It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FDA Banned yet Another Innocuous Sweetener

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 06:21 AM
link   
As early as 1974, the FDA appears to have successfully lobbied and manipulated aginst a natural sweetener, which works by making sour food appear sweet.

Sourse: BBC news



In the 1960s, Robert Harvey, a biomedical postgraduate student, encountered the miracle berry, a fruit from west Africa which turns sour tastes to sweet.

"You can eat a berry and then bite into a lemon," says Harvey. "It becomes not only sweeter, but it will be the best lemon you've tasted in your life."

More importantly, this "miracle" can be used to manufacture sweet tasting foods without sugar or sweeteners, which have always been plagued by an after-taste.


it's should be noted, however, that this is a living, growing plant's fruits, which could probably be grown on a window sill and does not offer business opportunities like patentable compounds do.



But the FDA decided it would be considered as an additive which required several years more testing. In the poor economic climate of 1974, this could not be funded and the company folded.

"I was in shock," says Harvey. "We were on very good terms with the FDA and enjoyed their full support. There was no sign of any problem. Without any opportunity to know what the concern was and who raised it, and to respond to it - they just banned the product."

He remembers a number of strange events leading up to the FDA's decision, beginning immediately after one particular market research test.



it gets stranger:



A few weeks later, things turned sour. A car was spotted driving back and forwards past Miralin's offices, slowing down as someone took photographs of the building. Then, late one night, Harvey was followed as he drove home.

"I sped up, then he sped up. I pulled into this dirt access road and turned off my lights and the other car went past the end of the road at a very high speed. Clearly I was being monitored."


iow. there's a reason why i posted on a medical conspiracy board.

throw artificial sweeteners, corn syrup and the FDA's need for under-the-table deals into the mix and, voílà, you've got the present sad state of affairs.

it's not news by any stretch of the imagination, because the FDA also banned Stevia (natural sweetener) and Tryptophan (an ubiquituous amino acid) from use in supplementation, in the case of tryptophan, even covering up a GMO scandal, see www.abovetopsecret.com... for the details.




posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   
what reason was given to ban stevia and this other sweetener?



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Banned?
I'm a bit confused. I have bought this product, it is still available at the online health place I frequent and this article says a beverage company is doing research with the product
www.kpcnews.com...



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   
news to me....

I'm growing Stevia and I hope to get my hands on a Miracle Berry bush before the year is over. Hopefully I won't have law enforcement knocking on my door or burning down my plants anytime soon.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   
It's not banned. I think what the OP is implying is that, by classifying it as an additive, that it created a burden upon developers. If they hadn't, it could have been treated as any food stuff, but now, it becomes 'medicine' which requires years of testing before they allow them to put it in food.

However, you can get the plants with little or no problem, and the berries too. Though, the berries are pretty expensive and the plants are very climate picky.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Banned?
I'm a bit confused. I have bought this product..


look, i have about 2 lbs of ascorbic acid lying around, it was kind of hard to get and the fact that i have it does not mean that comercially available products aren't limited to 180mg per day.


as i said, you could probably grow these plants on your own, you cannot, however use it as a sweetener in commercial product.


the article you linked stated it 'May soon safely (ie. with approval) sweeten foods in the US' which means that currently, it can't be used. i have no idea how far they'd go to curtail use, though.


reply to post by Jadette
 


i'd say it is in fact banned, from commercial use that is. considering that's how 95+% of people obtain their food, i'd even say it's a pretty effective regulation, too. it might not be a controlled substance, in the meaning they'll knock down your door should you have it, but, like copy protection, it does not need to be effective to change people's daily options and choices.


PS: even if they eased their legal grip on these sweeteners (and tryptophan, f-ex.) the industry would still have more than 30 years of profit under their belts...

meanwhile people who tried to use it were wpied out and lost a lot, for somebody else's profit.


www.apfn.org...

The Stevita Company's nightmare with the agency began, as Rodes related to The WINDS, "in November of last year when we received a warning letter from the FDA saying that the literature we were selling was illegal because it suggested that stevia could be used in ways other than as a dietary supplement."

The FDA makes a sharp legal distinction between a "food supplement" such as vitamins and for which stevia is approved, and a "food additive" for which it is not approved. The FDA's contention is that the sale of the books and literature by the Stevita Company "adulterated" the product by implying it can be used in other than "approved" applications. This strange logic of how something can be safe when used as a "food supplement" and unsafe when used as a "food additive," apparently lies within the federal agency's convoluted thinking processes. The FDA, according to Rodes, seized all Stevita's product shipments at the port of entry simply because the agency insists that no reference to the herb's property as a sweetener can be listed or even implied in its labeling.


iow, this legislation is the real deal and while you personally haven't been hit, people who were lost everything.


[edit on 1.5.2008 by Long Lance]



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join