Political controversy
In 1991, the
United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeled stevia as an "unsafe food additive" and restricted its import. The FDA's stated reason was "toxicological information on stevia is inadequate to demonstrate its safety."
[53] This ruling was controversial, as stevia proponents pointed out that this designation violated the FDA's own guidelines under which natural substances used prior to 1958, with no reported adverse effects, should be
generally recognized as safe (GRAS) as long as the substance was being used in the same way and format as prior to 1958.
Stevia occurs naturally, requiring no patent to produce it. As a consequence, since the import ban in 1991, marketers and consumers of stevia have shared a belief that the FDA acted in response to industry pressure.
[27] Arizona congressman
Jon Kyl, for example, called the FDA action against stevia "a
restraint of trade to benefit the artificial sweetener industry."
[54] To protect the complainant, the FDA deleted names in the original complaint in its responses to requests filed under the
Freedom of Information Act.
[27]
Stevia remained banned until after the 1994
Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act forced the FDA in 1995 to revise its stance to permit stevia to be used as a
dietary supplement, although not as a food additive — a position that stevia proponents regard as contradictory because it simultaneously labels stevia as safe and unsafe, depending on how it is sold.
[55]
. . .
In December 2008, the FDA gave a "no objection" approval for
GRAS status to
Truvia (developed by
Cargill and
The Coca-Cola Company) and PureVia (developed by
PepsiCo and the Whole Earth Sweetener Company, a subsidiary of
Merisant), both of which use rebaudioside A derived from the Stevia plant.
[57]
