all the steviol glycosides in the Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni plant described in the information document below by updating the List of Permitted Sweeteners, effective August 30, 2017."


"Toxicological and other relevant data published subsequent to the original FSANZ assessment raise no concerns regarding the safety of steviol glycosides and do not indicate a need to change the existing ADI of 0–4 mg/kg bw/day, expressed as steviol equivalents."


The use of stevia leaf and crude stevia extracts is not considered GRAS and their import into the United States is not permitted for use as sweeteners. For details, see Import Alert 45-06.


"Based on the assessment of the findings of the last studies presented, not showing any adverse effects (thirteen-week toxicity study, two-generation reproduction study, critical analysis of mutagenesis studies and pharmacological studies in humans), and on predictive exposure calculations, Afssa considers that the use of rebaudioside A, extracted from Stevia rebaudiana, with a purity level higher than 97%, does not present a risk for consumers."


"Based on the assessment of the findings of the last studies presented, not showing any adverse effects (thirteen-week toxicity study, two-generation reproduction study, critical analysis of mutagenesis studies and pharmacological studies in humans), and on predictive exposure calculations, Afssa considers that the use of rebaudioside A, extracted from Stevia rebaudiana, with a purity level higher than 97%, does not present a risk for consumers."

References : 


C. Toskulkac, L. Chaturat, P. Temcharoen & T. Glinsukon (1997) Acute Toxicity of Stevioside, A Natural Sweetener, and its Metabolite, Steviol, in Several Animal Species, Drug and Chemical Toxicology, 20:1-2, 31-44,      [Link]

Ming-Hsiung Hsieh, Paul Chan, Yuh-Mou Sue, Ju-Chi Liu, Toong Hua Liang, Tsuei-Yuen Huang, Brian Tomlinson, Moses Sing Sum Chow, Pai-Feng Kao, Yi-Jen Chen,(2003) Efficacy and tolerability of oral stevioside in patients with mild essential hypertension: A two-year, randomized, placebo-controlled study, Clinical Therapeutics,Volume 25, Issue 11,Pages 2797-2808   [Link]

Geuns, J. M., Buyse, J., Vankeirsbilck, A., & Temme, L. (2004). About the safety of stevioside used as a sweetener. In Proceedings of the first symposium on the safety of stevioside, KULeuven, Heverlee-Leuven, Belgium (pp. 85-127)


Drugs and Lactation Database (LactMed) [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US);

2006-. Stevia. [Updated 2019 Feb 28] 


Chatsudthipong V, Muanprasat C (2009) Stevioside and related compounds: Therapeutic benefits beyond sweetness, Pharmacology & Therapeutics, Volume 121, Issue 1, Pages 41-54      [Link]

Anton SD, Martin CK, Han H, et al. (2010) Effects of stevia, aspartame, and sucrose on food intake, satiety, and postprandial glucose and insulin levels. Appetite.55(1):37–43     [Link]

Aranda-González I, Barbosa-Martín E, Toraya-Avilés R, Segura-Campos M, Moguel-Ordoñez Y, Betancur-Ancona D.(2014) Safety assessment of stevia rebaudiana bertoni grown in southeastern Mexico as food sweetener, Nutr Hosp. Sep 1;30(3):594-601   [Link]

Jonathan D. Urban, Michael C. Carakostas, Steve L. Taylor, (2015) Steviol glycoside safety: Are highly purified steviol glycoside sweeteners food allergens?,Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 75,Pages 71-78


Qiannan Zhang, Hui Yang, Yongning Li, Haibo Liu, Xudong Jia,(2017), Toxicological evaluation of ethanolic extract from Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni leaves: Genotoxicity and subchronic oral toxicity, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology,Volume 86,Pages 253-259         [Link]

Priscilla Samuel, Keith T Ayoob, Bernadene A Magnuson, Ursula Wölwer-Rieck, Per Bendix Jeppesen, Peter J Rogers, Ian Rowland, Rebecca Mathews (2018) Stevia Leaf to Stevia Sweetener: Exploring Its Science, Benefits, and Future Potential, The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 148, Issue 7, Pages 1186S–1205S      [Link]

Chen, J, Xia, Y, Sui, X, Peng, Q, Zhang, T, Li, J, & Zhang, J.(2018)  Steviol, a natural product inhibits proliferation of the gastrointestinal cancer cells intensively. Oncotarget Apr 13;9(41):26299-26308        [Link]

Jakovljevic, V; Ramos-Tovar, E;  Hernández-Aquino, E;  Casas-Grajales, S; Buendia-Montaño, LD;  Galindo-Gómez, S; Camacho, J; Tsutsumi, V, Muriel, P (2018) Stevia Prevents Acute and Chronic Liver Injury Induced by Carbon Tetrachloride by Blocking Oxidative Stress through Nrf2 Upregulation. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, Article ID 3823426


Ramos-Tovar E, Buendia-Montaño LD, Galindo-Gómez S, Hernández-Aquino E, Tsutsumi V, Muriel P (2019) Stevia prevents experimental cirrhosis by reducing hepatic myofibroblasts and modulating molecular profibrotic pathways; Hepatol Res. Feb; 49(2):212-223                   [Link]


“It's okay to be honest about not knowing rather than spreading falsehood. While it is often said that honesty is the best policy, silence is the second best policy.”

― Criss Jami, Killosophy

If I receive any communication/counter argument from the author, I shall publish that here.......immediately

bottom of page