There are many stories going around about why stevia encounters so many obstacles on its way to the consumer. A lot of attention has already been paid to it in television programs, magazines and on the internet. The main suspects are the sugar industry, producers of common artificial sweeteners and those in power at the European authorities.
Alternative to sugar?
Stevia seems to be the ideal alternative to sugar and if consumers discover stevia, it could well mean a significant financial blow to the aforementioned industries. In countries such as Japan and Korea, where stevia has been used for some time, stevia has quickly become the most popular sweetener. More than 40 percent of the market is accounted for by stevia.
It is therefore logical that sugar and sweetener manufacturers are not keen on this purely natural product from South America. From this angle, have certain parties perhaps deliberately prevented the arrival of stevia, even though this product would provide significant health benefits for ordinary consumers? Unfortunately, there is a very good chance that something like this is behind it. We list the findings for you.
Food and Drug Association
In the United States, stevia faced similar opposition as in Europe. Stevia had been freely available for decades when the FDA (Food and Drug Association) decided to ban it in 1987. The reason was a lack of scientific evidence supporting that stevia was healthy. From 1991, the import of stevia was also banned.
The companies that could simply trade stevia before then were visited by inspectors from the FDA. The inspectors themselves said that the actions against stevia took place in response to a request from one of America’s largest aspartame producers (Nutra Sweet). It is therefore clear that in the United States the existing industry has played an important role in hindering the sale of stevia.
Europe
In Europe, no hard evidence has so far been found to show that sweetener and sugar manufacturers have actively lobbied against the arrival of stevia. However, there are a number of striking links between the food authorities and that industry, which make it very likely that the assessment of stevia is not exactly objective. In any case, the interests of the consumer do not seem to be the main driving force.
European Food Authority
A number of leaders within the European food authority, the EFSA, have shares in sugar and sweetener producing companies. If those companies make less turnover due to the rise of stevia, they will make less profit and shareholders risk a significant loss. In addition, a number of members of the same food authority also receive money from the sugar and sweetener industry in a different way.
It is therefore impossible to call the judgment of those members of EFSA objective. The risk that their own financial interests will be taken into account in their assessment of stevia is actually too great, but for the time being these people can simply stay where they are.
Money and health
It’s a serious issue. The story of stevia shows once again that many people who hold power in the food industry seem to attach more importance to money than to the health of the population.
However, as a consumer you are not powerless. Ultimately, all the money comes from the pocket of the consumer and fortunately he can decide for himself what he spends it on. Actively asking for healthy alternatives such as stevia and choosing with your wallet sometimes seems like a drop in the ocean, but the opposite is true. Ultimately, companies are willing to listen to consumers, even if their interest lies in money. Now that stevia in refined form is finally available, it becomes a lot easier for consumers to express their choice for stevia when doing their daily shopping and thus force the industry to listen to the population.