Sweet Talk

The Food and Drug Administration hasn't said when it might issue an opinion on a sweetener derived from stevia, a South American plant.

The FDA will act "soon," says ABC News. "The FDA said it doesn't have a specific date for completion of the review," says the Wall Street Journal.

No matter. Unless and until the FDA bans the substance, companies are free to market what many news accounts, somewhat breathlessly, are calling "the holy grail" of sweeteners—one both "natural" and nearly calorie-free.

Coca-Cola, no doubt anticipating the FDA will get around to approving the industry-sponsored studies showing stevia is safe, is going ahead with a rollout of Truvia, its version of the product in three of its Odwalla juice products, the Journal reported Monday. So is Cargill, marketing Truvia as a table sweetener.

PepsiCo thus far is hedging its bets. It is ready to go with its version of stevia, PureVia, with plans to put it in some "enhanced water" drinks and a new orange-juice-based drink, Trop50, which will have half the calories and sugar of pure orange juice.

The risk for Coke and, to a much lesser extent, Cargill, is that they will put the products on the market only to suffer the embarrassment and cost of pulling them from shelves should the FDA find that stevia is dangerous.

At this point, that seems unlikely. Some studies have found that stevia might have carcinogenic properties, but they have been far from conclusive, while other studies, some of them industry-sponsored, have determined pretty conclusively that it is safe.

That, of course, isn't good enough for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which nearly always falls on the side of extreme caution. In a statement on its Web site, the center allows that "small amounts of stevia have been consumed in various dietary supplements over the years, apparently without incident." But "too few safety tests have been done to warrant more general use."

And "several, though not all," tests have shown that stevia "causes DNA damage and mutations" in rodents. "That raises the troubling prospect that it could cause cancer," according to the statement.

Stevia "may well turn out to be entirely safe. But until more tests have been conducted and analyzed, it is reckless for food companies to begin adding it willy-nilly to the food supply and equally reckless for the FDA to stand by mutely," according to the statement.

The center wants the products pulled from the market until further testing is done.

That's almost certainly not going to happen. When it comes to food, the FDA generally doesn't act unless there is clear and convincing evidence of danger, and that's not present here.

About a dozen countries have approved stevia. It has been used for decades in Asia and for centuries in South America. In the United States, it has long been available as a "dietary supplement."

That designation, highlighting the lunacy of the U.S. regulatory environment, has led to products like Zevia, a soft drink that is not allowed to be sold as a soft drink. Its label calls it "a carbonated stevia supplement" that is a "natural" alternative to diet soda.

The idea of stevia being a "holy grail" is dubious. If it stays on the market, it's sure to upend the market for artificial sweeteners, all of which pose health concerns of one kind or another. But stevia isn't very reliable. It can make some beverages taste terrible, or at least different. Note that neither Coke nor Pepsi have stated plans to include the substance in their mainstay soft drinks.