Truvia sweetener a powerful pesticide; scientists shocked as fruit flies die in less than a week

[MindMover]

(NaturalNews) Truvia sweetener is made from about 99.5% erythritol (a sugar alcohol), and 0.5% rebiana, an extract from the stevia plant (but not at all the same thing as stevia). A shocking new study published in the journal PLOS ONE (1) has found that Truvia, an alternative sweetener manufactured by food giant Cargill, is a potent insecticide that kills fruit flies which consume it.

The study is titled, Erythritol, a Non-Nutritive Sugar Alcohol Sweetener and the Main Component of Truvia, Is a Palatable Ingested Insecticide.

The study found that while fruit flies normally live between 39 and 51 days, those that ate the Truvia ingredient erythritol died in less than a week.


Erythritol made from yeast fed genetically modified corn derivatives

Erythritol is often indirectly derived from genetically modified corn, by the way. Cargill was forced to settle a class action lawsuit last year (2) for labeling Truvia "natural" when it's actually made from a fermentation process whereby yeast are fed GM corn maltodextrin.

Cargill plays word games with this process, insisting that "erythritol is not derived from corn or dextrose feedstock; it is derived from the yeast organism."

http://www.naturalnews.com/045450_Truvia_erythritol_natural_pesticide.html

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0098949

[MagickMuffin]

1. Playing Word Games is Essentially How They Always WIN

That's what WorldCorpse do. See what I did there, I created my own word game!

Thx for the heads-up.

[VanillaRhapsody]

2. Not peer reviewed articles....sorry....

I uses stevia products everyday....guess what I am still alive!

[LanternWaste]

8. I used lead paints as a child...

I used lead paints as a child... "guess what I am still alive!" For all its irrelevancy.

[VanillaRhapsody]

12. Well that explains THAT!

[pnwmom]

49. And plenty of cigarette smokers are also alive. So what?

[Historic NY]

59. I tried truvia had a horrible taste...

I'm going to do a pavement ant experiment with it. At least with Stevia you can got it in the garden.

[TeeYiYi]

118. Not the same thing.

From the OP:

...and 0.5% rebiana, an extract from the stevia plant (but not at all the same thing as stevia).

TYY

[LisaL]

133. PLOS One is a peer reviwed journal.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

152. Yes, I notice it says that up at the top of the article at the link.

So I wonder why VanillaRhapsody felt the need to immediately jump in with a claim that it's not.

(On edit, I see that there were two links posted, and the FIRST of the two went to a non-peer reviewed article, so the claim made was only half wrong, not entirely wrong.)

[sabrina 1]

3. So long as it is profitable, isn't that all that matters?

I have never used any of those fake sweeteners. Are they even allowed in Europe eg?

[pbmus]

5. Absolutely NOT ... Europeans are too smart ...nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

28. Stevia is not used in Europe?

You do understand that stevia is NOT the same as Aspartame right?

[pbmus]

32. I understand nothing ... we are talking about TRUVIA ... nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

37. You do understand you CAN buy Erithrytol in a health food store...not just IN Truvia?

[pbmus]

38. Beware psyllium husks are extremely dangerous to your health and well being ...nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

39. Water is extremely dangerous to your health and well being if drunk in sufficient quantities!

[pbmus]

47. Life as we know it ends in death ... nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

83. Exactly!

Life is a death sentence!

[pbmus]

150. Finally we agree on something ... albeit a little grim ... nt

[Chiyo-chichi]

56. According to Wikipedia, Truvia is available in Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truvia#Availability_in_Europe

[pbmus]

57. Blow me down with a feather ... probably for not much longer ...nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

84. And what on earth would give you THAT idea?

[MineralMan]

4. naturalnews.com is not a valid source for anything.

It is a website designed to promote supplements and posts article after article of misleading, biased information. Using that site as a source defeats your mission, and could lead to your post being hidden.

[pbmus]

7. I think the poster put in two links ...

and

PLOS ONE (eISSN-1932-6203) is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides:

Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright
Fast publication times
Peer review by expert, practicing researchers
Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact
Community-based dialogue on articles
Worldwide media coverage
PLOS ONE is published by PLOS, a nonprofit organization.

PLOS ONE is run as a partnership between its in-house PLOS staff and international Advisory and Editorial Boards, ensuring fast, fair, and professional peer review. To contact the Editorial Director, Damian Pattinson, or any of the Publications Assistants (who can be found at our contacts page), please e-mail plosone [at] plos.org. To access EveryONE, the PLOS ONE community blog, please visit http://everyone.plos.org

[MineralMan]

9. Yes. The other link is not a peer reviewed journal.

The article may look like a real scientific article, but it is not. It's all advocacy. However, it was the naturalnews.com link that prompted my comment.

[pbmus]

10. I would carefully read all of the information about the other link ....

the words peer reviewed are in its description ... however that could be misleading, especially if it is coming from the USA

[MineralMan]

13. Thanks for the advice.

This post has been peer reviewed.

See how easy that is?

[pbmus]

15. When you get cancer like I have , you carefully review everything ...

especially the shit you ingest ...

[sabrina 1]

71. I'm sorry to hear that. Food in the US, it is hard to even try to eat a healthy diet or feed it to

your children unless you grow it and raise it yourself. Money is everything, and a few deaths here an there appear to be acceptable with the anticipated 'settlements' worked into the financial plans. It's a very sick system where human lives are expendable and even more so when you see people DEFENDING it, until it's one of theirs. Nothing changes a Corporate defender faster than when they fall victim to what they have spent their lives defending.

I hope you are successful, assuming you are still battling that terrible disease and if you have succeeded, I hope you stay well.

[LisaL]

135. No, it's not misleading.

Articles submitted to PLOS One are peer reviewed prior to publication.

[LisaL]

134. You are completely wrong.

PLOS One is peer reviewed journal.
It publishes most of publications submitted, but it peer reviews them.

[sabrina 1]

16. Thank you. As I said, DUers are extremely smart at doing their own research and don't

necessarily need to be protected from information.

[pbmus]

17. Oh, you are protected from information very well ... nt

[sabrina 1]

21. Yes, I know, which is why I said, 'we don't need to be protected' because we are capable

of doing our own research. And it appears there is a great effort to protect us from acquiring knowledge which only means we have to work harder to GET THAT KNOWLEDGE.

Clearly there is a lot to hide resulting in the effort to discredit anyone and anything that might reveal some inconvenient information. That alone is enough to make sure we pursue whatever it is they are trying to hide. Not just on this topic, to be clear.

[pbmus]

23. You are wise and thoughtful ... thank you for being a part of DU ..nt

[sabrina 1]

14. I think it is up to us to discern whether THIS article is valid. We ARE old enough and experienced

enough to be able to make decisions regarding the validity of claims made. Here's how we do it, we read something that seems to resonate, perhaps because we've been studying the topic for a while. Then we do a little research to find other sources that are perhaps better known to us to verify what appears to be credible to those who know anything about Genetically Modified foods.

We don't attack the source, assuming it is a topic we are interested in, we discuss it, which is an excellent way to find out more as many DUers are extremely good at ferreting out facts.

Hiding the post won't stop people from reading about a topic they are interested in. In fact it may make them MORE interested in following up on the subject.

There are two links in this OP. Americans are being fed products with little information on what they contain. Europeans otoh, are far more informed about the food they are eating.

Corporations have succeeded in keeping information from the American people. When that happens, when there is a concerted effort to keep info from the people, we KNOW there is something they are trying to hide.

[MineralMan]

19. Thank you for your comment.

That poster is now unable to post, due to his/her transparency being visible. So, this won't come up again for a while, I guess.

[pbmus]

20. Yes, you have successfully hidden enough information to ban the poster ...nt

[MineralMan]

22. Me? None of those alerts were mine, nor was I on any

of those juries. So I'm not sure what you're implying, really. I alerted on the OP in this thread, but the jury left it. That was my first alert having to do with this poster.

You are incorrect, you see.

[pbmus]

24. I stand corrected ... DU is an open forum designed to intelligently

disseminate pertinent, reliable, truth driven facts ...

However the use of psyllium husks is strictly forbidden and will be hidden

[MineralMan]

26. Thank you. You apparently jumped to an incorrect conclusion.

DU has its own peer review system. It has peer juries who make up the moderation of this site. All DUers are eligible to serve on those juries, including you. I recommend it to you.

[pbmus]

129. I have jumped many times, lately to reading and understanding a direct

relationship between money and opinion ...

[sabrina 1]

27. Is that supposed to mean something that refutes anything I said? In fact if anything, it confirms

the general opinion of a growing number of Americans that it is imperative that we pursue whatever information appears to be threatening in some way. And I now intend to do that.

This will come up again, it will most likely come up a lot because it is relevant to people's health.

What makes you think that because a post was hidden on an internet forum the subject won't come up again?

I will definitely inform anyone I know that they should be careful with this product if they intend or are using it. Better safe than sorry don't you think?

Thanks for your input, even if it didn't offer any counter information on the actual topic. I appreciate it nevertheless.

[REP]

40. No fool like an old fool, as the saying goes.

[sabrina 1]

46. I like to err on the side of caution when it comes to health issues and foods where there is any

question about what they contain. I am not getting any information on the actual topic HERE, just attacks on the source, so I will do my own research and meanwhile warn anyone I encounter who uses this product that there is a question about its safety until I get further information to the contrary.

[JaneyVee]

6. Just excused myself from this jury.

[herding cats]

11. I'll give it a try next time I get an infestation

I had one last year where the little beasties came in on some bananas. It took me a month to get them all out of the houseplants. I finally made traps out of wine in glasses covered with plastic wrap with a hole poked in the top. At least they died happy.

[Zorra]

18. Jury results

On Wed Jun 11, 2014, 03:32 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Truvia sweetener a powerful pesticide; scientists shocked as fruit flies die in less than a week
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025082523

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Naturalnews.com is not a trustable source on anything. Rather, it is a sales vehicle for supplements and bad health advice. Many posts linked to that site have been hidden on DU for that reason. This one should be hidden as well.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jun 11, 2014, 03:43 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Scientist vs scientist. Like spy vs spy. Let 'em fight it out with cites from various sites.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While I agree that naturalnews usually horse pucky, I've seen lots of other threads here that were "science" backed up with dangerous multi-national corporate poop.

At least truvia is harmless, compared to the deadly poisons the advocates for Monsanto are trying to sell us here.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Perhaps a dictionary is needed to figure out what is insensitive, rude or over the top?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Naturalnews.com may or may not be a trustworthy source. I don't know. Make the case that it isn't, and why the studies cited are flawed. Here's your chance to instruct instead of hitting the alert button like a spastic monkey.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

[jberryhill]

132. Truvia also makes monkeys spastic!

[Archae]

25. "Natural News" has ZERO credibilibilty.

And the second link goes to a non-reviewed article, that has no evidence, just claims.

This stuff may be used as an insecticide.
But I am *NOT* going to take the word of either of these linked articles.
They are frauds.

Here's the nimrod, Mike Adams, who runs "Natural News."

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2010/05/1-mike-adams.html

[MineralMan]

29. Indeed. One only has to look at the ads in the

right sidebar of that lousy excuse for a website. They are not served by Google, either. They are paid for and accepted by naturalnews.com.

Got an ugly black mole somewhere? Don't to go a dermatologist to see if its a melanoma. Rub this crap on it and it will go away, sure enough. Feh!


Have cancer? Try this cure.


Those are typical of those ads. Big Supplement gone wild over there.

naturalnews.com is a dangerous website selling nostrums for serious health conditions.

[pbmus]

35. Like psyllium husks for use as a fiber ... omg, whats next ....

[sabrina 1]

36. Ever seen any of the ADS on DU?

Do you know how those ads work? The blog isn't responsible for the content of ads, just as DU is not responsible for ads pushing Republican candidates. I will explain it to you if you are not aware of how they work.

[MineralMan]

41. DU ads are served from Google.

The ads on naturalnews.com are specifically paid for on and accepted by that individual site. Look under the ads, and you can find out how to buy your own ads on that site.

There is a huge difference.

But I don't see ads on DU. I'm a Star member. Why are you seeing them? I see a star next to your name, too.

[sabrina 1]

48. It's a business, isn't it? As for DU, I am a star member also, but have taken the trouble to look

at the ads from time to time especially when someone objects to particular ads. Perhaps I'm just one of those of annoying liberals who questions everything.

Btw, you have not addressed the issue discussed in the OP, nor offered anything to counter the claims there. It's not helpful at all to people who actually want to know if what they are being sold as a safe product, to simply direct the conversation towards the source and not address the topic at all.

Since no one who has attacked the source has offered anything to counter the claims, I take it the information has not been refuted and it would be best for people to avoid that product?

[pbmus]

50. Archae did ...

Natural News" has ZERO credibilibilty.

And the second link goes to a non-reviewed article, that has no evidence, just claims.

This stuff may be used as an insecticide.
But I am *NOT* going to take the word of either of these linked articles.
They are frauds.

Here's the nimrod, Mike Adams, who runs "Natural News."

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2010/05/1-mike-adams.html

[sabrina 1]

53. That information is about the sources. That it can be used as an insecticide isn't very encouraging

I'm looking for information that says the product is safe for human consumption. I generally avoid eating insecticides or even using them.

[pbmus]

55. I would definitely refine your search to information

that includes international studies because if you only get USA studies, they are probably biased ..

[sabrina 1]

58. Yes, that is good advice as when money is involved here, we get all sorts of

false information, often not verified for years, too late until we begin to see the lawsuits.

I have scanned what info is available on this product and so far, it seems it is NOT yet approved by the FDA. Nor could I find any info or any scientific report willing to state that it is entirely safe. Iow, lots of 'caution' regarding its use.

It is a new product, not yet 'tested' on human beings, it appears.

So far the ONLY reports claiming it is completely safe to be used as part of our daily diet, come from its manufacturer who have conducted their own studies.

I see now why no one responded to my questions asking if it was safe, contrary to the claim in the OP.

Webmd, eg, isn't saying it's not safe, but isn't saying it is either.

I also see why it is suddenly a big topic. A lot of money appears to be invested in it.

It claims to be a 'natural' product, making it different from all the other non-natural sweeteners but there is already a lawsuit challenging that claim. We'll have to wait and see what the results are.

So in conclusion, I've learned that while the claims in the OP might be over stated, the consensus so far is 'be careful' and 'use with moderation' and 'not yet approved by the FDA' for the use its manufacturer intends to sell it for.

I'll keep looking.

To be honest, what caused ME to be interested at all was the effort to silence the OP, not just in this thread, but elsewhere. As I said, there is something about trying to hide things, that has the opposite effect.

[pbmus]

60. Thank you for your thoughtful research and wise decision ...

The poster has been banned again due to paid shills here on DU ...

The GMO topic is toxic here on DU ... tons of money involved ...

[sabrina 1]

64. How sad. As I recall DU was opposed to Corps like Monsanto from its inception. In fact it was here

that I learned what a vulturous Corporation Monsanto is. And also opposed to GMOs.

But now that we have Monsanto CEOs in the cabinet of this administration, perhaps things have changed?

Not for me and many others, but seeing the censoring going on under the guise of 'it's not a reliable source' there has definitely been a change regarding this subject.

[VanillaRhapsody]

87. Not true....all you needed to do was go to Wikipedia

Erythritol ((2R,3S)-butane-1,2,3,4-tetraol) is a sugar alcohol (or polyol) that has been approved for use as a food additive in the United States[1] and throughout much of the world.

[sabrina 1]

139. I went way further than Wikipedia and found out that the Manufacturers lost a Civil Lawsuit

regarding their claim that their product differed from other sweeteners because it was 'natural'. Seems it isn't after all, according the court decision.

[VanillaRhapsody]

155. So? Most of the produce we eat today is not natural....in that WE have always modified it....

However the ingredients to create it...DO appear to be natural AND it also occurs in some fruits.....so again I say...so? You also said it is NOT being sold in Europe and that it was some toxic poisonous substance....which has been proven patently false...

Stop spreading lies on DU....

[mike_c]

76. water is a powerful insecticide....

Just saying. I use it routinely to capture and kill insects by the hundreds.

Bt-- safe and certified for organic crops-- is one of the most powerful insecticides of all. Don't let misuse of terms cloud your critical thinking!

[pbmus]

119. Bt is not safe in the quantities we are spraying and ingesting it ..

Last edited Thu Jun 12, 2014, 12:26 AM - Edit history (1)

"Our governments and big agri have decided to spray BT EVERYWHERE, in the suburbs,farms, in our forests, and preserves. I totally understand they feel this is a safer alternative than chemical pesticides, but we all know there is collateral damage to other insect species when you do the research.

A Canadian study demonstrated spores were detected in the nasal passages of Canadian citizens days and weeks after spraying Bt. It only takes a few sniffs and a swallow to ingest more Bt than one would ever consume from well washed organic foods over a lifetime.

After ingesting Bt (which loves our alkaline intestines)…yes, our stomach acid may break down the bacteria, but for many stressed citizens and people who dilute their stomach acid with liquids, infection potential is present.

“B cereus infections” are on the rise and according to what I have read, in no way are doctors screening patients for Bt infections. Even so, it is difficult to detect the difference between B. cereus and B. thuringiensis in the lab. And they simply are not SCREENING for Bt infections!

Bt is found naturally in our soil BUT only in SMALL amounts. There is such a thing as flora BALANCE in soil as well as in animal guts. You simply can not start spraying Bt everywhere and not expect to upset the balance of nature.

As a scientist you should understand that ingesting too much water can KILL YOU…And Bt is a spore, capable of surviving under harsh conditions even with exposure from rain and UV…and in spite of what scientist (paid by big agri) want the ignorant public to believe we are heavily exposed to Bt and cry proteins from GMOs.

When doctors and scientists can’t explain the etiology of booming rates of infertility, autism, Alzheimer disease, irritable bowel syndromes, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, then my “theory” is the introduction of GMOs and overuse of Bt (never tested long term on humans)are triggers.

We were told for decades that DdT was safe and for over half a century by big tobacco that smoking was perfectly fine and caused no problems. Bt and GMOs will go down the same road, sadly, with tremendous collateral damage to the eco system and all wildlife, including ignorant humans and those with major hubris."

Of course, I am not suggesting that you or any of the other DUers commenting on this thread have "major hubris". These thoughts are brought to you by a much smarter scientist than I am, hence the quotation marks.

[mike_c]

153. I'm sorry, but you're simply incorrect....

There is no credible evidence that Bt proteins are toxic to non-target animals, including humans. None whatsoever. It has become fashionable among those doing very bad "advocacy science" to publish "research" documenting Bt toxicity in fake journals spawned specifically to proliferate pseudoscience, and those papers end up being passed around anti-GMO advocacy web sites like baseball cards, each more shrilly trumpeted than the last. It's all BS-- those papers carry ZERO weight in the real research world because real scientists read them critically and see their flaws immediately.

It does not matter how much Bt we eat. It's just another protein in vertebrate guts. You seem to attach importance to the amount we eat, but there is NO dose dependent Bt response in non-target vertebrates, so complaining about eating too much Bt is like complaining about eating too much mustard. Actually, too much mustard would probably be more harmful than too much Bt.

Insect resistance to Bt is a real issue, but human toxicity is not. It just isn't.

It's still true that insects are our biggest competitor for food and other agricultural products. We cannot ignore that, especially when food insecurity is increasing around the world. Even today, with the massive pest population control efforts we use, agricultural losses to pest insects amount to about 30% of production. What would you tell farmers who want to get the best return on their investment each year? What about hungry people hoping for something to eat? "Sorry, I'm fearful of Bt despite all the assurances of decades of research, so you're just screwed?" Do you have a better answer? One that doesn't start with "first we have to change our basic approach to agriculture and all become small scale organic growers living in harmony with nature," because that's pie-in-the-sky idealism , not real solutions for real world problems.

Finally, if you've read this far, let me say something about your comment that "We were told for decades that DdT was safe and for over half a century by big tobacco that smoking was perfectly fine and caused no problems." I see a big problem in that the American public is largely scientifically illiterate and utterly dependent upon the pronouncements of industrialists, policy makers, and the press for explanations about how things work and what their risks are. People need to be able to critically evaluate the evidence for themselves, both to arrive at conclusions and to understand the dynamic nature of science and research. For example, referencing your comment once again, DDT is in fact quite safe if used responsibly and with certain environmental restrictions, which is why it is STILL the malaria vector control agent of choice in certain settings (e.g. sprayed upon interior walls in the tropics). My point is that DDT is not inherently bad-- it's badness resides in how we use it. Technological solutions to problems are rarely black-or-white good or bad. They're inevitably compromises between necessity and desire, what we need in the real world and what we'd prefer in an ideal one. People who cannot assess that balance of needs and wants are at the mercy of charlatans pursuing personal profit or advantage. They become foot soldiers in dogma wars. They're the heart of both the anti-GMO movement and the climate change denial movement, for example.

[pbmus]

180. I am old enough to have friends who farmed ... and some are still my friends ..

I have conversations with them over coffee and we reminisce about days gone by. These farmers owned 50 to 300 acres, with a few wealthy ones owning more. Most of these farming families were very good stewards of their land. The conversations usually center around family and a little politics but then sometimes gets back to what is happening to farming in America. Sometimes the talk becomes visceral around the subjects of crop yields and the hucksters on the commodity exchanges. The talk becomes particularly loud when the words agri-business come up and the many farmers they know that sold their farms for various reasons. Those reasons included; age, an heir willing to work and pray (for the sun to come up, but mainly for the rain to fall), crop yields, and money (more than they had ever been offered or thought could be offered per acre). These friends know now after these many years of seeing what agri-business has done with their farms exactly what is happening, and of course, we all intuitively know what they know.

That the business of agriculture in the USA today is disrupting the balance of the natural cycle of nature. This is just a couple of many disrupting examples:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120227111158.htm

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Bt_Toxin_Kills_Human_Kidney_Cells.php

You have stated that I am incorrect because there is no "credible evidence". My credible evidence is everywhere around me, I have so much evidence that it astounds me sometimes to see the veracity of change in my own environment. I look out my window and see no butterflies, I see less birds, I see fewer bees, and I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. The evidence is literally everywhere that I look with a critical thinking brain.

You have also again tried to mitigate with words like "pseudo, shrilly, advocacy, zero weight", that real scientists read this research and see the flaws immediately. I believe that more and more true scientists are beginning to step up to the plate and serve the American public some true research.

You are so 100% sure when you say it doesn't matter how much Bt I or my friends eat.. FYI: In well regarded institutions of higher learning (where you get your research from) they are still using the words "considered safe" amongst a host of other disclaiming words (likely so that in the future, when the lawsuits start raining down upon their heads, they can point to the disclaimers.)

Your assumptions that small farmers cannot feed the world and that I am being idealistic is just ..... oh well. .....

And the explanation of DDt being used in the tropics is one that I would like to explore further with you. Would you so kindly give me the name of the manufacturer of DDT. Thank you.

[mike_c]

181. I suppose we'll simply have to agree to disagree....

As for DDT, the World Health Organization is just one of many groups that recommends it as the best malaria vector control available, especially when sprayed on interior walls. A quick Google search will turn up dozens of references, including some that will likely shock you. There has never been consensus among entomologists, ecologists, and public health officials about banning DDT, and debate about it continues even today.

As for manufacturers, DDT is relatively easy to make, and lots of companies have manufactured it under different trade names since the 1940s. I think the major international suppliers today are Hindustan Insecticides Ltd in India and Yorkool Chemical in China. However, I'm an entomologist and academic scientist, not in agribusiness, so I don't know how current that information is. I've seen references to a manufacturer in Mexico too, but have not been able to find a name, so I don't know whether DDT is currently produced in Mexico or not.

[VanillaRhapsody]

86. if a fruit fly gets no fruit...also known as sugar....they die....Stevia is not a sugar.....

[pbmus]

126. Exactly ... well said ... nt

[pbmus]

30. The Plos editorial board consists of USA doctors

and 5300 editors ... almost as large as DU

[sabrina 1]

31. So are you saying the product is safe for human consumption? Is there anything that counters

the claims from naturalnews? All I've seen are attacks on the source, but nothing to prove they are wrong. And your link, who publishes it? Is THAT a reliable source?

[pbmus]

34. The Plos editorial board consists of

scientists and doctors from around the world ...

and your fellow DUers are poo pooing this information ... >>>>> ????

[sabrina 1]

42. I'm doing my best to get some answers from those who have attacked the source, regarding the

product itself. But so far no one has refuted the actual claims in the OP.

Thanks for the info on Plos, that is impressive. At least more so than anonymous posters on an internet forum when looking for information that pertains to people's health.

Actually to correct your comment, my fellow DUers have not 'poo pooed the INFORMATION, they have poo pooed the SOURCE which is why I have asked them to address the actual topic. But so far, I have not received any responses that counter the INFORMATION.

[pbmus]

44. Because of your stature in DU, you will probably not get challenged ...

they will make fun of you however ...

[sabrina 1]

51. Lol, well I am pretty immune to attempts to avoid a topic by making fun of the questioner.

I take that generally as an answer to my questions.

In this case I am now of the opinion that the product mentioned in the OP is best avoided since no one in this thread so far, has refuted any of the claims made by the SOURCES they have questioned. It's notable they have NOT questioned the information imho.

[pbmus]

52. This hubris thinking on DU is especially apparent

around GMO related information ...

I would highly suggest that you read it at DU asap because it will get bombed by the paid shills and banned by the others ....

[sabrina 1]

67. Many have noticed this phenomenon of people assigning themselves to the role of

'watching out' for DUers reading material. Many have also objected to it, not that it has much effect on preventing DUers from reading and watching whatever they want to read and watch.

But it is a curious thing. I can't imagine myself working so hard to try to stop people from reading ANYTHING. Questioning the content of a source is another matter, but as noted in this thread, not much comment on the content at all.

[VanillaRhapsody]

91. Someone seems to be looking OUT for those that want to spread false information....

Erythritol ((2R,3S)-butane-1,2,3,4-tetraol) is a sugar alcohol (or polyol) that has been approved for use as a food additive in the United States[1] and throughout much of the world. It was discovered in 1848 by British chemist John Stenhouse.[2] It occurs naturally in some fruits and fermented foods.[3] At the industrial level, it is produced from glucose by fermentation with a yeast, Moniliella pollinis.[1] It is 60–70% as sweet as table sugar yet it is almost noncaloric, does not affect blood sugar, does not cause tooth decay, and is partially absorbed by the body, excreted in urine and feces. It is less likely to cause gastric side effects than other sugar alcohols because of its unique digestion pathway. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling requirements, it has a caloric value of 0.2 kilocalories per gram (95% less than sugar and other carbohydrates), though nutritional labeling varies from country to country. Some countries, such as Japan and the United States, label it as zero-calorie, while European Union regulations currently label it and all other sugar alcohols at 0.24 kcal/g.

[sabrina 1]

138. I notice you provided no link so we can decide how credible that source is. But, I see it does not

cover the, as yet, unknown affect the use of this product will have, IF they continue to claim it is 'natural', despite the fact that this claim has now been found not to be true in a civil law suit, on people with kidney failure, like my FIL eg. I know I would not even consider giving it to someone with Diabetes.

I did a little research on this product today, thanks to the OP, but mostly thanks to those who tried to silence him/her, (see they do serve a purpose) and what I found was NO ONE other than the Corporation (who is planning to sell it, NOT as an additive for occasional use, but as a product to be used regularly, as a food, not yet approved by the FDA), no one has endorsed it enthusiastically. What most credible sources say about it is that people 'should be cautious'.

I will certainly spread the word now to everyone I know that they should be very wary of it. So I am glad I read this OP, it prompted me to look into it and others as well.

Eta, I see you added a link, Wikipedia. Any reason I should give any more credibility to Wikipedia, where we know facts are often changed by people with a vested interest in doing so than to any other site? And some of the statements from that excerpt are incorrect, a lot left out, from the research I did today. So far I'm not impressed with this product at all from what I've read.

But one thing I did find out, certain corporations are going to make a whole lot of money IF they can convince people that it is 'natural'. And that is going to be hard to do considering the Civil Case which they lost wrt to that very issue.

[VanillaRhapsody]

158. You can do exactly what I did and what you SHOULD have done BEFORE you spread these hair on fire lie

I searched for the active ingredient OF Truvia....

Oranges that are the color orange....are not "natural" either....

[sabrina 1]

164. That was in the OP, did you read the links in the OP? Are you a supporter of genetically altered

food??

[VanillaRhapsody]

167. Its not "genetically modified"

Mixing substances together that are not naturally mixed together....means it is not natural.....changing something so that it continues to reproduce with that change IS genetically modifying....

Seedless grapes ARE genetically modified. Almost all bananas were killed off and nearly ALL are now genetically modified. That is why they no longer taste the same as when you were a child.

[VanillaRhapsody]

94. How about ones that make fun of you after they prove you wrong?

[pbmus]

120. Please alert on that person making fun of you ...

there is no room on DU for different opinions, especially when your facts are better than mine ...

[sabrina 1]

122. I haven't had that experience. Perhaps you have?

Btw, why would someone make fun of people for being wrong about something? That sounds extremely childish and weak. Who ARE these people?

[VanillaRhapsody]

159. Because some people present themselves as some sort of expert....and they they prove theyd

Don't do their due dilligence....

[VanillaRhapsody]

89. Yes there is...

Erythritol ((2R,3S)-butane-1,2,3,4-tetraol) is a sugar alcohol (or polyol) that has been approved for use as a food additive in the United States[1] and throughout much of the world. It was discovered in 1848 by British chemist John Stenhouse.[2] It occurs naturally in some fruits and fermented foods.[3] At the industrial level, it is produced from glucose by fermentation with a yeast, Moniliella pollinis.[1] It is 60–70% as sweet as table sugar yet it is almost noncaloric, does not affect blood sugar, does not cause tooth decay, and is partially absorbed by the body, excreted in urine and feces. It is less likely to cause gastric side effects than other sugar alcohols because of its unique digestion pathway. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling requirements, it has a caloric value of 0.2 kilocalories per gram (95% less than sugar and other carbohydrates), though nutritional labeling varies from country to country. Some countries, such as Japan and the United States, label it as zero-calorie, while European Union regulations currently label it and all other sugar alcohols at 0.24 kcal/g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythritol


Don't believe everything you read on the Internet....especially if it is from PLOS or Natural News...

[pbmus]

121. especially if it is from any website not authorized by you or wikipedia... nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

160. At least my link provides the source of the data....

And refutes the whole premise.

[VanillaRhapsody]

157. Yes I AM as the FDA says so.....are you goign to say THEY are unreliable now too?

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. If they flies have no sugar to eat....they die....doesn't mean its poisonous!

[pbmus]

127. Sorry, they flies are not sugar eaters, they die, and it does mean sugar is poison ...nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

161. fruit flies eat fruit....which ARE carbs Which ARE sugars.....and YES sugar has levels that are

Poisonous and toxic..you know that!

[GoCubsGo]

43. Yep, one of two sites I can think of...

The other being Joseph Mercola's. Quacks all around.

That being said, I don't use Truvia because it's bitter and tastes awful. Not a big fan of stevia, in general.

[pbmus]

45. And the Cubbies are gonna win this year ... nt

[GoCubsGo]

54. Yes. They'll win roughly 40% of the games they play this season.

That seems to be the trajectory they are on.

[ieoeja]

62. Wait til next century. They're going to kick ass! n/t

[GoCubsGo]

88. Whatever.

[sabrina 1]

65. What sites do you trust? I have done a quick scan for info on Truvia due to this OP.

Can't find anything saying it is what the Manufacturers claim it is. So we're down to the findings of the Manufacturers, which of course claim it is perfectly safe AND an all natural product, see their website, and to what people here are calling quacks, claiming it is not safe.

Somewhere in the middle I found, are all those who are stating that 'caution' should be used before accepting the claims of 'perfectly safe'.

Not around long enough to know its effects on humans who might use it, as the manufacturers say it can be used, every day.

So since I never volunteer to be a guinea pig for scientific experiments, I will go with 'wait to see what happens'. Actually I never used anything articial, sweeteners or otherwise. There is one lawsuit in progress against the manufacturers disputing it's claim of being 'all natural'.

[VanillaRhapsody]

90. the ingredients Stevia and...a journalist would probably know to look up ingredients...not tradename

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythritol

Erythritol ((2R,3S)-butane-1,2,3,4-tetraol) is a sugar alcohol (or polyol) that has been approved for use as a food additive in the United States[1] and throughout much of the world. It was discovered in 1848 by British chemist John Stenhouse.[2] It occurs naturally in some fruits and fermented foods.[3] At the industrial level, it is produced from glucose by fermentation with a yeast, Moniliella pollinis.[1] It is 60–70% as sweet as table sugar yet it is almost noncaloric, does not affect blood sugar, does not cause tooth decay, and is partially absorbed by the body, excreted in urine and feces. It is less likely to cause gastric side effects than other sugar alcohols because of its unique digestion pathway. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling requirements, it has a caloric value of 0.2 kilocalories per gram (95% less than sugar and other carbohydrates), though nutritional labeling varies from country to country. Some countries, such as Japan and the United States, label it as zero-calorie, while European Union regulations currently label it and all other sugar alcohols at 0.24 kcal/g.

[GoCubsGo]

99. Sites that have actual peer-reviewed research.

Truvia may very well not be safe, but I am not going to take the word of naturalnews.com or mercola.com, both of which exist mainly to hawk vitamins and supplements, any more than I'm going to trust the manufacturers. And, like I said, I don't use it because I think it tastes really nasty.

[pbmus]

123. Plos is a peer reviewed site with over 5800 editors ...

how many editors do we have on DU ..?

[GoCubsGo]

147. That's nice.

I said nothing about Plos, and it's irrelevant to my comment. The fact that Natural News has one article that agrees with one on Plos does not legitimize them.

BTW, Plos is a "publish first, judge later" site.

[pbmus]

148. NOT ... nt

[sabrina 1]

124. Well it's always wise not the the word of any ONE source. As I said before, DUers are pretty smart

about fact checking so I fail to see the sudden impulse by a few people here to monitor the reading material of DUers. Seems a bit obsessive to me.

As for the product, I did do some research, mainly BECAUSE it seemed to me there was an effort to stifle any discussion of it.

What I found was that the ONLY site claiming it to be perfectly safe AND 'natural' is the Truvia website itself.

I also found that a lawsuit was filed. Another DUer in the thread provided the info that the case was settled and the claim of 'all natural' is not true.

I also found that up to the writing of the various articles I read, it had not been approved by the FDA.

Iow, I found very little that was a ringing endorsement of the product, other than on their own website.

So the OP provided a valuable opportunity for discussion of a product that is being pushed as 'natural' and 'perfectly safe', when, according to what I read, it has not been tested on humans yet.

So where is the peer review on this product, backing the claims of the manufacturer? I have not found any so far.

[pbmus]

128. You are reading way to much and critical thinking is your strong suit ...

Again, be careful with the way you handle the DUers that are dismissing this information ...

[sabrina 1]

136. Lol, well if there are people here so sensitive that they cannot accept facts, there's not much

I can do to help them. Seems to me if you are averse to information, the information highway is probably the last place you should be.

And if you think your job is to monitor what adults read or don't read, you're likely to hear from those adults which you should expect.

Otoh, I want to thank those who drew my attention to this subject in the first place.

I've learned quite a bit, possibly in spite of all their efforts.

But sometimes when you try to hide things, people go out of their way to find them.

I guess I'm way too protective of the right to access information to do anything other than seek it out if I think someone is trying to hide it.

Lol, sorry about that! It probably is annoying to those who seriously believe they need to protect our 'pretty little heads' from all sorts of information we supposedly can't handle.

I have thoroughly enjoyed your contributions to this increasingly interesting thread. When I first clicked on it, I wasn't particularly interested, it was just 'oh, okay, so what else is new when it comes to what we are eating'? But then it got interesting, well, as soon as I sensed an effort to shut it down. Glad the jury was sensible enough to reject the attempt.

[pbmus]

141. You are really a gem to DU ... thanks again for your acceptance of facts ..nt

[sabrina 1]

143. Thank you, and so are you. We need more discussion and less 'shut it DOWN' nonsense to keep

this forum relevant.

[pbmus]

151. And that is one hearty AMEN ... nt

[GoCubsGo]

146. Nobody is "monitoring" anyone.

We're just pointing what is junk. If you want to believe the crap, suit yourself.

[pbmus]

149. This is one of the most highly monitored sites on the internet ... nt

[ieoeja]

61. That would be awesome if true.

When I had a fly problem in the house, I used to put fly dust for farm animals in a small bowl and drop in a slice of lime. The lime would attract them. The dust would kill them. But the ag industry seems to have switched from fly dust to liquids. Haven't tried that yet. I found another dust for plants and am trying it first.

But if a sweetner kills flies that would be a great pesticide for flies. Just leave it out. They are naturally attracted to it. So they'll kill themselves!

This could be the perfect pesticide!

[chrisa]

63. "Natural News" is known to burst peoples' hair into flames.

Also, Elvis is still alive.

[pbmus]

72. LOL ... nt

[dballance]

66. Pardon me for being the turd in the punchbowl. Chocolate can kills dogs. Yet we eat it all the time.

Certainly, there may reason for concern and study of the toxicity of erythritol in humans. However, we are not fruit flies. No, I don't trust Cargill anymore than Monstanto. But let's save alighting our hair until some independent studies are done. Perhaps it, like saccharine will need to go the way of the Dodo.

At this point, it seems "Natural News" needed a sensational headline and got one that has driven lots of traffic to their site.

Take a look at the ads on their site and step back a bit before buying everything they're selling in their article. Their advertisers are selling all sorts of "Weight Loss w/o Dieting," and other "holistic" products. I think my favorite ad is for the "Squatty Potty." It's supposed to deliver "Big results with a little STOOL."

How can anyone take that site seriously?

[pbmus]

68. Yup, that site is horrendously overadvertised with health nut stuff ....

must be a health nut that runs it ... maybe he drinks too much red bull or something like that shit ...

[sabrina 1]

69. Too bad the discussion wasn't more about the product than about the source. There were two

sources in the OP btw.

So since there seemed to be a sort of concerted effort to distract from the topic, I decided to do a little research of my own on this product.

Having done so I can see why none of the critics of the SOURCE were willing to respond to my questions about the PRODUCT.

Seems that the claims of the manufacturers, who claim the product is 'all natural', the first 'all natural' sweetener, now seeking approval from the FDA, and that is is, according to their own scientific research, 'perfectly safe' to use daily.

What I found was that there is no conclusive evidence to support the claims of the Manufacturers as it hasn't been in use by human beings long enough to determine its safety.

There is one lawsuit challenging the Manufacturer's claims of 'all natural' which is in progress.

Thanks for at least addressing the content as well as the source.

I am perverse I guess, so when I see such resistance to something, the author of this OP has been alerted on several times today eg, it has the opposite of the intended effect. I knew nothing about this product, and LEARNED nothing from those who attacked the source as they never addressed the issue.

Now I know more, and would not use it based on what IS known about it so far. So the OP has served a purpose despite the successful effort to have him restricted from posting.

I don't think the public should be used as guinea pigs for products where the only ones claiming their absolute safety are the manufacturers themselves.

[pbmus]

70. You are way to thoughtful for DU ...

there is restricted access to scientific fact here ...

One lawsuit has been won and paid and they had to change the name "natural" to artificial .. there will be plenty more lawsuits in the near future ...

[sabrina 1]

73. Mmm so their claims WERE false. I only scanned the info, so missed that a lawsuit had been won

against them, the product then is NOT 'all natural' as they have claimed. In which case I agree, there will be many more lawsuits hopefully BEFORE any harm is done even to one person.

[VanillaRhapsody]

92. come on you are blowing it waaaaay out of proportion here...

Natural News DOES cause peoples hair to burst into flames...

[pbmus]

116. I haven't even done a bowl and you are making me howl here ... nt

[sabrina 1]

125. Not sure what that comment means so could you post it again and rephrase it?

Re Truvia, a lawsuit has been decided finding that the product is not 'natural' as claimed by the manufacturer. Are you denying this, or are you saying it's okay to claim it's natural even if it isn't? Feel free to correct me if I am wrong in thinking you are minimizing the fact that a Corporation is engaging in false advertising, at least according to the lawsuit.

[WhiteTara]

74. Cargill. I think that may say a whole lot! nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

95. of course....

In the body, most erythritol is absorbed into the bloodstream in the small intestine, and then for the most part excreted unchanged in the urine. About 10% enters the colon.[4] Because 90% of erythritol is absorbed before it enters the large intestine, it does not normally cause laxative effects, as are often experienced after consumption of other sugar alcohols (such as xylitol and maltitol),[5] although extremely large doses can cause nausea and borborygmi (stomach rumbling).[6]

[SidDithers]

75. LOL. Naturalnews...

Sad that people actually believe anything on that site.

Sid

[pbmus]

77. Yep, it is full of health nut stuff ...

alternative crap that just gives hope and nothing else ... much like mj .. the evil weed

[SidDithers]

78. It's full of horseshit medical woo...

and right-wing conspiracy nonsense.

But it's defenders are hilarious.

Sid

[pbmus]

79. Can you point me to some of that right wing conspiracy stuff ...

I would like to read what you are claiming and decide for myself .. Thank you

[SidDithers]

80. Here's a couple headlines...

Cause and effect: Americans who voted for Obama now seeing weekly job hours slashed below 30 as Obamacare kicks in

Mainstream media turns on Obamacare, liberals suddenly screaming mad about rate shock, Healthcare.gov disaster

Obama's secret war on Colombia

GAO investigating the DHS ammo purchases that liberal media still says do not exist

MSNBC host says newborn infants don't count as 'alive' unless parents decide they do; infanticide is the new abortion

and on and on.

I'm not linking to that craptacular site. You can do your own research.

Edit: Adams has conveniently scrubbed the goofiest of his stuff - Birther crap, and Boston Bombing conspiracy bullshit etc.

Sid

[pbmus]

93. The first headline was written by the guardian, forbes and others before

it was even mentioned by Natural News. ...

The others were published by others before Natural News ... and Melissa made a very big error in reporting her inner most thoughts, her comments were just plain stupid

"Noting the worldwide excitement surrounding Kate Middleton’s pregnancy, MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry compared the hoopla surrounding the British royal birth to Texas abortion politics, and then offered her own definition of viability:

“When does life begin? I submit the answer depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parents. A powerful feeling – but not science,” Harris-Perry said on her show Sunday."

I guess in the end everybody has one and I just do not see your conspiracy theory.

and Truthout is a right wing conspiracy rag


http://truth-out.org/news/item/19622-empire-under-obama-americas-secret-wars-in-over-100-countries-around-the-world

[SidDithers]

96. As I said, Adams' defenders are hilarious...

Sid

[pbmus]

103. So you reject 98 % healthy related information because of

the website builders political opinions ...

I would cringe to know all the opinions of this websites owners ...

[SidDithers]

104. If you think you're getting actual health related information from naturalnews...

well, you're just wrong.

Sid

[pbmus]

109. Telling another member they are wrong is an alert offense ...

members have been banned for less ...

and psyllium husks are really dangerous ...

[SidDithers]

110. Sure they have...

Sid

[pbmus]

111. and telling someone they have "paid hubris" is also banning material ...

[VanillaRhapsody]

97. try Wikipedia....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythritol

[pbmus]

98. So ...

[VanillaRhapsody]

101. SO??? That's the "egregious" ingredient in Truvia you all are talking about....

saying its not sold in Europe and hasn't been FDA approved....and that is utter horse shit!

[pbmus]

112. Quite frankly I do not care if you ingest truvia everyday for the next 50 yrs ... nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

114. frankly I don't care if you believe bullshit from bullshit websites....I am not going to let it

stand unchallenged.

[pbmus]

115. LMAO...you are tooo funny ...nt

[LeftishBrit]

178. The trouble with Natural News...

is not just that a lot of its medical advice is highly questionable (nothing wrong with good nutrition, but plenty wrong with e.g. being anti-vaccine and recommending sodium bicarbonate as a cure for cancer) BUT but that it vehemently opposes government involvement in healthcare provision.

http://www.naturalnews.com/042924_Obamacare_fix_absolute_power_dictator.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/043249_Medicaid_time_bomb_Obamacare.html

It's pretty clear that the objection isn't just to details of 'Obamacare' but to 'socialized medicine' in general (which of course the ACA isn't in any case, which is its main weakness as far as I'm concerned!)

Surely the fight for universal healthcare coverage - getting it in the USA and preserving it in the UK - is one of the most crucial issues of our time, and this is one reason why NaturalNews is not a good site on a progressive board

More generally, they support right-wingers against Obama:

http://www.naturalnews.com/043760_filmmaker_political_target_Obama_critics.html


I don't think that particular article though rather quack-ish was right-wing; nor was it anti-vaccine; but I'd like to point out that NaturalNews' problems go way beyond the questionable nature of its medical advice.

[sabrina 1]

140. I have learned a lot from this thread. So thanks to the OP for introducing us to this product and

for the warning. I have discovered eg, that the Corporation who produces this product were lying. That was settled in a Civil Suit already filed and decided. The product, according to the court's verdict, is NOT 'natural' as claimed by the Corporation.

But hey, Civil Court decisions ...

[JoeyT]

81. And that's a problem why?

Lots of stuff will kill bugs that won't kill us. Lots of stuff will kill us that won't kill bugs.

From the link with actual science:

Consumption of erythritol is safe to humans, even when consumed at high levels [4], [5]. Thus, we suggest erythritol has potential for use as a novel, human-safe insecticide.

(The 4 and 5 links in the original study are cites to the studies that show that it's safe for human consumption.)

So basically actual scientists doing actual studies found that a chemical in an artificial sweetener that's, so far, been found safe for human consumption isn't safe for insects. And Natural News responded by smearing shit on the walls and yelling at clouds.

[SidDithers]

82. +1...nt

Sid

[pbmus]

85. There is another link to the research ... nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

102. and they both suck!

and are just a bunch of malarkey!

[pbmus]

105. The editorial board on Plos has more education than many could get in a million lifetimes ...nt

You are claiming something you know little to nothing about, it is called research.

[VanillaRhapsody]

107. and hawking this bullshit?

Dr's like Rand Paul maybe!

Took me all of 20 seconds to find out that the main ingredient in Truvia is..

Erythritol

Erythritol ((2R,3S)-butane-1,2,3,4-tetraol) is a sugar alcohol (or polyol) that has been approved for use as a food additive in the United States[1] and throughout much of the world. It was discovered in 1848 by British chemist John Stenhouse.[2] It occurs naturally in some fruits and fermented foods.[3] At the industrial level, it is produced from glucose by fermentation with a yeast, Moniliella pollinis.[1] It is 60–70% as sweet as table sugar yet it is almost noncaloric, does not affect blood sugar, does not cause tooth decay, and is partially absorbed by the body, excreted in urine and feces. It is less likely to cause gastric side effects than other sugar alcohols because of its unique digestion pathway. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling requirements, it has a caloric value of 0.2 kilocalories per gram (95% less than sugar and other carbohydrates), though nutritional labeling varies from country to country. Some countries, such as Japan and the United States, label it as zero-calorie, while European Union regulations currently label it and all other sugar alcohols at 0.24 kcal/g.


And I didn't even need a doctorate to find it!

[LisaL]

137. And? I fail to see your point.

Your quote doesn't say anything about it being safe for flies.

[VanillaRhapsody]

162. OHHHHHHH so its the fruit flies we are concerned about not humans!

[sabrina 1]

144. This has become such an interesting thread where I have have learned so much I didn't know before.

That is mainly because people have actually provided real information rather than 'this sucks' type of thing.

So, to try to keep the level of discussion at least at a grade school level, (grade school teacher and they are amazingly interested in actually learning things) could you point to what 'sucked' in the second link? I can't argue with 'it sucks' but if you provide something that you think sucked, I may be able to compare it to what I have researched on this product and then decide whether it sucked or not.

[VanillaRhapsody]

100. not even basically....that's EXACTLY what it does....

and it just goes to show you how some people believe everything they read on the Internet if it fits their narrative!

[pbmus]

117. Now that is a true statement that I can agree with ... nt

[d_r]

106. awesome

we were out of town the last week, and unfortunately left a single banana on the kitchen counter. We returned to a fruit fly infestation. I've been trying the natural traps, like a little vinegar water on ripe fruit under plastic wrap to trap them, and it has taken out dozens but there are still scores it seems. I'm going to go get some of this truvia! I'm glad that there is a safe fruit fly insecticide.

[GeorgeGist]

108. From the PLOS ONE article ...

Our results demonstrate, for the first time, that erythritol may be used as a novel, environmentally sustainable and human safe approach for insect pest control.

[pbmus]

113. Great research, keep reading ...nt

[Sunlei]

130. interesting study, such a boring read. perhaps the company will have 2 markets for their product.

however, I think I would rather pull out the raid and kill the flies asap.

Instead of feeding them for a week and attracting all other kinds of critters to the 'sweet feed'.

[jberryhill]

131. Does it work on mosquitos?

This could be the next Skin So Soft!

[defacto7]

142. OK, Just for the information

You want to kill fruit flies? ALL the fruit flies in your kitchen or elsewhere? In usually less than a day?

Take a small shot glass, fill it half full of Apple Cider Vinegar (must be Apple Cider vinegar, it's the apples), add 2 drops of dish detergent like Dawn. Set it where they mostly congregate... or not... and they will be dead at the bottom of the glass within hours. Done. No more. Repeat it a couple days until there are none in the glass and you'll know they are all gone.

I swear it works every time and it's mostly natural. Dawn??

Just don't drink it.

I know this is off point but it brought up an issue people may just want to know. Just sayin'

[pinto]

154. The civil suits mentioned in this thread concerned ad use of "Natural", not safety of consumption.

Abstract

Insecticides have a variety of commercial applications including urban pest control, agricultural use to increase crop yields, and prevention of proliferation of insect-borne diseases. Many pesticides in current use are synthetic molecules such as organochlorine and organophosphate compounds. Some synthetic insecticides suffer drawbacks including high production costs, concern over environmental sustainability, harmful effects on human health, targeting non-intended insect species, and the evolution of resistance among insect populations.

Thus, there is a large worldwide need and demand for environmentally safe and effective insecticides. Here we show that Erythritol, a non-nutritive sugar alcohol, was toxic to the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Ingested erythritol decreased fruit fly longevity in a dose-dependent manner, and erythritol was ingested by flies that had free access to control (sucrose) foods in choice and CAFE studies. Erythritol was US FDA approved in 2001 and is used as a food additive in the United States. Our results demonstrate, for the first time, that erythritol may be used as a novel, environmentally sustainable and human safe approach for insect pest control.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0098949

[sabrina 1]

156. Thanks for that link. So the OP link that a few people are upset about was CORRECT. Truvia can be

used as an insecticide. Seems like a good use for it to me, certainly better than some of the poisons currently allowed in this country for the same purpose.

I believe we already established that the lawsuit WAS for 'false advertising' and Cargill lost. So the next question is, if they lied about that, how can they be trusted with anything else they have to say about this product?

Frankly it doesn't matter to me as I never have used any of those sweeteners, at one time banned airc, now back on the market. This may be an attempt to improve the quality of sweeteners, but anything that is genetically altered is not 'natural'.

So the main question is, why won't the US Govt insist that all food products be labeled? This way people can decide for themselves what they put into their bodies.

[VanillaRhapsody]

163. but it does NOT mean it is harmful to humans....in fact the FDA says that it is NOT harmful

And in fact it is a substance created by mixing natural substances AND it is widely available in Europe.....so the ONLY fact remaining from the OP is that it is harmful to fruit flies.....

Who will think of the fruit flies dammit!

[sabrina 1]

165. Genetically altered products are NOT natural. And from the research I have done so far, no one knows

whether it is harmful or not. It hasn't been tested on humans long enough for anyone, including doctors, to endorse it as 'perfectly safe'. I could not find ONE credible source that would say that, unless you consider the manufacturer the last word on the safety of their products, which I definitely do not.

They have already been caught in one lie, in a court of law or is that not a 'reliable source'?

[VanillaRhapsody]

166. it is NOT "genetically" altered.....you need to read what you are writing about....

Not being "natural" is not the same as being "genetically modified" but a journalist would KNOW that.....

An orange that is orange is not "natural" nor is it genetically modified....but you know that. .. My dog is a Miniature Pinscher....its a very old breed....BUT through selective breeding it HAS been genetically modified...THAT is the difference.....

[sabrina 1]

172. I read the claims made in the lawsuit against Cargill for false advertising, in which the

Plaintiffs argued that Truvia can not claim to be "natural" because it is highly processed and/or derived from GMOs.

Since they settled that case I assume they were unable to deny the claims.

Maybe YOU should read what you are writing about.

[VanillaRhapsody]

173. as I said...."not natural" is not the same thing as "genetically modified" I HAVE read the article

AND I have asked my sister in law the Scientist to explain it to me....


YOU need to STOP passing off bullshit as facts!

[sabrina 1]

174. As I said, the lawsuit stated that the the product contained genetically modified

ingredients. If you want to argue then argue with the Corporation itself which settled the case rather than try to argue against the claims that their product contained GM ingredients.

[VanillaRhapsody]

175. and I have told you what "genetically modified" means.....

IT is STILL FDA approved AND sold in Europe and you said it wasn't on both accounts....still bullshit! And as far as "genetically modified"......it settled the case because it was not made from "natural" products AND OR Genetically modified ingredients....so you are STILL being dishonest. It doesn't say it DOES have them....it says that it MIGHT have them...and the reason is because they feed the yeast that causes the fermentation process a tiny amount of corn sweetener.

Stop spreading lies!

[sabrina 1]

179. I will take the court's description of what 'genitically modified' means.

The FDA will approve anything, and has, that Corporate Money can buy.

You admit that Cargill lied NOW. Thanks at least for that, but it's hard to dispute a court case.

I DON'T WANT CORN SWEETENER even a teeny, tiny bit, in a product that the Corporation claims, and has admitted lying about, is NATURAL.

And apparently neither do other Americans. Which is why they sued and WON.

Stop telling people to accept lies from Corporations that are profiting from our FOOD SUPPLY. It isn't going to happen.

[pinto]

169. The use and misuse of "natural" has become widespread. Some natural food markets have been sued.

On the same grounds. It's become a marketing tool. I've heard there are discussions among federal regulatory agencies about what legitimately constitutes "natural or "organic", for that matter, in food product labeling.

[Avalux]

168. Words like "powerful" and "shocked" are not used in scientific research.

While I will never ingest Truvia because IT IS a chemically derived sweetener, I need to see the data that it's a "palatable ingested insecticide".

[fifthoffive]

170. Here you go.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0098949

[nolabels]

171. What a surprise! One of Frankenstein's monsters gets discovered early.

Mucking crap up with stuff that shouldn't be messed with then trying to sell it to the public as something good, i cannot believe corporate conglomerates would stoop so low

[HockeyMom]

176. Use friggen natural sugar in moderation

I have been telling my husband this for DECADES. Ok, don't believe 100 lbs. me. I know NOTHING.

[dem in texas]

177. wish I'd had some Truvia

Several years back, my grandson brought some fruit flies home from school to conduct a science project. They got loose in my kitchen and it took weeks to get rid of them. I had compost bucket and I had to stop using that and grind up all my scraps or take them out to the compost, too many trips. Wish I'd know about Truvia then.

Learn to do what we do, no soft drinks, plain unsweet tea, black coffee and water. We eat lots of fruit, especially at breakfast. We had mangoes, bananas and strawberries all chopped together this morning. I used to have a big garden where we raised all of vegetables and being in Texas, I could garden year round. But I am getting to old to care for a garden and the water bills get too high in the summer. We now go to the Farmer's market once a week to get all our fresh produce. No good cantaloupes yet. We are going tomorrow to see if we can find some ripe ones.

[shanti]

182. Stevia IS sold unadulterated

Sweet Leaf is one brand I can think of off the top of my head. As a diabetic, I prefer it.