Sweetener Stevia Was Once Hailed As An Anti-Fertility Agent for Population Reduction

By TSM

Maybe it’s not so sweet now… If you’ve thought stevia, the natural alternative to sugar and artificial sweetners with aspartame, et al., is too good to be true, there may be a catch. Check out this textbook written in 1970 by Paul and Anne Ehrlich, the precursor to the textbook Ecoscience they wrote with Obama Science Czar John P. Holdren seven years later. The book advocates all manner of horrors to depopulate what they consider an overpopulated world, including everything from adding sterilants to the water and food to producing a sterilizing virus that requires a vaccine antidote one could apply for… it’s a nightmare.

As such, it was pretty shocking to find a passage where the authors excitedly discuss using stevia rebaudiana — the same sweet leaf hailed everywhere today as a wonderful, healthy sugar alternative — as an anti-fertility agent. What’s more, it had apparently been used traditionally by indigenous Indian populations in Paraguay for a long time, and rats in studies had shown a large drop in fertility after being administered stevia…


Vist TruthstreamMedia.com

  • hostage707

    This is why “fertility” clinics are doing a booming business. Couples marriages are being destroyed by these terrorists.

    • Yvonne Forsman

      Brazil grows and exports a lot of GMO crops which they use the herbicide glyphosate on. Glyphosate has been declared by WHO carcinogenic. But it also leads to other diseases and infertility. Brazil has seen their birth numbers fall from six children per woman to less than two per woman. Europe doesn’t allow GMO foods, yet a study done on French men sperm vitality has shown a large reduction, possibly b/c of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant which exploded in 1986 and spread all across Europe (some particles stays in the environment for hundred yrs, other particles for thousand yrs). We all live in a chemically polluted world, w toxins in soil, foods, water, air. No wonder we are all sick and can’t reproduce. Babies are born with 200 toxins in the umbilical cord unless the mothers detoxed 9 months prior to conception. Glyphosate is found in our urine, and in breast milk. Statistics predict that in ten years from now one in two newborn will have autism. Autistic kids are sensitive to environmental pollution, also to metals in vaccines. Normally the body detoxes itself from heavy metals, but fails b/c the pollution is just overwhelming at this point.

      • Joan Camara

        I stopped drinking regular grocery store milk, and diary. Switched to buying ORGANIC nut milks, or make my own sometimes with ORGANIC nuts. Switched to ORGANIC diary, and of course everything I ate and drank was organic. Pounds just started falling of. I am 5’4, was 175lbs and rising, before I changed my whole diet. Now I’m 125, and I’ve now had to change my whole wardrobe! I look and feel better than I ever had. People that saw me were shocked. I’m not ever going back to regular chemical filled, nasty food. Anyone losing weight can forget about Lean Couizine, Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, forget them all. Look at the ingredients list, and maybe people would think twice. Look at the ingredients in just a loaf of bread. All farm animals get hormone and antibiotic shots, and eat GMO grain…now you drink milk, eat dairy and meat. Who wants that crap in their body? I tell people to pay for the price of organics, or pay a doctor in the long run…it’s their choice! Most all food (and drinks) n the grocery store is all chemicals, and GMO. I won’t eat it or drink it!

        • Yvonne Forsman

          Congrats to your success!

  • caws

    I wonder if this is the PROCESSED stevia you buy in the store [bleached] or the whole natural plant that grows in my garden.

    • Arcanek

      Some company makes some form of a stevia extract that is patented, I think. It might have been for use in soda, for either pepsi or coke. Maybe that has made it to some of the fake ‘health food’ grocers. You know know the agricorps will push their way into the market if it ever catches on.

    • Gail of Gaia

      notice some brands add dextrose which is likely gmo …the processing can always be a problem cause we frequently dont know what they do but I would not be worried about the leaves especially if you grow it yourself!

    • DrNo

      hollands biggest coffee corp recieved a price for most misleading product
      stevia powder that contained only 3% steviol glycocide

      I got a jar from an eco supermarket containing 95% of it.

      read ingredient labels

  • CATRYNA49

    I never use Stevia. The few times I tried it gave me diarrhea

  • blueyes48

    Ummm, ladies, I wouldn’t count on this study being entirely accurate…

  • Tedx

    Well, the lower America’s fertility rate is, the more Third World refugees we can bring in and put on welfare.

    • dale ruff

      US already has a negative birth rate, as do all prosperous nations. The solution to overpopulation is economic security. When populations become economically secure, they voluntarily reduce the birth rate to replacement or in most cases, just below replacement value.

      Programs which promote the distribution of wealth will automatically bring about this result, as the experience of the prosperous nations demonstrates.

      When people are economically insecure, they produce the only wealth they can….chlildren, to help them and care for them when old. This is the “prisoner’s dilemma” of individuals doing what makes sense to them individually but which, collectively is harmful (too many children/too few resources/resource wars). The solution is to create financial stability. The world has enough wealth to share,but when 85 billionaires have more than 3.5 billion people,one of the results is people breeding like rabbits. Shared prosperity solves the problem with no coercion, and the need for conspiracy theories (like that the corporate elite wants to kill off billions, when in fact they need more and more consumers, not less, to survive) only muddies the waters.s

      Capitalism, by its nature, requires unsustainable growth (of resources, production, and consumption) which leads to more and more concentrated wealth, with its corollary, more and more masses of impoverished (who then breed like rabbits) AND the earth, by its nature, cannot sustain unlimited growth. The solution then is a system which does not require unlimited growth and which distributes the wealth to create security for everyone. We must go beyond capitalism, as individual solutions and corporate power (and hijacking of the government) lead to widespread misery, environmental degradation, and war. That is not speculation; that is our history.

  • dale ruff

    No one has been able to replicate the original research, which was based on supported assumptions. ; in all the studies since., the rats always get pregnant.

    Akashi and Yokoma did a study and found no differences in the control group, no health problems or differences in fertility. Mori et al (1981) did a similar study and found “There were no significant differences in the averages of conception, in the variation in the body weight, in the ingestion and in the weight of the organs. Hystological exams of the sexual organs of the animals , even of those which in the average did not induce conception, did not reveal changes which could be attributed to the test. The fetuses also did not show abnormalities. Several other studies got the same results. Stevia is not anti-fertility and produces no harmful effects.

    Several other studies since have found exactly the same results. Stevia has proved health benefits. I just bought some to mix into my stir fries, soups, etc.
    Science has a wonderful way of exposing and correcting shoddy research and false assumptions.

    • overit

      ?? why would you add sweet stevia to soup or stirfy?

      • dale ruff

        The leaf is not that sweet…it has a degree of bitterness to balance. Many dishes have a sweet element to ballance anyway.. You are probably thinking of the supersweet concentrate.

    • James Leonard

      Stevia is made in a factory by a company whose objective is to make profit and for some reason, hoards of people think this is better than what nature offers.

      Unfortunately, studies showing no ill-effects are all short term and cannot possibly identify long term problems. Profit driven companies can’t wait several generations to see if there are REALLY no ill-effects.

      • dale ruff

        Stevia is a plant it is not made; it is grown It is what nature offers. You can grow your own, or you can buy the whole leaf, ground leaf (very cheap) or the more expensive refined crystal product which is very very sweet. You can grow your own stevia or buy the cheap leaf, which has many proven health benefits and use in your cooking.

        I am not sure what you think nature offers, if not a natural plant like stevia. Natives in South America have long used stevia. The plant Stevia rebaudiana has been used for more than 1,500 years by the Guaraní peoples of South America.

        In fact, the attacks on stevia came from the producers of artificial sweeteners. “The makers of the synthetic sweetener NutraSweet asked the FDA to require testing of the herb (in the 80’s).”

        If stevia made people sick, the people who grow it (China, South America, etc) would go out of business. You can avoid the product sold by Coca Cola and Pepsi by buying in bulk from a natural foods store.

  • Anonyplatypus

    Thanks for the info. Will have to start growing stevia and give it away for free to the local villagers in India. (1.4billion on 300million sq.km. is way too much).

    • Ty

      Says who you sadistic ass hole? You make me sick to say such things.

  • Alessandro Mucci

    it is another big crap , to disinform people , for the sheep keep using aspartame !

  • oudbob

    The Democratic Party is the Party of Death. Abortion, Climate Change Hoax, Obamacare Death Panels, all designed to kill people.

    • dale ruff

      The Democrats have a progressive element seeking to change campaign finance laws, promote legislation to reduce pollution and greenhouse emissions (hardly a hoax) and to provide healthcare to all (lack of healthcare is the death panel); the Republicans have only servants of the corporations. Partisan brainwashing has rotted your brain.

      • Arcanek

        Greenhouse emissions are a hoax. None of the proposed ‘solutions’ are even mildly effective, even if they were needed. If they were serious about lowering carbon dioxide emissions, they would start with carbonated beverages. But that would hurt the sales of the big campaign contributors, who would lose competetive advantage in the marketplace, since the costs of carbonation raise entry barriers. There are ecological issues to fight, but greenhouse emissions is not one of them. Fixing the water cycle will take care of the greenhouse gas emissions, and it will reduce the burden on the healthcare system, so you know that will never happen. The healthcare system is rotten to the core, and government involvement has made it so, and only makes it worse. You’re just as brainwashed by the democrats.

        • dale ruff

          Greenhouse gases are an indisputable reality. Burning fossil fuels releases C02 into the atmosphere, which traps heat. You cannot find one of the world’s 20,000 climate scientists or atmospheric scientists who disputes this reality.

          Carbonated beverages are a tiny fraction of 1% of the greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to burning coal and gas and oil, methane emissions from lifestock is a major contributor, since methane is 80 times more potent than C02. Animal methane emissions actually are more effective than the emissions from autos (just part of the total of burned fossil fuels).

          No person with the slightest education in any of the relevant sciences doubts the reality of the greenhouse gas effect and its source in meat production and burning fossil fuels, which far overwhelms other sources. It is an empirical fact.

          You may not believe a fact, but it is still a fact.

          You are totally brainwashed by the fossil fuel oligarchs who persuade useful idiots with no scientific intelligence to dismiss what all scientists know is undeniably true. You are so brainwashed it is useless to even try to reason with you, especially since you thing democrats (sic) are behind climate and atmospheric science. Science knows not party but the party of evidence.

          Enjoy being a tool of the fossil fuel corporations which know full well that they are emitting greenhouse gas emissions but want you to pay for them. If you want to attack, don’t attack me but the scientists I listen to. If you have evidence that the greenhouse gas effect is a fraud, present it. Put up or shut up. I am done with you, you are too ignorant to waste time on.

          • Ty

            You are a tool.

          • dale ruff

            No, I am reporting the conclusions of the world’s climate and atmospheric scientists. I am a tool of scientific truth. You are a tool of propaganda promoted by cynical fossil fuel oligarchs.

          • Arcanek

            You didn’t even bother to back up your statements at all. have someone read you the links I sent. There are many scientists not affiliated with ‘fossil fuel’ who dispute the nonsense you are spewing.

          • dale ruff

            I challenge you to find even a small group of climate or atmospheric scientists who believe that “greenhouse gas emissions are a hoax.”

            It will take me longer than a few minutes to publish the list of 20,000 scientists who accept greenhouse gas emissions as a reality. Meanwhile, how about your produce 1 or 2 who don’t?

            You can consult the scienticamerican or wikipedia or many other sources to confirm a 97% plus consensus that human activity (fossil fuel burning and deforestation, mostly for meat production) is the major cause. The other 3% do not deny greenhouse gas emissions but question whether their influence has been exaggerated.

            Several studies have consistently found this level of consensus. climate.nasa.com publishes a list of these organizations.
            “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.”

            In studying this subject for several years, I can find no climate or atmospheric scientists who deny the reality of greenhouse gas emissions as a form of warming the atmosphere. Perhaps you can.

          • Arcanek

            I did respond above. I don’t want you to publish the list. I want a citation of a reference of a validated list, not some unsupported claim that such a list exists somewhere. The climate.nasa.com site is down. I’ve presented a list of references that dispute your claims. I have provided you with several independent citations.

            Since you mention wikipedia, here is a link to a wiki entry for scientists opposing the view that climate change is of antgropogenic origin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

          • Arcanek

            Once again, you have severe comprehension issues with your lack of education in formal logic. I never denied the existence of greenhouse gases, and I certainly don’t need an explanation of thermodynamics and atmospheric convection from the likes of you.

            Where is your list of 20,000 atmospheric scientists to back up your claim? I’d like to check their credentials. Which academic institutions do you claim offer any curricula specializing in atmospheric science?

            Where did you get you your 1% figure from? You do realize that CO2 is vital to life, gon’t you? And that combustion of methane results in CO2 and water? And autos don’t run on methane. Or are trying to claim that they produce methane? Show me the chemical reaction for this.

            Your idiotic statement that “No person with the slightest education in any of the relevant sciences
            doubts the reality of the greenhouse gas effect and its source in meat
            production and burning fossil fuels, which far overwhelms other sources.
            It is an empirical fact.” is typical of your melodramatic blathering. Nowhere near anything like the truth. Back up this statement if you are going to assert this as ’empirical fact’. What a bunch of pedantic idiocy. you’re nothing but a blowhard. Talk some science here, not the childish authoritarian babble you usually spew. You know little, if anything, about science. you just repeat whatever some lying politicall troll programs yo with. Cite some sources for your worthless claims.

          • dale ruff

            “Greenhouse emissions are a hoax.”

            “I never denied the existence of greenhouse gases.”

            I rest my case.

            CO2 is necessary for life, but in the atmosphere it traps heat. There are no plants in the upper atmosphere where CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas.

            Too much CO2 will kill you.

            I am preparing a list of the 20,000 scientists with a list of their academic degrees and peer-reviewed publications. I just need a few more years. Meanwhile, I urge you to find any who refute greenhouse gases as a reality and the contribution of fossil fuel burning and meat production (methane).

            I just need a list of two or three climate or atmospheric scientists who think “Greenhouse emissions is a hoax.” I can’t find any; maybe you can.

          • Arcanek

            You rest your case without proving anything? You rested your strawman argument.

            ***Meanwhile, I urge you to find any who refute greenhouse gases as a
            reality and the contribution of fossil fuel burning and meat production
            (methane).***

            No problem. There’s plenty. Here’s a few links that were apparently beyond the reach of your self proclaimed ‘world class education’:

            http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2013/07/26/the-scientists-who-dispute-global-warming-theory-2-letters/24180/

            http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/162241

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/science/some-scientists-disagree-with-presidents-linking-drought-to-warming.html?_r=0

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/11/20/the-latest-meteorologist-survey-destroys-the-global-warming-climate-consensus/

            Apparently, your ‘world class education’ was just a third world hoax for clueless troll. Any search engine would have supplied many more results than I posted. You offered absolutely no proof for your unfounded parroting of delusional fearmongering. You would have had to put some effort into meking a response that was any weaker than the response you gave. I’m not surprised you couldn’t come up with one: you’re clueless.

    • Stop Bush and Clinton

      The Democratic and Republican Parties are just 2 wings of the very same Party of Death. If you stick with those 2 parties (excluding some notable anti-Death individuals that exist within both parties, such as Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul), you only get to pick who gets murdered first. Democrats tend to be in favor of starting with murdering the unborn while Republicans tend to be more into murdering the born (even more pro-war and pro-GMO than the Democrats).

      • Arcanek

        Yes. Either way, you get death. The ‘pro life’ party is the war party. and the ‘anti war’ party is the ‘baby killer’ party. And both war and baby killing manage to get legitimized and funded, and any ‘change’ in political party dominance never undoes any of this. Only the extremely rare anti corruption legislation ever gets repealed.

  • ZXB4983

    Let’s see aspartame is bad for us, all sugar is bad for us, artificial sweeteners in general are bad for us now Stevia is bad for us. So basically anything sweet tasting is bad for us. We can’t have our cake and eat too. We are not allowed anything sweet. We have to eat all bland and bitter tasting stuff and not enjoy our food according to the health experts and we also must starve ourselves to keep our weight down and save the earth. Every time I turn around I am being made to to feel guilty for wanting something sweet tasting or good tasting. It seems like all the food that is good tasting is labelled as being bad for me. You do realize we are all going to die someday regardless of how well we treat our own bodies.

    It seems like all the food out there is either laden with toxic chemicals, genetically modified or just plain junk food masquerading as real food. I shouldn’t have to research everything I buy and read all the labels on everything little thing I buy. That’s exhausting and too much work. Who has the time to turn a shopping trip into all day affair. It is ridicules. The food in the supermarkets should be healthy and safe for me to eat. What are we paying taxes for if the government isn’t regulating the food business and making sure they adhere to health and safety standards. Grocery shopping should not be a minefield to navigate.

    • dale ruff

      Stevia is not bad for you; sweet natural foods are not bad for you. Corn syrup, which is almost always gmo and very bad for you, is used in many foods, including US major beers.

      The government has been hijacked by the corporations, like Monsanto, to serve their own interests. We need to take our democracy back by banning money from the political process. You cannot separate the sorry state of most US foods (meat being the worst) from the fascist control of government by corporations.

      There is no need to feel guilty: eat whole organic foods and join the fight against corporatocracy.

  • Martin Cataldi-Rogers
  • Martin Cataldi-Rogers

    Conclusion
    Our conclusion? At this point, there is no evidence to support the claim that Stevia can – or does – cause a decrease in fertility for either men or women. Stevia may be a very useful herb for women who have PCOS and are seeking an alternative to using sugar in their diets. In short it seems that most modern day research shows no evidence that Stevia will decrease your fertility or that it can be used for contraceptive purposes. While this all-natural sweetener appears safe for human conception, it is important to note that if you personally are worried that it could have an impact to your fertility it is best to avoid it. After all, the stress of wondering whether or not it is keeping you from getting pregnant could in itself impede conception.

    Resources
    1. Science, (vol 162, Nov. 1968)
    2. Journal of Endocrinology and Reproduction (Vol. 12, 2008)
    3. The Stevia Cookbook, 199 by Ray Sahelian MD and Suan Gates

  • Gail of Gaia

    This is bullshit…stevia is not the problem…they want you to use gmo sugar beets, gmo high fructose corn syrup, gmo aspartame, sucralose9pesticide classification) and whatever chemicals they create and patent…..anything like a natural plant is lied about this is scientific fraud …red herring

  • Mark C. Danzig

    The Republicans have betrayed us…they have cheerfully and overwhelmingly voted to support and pass Obamas TPP bill-the one so secret that it is illegal to talk about its contents. Thanks, Conservatives for the coming Police State!

  • Dr. Sardonicus

    I’d question the source (i.e., Paul Ehrlich…wasn’t he *the Population Bomb* boy? Specifically the one who said mankind would become extinct due to ‘over-population’…THAT Paul Ehrlich?? ha).

    I’d like to see MUCH more scientific study to substantiate this claim. I’m dubious of it. It could be disinfo and an attempt to get consumers to go back to the verifiably unsafe sweeteners.

  • Nigel

    Unprocessed Manuka honey is the best.

Thank you for sharing.
Follow us to receive the latest updates.

Like Us On Facebook
Follow Us On Twitter

Send this to a friend