Father of Chris Benoit says Linda McMahon wants to be U.S. Senator so she can keep wrestling from being regulated by government

Editor’s note: I wholeheartedly agree with Michael Benoit. Linda McMahon wants to be a U.S. Senator not to protect the people, but to protect the family business from federal regulation.

Wrestling Empire’s Grim Toll On Performers


Watching from afar, I’ve observed with interest the U.S. Senate campaign in Connecticut because of my experiences with Linda McMahon and her business, World Wrestling Entertainment. While she spends millions of dollars earned through her professional wrestling empire to flood Connecticut’s airwaves and mailboxes promoting her Republican candidacy, state voters should know there is another side to McMahon and the WWE.

My son, Chris Benoit, 40, was one of WWE’s top superstars. In June 2007, our lives changed dramatically, when he tragically killed his wife, son and himself. The press jumped on steroids as the cause of his actions. But tests showed that brain damage in the form of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, or CTE, not steroids, was responsible for our loss. CTE, caused by repetitive trauma to the brain, can bring on serious disorders such as a loss of emotional control, addictions to drugs and alcohol, depression, aggressive and violent behavior.

Most people view wrestling as fake and the McMahon family pushed that theory to avoid regulation. But in its lust for higher ratings and dollars, WWE began demanding that performers use more weapons and dangerous stunts in wrestling matches. Although matches are rigged and scripted, the harsh physical abuse in the form of blunt force steel chair shots to the head and power bombs through tables onto cement floors are real. I believe that this change in the industry is responsible for the majority of deaths it experienced in the last 20 years.

Another WWE wrestler, Andrew Martin, was 33 when he died. What did Andrew Martin have in common with my son? He was one of many of McMahon’s former wrestlers who died prematurely, and he was the second wrestler to have his brain examined for signs of CTE after death. Martin had the same shocking brain damage as my son. The human skull is not designed to withstand and protect the brain from the abuse the McMahon’s insisted their wrestlers endure. Yet, since the late ’80s, these are the matches into which the McMahon’s have pushed their talent.

USA Today in 2004 published research stating that wrestlers are 20 times more likely to die before the age of 45 than are pro football players. What has the McMahon family done to make pro wrestling safer? They will spend up to $50 million to get Linda elected to a position where she could head off any effort to regulate their business.

The WWE and Linda McMahon evade any responsibility for the early deaths that their industry suffers at an astronomical rate. After the Martin tests were completed, I sought to educate the McMahons about the scientific findings on brain trauma and how their wrestling stunts could cause this serious and fatal health issue. They were having none of it. It was clear, the McMahons were more interested in making hundreds of millions of dollars at the expense of these wrestlers, whom they regard as little more than circus animals to be ridden until their value expires.

On CNN in 2007, Vince McMahon, Linda’s husband, said they had stopped wrestlers from smashing each other’s heads with chairs. That practice, however, was not ended until January of this year — scores of “head shots” later. There are still all sorts of weapons and stunts that the McMahons use to equally dangerous effect. For a sport that is “fake,” there is an all too disturbing reality.

You might say that these young wrestlers make their own choices, and that is true. And the McMahons entice them with prospects for fame, wealth and glory that few achieve. If this were any other business or sport, there would be congressional hearings and laws passed to reform this dirty and dangerous enterprise. The McMahons have steadfastly held that wrestlers are just independent contractors and not entitled to health care benefits, pensions or unionization to represent their best interests.

This is how Linda McMahon made the money she uses for her Senate race. This is how she ran her business. This is the true character behind the fancy, Hollywood advertisements. I pray the people of Connecticut do not allow her to buy her way into the world’s most distinguished legislative body.

•Michael Benoit lives in Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada.

From 2003 and 2004: CSPI calls for a “food Pearl Harbor” as pretext to pass food “safety” reform

Comment: In other words, Michael “I Was For Trans Fats Before I Was Against It” Jacobson wants to help his Rockefeller overlords to launch a false-flag terrorist attack – a “food 9/11” – on the American food supply as a pretext to push Orwellian food “safety” reform which will benefit only the transnational megacorporate food conglomerates while putting independent farmers and independent  food companies under constant scrutiny and ultimate extinction. This is pretty much the Food ZioNazis’ version of the Project for a New American Century’s “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” which called for a “new Pearl Harbor” – which turned out to be 9/11 – in order to expand the American Empire.

It should be noted that Caroline Smith DeWaal was once eyed as Obama’s Food “Safety” Czar and at one time worked for another Rockefeller Foundation front group: Public Citizen.







Statement of Caroline Smith DeWaal
Director of Food Safety
Center for Science in the Public Interest

At the National Food Policy Conference
May 9, 2003
Washington, D.C.

My name is Caroline Smith DeWaal, and I am director of food safety for the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). CSPI is a nonproft health advocacy and education organization focused on food safety, nutrition, and alcohol issues. CSPI is supported principally by the 900,000 subscribers to its Nutrition Action Healthletter and by foundation grants. We accept no government or industry funding.

September 11, 2001 was not only a tragedy, it served a wake-up call. As Americans, we suddenly recognized that we are vulnerable to terrorist attacks. The anthrax attacks a few weeks later only heightened this sense of vulnerability. We now must worry not only about the safety of our airports, public transportation systems, and public buildings, but also about our water and our food supply.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “food is . . . the most vulnerable to intentional contamination by debilitating or lethal agents. The diversity of sources of foods, including the global market, makes prevention difficult, if not impossible.”1 This year we learned from news reports that terrorists have developed materials to manufacture Salmonella and botulinum, and they may have intended to poison the food supply of American military troops in Afghanistan.2 Even more alarming was a recent Washington Post article on biological weapons developed by the South African government under the apartheid regime, including a biological agent created by splicing a common strain of E. coli with a toxin-producing gene from Clostridium perfringens.3

Outbreaks demonstrate that FDA-regulated foods are vulnerable

There are a number of examples of food bioterrorism, both nationally and internationally, that demonstrate the health and economic damage that could be inflicted through an attack on the food supply. Just last year in China, thirty eight people died and hundreds were sickened from baked good spiked with rat poison by a competitor. And following the World Cup race in New Zealand this year, there was a terrorist threat of food tampering that resulted in headlines all over that country warning consumers to “Watch what you eat”. Domestically, there was a case of food bioterrorism in 1984, when a cult in Oregon spiked salad bars with Salmonella, causing 751 illnesses.

Many foods regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pose a special risk. For example, a large portion of the produce and seafood we consume in this country is imported. Yet only a very small percentage — about 2% — of this imported produce and seafood gets inspected. Fruits and vegetables are particularly vulnerable to a terrorist threat since they are consumed directly with minimal processing.

Unintentionally contaminated imported produce has been associated with numerous outbreaks of illness in the United States. These outbreaks demonstrate that a hazard placed on a fruit or vegetable in a foreign field or factory can be distributed rapidly in the U.S. and cause thousands of illnesses. Other risky imported products include ingredients, like spices or additives, which, if contaminated, could enable a poison to be incorporated into a large variety of processed food products around the country.

FDA should exert full authority under the new Bioterrorism Act

In an effort to address this vulnerability, Congress passed the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act (Bioterrorism Act for short) in 2002. The Act gives FDA several important new tools to protect the food supply: it includes provisions for registration of food facilities, prior notice of imports, recordkeeping to trace foods, and administrative detention of suspect foods. Back in January, FDA proposed rules to implement two of the Act’s provisions relating to registration and prior notice. And just this week, FDA released proposed rules to implement two other provisions relating to recordkeeping and administrative detention.

The FDA Commissioner, Dr. Mark McClellan, recently stated in an interview with the New York Timesthat he was surprised that FDA did not previously have clear authority to address a bioterrorist threat.4 Well, it does now. But industry groups, importers, and others are already attacking FDA’s proposals. We cannot let industry weaken FDA’s new powers — the FDA needs to hear consumers’ voices on these issues as well. So I’m urging all of you to write to the FDA and tell the agency that you want it to assert its new authorities in the strongest possible way to protect the food supply from intentional contamination.

Let’s talk a little more about each of the provisions in the Bioterrorism Act and why they are so critical to protection of the American food supply from a bioterrorist attack.

  • Registration of food plants and importers: Under the requirement for the registration of food plants and importers, for the first time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will have information on all food plants and facilities (other than those that produce meat and poultry) that process food for U.S. consumers. Hundreds of thousands of food plants will register with FDA, including both foreign and domestic facilities. The registration data will help FDA identify foods that may pose a health or security threat, and will allow the agency to quickly communicate to facilities effected by an attack. It also will allow the agency to better target their scarce inspection and investigation resources.5
  • Prior notice of imports: The requirement for prior notice of imports gives FDA notice of what food is entering the U.S. and where, so that the agency can ensure that there are inspectors at ports and other entry points to check food they believe is a threat. Today, food enters the U.S. at any port or border crossing without notice to the FDA. The proposed rule requires that notice be provided at least by noon of the day before the food will arrive. The food industry and many exporters to the U.S. have strongly objected to this notice requirement. However, it seems the minimum necessary to ensure that FDA can target its inspection resources devoted to imported food to the highest risk food shipments.6
  • Recordkeeping: Under the recordkeeping provision, FDA will require food processors and transporters to maintain records that allow the agency to trace products up and down the chain of distribution and to inspect those records. This authority gives FDA an essential tool to trace tainted food back through the chain of distribution, to help identify the source of illness outbreaks and more effectively implement a product recall.7 According to the World Health Organization in its recent report “Terrorist Threats to Food,” “tracing systems and market recalls are… critical in responding to food contamination, whether deliberate or inadvertent.” Consumer anxiety in the event of a bioterrorist attack against the food supply will be minimized by good tracing mechanisms that remove tainted food from supermarket shelves as quickly as possible. CSPI has also called on FDA to require source labeling on all foods. Recently, Congress required USDA to develop a plan for country-of-origin labeling requirement for most imported foods, but more specific labeling (tracing all foods back to the processing plant or even the farm) would allow for faster recalls while minimizing the business disruption for other similar products.
  • Administrative detention: Under the administrative detention provision, for the first time, FDA will have authority to detain food where it has evidence that the food could cause serious illness or death.

Many of these authorities are common sense and we share Commissioner McClellan’s surprise that it took the threat of bioterrorism to convince Congress that FDA should have such basic regulatory tools. After all, it is a basic consumer expectation that FDA, as our leading public health agency charged with food protection, actually knows what food plants it is regulating and what food imports are arriving that will require inspection.

The unfortunate reality is that through its power to influence Congress, the food industry has kept FDA barefoot and pregnant — literally hobbled under a workload that is far too vast with insufficient resources. While the food industry is now complaining about these new regulatory “burdens,” FDA still lacks such essential tools as mandatory recall authority that would be critical if terrorists attacked the food supply. And when it comes to preventing bioterrorism, FDA needs authority to monitor that every country that exports food to the United States has systems in place to deter the intentional contamination of the food.

What More Needs To Be Done

I’ve focused today on the new authorities that FDA has under the Bioterrorism Act. The U.S. Department of Agriculture also plays a role in protecting our meat and poultry. They must take additional actions, such as increasing the number of inspections and product tests to assure that meat and poultry is not subject to intentional contamination.

There are also other steps that could and should be taken to assure our food supply is protected.

  • Creation of a single food safety agency is the most crucial step in protecting our food supply. We need to end the current fragmented approach where the left hand frequently does not know what the right hand is doing.
  • We need to continue to strengthen our disease surveillance systems and improve communication and coordination among local, state and federal agencies to heighten the ability to recognize and quickly respond to foodborne outbreaks.
  • Both FDA and USDA should have mandatory recall authority. Recently, Secretary of Agriculture Anne Veneman called on Congress to give FSIS enhanced enforcement authority over meat and poultry companies. She is right, but needs to go farther, and support her predecessor’s call for mandatory recall authority for tainted meat and poultry products. With potential terrorist threats against the food supply, it is more important than ever that the federal government hold the power to order contaminated food off the market.
  • We need to expand laboratory capacity to assure that we can test for a range of potential biological agents, test products quickly, and that results are communicated to relevant agencies, health care providers, and the general public as quickly as possible.


Unfortunately, we live a new era — one where we as Americans seem to be looking over our shoulders at all times. It is critical that the government is fully empowered to protect the public from potential biological, chemical and nuclear attack.

To protect the food supply, Congress has given FDA some very important new tools. The question is how FDA will use these tools — will it adopt the strongest possible requirements to protect consumers and the integrity of the food supply or will it squander them by adopting weaker rules in response to the well-oiled machinery of industry opposition.

1 World Health Organization, Food Safety Department, FOOD SAFETY ISSUES: Terrorist Threats to Good, Guidance for Establishing and Strengthening Prevention and Response Systems (2002), at p. 5.
2 Barton Gelman, Al Queda Near Biological, Chemical Arms Production, THE WASHINGTON POST, Mar. 24, 2003, at A01. See also James Risen and Don Van Natta, Jr., Plot to Poison Food of British Troops is Suspected, THE NEW YORK TIMES, Jan. 24, 2003, at A1.
3 Joby Warrick and John Mintz, Lethal Legacy: Bioweapons for Sale, The Washington Post, April 20, 2003, at A01.
4 Gina Kolata, Scientist At Work: Mark B. McClellan, New York Times (Apr. 29, 2003), at Sec. F, page 1.
5 All domestic and foreign facilities that manufacture, process, pack or hold food for human or animal consumption will now be required to register with FDA. There are exemptions for farms, retail operations, restaurants, and non-profits that prepare and serve food directly to consumers.
6 Under the proposed rule, the notice must include, among other things, information on the article of foods, the quantity, the identification of the manufacturer, and the originating country.
7 Facilities that manufacture, process, pack, transport, distribute, receive, hold or import food must also maintain certain records and make them available for inspection. Surprisingly, FDA has not, to date, had any system in place to track food products through the distribution chain — where they have been and where they are going. Just last week, though, FDA announced that it is finally in the process of developing such a system to help it trace food in the event of a bioterrorist attack. Such a system would be important and should be used in tracking food in the event of unintentional contamination as well.



Testimonies and Speeches

March 30, 2004

Statement of Caroline Smith DeWaal
Director of Food Safety
Center for Science in the Public Interest
At the House Committee on Government Reform
Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization
Washington, D.C.

My name is Caroline Smith DeWaal, and I am director of food safety for the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). CSPI is a nonprofit health advocacy and education organization focused on food safety, nutrition, and alcohol issues. CSPI is supported principally by the 850,000 subscribers to its Nutrition Action Healthletter and by foundation grants. We accept no government or industry funding.

This past November, imported produce was implicated in one of the nation’s most devastating outbreaks of foodborne illness. This provided more proof that the system to protect consumers from unsafe food is falling far short of its goal. Green onions imported from Mexico were the cause of this fatal Hepatitis A outbreak in Pennsylvania. What started out as a regular trip to a chain restaurant resulted in crippling illnesses for hundreds of individuals. At least 555 people fell ill and 3 people died from consuming the tainted produce. The outbreak sickened not only hundreds of Pennsylvania residents, but also restaurant employees and residents of six other states.(1) Beginning in August 2003, green onions imported from the same farm in Mexico had caused outbreaks in three other states.(2) These earlier illnesses provided a crucial warning that was ignored until it was too late.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for ensuring the safety of many imported foods, such as the onions implicated in this Hepatitis outbreak. At a hearing of the House Appropriation Committee’s Subcommittee on Agriculture on March 11, 2004, Lester Crawford, acting commissioner for the FDA, stated: “The FDA is overwhelmed by imports, which have increased fivefold since 1994.” Due to FDA’s lack of resources, a mere one percent of imported food is inspected. Crawford went on to state, “It’s difficult for us, and we are missing the mark, but we pledge to do better.”

Since 1999, CSPI has been compiling outbreak data from a variety of sources, organizing it by food group, and publishing it in a booklet called Outbreak Alert! In CSPI’s Outbreak Alert! 2004 database, which summarizes 3,529 outbreaks, FDA-regulated foods, like seafood, produce, and eggs, were the largest contributor to foodborne illness outbreaks.(3) That is, 67% of all outbreaks in the database were caused by foods regulated by the FDA; the remaining 26% were caused by foods regulated by the USDA (meat and poultry products); and 7% were caused by foods regulated in part by both agencies. However, when examining the corresponding proportion of the federal budget allocated to these agencies, the paradox is apparent. The FY 2004 budget summaries show the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is allocated $899 million to keep the food supply safe, more than twice as much food-related funding as the FDA, at $413 million.

In 1997, the huge resource imbalance between FDA and USDA led CSPI and other consumer organizations to call on Congress to create a single independent food-safety agency, so that the government could apply resources more equitably to all the foods that pose the greatest risk to the public. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a report in 1998 that called for the consolidation of food-safety responsibility under a single statute, with a single budget and a single leader. This report, entitled Ensuring Safe Food From Production to Consumption, concluded that the “current fragmented regulatory structure is not well equipped to meet the current challenges.”(4) CSPI has documented many gaps and weaknesses that support the NAS’s conclusion:

Under the current structure, food-safety problems that start on the farm often fall through the cracks of agency jurisdiction. No federal agency today is responsible for overseeing food safety at the production level. While the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) can quarantine farms and ranches due to disease outbreaks affecting the animals or plants, as they did recently to control BSE, the agency has no authority when it comes to human infections that originate in live animals or plants. At FDA, lettuce and other fresh vegetables and fruits are essentially unregulated for safety. While FDA published guidelines for farmers, these guidelines are legally unenforceable.(5) The use of animal manure on food crops is also not controlled, even though USDA, FDA, and EPA have jurisdiction over various farm practices. These are just some of the problems that fall through the cracks of the current system.

Under the current structure, multiple agencies fail to address glaring public health problems. Eggs are regulated both by FDA and USDA, but neither agency has developed an effective containment strategy to prevent the spread of Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) in shell eggs. It took an agreement among three cabinet level officials to announce the Egg Safety Action Plan in 1999, but since then, little has changed. No agency has published regulations to require on-farm controls that could largely eliminated the Salmonella that infects eggs, sickening hundreds of thousands of consumers each year, and causing over 300 deaths. Today, nearly twenty years since SE inside eggs was first identified as a public-health concern by the CDC, consumers still await an effective strategy to eradicate SE in shell eggs.

Under the current structure, the same food-processing plant may get two entirely different food-safety inspections. The classic example is a processing plant that produces both pepperoni and cheese frozen pizzas. The pepperoni line will get daily visits from a USDA inspector to check on conditions in the plant as workers slice the pepperoni and apply it to the pizza.(6) The cheese line will be subject to FDA inspection on average once every five to ten years.(7) The minimal difference in hazard between the processing of cheese and pepperoni pizzas is not enough to justify the vast disparity in government inspection.

Under the current structure, some food-processing plants may get no federal food- safety inspections. Due to resource constraints, FDA has turned huge portions of its regulatory responsibility over to the states. The best example of this is in the area of shellfish production, where FDA relies totally on state inspectors. But FDA is now using state inspectors to conduct many different food inspections. A June 2000 Inspector General investigation documented that states conduct a growing percentage of the food-firm inspections under a variety of agreements with FDA. Over a three-year period, states conducted 60% of the food firm inspections that FDA recorded in its database. Increasingly, states are inspecting high-risk food firms.(8)

Under the current structure, quality inspections sometimes occur more frequently than safety inspections. There are many shell-egg plants that receive regular inspections from U.S. government inspectors, but the inspections are for quality, not for safety. All plants shipping eggs between states are visited by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) each quarter and many plants also participate in a voluntary grading program where they receive continuous inspection by AMS.(9) Under the voluntary AMS program, government inspectors help ensure that each egg has a yolk of the proper diameter, but nothing in the program checks for the presence of SE.(10) Nor does FDA, the agency charged with food-safety oversight of shell eggs, check for SE during its infrequent inspections.(11)

Under the current structure, HACCP is a different system at FDA and at USDA. The Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) systems for seafood, meat, and poultry share almost as many differences as similarities. For example, both frequent inspection and laboratory verification of product samples are essential to give the government appropriate oversight over plants utilizing HACCP. Otherwise, the HACCP program is little more than an industry honor system. While USDA requires both on-site inspection by government inspectors and two levels of laboratory verification of meat and poultry products, FDA requires neither for seafood products. FDA inspects seafood plants once every one to five years and made laboratory testing for HACCP verification optional for seafood processors.(12) Because of these weaknesses, FDA’s seafood program has been a dismal failure, with fewer than 50% of seafood firms using comprehensive HACCP plans, and seafood continues to be a major contributor to foodborne illness outbreaks.(13)

Multiple agencies may prolong the time it takes to bring the benefits of new technologies to the consumer. Everyone is optimistic that new technologies will help solve many of the food-safety problems that exist today. However, several agencies are involved with the approval of new technologies, especially for meat and poultry products. We have seen examples where technologies designed by government scientists at one agency then spent years being considered for approval at another.(14) For several other technologies, like trisodium phosphate for poultry and irradiation for poultry and red meat, FDA approval was the last step that precedes a rulemaking process at USDA. Both approvals are necessary before products can be used in meat and poultry plants. This bifurcated process can take years to complete.(15)

Because of a complicated system of reviews by multiple agencies, new technologies can completely escape government review for food safety. For genetically modified foods, approval responsibilities for new plant varieties is done by three different federal agencies. USDA’s APHIS has a mandatory review process to protect against plant diseases and pests that might emerge from genetically modified seed stock. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a mandatory review process for genetically modified seeds with pesticidal qualities. FDA, meanwhile, utilizes a voluntary review process to address food-safety problems that might emerge from genetically modified foods. Under this system, FDA relies on an industry honor system that allows the biotech companies to decide whether and when they should consult with FDA prior to putting a product on the market.

Coordination with the state agencies that handle food safety is a nightmare. State laboratories that analyze food samples for chemical or microbial contamination have complained about the lack of uniform testing methods and about inconsistent reporting requirements for the federal agencies, including USDA, FDA, CDC, and EPA. This means that state labs may have to run multiple tests on a single food simply to meet the requirements of the various federal agencies. In addition, they waste valuable staff time transmitting the same information to different agencies, which each have their own customized system for reporting lab results. The lack of common data requirements for foods discourages many states from sharing their laboratory data with the federal agencies.(16)

In addition, the federal government has not established standard laboratory certification standards for state laboratories that test food for contamination. This means that in many outbreak and recall situations, a state lab test result will have to be repeated by a federal agency. This can result in a several-day delay in recalling food or informing the public, with a continuing risk to public health.

Under the current structure, imported products are treated differently at FDA and USDA.Imported meat and poultry products are subject to a two-stage approval process by USDA. First, the exporting country’s meat or poultry inspection safety system must be approved by USDA; then, the individual plant must be inspected by USDA before it can ship meat to the U.S. Even then, the meat is subject to random verification checks at the border. FDA meanwhile only has the authority to inspect food at the border and, even then, only has the staff to check one to two percent of import shipments.(17) FDA can’t send inspectors to foreign countries except by invitation, even when they are checking the source of food involved in an outbreak in the U.S.

In a global marketplace, our system is falling behind the safety systems in use in other countries. Numerous countries have already created unified food safety agencies to cover the entire food supply. The effort was driven in Europe by the BSE crisis. Unified agencies now exist in at least three European countries, England, Netherlands, and Germany. Other countries, like New Zealand, have moved to a single food agency to address gaps and weaknesses in the food safety programs. The Food Safety Authority of New Zealand, FSANZ, took over government programs largely designed to certify companies that wanted to export food to other countries. With the unified agency, they are now focusing additional resources on improving the safety and quality of domestic foods.

These gaps and inefficiencies demonstrate that until we address the problems inherent in the food-safety regulatory structure, we will not be able to achieve a risk-based food-safety system. CSPI stands in good company in its call for fundamental reorganization. Over the last twenty years, many expert panels from the White House and Congress to the National Academy of Sciences and the General Accounting Office have all reached similar conclusions. More recently, a major industry trade association, the Food Marketing Institute (FMI), and Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, have called for a single food-safety agency.

It is clearly not news to anyone that statutes designed when the Model T was being driven are not suited to address modern issues, like mad cow disease, genetically modified foods, or even common foodborne bacteria. But make no mistake, if a terrorist were to strike the U.S. food supply, consumer confidence in the government’s fractured food safety programs would plummet as fast as confidence in airport security did following September 11, 2001. Even Dr. John Bailar, the chairman of the NAS committee calling for a more unified food safety structure, said that “When bioterrorism is added to the mix, the case for prompt and sweeping change becomes compelling. While additional tinkering with the details of our food safety system might be helpful, the consolidation of responsibilities, authorities, and resources for food safety into a single high-level agency is critical.”(18) Today, a unified agency operating under a modern food safety statute is truly an issue of national security.

1. Dato V et al, Hepatitis A Outbreak Associated with Green Onions at a Restaurant- Monaca, Pennsylvania, 2003. Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report, November 28, 2003 /52(47);1155-1157

2. Boodman S, Raw Menace: Major Hepatitis A Outbreak Tied to Green Onions. The Washington Post, Tuesday November 25, 2003.

3. Outbreak AlertClosing the Gaps in Our Federal Food-Safety Net. Center for Science in the Public Interest. Updated and Revised March, 2004. CSPI, Washington, D.C.

4. Institute of Medicine, National Research Council, Ensuring Safe Food From Production to Consumption. (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998), p. 12 [hereinafter cited asEnsuring Safe Food].

5. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Guidance for Industry. Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. (Washington, DC: US Food and Drug Administration, October, 1998).

6. Michael R. Taylor, “Preparing America’s Food Safety System for the Twenty-First Century — Who is Responsible for What When it Comes to Meeting the Food Safety Challenges of the Consumer-Driven Global Economy?” Food and Drug Law Journal, Vol. 52, No. 1 (1997), p. 18 [hereinafter cited as Preparing for the Twenty-First Century].

7. US Department of Agriculture, US Department of Health and Human Services, US Environmental Protection Agency, Food Safety From Farm to Table: A National Food Safety Initiative. A Report to the President. May 1997, p. 37 [hereinafter cited as Food Safety from Farm to Table], Preparing for the Twenty-First Century, p. 18.

8. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, FDA Oversight of State Food Firm Inspections: A Call for Greater Accountability. June 2000.

9. 7 C.F.R. § 59.28; Poultry Division, AMS, USDA, “Quality Eggs for Volume Buyers.” Brochure No. AMS-627, August, 1996.

10. Ibid.

11. Elizabeth Dahl and Caroline Smith DeWaal, Scrambled Eggs: How a Broken Food Safety System Let Contaminated Eggs Become a National Food Poisoning Epidemic. (Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest, 1997), p. 11 [hereinafter cited as Scrambled Eggs].

12. Caroline Smith DeWaal, “Delivering on HACCP’s Promise to Improve Food Safety: A Comparison of Three HACCP Regulations.” Food and Drug Law Journal, Vol. 52, No. 3 (1997), pp. 331-335.

13. “FDA’s Evaluation of the Seafood HACCP Program For Fiscal Years 2000/200.” available athttp://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/seaeval2.html#evaluation.

14. Telephone conversation with John DeLoach, MS BioScience, Inc., Dundee, IL, April 1998.

15. Rosanna Mentzer Morrison, Jean Buzby, and C. T. Jordan Lin, “Irradiating Ground Beef to Enhance Food Safety.” Food Review, Vol. 20, No. 1 (1997), p. 34; US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, “Irradiation in the Production, Processing, and Handling of Food; Final Rules.” Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 232 (1997), pp. 64102-64121; Memo from Robert Sindt, Burditt & Radzius, to Caroline Smith DeWaal, April 1, 1998; Meeting with Robert Sindt, Burditt & Radzius, James Elfstrum, Rhodia, and Jerry Carosella, Consultant, Regulatory Microbiology, Washington, D.C., April 3, 1998.

16. “National Integrated Food Safety System. An Update on Work Group Activities: Laboratory Operations and Coordination,” session at the 103rd Annual Educational Conference of the Association of Food and Drug Officials, June 5-9, 1999, San Antonio, TX; Association of Food and Drug Officials 1999 Resolution Number 99-09 Concerning National Standards for Computer-based Laboratory, Inspection and Surveillance Data Standards, June 7, 1999.

17. Lester Crawford, Acting Commissioner of the FDA, Testimony before the House Appropriation Committee’s Subcommittee on Agriculture on March 11, 2004. Also, US General Accounting Office, “Food Safety: Federal Efforts to Ensure the Safety of Imported Foods are Inconsistent and Unreliable,” (Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office, April 1998), p. 5 [hereinafter cited asSafety of Imported Foods].

18. Bailar III, John C, “Ensuring Safe Food: An Organizational Perspective.” Layne S, et al., Fire Power in the Lab,. National Academy of Sciences, 2001, p. 141.

Elena Kagan – yet another Goldman Sachs Zionist

Kagan Sat on Goldman Sachs Board

Solicitor General Elena Kagan previously served on an advisory board for Goldman Sachs, a position that could complicate her nomination if she is selected to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, USA Today reported Tuesday.

Kagan served on Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute from 2005 to 2008, according to financial disclosures she filed with the Senate Judiciary Committee when she was nominated as Solicitor General last year. She received $10,000 stipend in 2008 for her service.

Elena Kagan: Wall Street’s SCOTUS Pick
Kurt Nimmo
May 10, 2010


Democrats are going gaa-gaa over Obama’s Supreme pick Elena Kagan. “Democrats praised Kagan as ‘razor sharp’ and impeccably qualified for the lifetime appointment on the nine-member bench, but Republicans promised to vigorously vet a ’surprising’ choice, noting she had never been a judge,” reports Agence France-Presse. “I have selected a nominee who I believe embodies… excellence, independence, integrity and passion for the law, and who can ultimately provide that same kind of leadership on the court,” Obama said at the White House.

Is Kagan independent? Hardly. She is a bankster operative.

Kagan sat on a Goldman Sachs advisory council between 2005 and 2008. It was her job to offer “analysis and advice to Goldman Sachs and its clients.”

Obama mouthpiece Robert Gibbs and the Justice Department are now engaged in frenetic damage control over Kagan’s Goldman connection. Kagan’s role working for the “great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity” (as Matt Taibbi described Goldman) should not be dismissed lightly. Kagan will obviously serve the interests of the banksters if she makes it to the Supreme Court (adding to the corporatist influence already well entrenched there). Republicans need to hammer Kagan on this during her confirmation hearing. But then Republicans are the right hand on the zombie One Party grocery clerk known as Congress. Difficult questions will not be asked.

But it is not merely Goldman. It’s also Kagan’s connection to Larry Summers, the former Undersecretary for International Affairs in the Clinton administration and chief economist at the notorious loan sharking and poverty creation machine, the World Bank. Summers also worked in 2006-2008 for a derivatives firm, D.E. Shaw and was paid around five million dollars.

It was Summers and his so-conspirator Robert Rubin that facilitated the destruction of the Glass-Steagall Act designed during the last Great Depression to erect a firewall between commercial and investment banking.

Robert Rubin was Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration, a former co-chairman of the board at Goldman, and a director at Citigroup.

Rubin, Summers, and the Fed mob boss at the time, Alan Greenspan, worked with the globalist IMF in 1998 to micromanage to engineered finnacial crisis in Russia.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin says Kagan will serve the interests of average Americans, an absurd proclamation at best. In fact, Elena Kagan is a bankster operative and she will serve the interests of Wall Street and Goldman Sachs. She was selected by the global elite specifically for this reason.

Finally, it will be nearly impossible to criticize Obama’s pick because it is rumored she is a lesbian. If you point out her Wall Street connections, you will be called homophobic the same way any criticism of Obama is deemed racist and dismissed as the hateful ravings of white supremacists.


Beyond all the banker connections, it appears Ms. Kagan was also a radical socialist. In her undergraduate thesis at Princeton entitled “To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933,” Kagan wrote: “In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness.”

Once again, the words of the late Gary Allen come to mind: “If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of superrich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead it becomes the logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.”

As the scholar Atony Sutton and others have revealed, Wall Street financed and supported every major socialist movement in the 20th century.

Do you think Republicans will grill Kagan on her radical socialist beliefs? Sure, the moment after Hell freezes over.



Elena Kagan’s Goldman Sachs “Connection”
May 10, 2010 3:02 AM

Paul Campos may be right to worry that Elena Kagan’s track record doesn’t suggest much about her judicial philosophy. And Senate inquisitors may unearth issues that some find will troubling during Kagan’s upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings. But we’re not even there yet and already the knives are coming out – but not from the right. It’s the left that’s going after the White House’s nominee.

Serving as a very capable kvetcher-in-chief, Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, has assembled a bill of particulars that sum up the some of the doubts heard from the left about Kagan’s suitability to replace Justice John Paul Stevens. (Greenwald has a more in-depth critique of Kagan here.

I don’t have any personal passion for or against Kagan’s nomination, but frankly, some of the complaints are, at best, borderline.

Let’s focus on the most explosive and, I think, the most ludicrous: Her supposed “connection” to Goldman Sachs. Greenwald links to Digby, who links to USA Today -gotta love those links – which notes that Kagan received $10,000 in 2008 for serving as a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute. Well, as the noted constitutional scholar and former New Jersey Nets forward Derrick Coleman was wont to exclaim on occasion, whoop-de-damn-do. Fact is that the “Digby” post offers nothing in the way of evidence that points to a nefarious connection. Read a little further, though, and you’ll find the author’s real point: “I think Supreme Court confirmation battles are ideologically instructive for the nation and are one of the few times when it’s possible for people to speak at length about their philosophical worldview. Liberals have to stop running from this. Allowing the other side to define us is killing us.”

There you have it. This is really about politics and dissatisfaction with the Obama administration. Some on the lib-left would like the White House to tack far harder in their direction and they are not pleased at his political instinct to move toward the middle. That’s an argument they can have, though now it looks as if Kagan will get caught in the cross-fire.

Back to Greenwald. He also cites Sam Stein of Huffington Post. But Stein similarly brings nothing of real linterest to the table. The two reports that the HuffPo includes of the advisory council from 2005 and 2008 don’t advance the conspiracy case one inch. The entire exercise is basically a setup for an anonymous quote from someone identified as “a prominent progressive.”

“I just don’t understand why the Administration would want to makes themselves and their nominee vulnerable to the opposition at a time when American skepticism of Wall Street is at an all time high…this is like handing the Republicans the mantle of populism just for trying to oppose Kagen’s (sic) confirmation.”

Is it really?

Like Greenwald, Stein’s post makes much of the USA Today piece. But that article similarly fails to clinch the argument that Kagan crossed an ethical line. In this instance, though, the author did manage to get someone on the record-judicial nominations specialist Lee Epstein of Northwestern University Lee Epstein-opining that the Goldman Sachs word may “make things more complicated for her.”

And so it may. Goldman Sachs is radioactive for obvious reasons these days. But Kagan’s limited gig as an advisor to the now-tarnished investment house had nothing to do with creating phony CDOs or engaging in market manipulation. It was a freelance gig to supplement her day job. If anybody’s got evidence to suggest otherwise, they ought to get it into the public record.









White House’s ‘slickly-produced interview’ of Supreme Court nominee leads to charges of ‘propaganda’

‘Frustrated’ reporters get snippy about White House ‘interview’ with Kagan
By Muriel Kane
Wednesday, May 12th, 2010 — 12:29 pm

Every White House does its best to secure a positive spin on the messages it puts out. But where the Bush administration was notorious for its attempts to maintain tight control over the press pool, the Obama administration has shown an inclination to make an end run around the press entirely.

The latest example is the administration’s posting of its own video interview of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan on the White House blog, while indicating she would not be available for more formal press interviews. This led CBS News to report somewhat tartly, “While the White House seems to believe the American people deserve to hear from Kagan, it has not made her available to reporters. That prompted some consternation at today’s White House briefing.”

In recent weeks, the tension between the Obama administration and the press has become so apparent that one blogger at The Left Coaster felt a need to push back against it, writing, “The same White House press pool that let the Bush administration use them as a doormat as long as they were given access is now complaining about the Obama administration not giving them access, and hammering them for adverse coverage. … These are the same people who let the Bush administration play them like a drum and let Jeff Gannon and other nuts join their ranks with little uproar because they were afraid of Rove and Ari Fleischer.”

The Kagan matter, however, is potentially more serious than last month’s complaints about Obama ditching the press pool to attend his daughter’s soccer game. The latest fuss began when reporters learned on Tuesday that the White House had posted on its own website an interview, conducted by its official videographer Arun Chaudhary, in which Kagan spoke about her childhood, family, and career.
Story continues below…

As described by Mediaite, “From a PR standpoint, the short (3 min 22 sec), slickly-produced interview is a triumph, showcasing Kagan’s personality in a milieu of graceful camera changes and stylishly floating stills. … Journalistically, you could argue that Kagan’s feet weren’t actually held to the fire here, or even a warm pair of slippers.”

According to CBS, at Tuesday’s press briefing, one reporter asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs,”Who did the interview? And can I have one?” After Gibbs replied that the interview was on the White House website, the reporter asked a second time if Kagan would like to do another interview and Gibbs replied, “She’s not told me that, no.”

“Tell her we’re deeply frustrated,” the reporter commented.

The CBS story did acknowledge that “it seems to be unprecedented for the nominee to be heard from at all before the confirmation hearings, other than in the initial introduction and in brief photo ops with senators.” It noted, however, that the in-house interview represents a fresh example of “the Obama administration’s policy of regularly using new media tools to go around traditional media.”

The San Francisco Examimer, however, was far blunter. Its comment on the CBS story was headed “White House bypasses press for propaganda ‘interview’ of Supreme Court nominee” and remarked sarcastically, “Isn’t that generous of them? Why bother with an independent and free press when the White House is willing to do all of their hard work for them?”

At Fox News’ “FoxNation” website, an extended excerpt from the CBS News story was posted under the even stronger headline, “Reporters Furious Over Kagan’s WH Propaganda Video.” And conservative blog Hot Air also ran with “White House issues Kagan propaganda video.”

Even when it comes to new media, access to Kagan appears to be limited. ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper grumped in a Twitter posting on Tuesday, “i went to @elenakagan but got: ‘This person has protected their tweets.’ humph.”

Tapper followed this up an hour later with a link to the White House video and the comment, “Bypassing the ‘filter’ > RT @BarackObama: Hear directly from Elena Kagan, my nominee for the United States Supreme Court.”

The White House blog on which the video appears is maintained by Jesse Lee, who worked his way up from handing out anti-Iraq War leaflets to blogging for Nancy Pelosi and then running the DNC’s 2008 rapid-response team. Now, according to whorunsgov.com, “as the online guru of the fledgling Obama White House, he is tasked with mending the occasionally contentious relationship between left-wing bloggers and Beltway politicians, harnessing the netroots reach and passion to spread the administration’s message.”

Lee has, however, been known to employ the White House blog in a manner that might be more appropriate for the netroots, as when he directly called out Fox News last fall, writing, “Last night Fox News continued its disregard for the facts in an attempt to smear the Administration’s efforts to win the Olympics for the United States. … Once again Fox News’ Glenn Beck program has shown that nothing is worthy of respect if it can be used as part of a partisan attack to boost ratings.” This was followed a month later by an unsuccessful White House attempt to ban Fox News from a round of interviews with “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg.

Lee’s blog has also been accused by liberal bloggers of a lack of transparency. Last winter, for example, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake noted that Lee had promoted what he described as an “objective analysis” of health care reform by an expert who was actually a paid White House consultant.


And she’s given the “Zionist Seal of Approval” by the ADL.

New York, NY, May 10, 2010 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued a statement in response to the President’s nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court.

Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:

We congratulate Elena Kagan on her nomination to the Supreme Court.  She has already served this nation with distinction in a number of capacities, most recently as Solicitor General.  The granddaughter of immigrants, she has lived the American Dream (ethnic networking?), achieving one professional success after another (ethnic networking?),  and serving as a role model for many in the process.

We applaud President Obama for having selected this distinguished lawyer (with no judicial experience), .  With her background in academia, private practice, and government service, if confirmed, she will undoubtedly bring an important new perspective (anti-Christian, anti-Consitution, pro-Communist, pro-feminist, pro-abortion, pro-torture, ect), to the work of the Court.

Now it is the Senate’s turn to fulfill its constitutional responsibility (cowtow to Goldman Sachs and roll over for the Anti-Defamation League, AIPAC ect),  to thoroughly review Ms. Kagan’s record and qualifications (Shouldn’t take long at all becauese there’s little to review). As this process moves forward, ADL will share with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee key issues they should explore (internet censorship, “hate” speech, stripping US citizens of their rights, pro-illegal immigration, anti-second amendment ect) with Ms. Kagan, as we have done with past nominees.

In considering this nomination, we urge political leaders in both parties to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities in a manner that is thoughtful and reasoned.  It is our hope that the process will be civil and respectful, and will cast our American democracy in the best possible light.


At least there’s an honest liberal website which delves into the real issues.

Is Elena Kagan the Best Legal Mind in the United States for the Supreme Court Bench?

Over the weekend, newspapers all across America announced that Elena Kagan was President Obama’s number one pick for the Supreme Court. The question that should be asked is, “Why is she President Obama’s number one pick?” It is a well-known fact that Ms. Kagan taught school at the University of Chicago Law School with President Obama and they were friends. However, American citizens should wonder: “Does her friendship with President Obama make her the best choice for the Supreme Court?” Surely, President Obama is not claiming that Ms. Kagan has the finest legal mind of any lawyer that he knows. With all that said and all the guessing games going on in Washington as to who is going to be appointed to the Supreme Court, it is fun to look at what President Obama is looking for in the next appointment to the Supreme Court. It is also important to examine why he may be considering Ms. Kagan and what we, as citizens, know about her from the press reports.

According to news articles, Ms. Kagan was born and raised in New York City on the Upper West Side of New York. Her father, Robert Kagan, was a founding partner in a real estate law firm located in Manhattan called Kagan & Lubic. Her mother, Gloria Kagan, was a schoolteacher at HunterCollege. She has two brothers, Marc Kagan and Irving Kagan, who are associated with HunterCollege. It is interesting to note that all over the blog world it is being reported that she is the cousin of Arch Neocons, Robert and Frederick Kagan. Their father, Donald Kagan, may very well be the brother of Elena’s father, Robert Kagan. So it is clearly possible he is her uncle or cousin. Donald Kagan was also a college professor at HunterCollege and now teaches at Yale. However, to date, no one in the press has been brave enough to ask these leaders of the American Neocon movement if Elena Kagan is their niece and cousin. Elena has remained silent on the issue. It is important to note that Donald Kagan was at one time a Democrat. In the sixties at CornellUniversity, he changed and became a Republican. It has often been reported that the reason he changed is that he got upset that CornellUniversity would consider having a black studies department. After that incident, Donald Kagan became one of the founding Fathers of the American Neocon Movement. It would seem that the press would want to know what Ms. Kagan’s family connections are to these members of a right wing fringe group but no one has asked. It is possible the reason why is that Robert Kagan, the son of Donald, writes for the Washington Post and is being protected by the media on this matter. The questions that need to be asked is; “What is President Obama thinking by appointing a woman to the United States Supreme Court who is kin to Arch Neocons?”, if these reports on the blogs are true. Further, if these internet statements are true, does this explain the positions Ms. Kagan is taking in her job as Solicitor General?

Since becoming Solicitor General of the United States, Ms. Kagan has taken many unpopular positions on cases before the Supreme Court that needs to be reviewed by the public. The first set of cases that comes to mind are the political prosecution cases in Alabama and Mississippi. In one of the cases, Ms. Kagan has asked that the Supreme Court not review the United States vs. Siegelman matter. This is contrary to ninety-one US Attorney Generals demanding that the Supreme Court hear the case because of all the abuses of power by the prosecuting team from the DOJ and the United States attorney’s office from the Middle District of Alabama. Clearly to ignore this matter one has to wonder about Ms. Kagan’s possible Neocon roots. The second set of cases that comes to mind are the detainee cases where Ms. Kagan is taking the Arch Neocon position that detainee’s have no rights and can be detained indefinitely. The third set of cases are the federal wire tapping cases in which Ms. Kagan apparently believes, like all good Arch Neocons, that American citizens have no rights not to be listened in on even when proper warrants have not been obtained by the government. Therefore, the question becomes, “Why is this woman considered a liberal and what is President Obama thinking when he is considering appointing her to the United Supreme Court bench?” One has to wonder if this is his position on these issues considering that prior to becoming President of the United States he was a constitutional law professor. Also on all these issues, he spoke out on the campaign trail against the position Ms. Kagan, Solicitor General is now taking under his administration. Clearly, it appears Ms. Kagan has no respect for constitutional rights and may be the most dangerous potential candidate for the bench.

Then the citizens have to think about whether Elena Kagan is some brilliant legal scholar. Is that what President Obama is after? To do that we will start by looking at her law career as a practicing lawyer. Ms. Kagan, when filling out her information sheets for solicitor general admitted she had never tried a case from start to finish. In fact, during the roughly two years that she was at Williams and Connolly, it does not look like she did much of anything except tote a few briefcases and help with a couple of motions. From there she went to the University of Chicago where she made friends with President Obama, who was another professor in her law department. She then got a position at the White House as a legal counsel to the President. The question I have is, “Why did President Bill Clinton hire her?” There is a rumor floating around that Donald Kagan recommended her. There is another rumor floating around that her former boss, Greg Craig, recommended her. Maybe President Clinton will be willing to shed some light on what she did during her term at the White House and how she got selected in the first place. Elena then started teaching again and was eventually hired as the Dean of Harvard Law School. It has been reported in several papers in the area of Harvard that she was one of the most liked professors at Harvard. However, if you read those articles you realize that she was not liked for being a scholar but was liked because she set up coffee machines in the law school so the students did not have to pay for coffee. Additionally she is famous at Harvard for providing free tampons in the bathroom for the female law students. Maybe she will expect this same service at the Supreme Court building if selected as a Justice. I could hardly believe the article when I read it but that is what the students claim. I was searching to see what this alleged Harvard scholar had done in a scholarly way when I ran across another article that was equally hilarious. This article said she was the person who came up with the idea to set up an ice-skating rink behind Harvard by turning on the water hose and letting it ice over. When I read this, I could not help but laugh thinking about the liability for the University. Nevertheless, the students were so thrilled about it that they wrote about it and how wonderful Dean Kagan happened to be. Upon careful search and review, I could only find a couple of cases that Ms. Kagan was involved in that went to the Supreme Court while she was at Harvard. I started wondering does merely teaching at Harvard and being the Dean make you one of the finest legal minds in America? I wondered when looking at Ms. Kagan’s record or should I say a lack of a legal scholar record. However, I bet she becomes very popular if she is appointed to the Supreme Court for toting coffee to the other Justice’s as they age on writing opinions, who knows. I just wonder, “Did she tote President Obama’s coffee when she worked with him at the University of Chicago and is that why he likes her?” After careful review, one has to wonder if her possible kinship to the Kagan’s is what got her this fancy job at Harvard or was it her brilliance at placing tampons in every bathroom at Harvard. After all her father had already passed away years before she got this job. So other than the Neocon Kagan’s who helped her get this job? Was it Donald Kagan who pulled the strings? How did Kagan move up the ladder with so little to show for it? That is the million dollar question and what will he want when she is on the bench?

The two cases that Ms. Kagan signed her name on but claimed she really didn’t write that went to the Supreme Court are the “Don’t Ask and Don’t Tell” case about gays in the military where she takes a far left position and the “Harvard Military Recruiter” case where she takes another far left position. In the military recruiter case, the United States Supreme Court voted nine to zero against the position that she took. Yet, now she claims that all she did was sign her name as though that will make it all better. My question is, “Why would President Obama want a woman on the Supreme Court who would sign her name on a case and then deny being very involved in it when it is before our top court?” One has to wonder if these possible Arch Neocon relatives of hers had her on these cases just to see what was happening.

The other interesting thing about Ms. Kagan is that she is alleged to be openly gay. It has been reported on numerous Harvard Campus blogs and in many newspapers across the country that she may be our first openly gay Supreme Court Judge. In fact, it is possible that if this is true, that she may become our first married gay judge if she rules on the bench on the rights to gay marriages. This is a political hot potato for President Obama in an election year. One has to wonder why he would want to open this issue up in an election year where the races across the country are going to be very close according to the polling already out on the internet. It is clear that the Republicans will beat President Obama with a gay stick on this matter or will face their religious right base at election time if they fail to stand up against her.

Further, President Obama should consider that Ms. Kagan is Jewish and there are already two Jewish Justices on the Supreme Court. For the first time in the history of the court, fifty-one percent of the population will not have a Justice of their religious preference on the bench if she is selected. It will be the first time in United States Supreme Court history that a Protestant is not sitting on the Supreme Court bench. The question the citizens should be asking is, “Why would President Obama want to appoint another Jewish person to the bench when that faith only represents 1.7% of the population?” Does he not think that the Protestants who represent 51% of the population have a right to have a representative on the United States Supreme Court?

A couple of final points that President Obama should consider is, “Do we honestly need another Judge from New York?” Look how many Judges sit on the bench that are from New York, he just appointed one approximately a year ago. Does he not think that Supreme Court Justices can come from anywhere other than New York, Chicago and California? Also, what about all the Ivy League Judges sitting on the bench, six that have graduated from Harvard and two from Yale. Do we really need another Harvard trained Judge? On the other hand, is it that President Obama is blinded by trying to help his friends get important jobs and not seeing the forest for the trees? Should our President want to hire his buddies or do what is best for his country? It is my hope that when President Obama looks at Elena Kagan he realizes that she is his good friend but that she is not the best mind in the United States for the Supreme Court. President Obama would do well to think about how President Ford came to pick Justice Stevens. President Ford said when asked about picking Justice Stevens, “I picked the best legal mind I knew in the country”. Clearly, President Obama should be looking for the best legal mind in our country during these troubled days. President Obama should tell his buddies, I love you but I am looking for the best legal mind in the country because I owe it to the citizens in the United States of America.

This is an update to my article last week on the Supreme Court. I am happy to announce that after writing this article today I have learned that President Obama has added five more candidates some of which are not Ivy League Elitist from New York or graduates from Harvard. It appears Ms. Kagan may not be the pick of the litter for the Supreme Court.

Jill Simpson is a country lawyer from Rainsville Alabama who is currently pursuing a PhD in Religion and Philosophy at the California Institute of Integral Studies. One of her areas of study is the United States Supreme Court and Religion.

am a graduate of the University of Alabama and University of Alabama Law School. I practice law in Rainsville Alabama. I believe in Justice and equality for all. I believe that government should be for the people and should be free of corruption.

FCC plan to regulate the internet – a backdoor internet tax

Comment: If the FCC is given the power to regulate the internet as a telephone system, that means that they will tax your internet. Look at your telephone service bills. You should see an FCC tax on there. You will have to pay an FCC tax on top of your internet subscription. This is nothing but a backdoor internet tax.


Updated May 06, 2010
The FCC Goes for the Nuclear Option

If FCC Chairman Genachowski announces his intention to reclassify the Internet as a telephone system, he will be reversing 30 years of precedent

By Phil Kerpen – FOXNews.com

As I have repeatedly warned and noted on www.ObamaChart.com, when Congress blocks the Obama administration, the White House always finds a way to get around the normal policy-making process and pursue its agenda by other means. Today’s reclassification assault on the Internet is the latest-and perhaps the most egregious-example.

In its effort to imposing crippling net neutrality regulations on the Internet-an idea with very little support from the American public or Congress-the Obama administration first turned to the FCC simply to pretend Congress has given it authority to regulate.

That effort suffered a major setback when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals emphatically smacked down the FCC’s regulatory proposals in Comcast v. FCC. President Obama and his close friend and FCC chairman Julius Genachowski, however, refuse to back down. Instead they’re escalating to the regulatory equivalent of a nuclear attack on the free-market Internet: Chairman Genachowski will announce today his intention to reclassify broadband Internet as an old-fashioned telephone system as a pretext for pervasive regulatory control.

Broadband Internet service has never been regulated like old-fashioned telephone lines — classified as “Title II” under the Telecommunications Act. The FCC settled the matter definitively in 1998, when Clinton-appointed FCC Chairman William Kennard demolished the same reclassification arguments being made today in that year’s Report to Congress :

Our findings in this regard are reinforced by the negative policy consequences of a conclusion that Internet access services should be classed as “telecommunications” … Classifying Internet access services as telecommunications services could have significant consequences for the global development of the Internet. We recognize the unique qualities of the Internet, and do not presume that legacy regulatory frameworks are appropriately applied to it.

If Chairman Genachowski announces, as expected, his intention to reclassify the Internet as a telephone system, he will be reversing 30 years of precedent starting with the Carter administration FCC’s “Computer II” decision and definitively settled with respect to broadband Internet access by the Clinton FCC in 1998. Turning sharply left from Carter and Clinton indicates a pretty extreme shift beyond the mainstream of American politics.

Such a shift is unjustified, because free-market Internet policy has been a tremendous success. The Internet — in the absence of regulation — has flourished into a remarkable engine of economic growth, innovation, competition, and free expression. Such triumph argues in favor of continuing existing successful policies, but with today’s announcement the FCC shows it is more interested in satisfying a left-wing political constituency than continuing sound policy.

Consider the words of one of the leading advocates of Internet regulation, Robert McChesney, founder of the left-wing group Free Press. McChesney said to SocialistProject.ca: “What we want to have in the U.S. and in every society is an Internet that is not private property, but a public utility.”

He went on to explain: “At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”

Not surprisingly, Free Press put out a statement yesterday just minutes after the story leaked that the FCC would pursue reclassification. Remarkably, they openly stated that even the nuclear option of total regulatory control under a utility-type model is not enough for them, saying: “This is extremely welcome news. We reserve judgment, however, on whether the FCC has gone far enough.”

The communications industry is, like health care, roughly one-sixth of the U.S. economy. Unlike health care, however, the FCC seems to believe it can take over the communications system with just three votes at the Commission. If they insist on trying, Congress needs to step in and stop them.

Phil Kerpen is vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity and director of its www.NoInternetTakeover.com project. He can be reached on Twitte, Facebook, and throughwww.PhilKerpen.com.

Microsoft kills the netbook market because it’s scared of Linux competition

Comment: It’s amazing. Microsoft is so scared of competition that they are willing to deliberately force retailers to help them implode a market in order to kill the competition.

Found this post on comp.os.linux.advocacy


According to this graph (see below), YoY (Year over Year) sales of the
Netbook in the USA have slumped from 641% in Jul 2009 to 25% in Mar 2010
and 5% in Apr 2010.

We all know that tens of millions of Linux netbooks were sold before
Microsoft strongarmed the netbook manufacturers into providing only
Windows7 on Netbooks whose hardware specs were also dictated by Microsoft
to be much reduced compared to a Laptop. i.e. ram was limited.

Retailers were ‘persuaded’ not to offer Linux Netbooks where Windows
Netbooks were on display, or to make sure the Linux Netbooks were powered
off, or not just available.

This graph, http://mashable.com/2010/05/06/ipad-netbook-market/ shows the
sales data I have quoted above, although it attempts to suggest that the
Apple Ipad is the reason for the Netbook slump.

As the Apple Ipad was not released into the American market until April
2010, the Ipad may be responsible for some of the April slump, but it
can’t be responsible for the prior decline.

I think the likely suspect for the decline is Microsoft, Windows7, a
maximum of three concurrent apps, and pricing that in some cases, rivals
larger dual core laptops.

Who needs to innovate, … when you can exterminate?

Food Nazis To Use “Food 9/11” To Ram In S. 510

Comment: Doesn’t surprise me that CSPI is in support of this. They false-flagged us in the past with their support of trans fats, and they continue to false-flag us with their pro-aspartame and pro-Splenda stances while conspiring with Cargill and Merisant to use the Truvia/PureVia false-flags as an excuse to totally demonize stevia. CSPI will once again help murder Americans and once again pose as the fake saviors and grandstand on the ashes of their victims.

CSPI: Criminals for Slavery in the Pharmaceutical Interest


Read the 10 items below.  It will make you scream.  THE POLICE STATE IS HERE.  In fact item 10 mentions police state.  AJ haas mentioned this on his show.  THIS IS MADNESS ON STEROIDS.  Of course our scum Senators will probably pass this.

S 510 is hissing in the grass
April 24, 2010 · 33 Comments


By Steve Green

S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010,  may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the US.  It is to our food what the bailout was to our economy, only we can live without money.

“If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public’s right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes.  It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one’s choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God.”  ~Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower

It is similar to what India faced with imposition of the salt tax during British rule, only S 510 extends control over all food in the US, violating the fundamental human right to food.

Monsanto says it has no interest in the bill and would not benefit from it, but Monsanto’s Michael Taylor who gave us rBGH and unregulated genetically modified (GM) organisms, appears to have designed it and is waiting as an appointed Food Czar to the FDA (a position unapproved by Congress) to administer the agency it would create — without judicial review — if it passes.  S 510 would give Monsanto unlimited power over all US seed, food supplements, food and farming.


In the 1990s, Bill Clinton introduced HACCP (Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Points) purportedly to deal with contamination in the meat industry.  Clinton’s HACCP delighted the offending corporate (World Trade Organization “WTO”) meat packers since it allowed them to inspect themselves, eliminated thousands of local food processors (with no history of contamination), and centralized meat into their control.  Monsanto promoted HACCP.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton, urged a powerful centralized food safety agency as part of her campaign for president.  Her advisor was Mark Penn, CEO of Burson Marsteller*, a giant PR firm representing Monsanto.  Clinton lost, but Clinton friends such as Rosa DeLauro, whose husband’s firm lists Monsanto as a progressive client and globalization as an area of expertise, introduced early versions of S 510.


1.  It puts all US food and all US farms under Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, in the event of contamination or an ill-defined emergency.  It resembles the Kissinger Plan.

2.  It would end US sovereignty over its own food supply by insisting on compliance with the WTO, thus threatening national security.  It would end the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994, which put US sovereignty and US law under perfect protection.  Instead, S 510 says:


Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.

3. It would allow the government, under Maritime Law, to define the introduction of any food into commerce (even direct sales between individuals) as smuggling into “the United States.”Since under that law, the US is a corporate entity and not a location, “entry of food into the US” covers food produced anywhere within the land mass of this country and “entering into” it by virtue of being produced.

4.  It imposes Codex Alimentarius on the US, a global system of control over food.  It allows the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the WTO to take control of every food on earth and remove access to natural food supplements.  Its bizarre history and its expected impact in limiting access to adequate nutrition (while mandating GM food, GM animals, pesticides, hormones, irradiation of food, etc.) threatens all safe and organic food and health itself, since the world knows now it needs vitamins to survive, not just to treat illnesses.

5.  It would remove the right to clean, store and thus own seed in the US, putting control of seeds in the hands of Monsanto and other multinationals, threatening US security. See Seeds – How to criminalize them, for more details.

6. It includes NAIS, an animal traceability program that threatens all small farmers and ranchers raising animals. The UN is participating through the WHO, FAO, WTO, and World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) in allowing mass slaughter of even heritage breeds of animals and without proof of disease.  Biodiversity in farm animals is being wiped out to substitute genetically engineered animals on which corporations hold patents.  Animal diseases can be falsely declared.  S 510 includes the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), despite its corrupt involvement in the H1N1 scandal, which is now said to have been concocted by the corporations.

7.  It extends a failed and destructive HACCP to all food, thus threatening to do to all local food production and farming what HACCP did to meat production – put it in corporate hands and worsen food safety.

8. It deconstructs what is left of the American economy.  It takes agriculture and food, which are the cornerstone of all economies, out of the hands of the citizenry, and puts them under the total control of multinational corporations influencing the UN, WHO, FAO and WTO, with HHS, and CDC, acting as agents, with Homeland Security as the enforcer.  The chance to rebuild the economy based on farming, ranching, gardens, food production, natural health, and all the jobs, tools and connected occupations would be eliminated.

9. It would allow the government to mandate antibiotics, hormones, slaughterhouse waste, pesticides and GMOs. This would industrialize every farm in the US, eliminate local organic farming, greatly increase global warming from increased use of oil-based products and long-distance delivery of foods, and make food even more unsafe.  The five items listed — the Five Pillars of Food Safety — are precisely the items in the food supply which are the primary source of its danger.

10. It uses food crimes as the entry into police state power and control. The bill postpones defining all the regulations to be imposed; postpones defining crimes to be punished, postpones defining penalties to be applied.  It removes fundamental constitutional protections from all citizens in the country, making them subject to a corporate tribunal with unlimited power and penalties, and without judicial review.  It is (similar to C-6 in Canada) the end of Rule of Law in the US.


Of course the Restaurants, Big Food, big business, and the Rockefeller-funded/fronted Food ZioNazis want this – they don’t like it that people can grow their own food. This link shows which businesses are in favor of this:


American Frozen Food Institute
Grocery Manufacturers Association
National Fisheries Institute
National Restaurant Association
Produce Marketing Association
General Mills
Kraft Foods North America
Consumers Union
Earth Day Network
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Food Marketing Institute
American Public Health Association
Center for Foodborne Illness Research and Prevention
Consumer Federation of America
International Bottled Water Association
National Association of Manufacturers
National Confectioners Association
National Consumers League
Pew Charitable Trust
Trust for America’s Health
Snack Food Association
Safe Tables Our Priority (STOP)
American Bakers Association
American Beverage Association
International Dairy Foods Association
International Foodservice Distributors Association
National Coffee Association

Only One business is against this:

Weston A. Price Foundation



Agro-Terrorism and Food Safety
Summer Meeting: July 18, 2007

“Agriculture ranks among the most crucial of our nation’s industries; yet, its reliability and productivity are often taken for granted.” — President George W. Bush

We always worry about guns and bombs when it comes to terrorism, but have you ever considered being attacked by bacteria or acetone in your food?  As terrorists become more sophisticated, their abilities to harm us are advancing. Today, Agro-terrorism is a real threat that the FBI is working hard to prevent.  And when you consider that last year almost 39 million tourists ate meals in Las Vegas, the concern here becomes apparent.  The FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Countermeasures Unit from Washington, DC, will be at the next InfraGard meeting to discuss this Agro-terrorism threat to Las Vegas.

Are terrorists our only concerns with the safety of our food?  Can we still get sick or die from an accidental contamination?  Unfortunately, yes.  Ground beef, onions, and “Veggie Booty” snacks are just a few of the food products recalled by manufacturers in the last several weeks due to concerns about contamination.  The accidental contamination of our food chain is just as important a threat as an intentional one.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service will explain at the next meeting the contamination threats to our food supply that it faces everyday.

The InfraGard Southern Nevada Members Alliance will hold its summer meeting on Wednesday, July 18, 2007, at the Conference Room of the Clark County Library, 1401 East Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, Nevada.  Lunch is partnered by USDN Network Security (www.usdn.net) and will be served at 11:15 a.m.  The meeting will begin at 11:30 a.m. and should end at 1:30 p.m.

This meeting is an open meeting and all individuals interested in InfraGard are eligible to attend.  Questions can be directed to FBI Special Agent David Schrom at (702) 657-5411 ordavid.schrom@ic.fbi.gov This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

What is Agro-Terrorism?

The FBI defines Agro-terrorism as the deliberate introduction, use, or threatened use, of a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive agent against one or more components of the food or agriculture sectors, with the goal of causing mortality and morbidity, generating fear, inducing economic losses, or undermining sector stability and confidence in government.

The FBI and InfraGard have created a Food-Agriculture InfraGard Special Interest Group (SIG) because of the significance of this threat.

The Food-Agriculture Special Interest Group (SIG) is a resource dedicated to the safeguarding of the food and agriculture sectors of both private industry and government through information-sharing networks and a private secure portal of communication.  It is a collaborative effort of the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate and Cyber Divisions.

The Food-Agriculture InfraGard SIG is intended to enhance the sharing of information among private-sector stakeholders who can be called on to assist the FBI in detecting, deterring, assessing, and preventing threats and attacks targeting the food and agriculture sectors of our nation’s critical infrastructures.  It aims to be a consortium of agriculture security professionals and law enforcement officials with the common goal of protecting America’s farmland, food products, animals, and industry.

InfraGard members who wish access to this SIG can contact FBI Special Agent David Schrom, InfraGard Coordinator, at (702) 657-5411 or david.schrom@ic.fbi.gov This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .


The FBI has been involved in a variety of outreach efforts to assist in the preparedness efforts to harden US food or agriculture sectors.  The FBI has partnered with the US Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, and Department of Homeland Security to conduct site surveys of specific private industries within the food and agricultural industries.  This initiative is known as the Strategic Partnership Program Agro-Terrorism Initiative.  The purpose of this partnership is to identify the vulnerabilities, identify indicators and warnings that could signify planning for a terrorist attack, and develop mitigation strategies to reduce the threat, prevent an attack, and assist in the recovery should there be an attack.

Meat Supplier Expands Ground Beef Recall

(FOXNews.com) Meat supplier expands beef recall to 5.7 million pounds in 11 states over E. coli concerns.

LOS ANGELES —  A meat supplier has greatly expanded a ground beef recall, which now includes about 5.7 million pounds of fresh and frozen meat that may be contaminated with E. coli.

David Goldman, acting administrator of the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, announced on Saturday that the recall would be expanded to include products with sell-by dates from April 6-April 20. The beef, sold in 11 Western states, was distributed by California-based United Food Group LLC.

Goldman said that none of the latest batch of suspect beef is in stores now because the product would be well past its expiration date, but consumers may still have some of the meat at home.

“It is important for consumers to look in their freezers,” Goldman said.

The meat has been blamed for an E. coli outbreak in the Western states that resulted in 14 illnesses, spanning April 25 through May 18. All the patients have recovered.

On Wednesday, United Food Group expanded an initial recall of 75,000 pounds of ground beef, adding another 370,000 pounds based on “unspecified concerns” raised by the California State Department of Health Services. This meat had sell-by dates from April 29-May 6


New ‘safety plan’ would control what you eat
‘It is to our food what the bailout was to our economy, only we can live without money’

Critics say a bill pending in the U.S. Senate would do for Americans’ food supply what “Obamacare” is doing to the nation’s supply of health-care resources.

And it’s generating a surge of alarm among small-farm operators and natural food advocates.

“S. 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the U.S.,” writes Steve Green on the Food Freedom blog. “It is to our food what the bailout was to our economy, only we can live without money.”

The plan is sponsored by U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who explains the legislation “is a critical step toward equipping the FDA with the authorities and funding it needs to regulate what is now a global marketplace for food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics.”

His website explains, “The legislation requires foreign and domestic food facilities to have safety plans in place to prevent food hazards before they occur, increases the frequency of inspections. Additionally, it provides strong, flexible enforcement tools, including mandatory recall. Most importantly, this bill generates the resources to support FDA food safety activities.”

The proposal, which was cleared by the U.S. House last year but has been languishing in the Senate because of a full calendar of projects, creates a long list of new requirements for food-producing entities to meet the demands of the Secretary of Agriculture. It is expected to be the subject of discussion in coming days.

According to a summary of the proposal, it “requires annual registration of food facilities, including food facilities that export food.” It also sets up a suspension of registration for any “food facility” breaking any Health and Human Services rule, creates an annual fee for registration and gives bureaucratic oversight of many operations.

One such proposal, the summary explains, is to require federal officials “to establish a tracing system for food that is located in the United States or is for import into the United States that enables the Secretary to quickly identify each person who grows, produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, holds, or sells such food.”

While it includes an exemption for food “produced on a farm,” the absence of further definition is leaving many wondering whether they will be monitored if they pick strawberries, make jam and sell it at a farmers market.

Green’s analysis quoted Shiv Chopra, a Canada Health whistleblower, who concluded S. 510 “would preclude the public’s right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes.”

Bill Heid, chief of Solutions from Science, a marketer for survival seeds and information on processes to reduce reliance on a supermarket chain, cited a number of concerns.

First, he said, the new layers of regulations will drive up prices. No producer, he said, can afford to expand massively the expense of meeting government requirements without paying for it, and that would have to be passed on to the customers.

Second, he is concerned about the application of laws designed for corporate entities to the local producer: What about Iowa children who want to sell ears of corn at a farmers market or alongside the road?

Further, he said, the plan probably would raise the danger to consumers, because manylocal suppliers would be forced out of business, and his or her customers would be forced to rely on the corporate supply chains.

“What they’re going to do is end up making it unsafe,” Heid said.

He tells people their best defense against contaminated products is to grow their own or buy it from someone they know.

According to a report at Oregon Rural Action, which urged consumers to contact their members of Congress on the issue, the “one-size-fits-all” concept isn’t workable.

“S. 510 is a well-meaning attempt to address the genuine problems of contamination from food-borne pathogens and complications in prevention and intervention caused by large, industrialized food distribution systems,” the group said.

“All of the well-publicized incidents of contamination in recent years – spinach, peppers, peanuts, hamburger – occurred in industrialized food supply chains that span national and even international boundaries. Food safety is a priority shared by all. It is not compromised by the growing trend toward healthy, fresh, locally sourced vegetables, meats, fruits, dairy and small processing firms reinvigorating local food systems. Local food systems are inherently safer and traceable,” the group said.

While the group said some definitions that would protect small operations apparently are in the works, the possibility remains of standards even for “small, direct market farmers.”

The bill opponents say it brings the “complex and burdensome” Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point system “to even the smallet local processors.”

“Applying a HACCP system to newly emerging local foods facilities processing for local markets as well as to direct market farmers adding value to their products may undermine and extinguish these emerging small businesses attempting to bring fresh, local foods to the American table,” the analysis said.

The Daily Paul, which dedicates itself to restoring constitutional government, warned the proposal also would undermine the public’s access to dietary supplements.

At Citizens For Health, the bill’s expansion of government authority and bureacracy was condemned.

“If passed, the law would charge facilities an annual $500 registration fee, require redundant record keeping, and expand the FDA’s authority to quarantine geographic areas for alleged food safety problems – all without significantly improving food safety.”

The Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance warned, “As it is currently written, S. 510 will actually make our food less safe. S. 510 will strengthen the forces that have led to the consolidation of our food supply in the hands of a few industrial food producers.”


The Truvia Deception

IMHO, Truvia is a black-op being used to associate itself with true Stevia and to scare people away from true Stevia to the point where they will beg the government to completely ban Stevia altogether.

Found this website and copied and pasted the text from the page.


Truvia side effectsI am collecting data on possible negative Truvia sweetener side effects. Since the FDA recently approved Truvia as a sweetener, it is sold in sachets.

One reader emailed me with this: “I noticed recently after using Truvia for a short while, it seems my lactose intolerance has been much worse than usual.” Truvia side effects


Another reader named Susan wrote: “I started using Truvia in an effort to get myself off of Sweet and Low. Actually I needed 1 1/2 packets to equal one S&L. I took it for about 3 weeks and then started having symptoms which at first I didn’t relate to the Truvia.”


“First symptom was bad breath. Next one was back, neck and shoulder pain. I’m an avid tennis player so that was a problem for me. I went to my chiropractor a number of times and although I got temporary relief, it always returned. Finally it dawned on me that the only thing I was doing differently was using the Truvia. I stopped and within 48 hours all pains stopped and my breath problems disappeared. Clearly there is something in Truvia that I can’t handle. I thought I was doing something good for my body but in this case I was wrong.

Chris wrote: “I have never had a bad reaction to Stevia so I tried the new product “Truvia”. I put it into my coffee in the morning for a couple of weeks and I seemed to be fine. However, I baked a pie with it, (cooking it and using a larger quantity of Truvia). Within 10 mins of eating a piece of the pie I had a severe mental reaction. My mouth began to itch, and I broke out in hives. I am highly sensitive to mold and yeast and this is the reaction I usually get from a heavy mold or yeast exposure. Therefore, I assumed my reaction was possibly from the yeast that is used to ferment the Erythritol or perhaps the Erythritol itself.not sure. But I will not be using it again!”

I have done some Googling and came up with this:

..Truvia side effects..

“I bought some Truvia at the supermarket. It’s a new sugar-substitute made from stevia and erythritol. I use stevia regularly to sweeten cocoa with no apparent side-effects. I was a bit cautious about consuming erythritol because I generally do not tolerate sugar alcohols. So I only used one packet of Truvia at a time, and usually only once a day. Then I used it twice a day and the side-effects showed up. I suffered some gas and diarrhea. Immediately I stopped using Truvia and went back to using plain stevia (which also can be purchased in packets). That was four days ago and the Truvia side-effects have not stopped.”

Truvia side effectsThis posting is worrying on many levels. Firstly, people seem to think that Truvia is made of Stevia + Erythritol, which is only true if you stretch the truth a bit! Because Stevia is an extract of half a dozen natural steviosides (glycosides), and Truvia is chemically pure Rebaudioside A, derived from genetically modified plants.

Not to mention the side effects of Erythritol, which is a “sugar alcohol” made by fermenting glucose with a yeast. I hope her alleged Truvia side effects are merely imaginary, because side effects that linger for four days are not good..

..Truvia adverse effects..

“I tried it. The taste was fine and all, but it seemed to spark some crazy carb cravings in me. It actually took me a few days to figure out it was the truvia.”

Hm. “crazy carb cravings” are not exactly good when trying to lose weight using a zero-calorie sweetener..

..Truvia bad effects..

I tried truvia also. It made me feel extremely tired, and I felt ill all day. The feeling was different than anything I had experienced before. It did not taste very good in my coffee either, tasted bitter and just nasty. When I tried two packets the side effects became more pronounced with added abdominal cramps and very loose stools and lasted all day. I E-mailed the company and told them what I thought of their marketing ploy of truvia as a “natural sweetner” too. Needless to say I have received no reply.  I do not perceive erythritol as a natural substance. On their website they NEVER  write exactly how they make or THEIR source of erythritol. Char Downs

..Truvia effects..

I have been using Truvia for about a week now. I use about 4-8 packets a day, mostly in the morning, in my coffee. For years I have used Splenda but I have wanted to try a healthier option. Ever since I have used Truvia I too have had bad side effects. I have had bad abdominal cramps. At times it has been pretty painful, feeling like trapped gas. I have also been constipated. I will not use this product anymore. I am a healthy 28 years old and I eat healthy everyday so I can only associate these new problems with Truvia. Thanks for the info on your website. Jennifer Tuscany

..Truvia and metallic taste..

Dear Sarah – Thank you for collecting this important information. I, too, wanted to use a “healthier” alternative to Splenda. Using 2 or 3 packets per day seemed reasonable. After three days I began having a terrible taste in my mouth whenever I ate or drank anything. It was a combination of a metallic and detergent sensation – awful! My husband made the connection with the Truvia and I stopped it all together. 24 hours in I still have the problem, but am hoping for resolution soon. A few teaspoons of raw sugar can’t be that bad for me. Again my thanks! Anne

..Truvia side effects..

I just found your web site and want to report what happened to me this morning. Someone had put Truvia in our Splenda bin at work and I decided to try some in my coffee. The first one didn’t sweeten the coffee enough so I put a second packet in and it was fine. Not long after starting to drink the coffee, I found myself getting groggy at my desk. It was like I had eaten a large lunch and was falling asleep from it. Except that it was early morning and I had only had half a bagel, an apple, and orange juice for breakfast. As I drank more coffee it got worse. I could not focus on what I was doing for any length of time. I decided I needed a second coffee to wake up. This time I just used Splenda which doesn’t affect me and within a little while I started to come out of the haze. It is a few hours later now and I seem to be back to normal.John Karam, Sr. Programmer/Analyst, Friendly Ice Cream Corporation

..Truvia adverse effects..

I tried Truvia  about a month ago. I developed mouth sores which I thought was from my increased use of tomatoes this time of year. I stopped the Truvia as I suspected this new substance. I don’t like stevia and I found the taste of Truvia to be good. Today I tried 3 packets of Truvia again and my mouth erupted again. Won’t be trying that again. Just wanted to share this and was wondering if anyone else has had this kind of reaction. Karen Todd

..More side effects of Truvia..

I tried it for 3 months now. NO changes in my diet other than not using sugar and using truvia. Gained 15 pounds, loads of headaches and neck/shoulder pain. I called Truvia and they told me this was not a side effect, checked the internet and ooooo! I used stevia for years with no side effects, so there is something in this truvia that is no good! Gaining weight seems to be the opposite of what the point was!! Carol K

..Dangerous Truvia side effect?..

I went to google to lookup the side-effects of Truvia and came across your website. My story is a bit different from the other side-effects. After using Truvia for one week I ended up with the worst UTI I have ever had. The doctor said more than likely the artificial sweetner was the cause. This product should come with warnings! Pam Grubb

..Truvia and IBS..

I started using Truvia yesterday. I have IBS and within one hour of use, started having alot of abd pain. Then the next day, I had two packets again in my coffee. Within a few hours, the abdominals were going crazy, and had very loose diarrhea. How can they say its all natural? this tastes like Aspertame to me, yet I did not see this on the packet. I will have to trash this box. S. Miller

..Truvia and mouth sores..

Have recently (within the last 6-7 weeks) started using Truvia in a commercially prepared frozen product (one of my few vices!) that formerly was sweetened with Splenda. Developed strange mouth sores that lingered. Normally follow an organic, healthy diet and have not had this symptom. In a process of elimination, I realized yesterday that the only difference was that change/addition of Truvia, so I decided to Google Truvia side effects. The light was dawning that perhaps the one change I could document, Truvia, was contributing to the strange mouth sores (new for me). Tonight, found your commentary site and noted a similar response from a Karen Todd. Sounds like what I have been experiencing. No more of that particular vice – I’ll go back to my favorite sweetener – Xylitol. Back to the old adage – “don’t mess with Mother Nature…” Anonymous reader

..Truvia and bad taste..

I too tried Truvia, had an adverse response and found your website while googling Truvia’s side effects. Two days ago I bought some Blue Bunny “fudgecicles” sweetened with Truvia. I ate one in the car on the way home; it left a slightly bad taste in my mouth but once I popped in a piece of minty gum, the taste went away. That evening after dinner I ate another and then nothing I put in my mouth made it go away. I liken it to the “sucking on a rusty pipe” taste I get from some antibiotics. I’m coming up on 48 hours from the first one I ate and I still have the taste at the back of my tongue. I’m curious if anyone else has reported this symptom. Needless to say I’m returning or pitching those suckers!!! Thank you for any info you can provide! Penny Cherrix, Salt Lake City, Utah

..Truvia and mouth sores..

I have been trying to change my diet to lose weight and so switched from soda to low calorie vitamin water around three weeks ago. I begin to have serious mouth sores – my tongue was covered with canker sores and the roof of my mouth was irritated and blistered. I couldn’t figure it out – thought it might be stress. It continued but I noticed that it subsided on the weekends. I started looking for clues. The only time I drank the water – sweetened with Truvia – was during the week. I began to zero in more closely and I’m convinced the mouth sores are associated with the Truvia sweetened vitamin water. No more for me. Thanks for the website confirming my suspicions. Ann in Toledo

..Truvia and atrocious taste in the mouth..

Don’t know how old your posting is, but I was glad to find it to know I wasn’t nuts. I just started using Truvia two days ago–just one pack per day thank God because I, too, am getting the atrocious taste in my mouth now whenever I eat or drink anything at ALL! We can’t be the only ones. Why is this stuff still on the market. It’s repulsive!! Sue Phillips

..Truvia and back, neck and shoulder pain..

I am passing this along on behalf of my Mother. We had heard about Stevia and thought it worth trying Truvia. Bad mistake. When she started feeling awful and realized it was the Truvia, I started doing some research and found your site. I was shocked how her symptoms matched so many of those already on the site, but she had them all together at one time.


She began using Truvia as a substitute for sugar in beverages. After several days of moderate (1 packet per day) use, she began experiencing minor back, neck, and shoulder pain in the muscles and joints but at that time didn’t connect the pain with the Truvia. As she continued using the Truvia, she found the pain to be getting worse–severe in fact–and affecting more and more of her joints and muscles. In addition, she was starting to feel very sleepy all the time and was also beginning to feel very bloated. At that point we tried to figure out what was going on and realized that the only thing that had changed was her use of Truvia. The realization was based on noticing that her pains would peak, every time, 2 hours after consuming Truvia. She stopped the Truvia and within 2 day’s time, all the side-effects disappeared.

To me, that is the telling part. It took 2 days to clear the symptoms, i.e., clear the erythritol and rebaudioside A (or their metabolites?) from her system. Somebody needs to do a broad-based demographic study on how those things are cleared.

Until then, my advice is stay away from Truvia. It’s not safe and its release for public use is based on shoddy science, FDA incompetence and corporate avarice. Dave Landis

..Truvia and seriously upset stomach..

I have been using Truvia, everyday in my hot tea for about 2 weeks now. My stomach has been severely upset! Bloating, loose stools, cramps, sour stomach. I have not changed anything in my diet, except for using Truvia. I also decided to look up the side affects and am shocked and surprised of how many people have experienced the same thing! I will NOT continue using this. AnnaM. B..- Texas

..Truvia and severe migraines..

I am a diabetic who also suffers from frequent and severe migraine attacks. These attacks are definitely triggered by any foods or beverages containing Nutrasweet (aka: Equal) as an ingredient. Therefore, I have switched to buying products that are made exclusively with Splenda, and I strictly avoid eating or drinking anything that contains Nutrasweet.


Making this switch has proven to be a real life saver for me, and my migraines have definitely diminished. However, I recently decided to try Truvia since I had a coupon for it. Not only did I not like the yucky, sickenly sweet aftertaste and dry feeling it left in my mouth, but I found that within about 45 minutes of drinking some coffee I’d sweetened with Truvia, I felt a migraine starting to come on. No other apparent triggers for the migraine were evident that day, so I can only attribute its onset to the Truvia I had consumed.

I may try the Truvia one more time just to be certain that it was what actually triggered the migraine, but as I’m sure you can understand — once bitten, twice shy! I’m extremely hesitant to try it again. So…I’ll probably end up giving it all away to a friend and just sticking with my tried-and-true Splenda!!! Bridget Naylor in Easton, PA

..Truvia and severe insomnia..

I decided to try Truvia in place of splenda and have taken a total of 3 little packets on the first day of use spread out 1 in the morning and two in the later evening with my hot tea. I spent a horrible night of sleeplessness I DID NOT SLEEP AT ALL, I am extremely dizzy and my body aches in my neck and shoulders and my hands are numb, and I have a mind blowing headache. I have a MVP and all day my heart has been racing. I been trying to think all day what it is that could have caused all this I am a good sleeper nothing else in my diet had changed except this and I don’t drink. This sweetner needs to come with side effect warnings specially for people with heart conditions. I will not be taking this sweetner again and I hope the store takes the box back I am going back to splenda I have never had side effects with it of any kind. Just thought I would share my story I have been googling the sweetner and so far this is the only site I have found that has any side effect warning for this product. Chantel Douglas

..Truvia and pains, abdominal cramps and loose stools..

I, too had bad side effects from truvia.I thought I had eaten something with gluten in it or milk but that wasn’t the problem. I had tried the Truvia in my tea and within an hour I had bad pain, abdominal cramps and very loose stools.Never again….and it was something that was “natural” not by any means..it should come with warnings. Erythrital is not as natural as stated on package. Sharon M.

..Truvia and low blood sugar..

I have diabetes and have used Splenda for a long time. Thought I’d try Truvia but it affected my blood sugar very badly. My blood sugar very quickly became very low, which made me extremely light-headed and very dizzy for most of the day. Has anyone else had this reaction?. The first time I tried it I had an overall sick feeling and am about to dump all of it in the garbage. Susan Postlewait

..Truvia and diarreah..

I drink two cups of coffee daily. In the past I have used aspartame. Thought I would try Truvia. I have been using it for three days and yesterday(Saturday) probably used 4-5 packets of it. Last night I had a severe case of diarrhea. Since my wife and I ate the same thing the past few days I only assume that Truvia was the culprit. I will abstain from it and see if my stools return to normal in the next few days. Not certain that Truvia was the cause. Jerry–Kentucky

..Truvia and loose stools..

I have used Truvia a couple times. Each time has resulted in extremely loose stools. I have to use 2-3 packets in a large ice coffee in order to taste it. I am really disappointed because I wanted a natural sugar alternative with zero or few calories. I’m starting to think that I should just use the sugar and learn to use less. Steve

..Truvia and extreme stomach problems, bad taste..

I’ve tried Truvia and found that I have developed an extreme case of stomach problems.Notably cramps and diarrhea.Also had a bad taste in my mouth. I am not going to continue using this product nor am I going to recommend it to anyone….. Joe in Ocala, Fl

..Truvia and abdominal pain..

I started using Truvia yesterday. I have IBS and within one hour of use, started having alot of abd pain. Then the next day, I had two packets again in my coffee. Within a few hours, the abdominals were going crazy, and had very loose diarrhea.


How can they say its all natural? this tastes like Aspertame to me, yet I did not see this on the packet. I will have to trash this box. S. Miller

..Truvia and metallic, detergent taste..

I, too, wanted to use a “healthier” alternative to Splenda. Using 2 or 3 packets per day seemed reasonable. After three days I began having a terrible taste in my mouth whenever I ate or drank anything. It was a combination of a metallic and detergent sensation – awful! My husband made the connection with the Truvia and I stopped it all together. 24 hours in I still have the problem, but am hoping for resolution soon. A few teaspoons of raw sugar can’t be that bad for me. Anne

..Truvia and mouth sores..

Have recently (within the last 6-7 weeks) started using Truvia in a commercially prepared frozen product (one of my few vices!) that formerly was sweetened with Splenda.


Developed strange mouth sores that lingered. Normally follow an organic, healthy diet and have not had this symptom.

In a process of elimination, I realized yesterday that the only difference was that change/addition of Truvia, so I decided to Google Truvia side effects. The light was dawning that perhaps the one change I could document, Truvia, was contributing to the strange mouth sores (new for me).

Tonight, found your commentary site and noted a similar response from a Karen Todd. Sounds like what I have been experiencing.

No more of that particular vice – I’ll go back to my favorite sweetener – Xylitol.

Back to the old adage – “don’t mess with Mother Nature…” Anonymous reader

..Truvia and bad taste..

I too tried Truvia, had an adverse response and found your website while googling Truvia’s side effects. Two days ago I bought some Blue Bunny ‘fudgecicles’ sweetened with Truvia. I ate one in the car on the way home; it left a slightly bad taste in my mouth but once I popped in a piece of minty gum, the taste went away. That evening after dinner I ate another and then nothing I put in my mouth made it go away. I liken it to the ‘sucking on a rusty pipe’ taste I get from some antibiotics. I’m coming up on 48 hours from the first one I ate and I still have the taste at the back of my tongue. I’m curious if anyone else has reported this symptom. Needless to say I’m returning or pitching those suckers!!! Penny Cherrix – Salt Lake City, UT

..Truvia and bloating, constipation, hives and itching..

Two anonymous readers reported resp. bloating and constipation after using Truvia, and severe hives and itching. Sigh. And Stevia is STILL illegal!

This is our research on the alleged dangers of Truvia / adverse effects of Truvia and not medical advice!

Suggest new side effects: sarah@owndoc.com


Holy shit! I found this info on another site. The Rebiana used in Truvia and Purevia contains ethanol and methanol!


Pure stevia is wonderful as it hs 0 calories, 0 carbs, and a 0 glycemic index and 100 nutrients.

I hesitate to mention this because you both seem sooo happy to find Truvia, but according to scientists who analyzed Truvia, it is 9/10 of 1% Rebiana and masking agent. It should be said that Rebiana is not an ingredient in the stevia plant, nor is it found in nature. It is produced by the action of chemicals and stringent alcohols on various stevia glycosides. Rebiana is simply the trade name Cargill gave their chemically derived product in 2008. The FDA “No Questions” letter states that Rebiana contains residues of ethanol and methanol. Rebiana is commonly confused with Rebaudioside-A (Reb-A). Reb-A is one of the 11 glycoside compounds naturally within the stevia leaf and is about 400 times sweeter than sugar. It is produced by the action of sunlight on the leaves. The other 99.1% of Truvia is erythritol, a sugar extracted from corn with alcohol(a sugar alcohol), which can be hard on the digestive system. Cargill has admitted that 30% of their corn is genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Truvia is essentially corn sugar, and is not really a stevia product.

But Truvia is not alone in their deception. PureVia is 8/10 of 1% Rebiana (even though they list it as Reb-A on their ingredients list) and 99.2% sugars, Sun Crystals is 96.5% table sugar, and Stevia in the Raw is 95.8% table sugar. All these “stevia products” are really just sugar products as well. Usually, when someone buys a “stevia product” they think they’re are getting a sugar substitute, but what they are really getting, at least with these products, are mainly just different forms of sugar, (and in a couple cases, mainly table sugar) at best.

I do use SweetLeaf Stevia. They are the only ones to use only pure water during the entire extraction process ( as opposed to chemicals and alcohols like other stevia companies), so the natural tase of leaf remains as well as the nutrients–at least in their dark liquids. I also use their powder, which has added inulin fiber, which feeds the good bacteria in the intestines, which in turn, strengthens the immune system. All forms of SweetLeaf Stevia retain stevia’s natural 0 calorie, 0 carb, and 0 glycemic index properties–I understand the only stevia product to retain all three of these properties.

I hope I didn’t bum you out too much! I loved the video–it was very entertaining!




By Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum.
Mission Possible International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
Telephone: 770-242-2599
E-Mail: BettyM19@mindspring.com
Web Site: http://www.mpwhi.com

Posted: 22 December 2008
An email to Betty…

I am concerned about Truvia. Truvia claims it is an extract of the stevia plant. However I am concerned that big pharma has added something so they can patent it. What is known about the process of getting Truvia from stevia? I know that Coca Cola is starting to use it even though FDA has not approved it. I don’t trust any of the big outfits including the FDA. If you have any information on this could you please send it to me. Thank you.

Dallas Van Wagoner, MD (retired)
Dear Doctor Van Wagoner,

I am just as concerned about it as you are. The Stevia leaf itself is safe. Somewhere I have all the studies. The FDA based their “not safe” on a study that was in reality an experiment in animal cruelty by a student, and funded by a chemical lab in Brazil that no one could find. If you get real stevia leaf, green, its safe and healthful. However, many times additives are added to it, like in Brazil they add the poisonous excitoneurotoxic carcinogenic aspartame to it.

Coke said they heard the people and they were going to use Stevia. However, I told everyone who mentioned it, they would not replace poisonous aspartame in Diet Coke, but rather they would just make a drink that had it to gain a part of the population who knew Diet Coke was deadly. That is what has come to pass. They said they will not replace the Diet Coke. Because its addictive and a cash cow they know addicted people would change to another product that had the poison in it and keep the addiction. Also, the symptoms from aspartame would disappear and they would know it was Diet coke that poisoned them.

Earlier reports said they could manipulate the stevia or genetically engineer the product. After I first read those I knew there might be “something” from the stevia plant but it wouldn’t be stevia, just some part of the plant to gain the use of part of the population.

I believe Truvia should be analyzed by independents to find out what it contains and studies done.

It says not approved by the FDA but remember that the FDA will do anything for industry, so expect it. Yes, actual stevia is GRAS but then when someone put it in tea the FDA made them take it out, and said it could only be put in herbal products because its a dietary supplement. Why a dietary supplement couldn’t be put in food is absurd. It’s okay to put aspartame in food and classified as an additive when its a neurotoxic drug and the medical text, Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic by H. J. Roberts, M.D., is 1000 pages of diseases, cancer, diabetes, obesity and other horrors. An additive by law has to be inert, but then the FDA doesnn’t care about the law. It’s okay to put Splenda in food and its a chlorocarbon poison liberating chlorine, and was found on a China site under “insecticides”. They moved it over to sweeteners when we exposed it.http://www.wnho.net/splenda_chlorocarbon.htm

The FDA is just Big Pharma’s Washington Branch Office. They continue to approve poisons and if anyone knows aspartame is poison its the FDA who lies to the public. They are the very ones who tried to have the company indicted for fraud and revoked the petition for approval until Donald Rumsfeld used political chicanery to get it on the market. http://www.soundandfury.tv/pages/rumsfeld.html

Also, you are exactly right about the patent. That was the first thing that made me suspicious. You cannot patent a natural product, the green stevia leaf. So they have manipulated and added to it, and who in the world would believe Coke? After all the National Soft Drink Assn (now American Beverage) wrote a 30 page protest on aspartame that was added to the congressional record. They knew it was adulterated and they mentioned what Searle did to fix the studies like not using the right test so it wouldn’t pick up the aspartic acid. http://www.mpwhi.com/open_letter_dick_adamson.htm

Coke and Pepsi can’t hide from the fact they knew the gun was loaded. We boycott the soft drink companies for this reason. Why give them profit when they knew using aspartame would kill. That’s the reason they put it in the congressional record, because after protesting they lobbied for NutraSweet with full knowledge.

The only thing I can do is agree with everything you said, doctor. Truvia has to be tested with long term studies by independent researchers not industry. It has to be analyzed to know if this is another genetically engineered product like aspartame. Coke and Pepsi can take a good thing, pure Stevia, and make it into something that is not fit to drink. It worries me that if it tastes okay people will use it, and suffer the consequences. Is it going to be addictive to add to their profit? Will they add a small amount of aspartame to it and not label it? Every question has to be answered.

I happen to live in Atlanta, home of Coca Cola. I grew up on it. It was an entirely different product and they couldn’t leave well enough alone with citric acid but had to change to phosphoric acid which is cheaper. That’s why many people use Coke to clean their toilets, that’s what toilet bowl cleaner is, phosphoric acid. Think what it can do to the body. People ask me all the time why aspartame is still on the market with the background that is provable from the public records. I tell them for the same reason as tobacco, addiction, profit and greed. Think of the millions of babies who are murdered in their mother’s womb because aspartame is an abortifacient and teratogen, with not the decency of a warning for pregnant women. One woman drank Diet Coke through 3 pregnancies and had 3 autistic children. Do you think Coke cares? They knew it from the beginning.

I don’t believe Coke and Pepsi deserve one cent of profit for participating in the mass poisoning of consumers in the US and 100 countries of the world. I think everyone should boycott them. If they would use aspartame knowing the gun was loaded, why would anyone trust Coke with Truvia. When the FDA embargoed stevia years ago to please the manufacturers of aspartame, I fought for it – fought for what is healthy, the pure green stevia leaf. I would no more put Truvia in my mouth than I would aspartame. Coke and Pepsi blew it putting profit and greed before health with aspartame. How does the saying go, “Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me.”

So pure stevia with no additives is fine. Just Like Sugar is safe (http://www.justlikesugarinc.com) made with only chicory, orange peel, Vitamin C and Calcium. Before neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D., (http://www.russellblaylockmd.com) would endorse it he insisted on it being analyzed. Then he wrote in his newsletter, The Blaylock Wellness Report, “Finally a safe sweetener”. Until Truvia is analyzed my personal opinion is continue to boycott Coke and Pepsi who have participated in the mass poisoning of the world with full knowledge. If you just have to have a cola regardless, go to Whole Foods. They make their own with citric acid and sugar. I do believe their aluminum cans should be changed to glass. I recommend using healthy drinks instead and Whole Foods has an aisle full of them. They ban aspartame and Splenda.

Also, notice that Pepsi has teamed up with a subsidiary of Merisant. Who is Merisant? A manufacturer of aspartame!!! The public should not be fooled again. They should demand the truth and absolutely, emphatic independent studies from unbiased researchers.

All my best,

Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum.
Founder, Mission Possible World Health International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
E-Mail: BettyM19@mindspring.com

Aspartame Toxicity Center: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame

Coca-Cola Could Launch Stevia Drink Ahead Of FDA GRAS

By Sarah Hills

Coca-Cola is expected to launch a drink sweetened with stevia in the US this week, according to reports, but there is still no word from the FDA on GRAS status.

Coca-Cola plans to market three flavors of a juice drink in its Odwalla line that contain the sweetener, sources told The Wall Street Journal.

And if it does, the move would intensify competition with rival drinks maker PepsiCo, which has already said it is poised to launch two drinks sweetened with stevia in the US – SoBe Life Water and Trop 50.

These are ready to launch as soon as it is given the green light by the Food and Drug Administraion (FDA).

Scott Williamson, spokesman for Coca-Cola North America, declined to comment on whether it was planning to launch a stevia sweetened drink in the US this week, or if it was prepared to do so without FDA GRAS.

However he told FoodNavigator-USA.com: “As we have said, we plan to continue to innovate with multiple products using the new sweetener.”

Coca-Cola has teamed up with Cargill to develop their own stevia-derived product called Truvia, while PepsiCo has partnered with the Whole Earth Sweetener Company (a subsidiary of Merisant) to produce its own brand called PureVia.

Merisant Company and Cargill have both notified the FDA that rebiana (the common name for high-purity Rebaudioside A from stevia) should have FDA GRAS (generally recognized as safe) for use in food and beverages. The outcome is pending and although some in the industry have said they expect an FDA decision on rebiana soon, an FDA spokesman recently told FoodNavigator-USA.com that there is no specific date for completion of its review.

This is because the GRAS notification program is a voluntary program and FDA does not have a legally mandated timeframe for completing the review of a GRAS notice.

Potential market

Meanwhile stevia is already permitted for sale in the US as a dietary supplement on the basis of its low glycemic index.

Rebiana, or Reb-A, is the sweetest, purest part of the stevia leaf and reportedly about 200 times as sweet as sugar.

The US market for stevia is estimated to be worth about $60m, a figure analysts say could triple with FDA GRAS.



Stevia-based Sweeteners: FDA Approved After 10+ Years. So, Why Now?

By Kelly Campbell

What is Stevia?

Stevia Rebaudiana is an herb in the Chrysanthemum family which grows wild as a small shrub in parts of South America.

When extracted from the leaf of the stevia plant, Rebiana becomes the natural, non-caloric sweetener that has just recently been GRAS-approved by the FDA (“Generally  Recognized As Safe”). What’s the big deal, you ask about whole food stevia extract?
History of Stevia – Banned by FDA in 1991

Well, in 1991, stevia was banned by the FDA – which stated that “toxicological information on stevia [was] inadequate to demonstrate stevia safety.”

Four years later, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act forced the FDA to permit it as a dietary supplement. Fast forward to 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 – makers of aspartame), both of which are derived from the Stevia plant. They both contain Rebiana, or Rebaudioside A. The isolation process for Reb A results in a product that delivers the desired sweetness without a bitter aftertaste.
Pure Stevia Extract Versus Chemically-Refined Truvia® and PureVia®

Pure stevia extract must continue to be labeled as a “dietary supplement” because the FDA has not actually permitted the stevia plant itself to be used as a food additive, only the chemically-refined Reb A extract. All of the products containing pure stevia are forced to reside amongst the other supplements in any given health food store, not on the shelves where all the other foods and beverages are placed.

The pressure to approve a natural sweetener was also due, in part, to the myriad of adverse health risks being reported to the FDA by many who consumed artificial sweeteners, like aspartame (sold as NutriSweet® or Equal®), sucralose (sold as Splenda®), or saccharin (sold as Sweet ‘N Low®).

Regardless of its prior ban and classification of stevia, the FDA has no choice but to approve Truvia® and PureVia® when both Pepsi and Coca-Cola wanted to use the Rebiana-based sweeteners in their respective product lines. If the FDA decided not to approve them as safe food additives, then those particular bottles of Pepsi and Coke containing the herb would have only been accessible in the supplement aisle. Clearly, that would never happen!

Focus on Aspartame and Its Dangers

Aspartame is a molecule composed of three ingredients: 40% aspartic acid (an excitotoxin: as an isolate, a product that stimulates the neurons of the brain to death, causing brain damage), 10% methyl ester that immediately converts to methyl alcohol, which then breaks down to formaldehyde (embalming fluid) and formic acid (ant sting poison), and 50% phenylalanine, (as an isolate, a neurotoxin that lowers the seizure threshold and depletes serotonin, triggering psychiatric and behavioral problems). The molecule itself breaks down into multiple toxins, including diketopiperazine, an agent that triggered brain tumors in original studies. It’s important to note that the FDA has, to-date, received more complaints about adverse reactions to aspartame than any other food ingredient in the agency’s history. There is an enlightening documentary on the subject called Sweet Misery – The Truth About Aspartame which exposes Aspartame Dangers.
Focus on Truvia® and PureVia®

Consumers who shop in grocery stores and supermarkets will now find they have a healthier alternative to NutriSweet and other artificial sweeteners.

The two new products, Truvia® and PureVia®, could be patented because they are not 100% stevia extract, the first listed ingredient is Erythritol (a naturally fermented sugar alcohol), and Rebiana, as well as other “natural flavors.” Excessive consumption of Erythritol (over 80 grams per day) may result in digestive upset, diarrhea, and bloating.

Both of these sweeteners can be purchased in boxes of small packets. Truvia® is an ingredient in some new Coca-Cola products, within its’ Odwalla® line. PureVia® will be an ingredient in some new PepsiCo products, such as Sobe LifeWater and Trop50 – a light orange juice product.

“Although stevia today is sold in the U.S. as a dietary supplement, rebiana [is] the first available sweetener that has been purified from the stevia plant. Unlike many existing stevia products, which generally contain [unrefined] extracts of the plant, rebiana is…consistent in quality,” said the Truvia® manufacturer, Cargill.

This is supposed to be great news for consumers, but it begs the question: Why did it take corporate giants like PepsiCo and Coca-Cola to get the FDA to finally provide consumers with a healthy alternative to artificial sweeteners?
Answers to Questions on Aspartame & Artificial Sweeteners

The answer is found in multiple places.

First, look on the nutrition label of any so-called “diet” product or anything labeled ’sugar-free.” Unfortunately, many people believe they’re doing a service to their body by consuming these products, when in reality, they are doing much harm on a cellular level. Studies also confirm that people who consume artificial sweeteners actually tend to overeat because the artificial sweeteners “turn off” the part of your brain that let’s you know you’re full. And many people are of the mentality that because they are drinking “diet” soda, it’s okay to eat super-sized French fries. According to Dr. Joseph Mercola, “Normally, when a significant quantity of carbohydrates are consumed, serotonin levels rise in the brain. This is manifested as a relaxed feeling after a meal. When aspartame is ingested with carbohydrates, such as having a sandwich with a diet drink, aspartame causes the brain to cease production of serotonin, meaning that the feeling of having had enough never materializes. You then eat more foods, many containing aspartame, and the cycle continues.” And because it is nearly impossible to avoid aspartame when consuming “diet” products, many people report adverse health conditions from its use.

Let me reiterate a point made earlier: The FDA has received more complaints about adverse reactions to aspartame than any other food ingredient in the agency’s history. (Yet, it’s still on the market in full force.)
Show Me The Money

The other part of the answer comes down to money, as most things concerning big corporations and government organizations do. “Monsanto’s profit from its NutraSweet Division was $993 million [back] in 1990.” Imagine what that number is today! And because stevia extract itself cannot be patented because it is a naturally grown plant – as opposed to an artificial sweetener created in a lab with chemicals – it was not a high priority of the FDA’s or any corporation’s because they were making tons of money selling their artificial sweeteners to manufacturers.

Aspartame alone is in over 10,000 consumer products. Now that those corporations have figured out how to patent a stevia alternative by creating their own blend of ingredients containing a derivative of the stevia plant, there’s money to be made.

The irony is that records indicate stevia extract and the leaves of the plant have been used since 1887 – when natural scientist, Antonio Bertoni first recorded its usage by native tribes – while artificial sweeteners, like aspartame, were passed through FDA approvals in no time.

We know that 100% organic stevia extract is safe and truly all-natural, there are no known stevia side effects. However, when giant corporations stand to gain by altering, or adding to, Mother Nature (and the FDA passes swift approval), proceed with some caution. If you decide to switch to Truvia® or PureVia®, or any of the other Rebiana-based sweeteners that are sure to come to market, be mindful of how they affect you. Each person reacts differently to foods, beverages and sweeteners. So, as with all things we put into our bodies, please use these products in moderation.

The Blaylock Wellness Report

I’ll leave you with this bit of advice from neurosurgeon and leading expert on excitotoxins, Russell Blaylock, M.D., on these Rebiana-based sweeteners. In The Blaylock Wellness Report, he says “Until Truvia® is analyzed, my personal opinion is continue to boycott Coke and Pepsi who have participated in the mass poisoning of the world with full knowledge (aspartame). If you just have to have a cola regardless, [have a natural cola made] with citric acid and sugar. I recommend using healthy drinks instead, and Whole Foods has an aisle full of them. They ban aspartame and Splenda®.”


FYI: the author uses the term “contract science” – which is basically outcomes-based research. So if you’re Cargill, you pay to have research done to SUPPORT your new chemical (food product), and only publish good news. We find lots of “contract science” in pharmaceuticals; Novartis pays for research on a Novartis drug… and VOILA! it’s all good. So, like pharma, the agribusiness giants also ‘fund’ their own research.  We have to wait for problems to appear in the population before they will recall a product put out to market before any ‘real’ testing has been done. Just like the H1N1 vaccines; no research, total support from the World Health Organization, no benefit to people, and many dangerous and deadly side effects.  Our best defense to these eugenicist greedy profit-mongering bastards is to keep informed, and tell everyone you can to avoid the products.


The Science Behind Truvia and PureVia Sweeteners (Rebiana)
By John Serrao
Feb 6, 2009

The FDA recently announced that they have cleared a new, zero calorie sweetener called rebaudioside A (rebiana) for sale in the US, calling it ‘safe for use in foods and beverages’.

As a result of this decision, two products featuring the new sweetener are coming to market – Truvia and PureVia.  Truvia was jointly developed between the soft drink maker Coca-Cola and agribusiness giant Cargill while PureVia was developed by PepsiCo in partnership with artificial sweetener industry veteran Merisant (under the proxy Whole Earth Sweetener Company).

The Coca-Cola Company has already announced products, including Sprite Green and Odwalla Mojito Mambo and Pomegranate Strawberry Juices, that will be for sale in 2009 containing the additive Truvia.  Not to be outdone, PepsiCo will put PureVia in Sobe Zero Calorie Life Water and Trop50 – a new low calorie orange juice slated for March 2009 release.

The idea of a real, zero calorie sweetener has been a goal of many agribusiness giants for some time but have Truvia and PureVia been adequately tested?   Nutrition Wonderland has gone through the science surrounding these new sweeteners and spoken with some major industry players to get the scoop.  We have found some positives and some serious negatives, which we will review here.

Starting From the Beginning

Truvia and PureVia contain mostly the same chemical formula, as you can see in our chart below.  Both are mostly made of two sweeteners, erythritol and rebiana (called Reb A in PureVia).  Erythritol is a substitute low calorie sugar-alcohol sweetener developed by the French company Cerestar who was later purchased byCargill.  Sugar-alcohols are not really sugars; they require adding hydrogen to sugar molecules so the body ignores them.  Erythritol is a favorite because it supposedly does not cause as many stomach aches as other similar sweeteners.

It was FDA approved back in 2001 based on contract science, some of which was sponsored by Cerestaritself [1,2].  The World Health Organization also reviewed erythritol and found it to be safe.  Little other science exists on the subject.

We could spend more time on erythritol but there is not much new to report about it.  It has not been extensively used (up until now), it has not been extensively studied and it was approved quite awhile ago now. It is a bit of a sweetener dark horse, if you will.

PureVia, but not Truvia, adds in another sweetener called isomaltulose – another supposedly safe sweetener with just a little contract science behind it.  It is derived from regular sucrose to create a sweetener with a longer sustained energy release in the body.  The FDA gave this one a green light back in 2006 at the behest of German sugar giant Sudzucker AG.  Again, it has seen very little use in the American food supply and we just don’t know very much about it scientifically beyond the fact that it does not harm teeth and does not cause stomach aches.

The other major component of Truvia/PureVia, rebiana, comes from a small herb plant called stevia.  Stevia originally comes to us from South America – where it has been used medicinally for centuries by indigenous people.  Rebiana sweeteners represent the first commercial applications of stevia in the United States but not the first in the world.  Another sweetener derived from stevia – called stevioside – was developed by the Japanese in the late 1970s and now controls 40% of the sweetener market in Japan.  Consequently, what we scientifically know about stevia is mostly based on stevioside, not rebiana – a problem we will see throughout this discussion.

The Concensus on Stevioside

The science we do have about stevia has only come about recently – in the last 20 years or so.  Despite very few (if any) reports of adverse reactions in the Japanese population from stevioside, some studies found that it was mutagenic, that is it could mutate the DNA of rats.  These findings were later dismissed in scientific literature multiple times when it was shown only extremely large amounts – far larger than anyone could consume – created the mutation.

Subsequent study of stevioside’s medical effects have found it confers significant health benefits to those who use it medicinally.  Improved immune system regulation [1,2,3] and improve glucose absorption in the body [1,2],  have led some researchers to suggest stevioside:

“may have the potential of becoming a new antidiabetic drug for use in type 2 diabetes”

Even further, stevioside helps regulate cholesterol and triglycerides [1,2], which means it may treat metabolic syndrome (also known as syndrome X).

On the whole, these findings suggest stevioside has major benefits but what about rebiana?

The Rouge Rebiana

If you follow any of those study links above, they will dump you into the PubMed scientific database.  The US National Institute of Health (NIH) requires all studies they fund (which is a considerable number) to publish their studies into this database.  Logically, we first looked for Truvia and PureVia here.

A search for either sweetener nets zero search results, as of February 2009 (feel free to try it yourself, click here) – despite all the stevioside research.  However, searching for rebiana nets us 49 very recent results, presumably the ones the FDA used to clear this product (compared to 181 for stevioside).

Diving through the search results leads us to a special supplementary release in July 2008 by The Food and Chemical Toxicology Journal called “Rebaudioside A: An Assessment of Safety”.  As an aside, it should be noted this release perfectly coincided with Coca-Cola’s first PR campaign that released Truvia to the public with a lavish promotion at Rockefeller Center in New York City last summer.  Below is some footage of the event:
(note – video no longer available on YouTube.)

As for the science in this tome, we find a total of 11 research articles published about rebiana.  One of them [#12] is a review of the toxicity of stevioside , which, as we covered above, we declared safe by a decent battery of tests.  Two others [#2, #11]  deal with the development of rebiana from the stevia plant, bothcasually suggesting the toxicology information of stevioside should equally apply to rebiana – a dubious claim at best considering how little research has been done on the later.

However, another study in this group [#5] actually demonstrates that the two sweeteners are relatively similar.  They based this statement on how quickly they are absorbed by the body as you can see in this chart:

While it seems convincing, this report did not use a control group or use any kind of statistical analysis to determine if the slight difference in absorption between the two sweeteners was statistically significant.  Further, the study used about 20% (.8 mg/kg) more rebiana than stevioside in its test, a factor that is sure to skew results.  Their observations also omitted an important data point when observing stevioside at the critical 1 hour mark.  Not to mention, the time schedule on the main graph in the report is misleadingly constructed to show each observation as having occurred in hourly succession (when in fact no observations were made in hours 2 or 3).


This science is very poor in quality and, not surprisingly, funded by Cargill.

Another one of the studies [#4] dealt directly with the toxicity of rebiana by super-dosing rats and observing them.  Most rats ended up eating significantly less food and consequently attaining lower body weight as they aged, consistent with other megadose sweetener studies.  But, most importantly, the rats did not die from rebiana so we could count that as a good thing.  Methodology in this study was far more convincing than the previous study – controls were used and statistical significance was achieved.  Still, the result of this study – that rebiana produces appetite suppression, should be followed up with additional study, something the authors do not call for.  Again, you should note that this study was funded by Cargill which may have influenced the lack of a call for additional study, though this is a minor critique.

Rebiana: The Human Studies

Two of the remaining studies deal with people instead of mice, so they should carry the most weight in your mind.  The first, [#6 in rebiana study supplement] tested rebiana against blood pressure and found high dosed patients maintain the same blood pressure in a randomized, double-blind placebo trial, the best type to use.  We can say a few bad things about this study but nothing ridiculously major; it was only 4 weeks long, it did not test against people who already have high blood pressure (a substantial portion of the population), and, again, Cargill funded the study.  Overall, this is encouraging but it is only the first study of its kind so its hard to draw too much from it

The other human study deals with rebiana and how it effects people with type II diabetes.  The study uses a megadose, 7X what a heavy user would probably ingest, and followed a little more than 100 patients for about 4 months. Results of this placebo study show no severe effects on blood pressure or blood sugar.  However, there was one case of hyperglycemia – that is too much glucose in the blood stream – but in a group of diabetics, something like this seems likely to happen during a 4 month period of time.  And let’s not forget to mention that some Cargill money managed to squeeze its way into the study.

In a way, this particular finding was a bit of a disappointment.  There was hope that rebiana would treat diabetes much like it is suspected stevioside can but this is the second study to disprove that.  The first study on this topic showed that rebiana was not able to deliver any of the metabolic syndrome reducing effects of stevioside, so a consensus is forming.  A few others studies show rebiana helps regulate glucose, but there is still much more investigation necessary.

First Thoughts

The studies we have about rebiana – and consequently Truvia and PureVia – are a mixed bag.  As we showed, some demonstrate safety, some show risk.


None really deal with potential side effects, an issue with a product that will find its way deep into the food supply.  Most surprisingly though, absolutely no published studies have actually tested Truvia or PureVia themselves.

This is probably because the sweeteners themselves were not ready in advance to be tested but we must ask why the American public is being silently asked to bear that burden.

It would appear rebiana (along with erythiritol and isomaltulose) present little risk to people with high blood pressure and type II diabetes but in the world of science, your opinions are an extension of the crowd.  In a sense, you are only as good as those that have come before you.  With rebiana, there is no concensus, no crowd – so there is no way we can give any type of authoritative opinion on it yet.  The crowds surrounding erythiritol and isomaltulose are even more sparse.

That’s all a problem with a new product and one the makers of Truvia and PureVia have done very little to assuage.  While most of these studies appear to verify that rebiana et al., do not have toxic effects, they are all very short term and funded exclusively by industry.


It is beyond unlikely that any study funded by Cargill is going to show rebiana and Truvia to be anything but the safest sweetener ever to arrive on planet earth.

Having said that, some of their studies do appear to demonstrate safety of rebiana but it so hard for us to believe these results with so much of their own money on the table.

Now, lets give Truvia and PureVia a little credit here.  This is the first sweetener product(s) developed by an agribusiness interest that is not purely a chemical.  A real plant is involved here and that is the first time that has ever happened.  Not only that, the stevia plant shows some rather amazing medical benefits.  So, for a brief moment, let us congratulate Cargill and Merisant for at least starting with something very beneficial found in nature.  That is a MAJOR step in the right direction.

Still, major questions persist.  When will Truvia or PureVia actually be tested? How can we trust science sponsored by the same people who will gain from its results? What makes this better than just using regular old stevia?

In our next and final view of Truvia and PureVia, we will talk about how all of this science relates to stevia’s controversial past, discuss some of our conversations (and lack thereof) with government/NGO players and finally present our view on the best way forward with these sweeteners.









Part 3

Truvia and PureVia: The Controversy of Stevia
Feb 26, 2009

In our final view of Truvia and PureVia, we take a look at the political history of stevia – the base of rebiana, opinions of some of the major players in this debate and offer our final views on the subject.

A History Spent in the Shadows

The plant stevia provides the rebiana sweetener found in both Truvia and PureVia.  Originally, stevia was used, in its whole leaf form, as a prized sweetener of the indigenous Guarani people throughout Paraguay in South America.  It did not find fame in the modern, western food supply until Japan began cultivating and using it in diet soft drinks (including Diet Coke) during the 1970s, a process that continues today.  Building on that success, stevia began to be sold throughout the world, including the United States, during the 1980s.  Its path from here has since become mired in controversy.

Stevia was officially banned from sale in the US as a sweetener in 1991, driven from the market after an anonymous safety petition led the FDA to conclude that it was an unsafe food additive.  The FDA has declined to release the petitioner’s affiliation, although it is suspected to be someone with links to aspartame – a popular artificial sweetener that had just come to market in the 1990s.

Because of the 1991 decision, an ‘Import Alert‘ was then issued by the FDA maintaining that information regarding stevia leaves – the same source of Truvia and PureVia – was [emphasis mine]:

“…inadequate to demonstrate its safety as a food additive or to affirm its status as GRAS” (GRAS = Generally Recognized as Safe, FDA speak for labeling that recognizes a product’s safety).

This position is at odds with just about every other natural food in existence.  Because the FDA has no mandate to test real foods, it makes little sense why this decision was made.  Any food ‘in common use’ before 1958 was automatically grandfathered into being deemed GRAS, and so – with stevia’s history of being safely used as a sweetener in South America for centuries – it clearly qualified.

We contacted the FDA but they declined to comment on this position.

A Change in Position

Japan’s Truvia

Stevia was completely banned from the United States until 1994, when the the Congress passed legislation that allowed stevia to be used solely as, ‘an herbal supplement’.   Interestingly though, the sweetener was still banned from being sold as a sweetener.  This contradictory stance established in 1994 – where stevia remained banned from sale as a sweetener but remained for sale as a supplement – continues clear into today.

(Note: Just wait… I think we may see an attempt to ban supplements this year as part of Codex Alimentarius)
The closest we can get to a followup opinion from the FDA on the matter doesn’t come for another 8 years.  From the FDA’s now discontinued magazine named, appropriately enough, “FDA Consumer Magazine“, this was the only other mention of stevia on the FDA’s website for almost 15 years [emphasis mine]:

Another product, stevia, is derived from a South American shrub. Though it can impart a sweet taste to foods, it cannot be sold as a sweetener because FDA considers it an unapproved food additive. “The safety of stevia has been questioned by published studies,” says Martha Peiperl, a consumer safety officer in FDA’s Office of Premarket Approval. “And no one has ever provided FDA with adequate evidence that the substance [stevia] is safe.” Under provisions of 1994 legislation, however, stevia can be sold as a “dietary supplement,” though it cannot be promoted as a sweetener.

(Note: REALITY CHECK: They have approved MERCURY in vaccines and high-fructose corn syrup, they LOVE aspartame, they think it’s ok for us to be dosed with fluoride…. but a natural organic plant is ‘unapproved’. Hello??? Eugenicists much?)

Ms. Peiperl of the FDA is referring to the idea that one of the two sweeteners in stevia called steviocide, might cause mutations in the DNA of people who eat it regularly.  As we reported in our scientific review of rebiana, the studies that suggested stevia was mutagenic were widely dismissed because the amount of stevia required to cause the defect was so far in excess of what anyone could ever possibly consume.

Stranger still, after a large review of scientific literature, the World Health Organization declared in 2006 that stevia is completely safe and even potentially beneficial for people with hypertension (WHO).  That opinion was further codified at the 69th annual JEFCA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives) conference (.pdf link), where stevia was recognized as being non-mutagenic.

Clearly, quite a few scientists could have “provided FDA with adequate evidence that the substance [stevia] is safe” in Ms. Peiperl’s words.  The only problem was that the FDA never asked to reevaluate stevia, for what are likely political reasons from what we have seen so far.

Another Policy Switch

In December 2008. the FDA opened yet another chapter in this debate and declared that rebaudioside A (rebiana) – the other sweetener found in stevia – was GRAS.  Somehow, ABC News broke this story:


From the official GRAS approval letter:

The subject of the notice is rebaudioside A purified from Stevia rebaudiana (Bertoni) Bertoni. The notice informs FDA of the view of Cargill, Incorporated (Cargill) that rebaudioside A is GRAS, through scientific procedures, for use as a general-purpose sweetener in foods, excluding meat and poultry products, provided that food standards of identity do not preclude such use, at levels determined by current good manufacturing practices (cGMP).
Obviously aware of yet another policy contradiction, the FDA puts out a one-line statement in the GRAS notice about stevia, the plant that remains banned as a sweetener [emphasis mine]:

The rebaudioside A that is the subject of GRAS Notice No. GRN 000253 is a highly purified component of the stevia plant. As such, FDA notes that the GRAS notice for the use of a specific purified component of stevia, such as rebaudioside A, and FDA’s response do not necessarily apply to the uses of other stevia products.
The wording of this final statement here is especially interesting because the FDA is leaving the door open for yet further interpretation. If this decision ‘does not necessarily apply’ to other uses of Stevia, companies that want to use stevia in their products may be able to petition the FDA for yet another policy change. Regardless, despite rebiana being approved as GRAS, stevia can still only be sold as a dietary supplement, not as a sweetener.

From the Peanut Gallery…

Nutrition Wonderland repeatedly tried to get in touch with different offices inside of the FDA to clarify their contradictory positions regarding stevia and rebiana but our calls were never returned.  Without a direct comment from the FDA, we can only speculate as to what was happening with regard to their policy – but that position really isn’t that hard to ascertain from the evidence.

Based on the financiers of the rebiana studies (Cargill and Coca-Cola), the speed with which this decision was made and the history of stevia, we are left to conclude that rebiana- and consequently Truvia and PureVia – were simply approved because of who petitioned the FDA.

Now, the FDA’s ruling does not mean that rebiana is not safe – but then again we don’t know that it is completely safe.  It’s hard what to know here.  We do know one thing though – with giants like Coca-Cola, Cargill, PepsiCo and Merisant banging at the FDA’s door, it becomes pretty obvious that there was little chance rebiana would be kept out of the market, regardless of what the science said.  The FDA’s position on stevia has never (well, post 1991 at least) sided with science.  This decision brings into question many of the other food additives that the FDA has approved, namely aspartame – whose makers may have been active in getting stevia banned.

Nutrition Wonderland also contacted the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a reputable food watchdog, who was cautiously optimistic about Truvia back in June 2008 in a WebMD article.  They have since dramatically reversed their position based largely upon new information from a report put out by UCLA showing why rebiana and stevia in general is unsafe.  You can view it below:

UCLA Stevia Report

We read over its arguments as to why rebiana is unsafe in this report but they are not as convincing as CSPI would have you believe.  While rebiana is not fully tested, this report finds fault with nearly every study published to date on the subject of stevia.  Its hard to buy into the idea that this much bad science was performed.  Nutrition Wonderland has extreme doubts about the Truvia-sponsored science we thoroughly discussed in our earlier review but the safety of stevioside seems well proven, based on its use in Japan for over 30 years.  Additionally, this report may have been performed at the behest of CSPI itself, making us leery of its findings as much as we are leery of Cargill’s.

We contacted the CSPI repeatedly to make sense of their changing positions but they have not made a public statement to us regarding this situation.

Final Words about Stevia > Rebiana > Truvia/PureVia

In general with food, we see a destructive pattern with each refined product brought onto the market place.  Whole grains reduce the risk of heart disease while refined grains increase it.  The fructose in honey helps the body, while the fructose in HFCS has been linked to obesity, diabetes and insulin resistance.  Cold pressed natural oils dramatically reduce inflammation, while heavily refined hydrogenated oils promote inflammation – and chronic disease.  Why refined rebiana would be better for us than the whole leaf stevia has not been explained.

There is some reason to think extracts of stevia, specifically stevioside, could prove extremely beneficial in a refined form but Truvia and PureVia do not contain any of that material.

Both sweeteners are proprietary formulas containing the largely untested rebiana and large amounts of erythritol, another non-caloric sweetening agent.  In fact, by volume, Truvia and PureVia have more erythritol than they do rebiana.  There is still no science testing Truvia and PureVia themselves, which would show how these two sweeteners (rebiana and erythritol) metabolize together.

More than anything, Nutrition Wonderland strongly believes these sweeteners were developed so that the companies involved, especially Cargill and Merisant, could own the intellectual property behind stevia – in effect owning the food.

Cargill released some justification for all this trouble, if you don’t mind very corporate video:
(Note: video no longer available on YouTube).

It would have been far easier to just use stevia for commercial food production – but, since you cannot patent a natural food, this opportunity was overlooked in our opinion.  This pattern of using the intellectual property of food for profit is well established across the 21st century agribusiness industry, modeled after highly successful power plays by chemical giants in the sale of GMO seeds.

We have doubts about the sponsored science involved, doubts about the motive of this product in general and deep suspicions as to why stevia remains banned from the marketplace.  Truvia and PureVia may in fact be perfectly safe – and preliminary science shows that to be the case – but far more research on these new sweeteners is required.  Even still, we will probably never know the truth.  It is now the American public’s turn to be the guinea pigs for another agribusiness experiment.  You can easily opt out of this debate – as we are – by enjoying any of these safe sweetening options:

*  regular stevia sweetener ’supplements’
*  blackstrap molasses (unrefined)
*  organic agave nectar
*  brown “turbinado” cane sugar (avoid brown sugar from sugar beets as they are now GMO)

(Note: We use Xylitol in our house… it’s pretty good. There’s a product available called XylitolPlus – which is a mix of Stevia and Xylitol which we like better than either Stevia or Xylitol by themselves. YMMV.)



UPDATE 1, 20 December 08: Zerose is the Cargill synthesized artificial sweetener made from stevia and erythritol. Zsweet is a similar product in UK and EU. There are numerous scientific studies presenting that this, and related products such as Truvia, may lead to calcium, potassium and phosphate loss with calcification (and lesions) in the kidneys (just like Splenda) and bowel alterations. Please read more.


b)     Increased calcium loss, along with potassium, and phosphate (from what we discovered currently) may have a severe, long-term consequence on kidney function by causing or increasing renal lesions.

c)      Noted increases in urinary calcium, potassium, etc. reflects these constituents being released into the blood stream from moderate intake of Erythritol (PROCESSED REBIANA), and that this increase

accumulates in the kidneys, causing calcification and lesions. We found testing which showed weight changes in animal kidneys upon examination, with developing lesions.


Look at the blatant outright doublethink on PureVia’s website. It quotes Gabirelle Reece saying “Using an artificial sweetener is not in my nature.” Hey bimbo, PureVia IS an artificial sweetener. It’s GMO corn sugar with a dash of ethanol-treated rebiana. Do you honestly like the fact that you are consuming JET FUEL COMPONENTS?!

And the product’s slogan is even more outrageous with the doublethink. “All natuiral PureVia. Nothing to hide.”Oh yeah? Then how do you explain THIS?!

From their own website:

PureVia only contains natural ingredients. The pure Reb A from the stevia plant that sweetens PureVia starts with stevia leaves, which are first milled and then steeped in water using a brewing method that is similar to brewing tea. The resulting stevia extract is then further purified to separate the Reb A through a proprietary technology using ethanol. PureCircle uses ethanol, made naturally from sugar cane, and does not use methanol to purify Reb A.

There it is. They admit on their own freakin’ website to using a jet fuel component to “purify” Reb A.

I'm libertarian, anti-GMO, and vegan. Freelee The Banana Girl, VeganGMO Unnatural Vegan, PETA, and HSUS are pro-GMO fake vegans.